Electric vehicle fire catastrophe: It is not a matter of if, but when

Joe Biden’s plan to convert 50% of the U.S. vehicle fleet from internal combustion engines to electricity by 2050 to fight climate change ignores a serious danger in doing so. Recent events around the world reveal that fire catastrophes from electric vehicles (EVs) are not only possible, but increasingly likely. The fire risk of the lithium-ion batteries that these EVs rely on for power is well documented, as they have been known to spontaneously combust in the most inopportune times and places.

Just this week, General Motors announced a second recall of Chevrolet Bolt EVs and EUVs manufactured from 2019 to 2022 model years in order to fix a defect in two of the lithium-ion battery modules that have led to fires. This follows on the heels of a previous recall of 69,000 older vehicles that will replace all five of the battery modules. 0:48 / 48:375 seconds…

The GM announcement is just the latest in a string of recalls by EV manufacturers to attempt to fix defects that can lead to catastrophic fires related to lithium-ion batteries. Last year, Ford was forced to recall 20,000 hybrids and soon thereafter, BMW recalled 26,700 vehicles due to battery defects that could lead to fires.

Internal combustion engine vehicles can also catch fire, but those tend to be during accidents or while driving, not sitting passively in a home or parking garage, as can occur with EVs. In addition, fire crews can extinguish a gasoline or diesel-powered vehicle fire, but not so for EVs. EVs are nearly impossible to extinguish with water and need to normally be allowed to just burn out, which may take many hours. 

Last year, a California couple awoke to a blaring car alarm and a burning house. The blaze had started in one of the two Tesla S vehicles in their garage and spread to the other. “If we had lived upstairs in this house, we’d be dead,” said Yogi Vindum, a retired mechanical engineer. According to Mr. Vindum, “Gasoline driven cars don’t catch fire in the garage when they’re sitting there. And that’s the difference,” he said. 

Continue reading at weblink: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/28/electric-vehicle-fire-catast...

Former Miss California Carrie Prejean Boller Tells School Board Her Kids Will Not Wear Masks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqCNRUhJzcE

 

Chase Bank Cancels General Mike Flynn's Credit Cards

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/chase-bank-cancels-general-mike...

 

90 Retired Generals & Admirals Call for Immediate Resignation of Gen. Milley & Def Sec. Austin

https://www.infowars.com/posts/90-retired-generals-admirals-call-fo...

  

REAWAKEN, REOPEN, RESIST, REFUSE, REBEL, & REVOLT!

https://jeffreyprather.com/reawaken-reopen-resist-refuse-rebel-revolt/

 

The Astonishing Video That Changes Minds About The Government 9/11 Report

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYUYya6bPGw&t=15s

 

Amid Unprecedented Heavy Arming of Taliban Terrorists in Afghanistan, Treasonous Biden Regime Launches Sleazy, Backdoor Attack on Second Amendment Rights

https://www.westernjournal.com/ammo-will-likely-become-even-expensi...

Views: 96

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Willem Post on September 11, 2021 at 10:53pm

Do not worry.

There WILL be many more unconstitutional mandates, such as for EVs and Heat Pumps, both of which:

1) Reduce LESS CO2/year, if the analysis is based on an A-to-Z, lifetime basis.
2) Are a VERY EXPENSIVE solution to space heat buildings.
3) There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would EVER pay for themselves.

Here is may PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with HPs, which is supported by the VT-DPS survey of 77 HPs in Vermont houses. See below.

Heat Pumps are Money Losers in my Vermont House (as they are in almost all people’s houses)

I installed three Mitsubishi, 24,000 Btu/h HPs, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms. The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation.
The HPs last about 15 years. Turnkey capital cost was $24,000
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

Well-Sealed, Well-Insulated House:

The HPs are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, 3500 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house, except the basement, which has a near-steady temperature throughout the year, because it has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab, which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over the 35 years.

I do not operate my HPs at 10F or below, because HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing temperatures. The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of my highly efficient propane furnace.

High Electricity Prices:

Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would: 1) increase electric rates and 2) worsen the already poor economics of HPs (and of EVs)!!
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

Energy Reduction and Cost of Energy Reduction

Before HPs: I used 100 gal for domestic hot water + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 850 gal for Viessmann furnace, for a total propane of 1,200 gal/y

After HPs: I used 100 gal for domestic hot water + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 550 gal for Viessmann furnace + 2,244 kWh of electricity.

My propane cost reduction for space heating was 850 – 550 = 300 gallon/y, at a cost of 2.339/gal = $702/y
My displaced fuel was 100 x (1 – 550/850) = 35%, which is better than the Vermont average of 27.6%
My electricity cost increase was 2244 kWh x 20 c/kWh = $449/y
My net cost savings due to the HPs were $253/y, on an investment of $24,000!!

Amortizing Heat Pumps:

Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y.
This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.
https://www.myamortizationchart.com

Other Annual Costs:

There likely would be service calls and parts for the HP system, as the years go by.
This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.

CO2 Reduction and Cost of CO2 Reduction

CO2 reduction of the displaced propane would be 300 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal = 1.728 Mt/y, and the CO2 of the increased electricity would be 2244 x 317 g/kWh = 0.711 Mt/y, for a net reduction of 1.728 – 0.711 = 1.017 Mt/y, if based on the realistic ISO-NE value of 317 g/kWh

Cost of CO2 Reduction would be (2,059, amortize – 253, energy cost saving + 200, parts and maintenance)/1.017 Mt/y, net CO2 reduction = $1973/Mt, which is similar to money-losing, very expensive, electric school buses. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-l...

Highly Sealed, Highly Insulated Housing

If I had a highly sealed, highly insulated house, with the same efficient propane heating system, my house, for starters, would use very little energy for space heating, i.e., not much additional energy cost saving and CO2 reduction would be possible using HPs

If I would install HPs, and would operate the propane system down to 5F (which would involve greater defrost losses), I likely would displace a greater percentage of propane, and have greater annual energy cost savings; much would depend on: 1) the total energy consumption (which is very little, because of my higher-efficiency house), and 2) the prices of electricity and propane. See Note.

I likely would need 3 units at 18,000 Btu/h, at a lesser turnkey capital cost. Their output, very-inefficiently produced (low COP), would be about 34,000 Btu/h at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature.

However, any annual energy cost savings would be overwhelmed by the annual amortizing cost, and parts and service costs. i.e., I would still be losing money, if amortizing were considered.

NOTE:

1) About 1.0 to 1.5 percent of Vermont houses are highly sealed and highly insulated
2) Vermont’s weatherizing program, at about $10,000/unit, does next to nothing for making energy-hog houses suitable for HPs; it is a social program for poor people.

Heat Pump Evaluation in Vermont

VT-Department of Public Service found, after a survey of 77 HPs installed in Vermont houses:

– The annual energy cost savings were, on average, $200, but the maintenance and annual amortizing costs would turn that gain into a loss of at least $200.

– On average, the HPs provided 27.6% of the annual space heat, and traditional fuels provided 72.4%. These numbers are directly from the survey report.

– Owners started to turn off their HPs at about 24F, and very few owners were using their HPs at 10F and below, as shown by the decreasing kWh consumption totals on figure 14 of URL

– On average, an HP consumed 2,085 kWh during the heating season, of which for:

1) Operation of outdoor unit (compressor, outdoor fan, controls) + indoor air handling unit (fan and supplemental electric heater, if used) to provide space heat 1,880 kWh;
2) Operation in standby mode 76 kWh, or 100 x 76/2085 = 3.6%;
3) Operation in defrost mode 129 kWh, or 100 x 129/2085 = 6.2%. Defrost starts at about 37F and ends at about 10F.

– Turnkey cost for a one-head HP system is about $4,500; almost all houses had just one HP. See URLs.

On average, these houses were unsuitable for HPs, and the owners were losing money.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-savings-of-air-sou
https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2017%20

NOTE: Coefficient of Performance, COP = heat delivered to house/electrical energy to HP
See page 10 of URL
https://mn.gov/commerce-stat/pdfs/card-air-source-heat-pump.pdf

Comment by Willem Post on September 8, 2021 at 11:22am

EXCERPT from:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/09/07/ev-battery-fires-do-not-bode...

Recent news about EV battery fires does not bode well for California Governor Newsom’s executive order to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035

The Bolt, the only EV that GM is selling in North America, has been “tied to at least nine fires” since early 2020, and Hyundai’s vehicles were involved in about 15 fires. Meanwhile, three Tesla’s have burst into flames over the past four months. So far, 27 EV battery fires and still counting.

Firefighters may need 30,000 to 40,000 gallons of water to contain a Tesla electric vehicle (EV) blazethan they would normally use for a mainstream gas-powered car that was on fire.

General Motors announced in August 2021 that they were recalling 73,000 Chevrolet Bolt EV’s in addition to the 70,000 Bolts that were made between 2017 and 2019.  Fixing all 143,000 of the Bolts being recalled for fire risk to replace new battery modules could, as Morningstar analyst David Whiston told the Detroit Free Press, cost GM some $1.8 billion.

Another “hit” on those potential EV sales projections is the German trend of banning EV’s from parking underground due to potential EV battery fires.

In 2020, a California couple awoke to a blaring car alarm and a burning house. The blaze had started in one of the two Tesla S vehicles in their garage and spread to the other. 

The culprit in nearly all EV fire cases is the lithium-ion batteries that power them, and which burn with extraordinary ferocity. Adding to the fire and heat danger posed by these events is the extreme toxic fluoride gas emissions generated. According to one study, these fumes may in some circumstances be a larger threat, especially in confined environments where people are present.

Comment by Willem Post on September 2, 2021 at 12:32pm

POOR ECONOMICS AND MINIMAL CO2 REDUCTION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN NEW ENGLAND

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

This article describes the efficiency of electric vehicles, EVs, and their charging loss, when charging at home and on-the-road, and the economics, when compared with efficient gasoline vehicles.

  

In this article,

 

Total cost of an EV, c/mile = Operating cost, c/mile + Owning cost, c/mile, i.e., amortizing the difference of the MSRPs of an EV versus an equivalent, efficient gasoline vehicle; no options, no destination charge, no sales tax, no subsidies.

 

CO2 reduction of equivalent vehicles, on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis = CO2 emissions of an efficient gasoline vehicle, say 30 to 40 mpg - CO2 emissions of an EV

 

SUMMARY

 

Real-World Concerns About the Economics of EVs

 

It may not be such a good idea to have a proliferation of EVs, because of:

 

1) Their high initial capital costs; about 50% greater than equivalent gasoline vehicles.

2) The widespread high-speed charging facilities required for charging "on the road".

3) The loss of valuable time when charging "on the road".

4) The high cost of charging/kWh, plus exorbitant penalties, when charging “on-the-road”.

 

High-Mileage Hybrids a Much Better Alternative Than EVs

 

The Toyota Prius, and Toyota Prius plug-in, which get up to 54 mpg, EPA combined, would:

 

1) Have much less annual owning and operating costs than any EV, for at least the next ten years.

2) Have minimal wait-times, as almost all such plug-ins would be charging at home 

3) Be less damaging to the environment, because their batteries would have very low capacity, kWh

4) Impose much less of an additional burden on the electric grids.

 

Hybrid vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius, save about the same amount of CO₂ as electric cars over their lifetime, plus:

 

1) They are cost-competitive with gasoline vehicles, even without subsidies.

2) They do not require EV chargers, do not induce range anxiety, can be refilled in minutes, instead of hours. 

3) Climate change does not care about where CO₂ comes from. Gasoline cars are only about 7% of global CO2 emissions. Replacing them with electric cars would only help just a little, on an A to Z, lifetime basis

“Electrify Everything”; an easily uttered slogan

 

It would require:                                                                     

 

- Additional power plants, such as nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, bio

- Additional grid augmentation/expansion to connect wind and solar systems, and to carry the loads for EVs and heat pumps

- Additional battery systems to store midday solar output surges for later use, i.e., DUCK-curve management.

- Additional command/control-orchestrating (turning off/on appliances, heat pumps, EVs, etc.) by utilities to avoid overloading distribution and high voltage electric grids regarding:

 

1) Charging times of EVs and operating times of heat pumps

2) Operating times of major appliances

3) Demands of commercial/industrial businesses

Comments on Table

 

Summary table 1 shows the CO2 emissions for four vehicles, lifetime, A-to-Z basis.

The table shows higher-mileage gasoline and hybrid vehicles have CO2 emissions comparable with equivalent EVs.

It was assumed 20% of charging would be on the road and 80% at home.

The Model Y kWh/mile values were prorated from real-world Model 3 values.

 

Summary 1/CO2, Lifetime/A-to-Z basis

Kona

Kona

Model Y

Model Y

Subaru

Toyota

Road

Home

Road

Home

Outback

Prius L Eco

Fraction

0.2

0.8

0.2

0.8

EPA combined, Model Y

27

27

EPA combined, Model 3

25

25

Mileage, mpg

30

56

CO2, incl. upstream, lb/gal

23.371

23.371

Consumption, wall meter basis, kWh/mile

0.284

0.299

0.335

0.352

Travel, miles/10 years

105600

105600

105600

105600

105600

105600

Total electricity, kWh/10 years

29990

31538

35354.88

37180

NE grid CO2, wall meter basis, g/kWh

304

304

304

304

g/lb

454

454

454

454

lb/Mt

2204.62

2204.62

2204.62

2204.62

2204.62

2204.62

Total CO2, Mt/10 years

9.109

9.579

10.738

11.292

Total CO2, Mt/10 years

1.822

7.663

2.148

9.034

Total CO2, Mt/10 years

9.485

11.182

37.315

19.990

Embodied vehicle body CO2, Mt

5.700

5.700

5.700

5.700

Embodied battery CO2, Mt

10.100

13.358

Total CO2, Mt/10 years

25.285

30.240

43.015

26.490

Total CO2, Mt/y

2.529

3.024

4.302

2.649

CO2, g/mile

239

286

407

251

 

EVs are Money Losers Compared to Efficient Gasoline Vehicles and Hybrids

 

Increasing the use of high-mileage vehicles, such as hybrids, and getting gas-guzzlers off the road (which need not involve any government subsidies), would reduce CO2 at much less cost per vehicle, than would the government-subsidized replacement of light duty vehicles with EVs.

 

The table shows the total cost of owning and operating four vehicles.

 

The Nissan Kona EV, and Toyota Prius L eco hybrid, both without all-wheel-drive, AWD, are not as versatile as the Subaru Outback and the Tesla Model Y for New England conditions, especially in rural areas.

All four have similar cargo space.

 

The difference in vehicle purchase cost was amortized at 3.5% for 10 years.

 

Summary 2/EV vs Gasoline

Operating

Owning

Total cost

CO2

CO2

 

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

Mt/y

g/mile

Kona, no AWD

 

 

 

2.529

239

Cost, on-the-road charging

8.39

12.3

20.69

 

 

Cost, at-home charging

5.98

12.3

18.28

 

 

Model Y, AWD

 

 

 

3.024

286

Cost, on-the-road charging

9.37

26.1

35.47

 

 

Cost, at-home charging

7.04

26.1

33.14

 

 

Subaru, Outback, AWD

 

 

 

4.302

407

Gasoline vehicle; 30 mpg

7.33

0

7.33

 

 

Prius L Eco, no AWD

 

 

 

 

 

Gasoline/electric; 56 mpg

0

0

3.93

 

251

Comment by Willem Post on September 1, 2021 at 4:15pm

HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

 

Ridge Line Wind Turbine Systems

 

Any NE wind systems would need to be located where the winds are, i.e., on pristine, 2000 ft-high ridge lines, which would require:

 

1) Significant blasting to provide spacious erection areas for the 450 to 500 ft-high wind turbines

2) Several miles of heavy-duty, 50-ft wide access roads to reach and connect the erection areas

3) Extensive facilities for managing any rain and snow-melt water flows, including infrequent heavy rain-falls

 

The wind systems would devastate the already-fragile, mountain-top ecologies, which would have significant impacts further down the mountains. No self-respecting environmentalist, or sensitive human being, could ever approve of such wanton, highly visible, noisy, environmental destruction.

 

The owners of other generators, mostly CCGT plants, are forced to expensively vary their outputs to counteract the variability of wind, 24/7/365.

 

The CCGT plant owners are not compensated for their increased wear and tear, lesser operating inefficiencies (greater Btu/kWh, greater CO2/kWh), and revenue losses. Those costs are shifted, in one way or another, to the rate bases of utilities, i.e., paid by ratepayers.

No cost ever disappears, per Economics 101.

 

Those costs are not charged to owners of wind systems, because that would “rain on the wind parade”

 

Lowell Mountain: The 63-MW wind turbine system, aka Kingdom “Community” Wind, on Lowell Mountain, owned by GMP, involved so much destruction that it “merited” a Manchester Guardian report, with aerial photos, a few years ago.

 

On top of that, it took about $20 million to connect that wind system to the NEK high voltage grid. It required:

 

1) A new synchronous condenser system, $10.5 million, to protect the high voltage grid

2) A new substation

3) Extensions/upgrades of high-voltage power lines, to ensure the rural grid would not be excessively disturbed, as the variable output might otherwise take down the entire northern Vermont grid.

 

- ISO-NE, the NE grid operator, on occasion, requires output curtailments, despite all these measures.

- GMP charges costs of the Lowell wind system to the rate base, subject to review by the VT Public Service Commission, PUC

- GMP uses various subsidies to reduce taxes it would have to pay on net profits, similar to Warren Buffett.

  

Future Build-outs of Offshore Wind Turbine Systems in New England

 

- MA, RI, and CT are planning to have 8460, 880, and 4160 MW, respectively, a total of 13,500 MW of offshore wind by 2035, much greater than the above 1600 MW.

- If the same simulation were made for 13,500 MW of wind turbines, the up/down spikes would be about 10,000 MW

- The existing CCGT plants would be inadequate to counteract them, i.e., output curtailments would be required.

- The 2035 date has a ring of urgency to it, but likely would be unattainable in the real world. See page 13 of NE-pool URL

 

It would take at least 20 years to build out 13,500 MW wind turbines off the coast of New England, plus large-scale solar systems to reduce the NE grid CO2/kWh by about 30%

 

With that much wind and solar, the NE grid would become very unstable. The NE grid would need:

 

1) Curtailments of wind output, kWh, on windy days

2) Curtailments of solar output bulges on sunny days

2) Major connections to the Canadian grid

3) Grid-scale batteries, with a capacity of 3 to 4 TWh; turnkey capital cost about $1.5 to $2 TRILLION, at $500/kWh, delivered as AC

 

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/02/2020_reo.pdf

https://nepool.com/uploads/NPC_20200305_Composite4.pdf

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/reality-check-regardin...

 

NOTE: Nearby countries import German overflow electricity, when it is windy and sunny, at low grid prices (because of a German surplus), and export to Germany, when it is not windy and not sunny, at high grid prices (because of a German shortage). 

The Netherlands is one of the major beneficiaries.

German households get to “enjoy” the highest electric rates in Europe, about 2.5 times as high as the US

Denmark, another wind country, is second!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/08/germanys-windexitold-wind-tu...

 

Maine Floating Offshore Wind Turbine Systems are Dead in the Water

 

The ocean waters near Maine are deep. Almost all offshore wind turbines would need to be floating units, anchored at the seafloor with at least 3 long cables.

The 700-ft tall wind turbines would need to be located at least 25 miles from any inhabited islands, to reduce the visuals, especially with strobe lights, 24/7/365

The wind turbines would be far from major electricity demand centers, such as Montreal and Boston.

Transmission systems would be required to connect the wind turbines to demand centers

All that would make the cost of electricity produced by these wind turbines more expensive than those south of MVI.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/deep-water-floating-off...

 

HYWIND Floating Wind Turbines: This article estimates the levelized cost of electricity of the HYWIND floating wind turbines, at Peterhead, Scotland, at UK pounds 224/MWh, or $311/kWh, or 31.1 c/kWh.

The turnkey capital cost was UK pounds 8.9 million/MW, or $12.37 million/MW

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/31/the-levelised-cost-of-floati...

 

Maine is Desperate to Stay in the Wind Turbine Business

 

Maine wind/solar bureaucrats likely are in active discussions with stakeholders to add 751 MW of onshore wind turbines.

Maine wind/solar bureaucrats are not in active discussions with stakeholders to add offshore wind turbines, as shown by the interconnection proposals on page 13 of URL

https://nepool.com/uploads/NPC_20200305_Composite4.pdf

Comment by Willem Post on September 1, 2021 at 4:13pm

HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

 

The turnkey capital cost to implement the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP, would be in excess of $1.0 billion/y for at least 33 years (2017 - 2050), according to a 2015 Energy Action Network, EAN, annual report. If updated to 2021, the numbers would be about $1.25 billion/y for 29 years (2021 - 2050). See URLs.

 

http://eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/EAN-2015-Annual-Report-... 

https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservices/Shared%20Documents/2016...

 

Spending on government energy programs, including Efficiency Vermont, has averaged about $210 million/y from 2000 to 2015, a total of at least $2.5 billion, but Vermont CO2 emissions increased from 9.64 million metric ton in 2000, to 9.54 MMt in 2015, a decrease of 1.0%.

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document... 

 

That means, on average, these RE programs:

 

- Have been expensive underperformers for 15 years

- Led to higher energy prices, and higher other prices, than they would have been without those wasteful programs.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-is-going-to-hel...

 

Giving the same RE folks six times as much money per year, to implement the CEP, per mandate of the unconstitutional Global Warming “Solutions” Act, GWSA, would be very far beyond rational.

 

Vermont’s CO2 is about the size of a dot at the end of a sentence. See Image and URL

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/16/eia-u-s-co2-emissions-declin...

 

WORLD 2021 ANNUAL ENERGY REPORT

https://privatebank.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-wm-aem/global/pb/e...

 

WORLD AND US PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CAPITAL COST

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-con...

Comment by Kenneth Capron on August 31, 2021 at 12:11am

So what if EV are referred to as external combustion ...

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2021   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service