VERMONT BASELESS CLAIMS ABOUT FUTURE BIOFUELS CONSUMPTION

The Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP) states biomass and bio liquids are projected to increase by 20% by 2025, on the way to doubling wood’s share of building heat by 2035. That wood share increase likely would not be obtained by increasing Vermont’s harvest, because Vermont is already harvesting in excess of US Forest service guidelines. That wood share increase likely would have to be imports from NH and NY and imported wood pellets. See page 8 of URL.

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

The CEP made baseless claims Vermont could increase consumption of biomass (mostly tree cutting for burning) and bio liquid (mostly for transportation, building heating and industry) by 10.805 TBtu, equivalent to 10.805 TBtu/128000 Btu/gal = 84.41 million gallon of biodiesel, B100, which, at 76 gal/acre, would require 1.111 million acre of soybean cropland in a state, such as Iowa.

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

 

Biomass for Heating and Electricity

 

VT biomass consumption was 8.8 TBtu, wood, wood pellets + 5.464 TBtu, McNeil/Ryegate = 14.264 TBtu in 2016.

See page 40 of URL

https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/Renewab...

 

Table 1/2016	million Btu/gr ton	million gr ton	TBtu	%
Heating	7.6	1.158	8.800	61.7
McNeil/Ryegate	7.6	0.719	5.464	38.3
Burning total		1.877	14.264	100.0

 

VT annual wood harvest (burning and other purposes) already is about 350,000 dry ton, or about 350,000/0.55 = 636,364 green ton, in excess of the US Forest Service recommended limit for removals, i.e., about 50% of the net annual growth rate of above ground biomass.

 

McNeil and Ryegate, old-technology wood-burning power plants (efficiency about 24%; modern plants about 30%) use about 347,342 (in-state) + 371,691 (out-of-state) = 719,033 green ton/y.

 

Because of harvesting limitations (tree cutting and crop area for other biomass growing), biomass would not be sufficiently available for building heating as projected by the CEP

 

Any increase in biomass would have to be from additional imports. But nearby states likely would increase their biomass consumption, which means less out-of-state supply would be available to Vermont

 

Vermont would be would required to use the existing biomass supply much more efficiently, such as by:

 

- Wood chip-fired, combined cycle heating/electricity plants, which would have a year-round efficiency of about 50%

- Immediately closing the 24%-efficient McNeil and Ryegate power plants.

The CEP made grossly inflated claims regarding future biomass availability and consumption

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-predictions-o...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/is-burning-wood-co-2-ne...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-wood-harvesting...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-comparison-of-wood-ch...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wood-for-fuel-logging-i...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/dismal-economics-and-in...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/is-wood-burning-carbon-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-claim-burning-wood-...

 

Bio liquids for Transportation, Heating and Electricity 

 

Bio liquids usually are:

 

- Ethanol from corn (E100)

- Biodiesel from 1) soybean and other crops, 2) used cooking oil, 3) fat from rendering plants, etc. (B100)

 

VT bio liquid consumption was 0.355 TBtu (B100 in diesel fuel, table 3) + 2.652 TBtu (E100 in gasoline, table 4) = 3.007 TBtu in 2016.

 

The US diesel consumption is about 715 times greater than Vermont. If the US were to increase B100 consumption with soy oil in the same proportion as the CEP projection of 10.805 TBtu for Vermont by 2050, 715 x 1.111 million = 794 million acres of soybean crop would be required, about 2 times all US cropland. 

 

It is clear such quantities of B100 could not be grown in Vermont, which would have much less favorable cropland conditions, less sunshine, and much less yield per acre than Iowa.

 

In the US southwest, with plenty of sunshine to grow pond algae in seawater, about 12.1 million acre of ponds would be required, if the Holy Grail of 5000 gallon/acre/y would ever be realized. See tables 1, 2 and 3

 

The CEP made grossly inflated claims regarding future bio liquid availability and consumption

Table 2	Vermont	US	US Southwest
	Soybean	Soybean	Pond Algae
	TBtu	TBtu	TBtu
Biofuel in 2016	17.271
Biofuel in 2050	28.087
Biofuel increase by 2050	10.805	7726	7726
B100 heat content, HHV, Btu/gal	128000	128000	128000
B100, 2050, million gallon	84.41	60356	60356
B100 yield, gal/acre	76	76	5000
Cropland, million acre	1.111	794.2	12.1

 

Vermont Cropland Limitations

 

B100 Replacing Gasoline: IOWA, a state ideally suited for growing soybeans, has a yield of about 76 gal of biofuel-100/acre.

 

A B100 gallon has a heating value of about 128,000 Btu.

 

Vermont consumes about 320 million gallons of gasoline and 60 million gallons of on-road diesel per year.

 

A gasoline gallon (90% gasoline/10% ethanol) has a heating value of about 120,400 Btu

 

Vermont would need 320,000,000 x 120,400/128,000 x 1 acre/76 gal of B100 = 396,052 acres in soybeans, JUST FOR GASOLINE

 

Vermont would have yields much less than IOWA, i.e., even more acreage would be required.

 

Vermont’s total land area is about 5.9 million acres.

About 1.25 million acres (21%) are classified as farmland.

Of those, about 536,052 acres are in cropland, and 446,020 acres are harvested.

This leaves about 90,032 acre of unused/underutilized cropland that potentially could be available for biofuel production.

 

If 50,000 of the 90,032 acres were planted in soybeans, Vermont, with much less ideal conditions than Iowa, theoretically could expensively produce about 50,000 x 60 gal/acre = 3 million gallon of B100, i.e., almost all of the B100 would be imported from out-of-state and/or foreign countries. See page 358 of URL

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

Cold Weather Limitations of B100 in New England

 

Biodiesel for transportation, such as B100, B6 and B20, must meet ASTM specifications and preferable also comply with the voluntary BQ9000 program. B5 has no requirements.

ASTM-complied B20 (80% petro diesel and 20% B100) tends to gel during cold weather, which is minimized with anti-gelling agents.

See URLs

 

https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/biodiesel_specifications.html

https://regi.com/docs/default-source/marketing-collateral/reg-bq900...

 

Vermont B100 Consumption Limitation for Transportation

 

If Vermont’s entire diesel fleet (on-road and off-road) used ASTM-complied B20, the gallons of diesel and biofuel would be as shown in table 3.

The result was obtained by trial and error, until the gallon ratio became close to 20/80

Vermont’s B100 consumption for transportation would be about 13.145 million gal/y, or 1.683 TBtu/y.

That is much less than the CEP projected 10.805 TBtu by 2050

It appears 9.122 TBtu would have to be used as B20 or B100 (if that would be available) for building heating and industry, and/or electricity generation with 60% efficient combined cycle gas turbine plants.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/emissi...

 

Table 3/2016	million gal	Volume	Btu/gal	TBtu	Btu ratio	Gallon ratio
Existing conditions		%
Diesel blend, 2016	64.100	100.000	137567	8.818
B100	2.766	4.331	128000	0.355
Pure diesel	61.324	95.669	138000	8.463
.
Projected conditions
Diesel blend, B20	65.055	100	136000	8.847
B100	13.145	20	128000	1.683	0.1908	0.202
Pure diesel	51.910	80	138000	7.164	0.8124	0.798

 

Vermont E100 Consumption Limitation for Transportation

 

Vermont’s E100 consumption was 2.652 TBtu in 2016, but would be only 0.080 TBtu in 2050, because the CEP projects 3% fossil fuel of all transportation primary energy by 2050.

 

The E100 content of gasoline (about 10% at present) likely would not increase, due to a lack of cropland and due to switching from corn crop to soybean crop.

 

Table 4/2016	million gal	Volume	Btu/gal	TBtu
Existing conditions		%
Gasoline, E10	315.700	100.0	120900	38.168
E100	31.570	10.0	84000	2.652
Pure gasoline	284.130	90.0	125000	35.516
Projected conditions
Gasoline, E10	9.471	100.0	120900	1.145
E100	0.947	10.0	84000	0.080
Pure gasoline	8.524	90.0	125000	1.065

Exxon-Mobil B100 From Pond Algae Program

 

The US does not have the cropland to produce much more B100, unless

 

- At least 10 to 15 million of acres of corn cropland, and other cropland, would be switched to soybeans.

- The Exxon-Mobil B100-from-pond algae program would come to the rescue with significant quantities about 3 to 4 decades from now. Table 5 shows 1.0 million barrels per day in 2040, which would require at least 3 million acres of pond algae.

 

Table 5 shows Exxon-Mobil extrapolated to 1962 TBtu/y by 2040.

Most estimates for B100 from pond algae are about 5000 gal/acre/y (Holy Grail)

By comparison, B100 from soybean oil was about 76 gal/acre in 2017

US gasoline, E10, and US diesel in 2017 were more than 12 times greater than projected B100 production by 2040.

 

HHVs are from URL

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/emissi...

 

Table 5/2017	Production	Production	HHV	Area	Time
	million gal/y	million barrel/d	TBtu/y	million acre	year
World crude oil		97.000			2018
US crude oil		11.000			2018
US gasoline, E10	142980	9.327	17286	29.900	2017
US diesel blend	43848	2.860	6032		2017
US biodiesel, B100	1596	0.104	204	20.000	2017
Exxon-Mobil B100; algae	153.3	0.010	19.6	0.031	2025
Exxon-Mobil B100 x 10; algae	1533	0.100	196.2	0.307	2030
Exxon-Mobil B100 x 100; algae	15330	1.000	1962.2	3.070	2040
	HHV, Btu/gal
Diesel blend, 2017	137567
B100	128000
Pure diesel	138000
Gasoline, E10	120900
E100	84000
Pure gasoline	125000

 

Regarding pond algae, the CO2eq of upstream energy for:

 

- Make-up seawater to maintain salinity

- Operating and maintaining the facilities

- Large quantities of fertilizer to grow algae

- Processing the oil into B100, likely from fossil sources for at least the next few decades

- The upstream energy could be about 40% of the combustion energy.

- The upstream CO2eq could be about 40% of the combustion CO2eq.

 

These articles about replacing gasoline and diesel fuel with E100 and B100 show there are severe limitations to produce these biofuel liquids in large quantities in the US. See URLs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biofuels-from-pond-algae

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-gasoline-and-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/politically-inspired-ma...

 

Diesel Blend Primary, Upstream and Source Energy

 

Diesel blend is a blend of pure diesel and B100 sold at pumps.

US diesel blend and B100 consumption is reported by the EIA

The VT numbers are from the VTrans website.

B100 in the blend was 4.331%, by volume, in 2016, less than B5, which is exempt from any regulation.

The US uses about 715 times more diesel blend than VT

Vermont would be prudent to wait for the US to take the lead regarding large-scale B100 production, because Vermont's expensively subsidized, in-state B100 production would be irrelevant to Vermont, and would be uneconomical.

 

The upstream factors were obtained from these URLs

 

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/042308lcfs_etoh.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/121514ulsd.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/092309lcfs_uco_bd.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/100308lcfs_soybiodsl.pdf

 

The HHVs were obtained from this URL

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/emissi...

 

Table 6
US, 2016
Energy	Primary	Volume	Primary	Upstream	Upstream	Source
	billion gallon	%	TBtu	Factor	TBtu	TBtu
Diesel blend	45.833	100.000	6305.104	0.2808	1771	8075.6
B100	1.985	4.331	254.080	0.4334	110	364.2
Pure diesel	43.848	95.669	6051.024	0.2739	1657	7708.4
.
VT, 2016
Energy	Primary	Volume	Primary	Upstream	Upstream	Source
	million gallon	%	TBtu	Factor	TBtu	TBtu
Diesel blend	64.100	100.000	8.818	0.2739	2.476	11.294
B100	2.776	4.331	0.355	0.4334	0.154	0.509
Pure diesel	61.324	95.669	8.463	0.2739	2.318	10.781
US/VT ratio			715			715
.
	HHV, Btu/gal
Diesel blend	137567
B100	128000
Pure diesel	138000

 

CEP Ignored Upstream Energy and Upstream CO2eq

 

The CEP makes a big fuss about reducing primary energy, but ignores the upstream energy and upstream CO2eq of extraction, cropping, processing and transport.

 

Such ignoring makes B100 and E100 look much better compared to diesel and gasoline. This would not be apparent to laypeople, including just about all legislators, etc.

 

Such ignoring makes the outcomes of CEP energy and restructuring measures appear to be more attractive than in reality, because the upstream of B100 and E100 is about two times that of gasoline and diesel.

 

If this assumption were made on purpose, it would be a major deception.

If this assumption were merely an “errors and omissions”, it would be a major display of ignorance.

 

Upstream Energy and Upstream CO2eq

 

The upstream energy for extraction, cropping, processing and transport for several fuels are shown in table 8.

The table shows the total CO2eq if bio is counted and if bio is not counted.

The table shows, the upstream energy for E100 and B100 is about 2 times that of 100% gasoline and 100% diesel.

That means the worldwide upstream infrastructure for E100 and B100 would be at least 2 to 3 times greater than for gasoline and diesel, plus a cropland area of many billions of acres, to serve 9 to 10 billion people by 2050.

That clearly would be an additional environmental devastation well beyond existing devastation in 2018; hardly a smart way to “save the world”.

The CEP ignored upstream energy and upstream CO2eq, a major flaw.

 

1 million Btu of B100 replacing diesel would reduce CO2eq by 209.545 - 82.247 = 127.298 lb, or 60.75%

1 million Btu of E100 replacing gasoline would reduce CO2eq by 194.027 - 177.939 = 16.088 lb, or 8.29%

The upstream data are from these URLs

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/042308lcfs_etoh.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/121514ulsd.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/092309lcfs_uco_bd.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/100308lcfs_soybiodsl.pdf

 

Table 8/Upstream energy	E100	Gasoline	E10	Diesel	B100	B20
			90/10	Low S
Fuel, Btu	1000000	1000000	1000000	1000000	1000000	1000000
Upstream, Btu	817113	230000	288711	273919	433354	305806
Upstream/1000000	0.8171	0.2300	0.2887	0.2739	0.4334	0.3058
Combustion, lb CO2eq	150.882	155.229	154.794	163.467	162.776	163.328
Upstream, lb CO2eq	177.939	38.798	52.712	46.078	82.247	53.312
Total, lb CO2eq	328.821	194.027	207.506	209.545	245.023	216.640
Total CO2eq, bio not counted	177.939	194.027	192.027	209.541	82.247	183.974
.	CO2eq reduction	%
B100	127.294	60.75
E100	16.088	8.29

US and VT Gasoline, Diesel and Biofuel Consumption

The US and Vermont gasoline and diesel consumption for 2017 are shown in table 9

US B100 consumption data is collected on the federal level.

VT B100 consumption data is not collected on the state level.

The US gasoline, and diesel consumption data are shown for comparison

 

VT (and NH) has no meaningful, in-state B100 production and has minimal B100 consumption. That situation likely would not change without:

 

- A New England mandate to require B20 for all on-road and off-road diesel vehicles

- A subsidy to farmers to crop soybeans, etc., on unused land

- A subsidy to processors to transform the crops to ASTM-certified B100

- A subsidy to distributors to blend, store, transport and distribute B20 to fuel pumps

https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/planning/documents/plann...

 

With these mandates and subsidies, the price of B20 likely would be on par with low sulfur diesel fuel.

See URL for HHV, Btu/gal

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/emissi...

Table 9	US	US	VT	VT	US/VT
	2017	2017	2016	2016
2017	b gallon	TBtu	b gallon	TBtu	TBtu ratio
Gasoline, E10	142.980	17170.468	0.3157	37.912	453
Diesel blend, 2016	45.833	6305.108	0.0641	8.818	715
Total		23475.577		46.730
E100 in E10	14.298	1201.032	0.0316	2.652	453
E100 in E15	0.500	42.000
B100	1.985	254.080	0.0028	0.355
Total
Bio liquid in 2016		1455.112		3.007
Biomass in 2016				14.264
Bio total 2016				17.271
Bio liquid added				10.805
Bio total 2050				28.076
	HHV, Btu/gal
Pure gasoline	125000
Gasoline, E10	120090
Diesel	138000
Diesel blend, 2016	137567
E100	84000
B100	128000
B20	136000

Vermont CO2eq Emissions Increased From 1990 to 2015

 

Vermont's CO2eq has been increasing as shown in the table.

The CO2eq emissions are based on primary energy, not source energy.

The CO2eq likely would be at least 25 to 30% greater.

The Vermont Agency of Natural resources ignored upstream energy and upstream CO2eq of all energy sources, a major flaw.

 

Vermont GHG Emissions	1990	2000	2005	2013	2014	2015
Total CO2eq, million mt	8.588	9.624	10.214	9.095	9.545	9.990

 

This is abundant proof Vermont's government has been implementing heavily subsidized, ineffective energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, which, when taken together, have been ineffective CO2eq reduction programs.

 

With such a dismal track record, the state should stop wasting valuable taxpayer money, stop burdening taxpayers with higher electric rates, and taxes, fees and surcharges, and finally get out of the energy business, instead of agitating for unilateral carbon taxes at $500 million per year to make things far worse. See URLs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-far-from-meetin...

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

Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan of 2016

The CEP has a goal to have 90% of ALL primary energy from renewables by 2050, such as wind, solar, hydro, biomass, E100, B100, etc.

 

- The CEP 2013 numbers were adjusted for 2016. See table 10.

- The CEP projects primary energy to decrease from about 140.994 TBtu in 2016 to about 75.881 TBtu in 2050, primarily due to having more wind, solar and hydro, which are have primary energy equal to generated energy, whereas fossil primary energy is on average about 3 times generated energy.

- The CEP ignored upstream energy and upstream CO2eq of all energy sources, a major flaw and misrepresentation of reality

- The CEP projects biofuels (solid and liquid) to increase from about 17.271 TBtu in 2016 to about 28.076 TBtu in 2050, an increase 10.805 TBtu by 2050. See page 40 of URL

 

Table 10/Primary energy	2016	2016	2050	2050
	%	TBtu	%	TBtu
Gasoline E10	34.562	37.912	3.000	2.276
Diesel blend		8.818
Other		2.000
B100, E100	2.133	3.007
Total, transportation	34.562	48.730
.
Fossil, buildings, industry	27.661	39.000	3.000	2.276
.
Biofuels, transportation, buildings, industry	10.117	14.264	37.000	28.076
Electricity, transportation, buildings, industry	27.661	39.000	57.000	43.252
Total	100.000	140.994	100.000	75.881

CEP Projected Electricity Consumption

The CEP projects electricity supply to user meters (generated in Vermont plus generated elsewhere) to increase from 5.3 billion kWh in 2015 to 9.1 billion kWh in 2050, an increase of 3.8 billion kWh by 2050. That includes EVs and heat pumps and energy efficiency and restructuring.

The generated electricity = 1.03, self use loss x 1.08, T&D loss x 9.1 TWh, delivered to meters = 10.12 TWh in 2050 

All electricity would be from wind, solar, hydro and biofuels.

No electricity would be from fossil fuels.

See page 186 of URL and notes.

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

NOTE: Electricity projections often overlook two major loss items.

- Any electricity passing through storage has about a 20% loss, on a high voltage AC-to-high voltage AC basis, to be made up by additional wind, solar and other generation.

- Any electricity fed to EVs and plug-in hybrids has about a 20% charging and resting loss, from wall meter to “in battery”, as indicated by the vehicle meter, to be made up by additional wind, solar, and other generation. See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/tesla-model-3-long-term...

NOTE: Supply to user meters = gross generation in Vermont, less plant self-use; plus supply via Highgate tie line from Canada; plus supply from NE grid; less transmission and distribution

 

NOTE:

- Primary energy is the energy fed to power plants, buildings, vehicles, and industrial and commercial facilities. That energy usually has combustion CO2eq. If that combustion CO2eq is from fossil sources it is counted, if from renewable sources, such as biofuels, it is not counted.

 

- Source energy = Upstream energy for extraction, processing, transportation + primary energy. Upstream energy usually has combustion CO2eq. If that combustion CO2eq is from fossil sources it is counted, if from renewable sources, such as biofuels, it is not counted. At present very little of upstream energy is from renewable sources.

NOTE:

Electricity Mix Based on Power Purchase Agreements: There are non-technical people talking about the “Vermont electricity mix” or the “New Hampshire electricity mix”. That mix exists only on paper, because it is based on power purchase agreements, PPAs, between utilities and owners of electricity generators. A utility may claim it is 100% renewable. This means the utility has PPAs with owners of renewable generators, i.e. wind, solar, biomass, hydro, etc. That mix has nothing to do with physical reality.

 

Electricity Mix Based on Physical Reality: Once electricity is fed into the NE electric grid by any generator, it travels:

 

- On un-insulated wires, as electromagnetic waves, EM, at somewhat less than the speed of light, i.e. from northern Maine to southern Florida, about 1800 miles in 0.01 of a second, per College Physics 101.

- On insulated wires, the speed decreases to as low as 2/3 the speed of light, depending on the application.

 

If those speeds were not that high, the NE electric grid would not work, and modern electronics would not work.

 

The electrons vibrate at 60 cycles per second, 60 Hz, and travel at less than 0.1 inch/second; the reason it takes so long to charge a battery.

 

It is unfortunate most high school teachers told students the electrons were traveling.

Teachers likely never told them about EM waves, or did not know it themselves.

http://www.djtelectricaltraining.co.uk/downloads/50Hz-Frequency.pdf

 

This article explains in detail what happens when electricity is fed to the grid.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/popular-misconceptions-...

NOTE: If you live off the grid, have your own PV system, batteries, and generator for shortages and emergencies, then you can say I use my own electricity mix. If you are connected to the GMP grid, which is connected to the NE grid, and draw from any socket, then you draw the NE mix.

NOTE: In 2017, US primary energy was 97.7 quad = 97,700 TBtu, of which about 5 quad (5.1%) was biofuels, including bio-waste (such as wood waste for electricity and heat), and biofuel liquids (such as ethanol, E100 and biodiesel, B100).

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_home

CEP Projected Capital Costs, Carbon Taxes, and State Government Expansion

 

The CEP projects the capital cost, as estimated by Energy Action Network, to be at least $33 billion by 2050, or about one billion dollars per year, or about 6 to 7 times greater than current annual RE investments in Vermont. See page 65 of CEP and URLs.

 

Vermont is planning to impose a unilateral carbon tax to raise about $500 million per year to implement the CEP. 

Mostly Democrat politicians would create lots of government energy programs that would dole out money to their favored groups, which would be thankful, and vote Democrat forever.
The carbon tax has absolutely nothing to do with GW. Vermont could disappear, and whatever went on still would go on.
The carbon tax would set in motion the mother of all government boondoggles that would last for decades.
Vermont’s way of life would become unrecognizable.
The regimentation and coercion would be off the charts, all as determined by a nameless bureaucracy.

Vermonters have been subjected to about 15 years of expensive government energy programs, allegedly “to save the world, make a difference”, but in reality to get to as many federal and state subsidies for RE programs as possible.

Did CO2 emissions decrease? No, the opposite happened!
Increasing emissions of CO2, from 1990 to 2015 (latest numbers), proved the ineffectiveness of government energy programs.

With such a dismal track record, the state should stop wasting valuable taxpayer money, stop burdening taxpayers with higher electric rates, and taxes, fees and surcharges, and finally get out of the energy business, instead of agitating for unilateral carbon taxes at $500 million per year to make things far worse. See URLs.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-90-percent-re...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-energy-transfor...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/90-or-100-renewable-ene...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/gmp-and-vermont-s-90-re...

Decreasing Primary Energy of Electricity Generation

Regarding electricity generation, the primary energy decrease would be due to replacing fossil fuels, which have primary energy about 3 times greater than the generated electricity, with hydro, wind, solar, and digester and landfill methane, which have primary energy equal to the generated electricity.

 

The primary energy reduction, i.e., minimal fossil fuels, would require:

 

- Additional in-state and out-of-state wind and solar electricity generation

- Additional out-of-state electricity from large hydro, i.e., a major increase in supply from Hydro-Quebec via the Highgate HVDC tie line on a 24/7/365 basis.

- A new 1000 MW HVDC tie line for additional out-of-state electricity from H-Q on a 24/7/365 basis to get ready for future heat pumps and plug-in vehicles.

- GMP pays about 5.549 c/kWh for H-Q electricity under a 20-year power purchase agreement with H-Q. See page 239 through 243 of CEP and URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/green-mountain-power-co...

NOTE:

- Additional in-state generation from small hydro is very limited.

- Additional in-state generation from existing hydro plants through upgrades is possible, but of minor consequence, and would produce expensive electricity.

- Additional in-state generation from digester and landfill methane is very limited.

- Additional in-state generation from biomass (woody and other) is very limited.

 

Decreasing Primary Energy of Other Sectors

The much harder part is to reduce the primary energy of other sectors to supply useful energy to users. That would require:

 

- Major efficiency increases for transportation due to plug-in hybrids (using B100) and plug-in EVs.

- Deep retrofits of at least 80% of all residential and other buildings and replacing/supplementing existing heating/cooling systems with air source and ground source heat pump systems.

- Moving large numbers of households from their energy-hog houses to clusters of new, highly sealed, highly insulated apartment buildings close to town centers. The apartments in such buildings would have open floorpans and would:

1) Have R-20 basements, R-40 walls, R-60 roofs, R-7 triple pane windows, R-10 doors, and leakage rates of less than 1.0 air change per hour, ACH, per blower door test 

BTW, such “energy-sipping” houses and apartment buildings would be suitable for heating and cooling with heat pumps.

2) Have Solar panels, heat pumps, and air-to-air heat exchangers

3) Have large, south-facing roofs to generate enough electricity to also charge EVs.

4) New housing and other buildings should be required to be net-energy-surplus buildings, with ground source heat pump systems (which are far superior to air source heat pump systems). Such buildings would produce enough electricity to also charge EVs.

Implications of Lack of Availability of Biofuel liquids

 

The lack of biofuel liquids would mean they would not be sufficiently available for transportation and building heating until about two decades later than projected by the CEP.

 

This would require:

 

1) A much greater emphasis on increasing the mileage of existing vehicle fleets

2) A much slower transition from petroleum-based fuels to biofuel liquids

3) A more rapid transition from standard IC vehicles to plug-in hybrids and plug-in EVs. The transition to EVs likely would not take place until EVs would have:

 

- Much lower prices for widespread affordability

- Much bigger batteries for longer range  

- 4WD; about 50% of Vermont passenger vehicles are SUVs, minivans and ¼-ton pick-ups, most of which have 4WD.

Here is an article, with graph, on battery cell prices ($/kWh) and battery pack prices for EVs (the pricing for other purposes likely would be higher), which would indicate minivans, SUVs, and 1/4-ton pick-ups, which would have large batteries, would not be economical and available until about 4 to 5 years from now.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09/100-kwh-tesla-battery-cells-th...

That transition would increase the load on the NE and VT grid

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/evs-and-plug-in-hybrids...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/tesla-model-3-long-term...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/flawed-epa-method-of-ca...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-nuclear-plant...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifecycle-co2eq-of-inte...

Increased Energy Efficiency for Building:It would require much greater emphasis on deep retrofitting at least 80% of Vermont’s buildings (residential and other) to finally make them suitable for heating/cooling with heat pumps, so that the envisioned energy and cost savings would actually be realized, which currently is only the case for highly insulated and highly sealed buildings. See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/heat-pumps-oversold-by-...

  

APPENDIX 1

The source factors of manmade fuels, such as E100 and B100, are much higher than of fossil fuels.

It took a vast, worldwide, upstream infrastructure to extract, process and transport 97 million barrels of crude oil per day to serve 7.5 billion people in 2017.

It would take several billion acres of land for cropping feedstocks, and for processing and transporting them, which would require an infrastructure and energy at least two to three times as large to serve 9.5 billion people in 2050. See URLs.

 

E10 HHV = 0.9 x 125000 + 0.1 x 84000 = 120090

B20 HHV = 0.8 x 138000 + 0.2 x 128000 = 136000

 

Upstream Energy and CO2eq Factors: The California EPA/Air Resources Board performed detailed studies of energy and CO2eq pathways of various fuels, including upstream energy and CO2eq. The upstream energy factors in the table are from the URLs.

 

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/121514ulsd.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/042308lcfs_etoh.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/092309lcfs_uco_bd.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/100308lcfs_soybiodsl.pdf

The HHV are from this URL

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/emissi...

 

Table 11	E100	Gasoline	E10 (90/10)	Petro-diesel	B100	B20 (80/20)	NG	LNG
	Btu/gal	Btu/gal	Btu/gal	Btu/gal	Btu/gal	Btu/gal	Btu/lb	Btu/lb
HHV	84000	125000	120900	138000	128000	136000	22453	23726
LHV	75851	116706	112621	128033	119587	126344	20160	21240
HHV/LHV ratio	1.107	1.071	1.074	1.078	1.070	1.076	1.114	1.117
Source energy factor	0.8171	0.3086	0.3595	0.2739	0.4334	0.3058	1.1700	1.4286

Natural Gas and Liquefied Natural Gas

 

The CO2eq and CO2eq factors of NG and LNG are shown in table 4. The upstream energy factors were assumed to be the same as the CO2eq factors, because I was unable to find the upstream energy for extraction, processing and transport of NG and LNG. See URLs.

 

Comparative Life Cycle Carbon Emissions of LNG versus Coal and Gas for Electricity Generation

Google the title and the PDF will appear.

http://www.igu.org/sites/default/files/node-page-field_file/LNGLife...

 

The high CO2eq factor for LNG is due to the additional processing of natural gas, liquefying, storing, loading into tankers, tanker transport and losses during transport, unloading from tanker and storing, re-gasifying and distribution.

 

Table 8	Combustion	Upstream	Combustion + Upstream	CO2eq factor
	lb/million Btu	lb/million Btu	lb/million Btu
NG CO2eq	120.000	20.4	140.400	0.1700
LNG CO2eq	120.000	51.4	171.400	0.4283

APPENDIX 2

Wind and Solar Conditions in New England: New England has highly variable weather and low-medium quality wind and solar conditions. See NREL wind map and NREL solar map.

 

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/100m_wind/awstwspd100onoff3-1.jpg

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/solar/national_photovoltaic_2009-01...

 

Wind:

- Wind electricity is zero about 30% of the hours of the year (it takes a wind speed of about 7 mph to start the rotors)

- Wind is minimal most early mornings and most late afternoons/early evenings (peak demand hours), especially during summer

- Wind often is minimal 5 - 7 days in a row in summer and winter, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

- About 60% is generated at night, when demand is much less than during the late afternoons/early evenings

- About 60% is generated in winter.

- During winter, the best wind month is up to 2.5 times the worst summer month

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.262) of any US region, except the US South. See URL.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20112

 

Solar:

- Solar electricity is strictly a midday affair.

- It is zero about 65% of the hours of the year, mostly at night.

- It often is minimal 5 - 7 days in a row in summer and in winter, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

- It is minimal early mornings and late afternoons/early evenings

- It is minimal much of the winter months

- It is minimal for several days with snow and ice on most of the panels.

- It varies with variable cloudiness, which would excessively disturb distribution grids with many solar systems, as happens in southern California and southern Germany on a daily basis. Utilities use batteries to stabilize their grids.

- During summer, the best solar month is up to 4 times the worst winter month; that ratio is 6 in Germany.

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.145, under ideal conditions) of any region in the US, except some parts of the US Northwest.

 

NOTE: Even if the NE grid had large capacity connections with Canada and New York, any major NE wind lull and any major NE snowfall likely would affect the entire US northeast, i.e., relying on neighboring grids to "help-out" likely would not be prudent strategy.

 

Wind Plus Solar:

ISO-NE publishes the minute-by-minute outputs off various energy sources contributing their electricity to the grid.

All one has to do is add the wind and solar and one comes rapidly to the conclusion both are minimal many hours of the year, at any time during the year.

 

- Wind plus solar production could be minimal for 5 - 7 days in summer and in winter, especially with snow and ice on most of the panels, as frequently happens during December, January and February, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

 

If we were to rely on wind and solar for most of our electricity, massive energy storage systems (a few hundred GWh-scale for Vermont, multiple TWh-scale for NE) would be required to cover multi-day wind lulls, multi-day overcast/snowy periods, and seasonal variations. See URLs.

 

Wind and solar cannot ever be expected to charge New England’s EVs, so people can get to work the next day, unless backed up by several TWh of storage, because wind/solar lulls can occur for 5 - 7 days in a row, in summer and in winter. BTW, the turnkey capital cost of one TWH of storage (delivered as AC to the grid) is about $400 billion.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-l...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-example-of-elec...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/seasonal-pumped-hydro-s...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electricity-storage-to-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/pumped-storage-hydro-in...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-hype-ver...

 

APPENDIX 3

High Levels of Wind and Solar

 

High levels of wind and solar, say 60% of NE grid annual load (the rest supplied by other sources), could not ever stand on their own, without the NE grid having:

 

- Much more robust connections to nearby grids (Canada, New York State), plus

- Gas turbine plants and reservoir/run-of-river hydro plants that could quickly vary their outputs to compensate for the quickly varying outputs of wind and solar, including very low outputs of wind and solar, which occur at random, at least 30% of the hours of the year, according to minute-by-minute generation data posted by ISO-NE.

 

If high levels of wind and solar were built out after a few decades, and the gas turbine, nuclear, coal and oil plants were closed down (according to RE proponent wishes), and with existing connections to nearby grids, and with existing reservoir/run-of-river hydro plants, and with existing other sources, the NE grid would require 6 - 8 TWh of storage to cover 5 to 7 day wind/solar lulls, which occur at random, and to cover seasonal variations (storing wind when it is more plentiful in fall, winter and spring, and when solar is more plentiful in summer, so more of their electricity would be available in summer when wind usually is at very low levels). See URLs.

 

That storage would need to have a minimal level at all times (about 10 days of demand coverage) to cover multi-day, scheduled and unscheduled equipment and system outages and unusual multi-day weather events, such as a big snow fall covering the solar panels and minimal wind.

- One TWh of storage costs about $400 billion, at $400/kWh, or $100 billion at a Holy Grail $100/kWh.

- Any electricity passing through storage has about a 20% loss, on a high voltage AC-to-high voltage AC basis, to be made up by additional wind, solar and other generation.

- Any electricity fed to EVs and plug-in hybrids has about a 20% charging and resting loss, from wall meter to “in battery”, as indicated by the vehicle meter, to be made up by additional wind, solar, and other generation. See URLs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/tesla-model-3-long-term...

 http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-will-need-t...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-example-of-elec...;

APPENDIX 4

Hydro-Quebec Electricity Generation and Purchases: Google this URL for the 2017 facts. The H-Q electricity supply is an order of magnitude cleaner than the Vermont supply.
http://www.hydroquebec.com/sustainable-development/energy-environme...

 

	2017
	GWh
Hydropower generated	177091
Purchased	44006
- Hydro	31610
- Wind	9634
- Biomass and waste reclamation	2021
- Other	741
Total RE generated and purchased	221097

 

NOTE: Gentilly-2 nuclear generating station, plus three thermal generating stations (Tracy, La Citière and Cadillac) were shut down.

 

Hydro-Quebec Export Electricity: H-Q net exports were 34.4 TWh/y in 2017; provided 27% of H-Q net income, or $780 million, i.e., very profitable.

H-Q export revenue was $1,651 million in 2017, or 1641/34.4 = 4.8 c/kWh.

See page 24 of Annual Report URL.

This is for a mix of old and new contracts.

Revenue = 1641

Net profit = 780

Cost = 1641 - 780 = 861

Average cost of H-Q generation = 861/34.4 = 2.5 c/kWh

 

GMP buys H-Q electricity, at the Vermont border, for 5.549 c/kWh, under a recent contract. GMP buys at 5.549 c/kWh, per GMP spreadsheet titled “GMP Test Year Power Supply Costs filed as VPSB Docket No: Attachment D, Schedule 2, April 14, 2017”.

H-Q is eager to sell more of its surplus electricity to New England and New York.

That is at least 50% less than ridgeline wind and large-scale field-mounted solar, which are heavily subsidized to make their electricity appear to be less costly than reality.  

GMP sells to me at 19 c/kWh, per rate schedule. Consumers pricing for electricity is highly political. That is implemented by rate setting, taxes, fees, surcharges, etc., mostly on household electric bills, as in Denmark and Germany, etc. The rate setting is influenced by protecting “RE policy objectives”, which include highly subsidized, expensive microgrids, islanding, batteries and net metered solar and heat pumps.

http://www.hydroquebec.com/sustainable-development/energy-environme...

http://news.hydroquebec.com/en/press-releases/1338/annual-report-2917/

http://www.hydroquebec.com/data/documents-donnees/pdf/annual-report...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/green-mountain-power-co...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/increased-canadian-hydr...

APPENDIX 5

 

Vermont wood harvest	Cord, green	Ton, green	YTY, %	Fuel use	YTY, %	Other uses
2013	807878	2019695		1146594		873101
2014	967763	2419408	19.8	1216178	6.1	1203230
2015	971466	2428665	0.4	1197309	-1.6	1231356
2016	982952	2457380	1.2	1315738	9.9	1141642