FLAWED EPA METHOD OF CALCULATING MPG FOR E10 VEHICLES AND MPGeq FOR EVs

The EPA has a unique method of calculating the mileage of an electric vehicle. The EPA calls its MPGeq. The method is a grand deception of the US public. It is used nowhere else in the world.

 

Auto manufacturers did not object, because they were allowed to use the inflated EPA MPGeq values to boost their fleet averages. However, when rosy EV sales projections did not happen, the “54.5 mpg fleet average by 2025” proved to be an off-the-charts fantasy, and auto manufacturers began to object.

 

After Trump became president, a more realistic mpg target of about “37 mpg fleet average by 2021” became necessary, because of much fever EVs averaged into the new car sales mix.

 

The EPA MPGeq Method

 

The EPA arbitrarily sets the lower heating value, LHV, of gasoline at 115,000 Btu/gal.

Then EPA states 115000 Btu/(3412 Btu/kWh) = 33.7 kWh.

 

NOTE:The LHV of E10 (a blend of 90% gasoline/10% ethanol) is 112114 Btu/gal.

 

When testing an EV, the EPA measures the kWh (AC) from a wall meter.

The vehicle state-of-charge meter measures the kWh (DC) in the battery.

 

If the vehicle meter indicates a fuel consumption of 0.300 kWh (DC)/mile, then the wall meter would indicate 0.300 x 1.21 = 0.363 kWh (AC)/mile.

Energy per mile would be 3412 x 0.363 = 1239 Btu.

 

EPA would claim the mileage of the EV as 33.7/0.363 (wall meter) = 92.8 MPGeq, a gross exaggeration.

NOTE: 

- Whether EVs are used, or not used, some of the electricity is taken from the battery to operate various systems. Just go on vacation for 2 weeks, park a fully charged Tesla Model S at the airport, and you will be shocked at how much charge is lost.

- Some of the electricity would still be lost, even if no systems were operated.

- Some of the electricity is lost during charging.

- The total of these losses is about 21% for the Tesla Model 3 in California. See Appendix.

- These resting/charging losses likely would be greater in colder climates, such as in New England

- These resting/charging losses are separate from increased consumption per mile when drivingduring hot and cold weather 

 

NOTE: The Btus in gasoline are thermal Btus, whereas the Btus in a kWh are electrical Btus. If an engineering student were to equate them, he/she would be awarded a D. Mixing thermal and electrical Btus is OK in politics, but a basic no-no in engineering.

 

NOTE: In Europe and elsewhere, EV consumption has been stated as liters/100 km, and CO2 emission as g/km well before the EPA came up with its MPGeq “method”. Foreign manufacturers just smile, while complying with the EPA, to profitably sell cars in the US.

EPA Does Not Adjust MPGeq For Energy Upstream of Wall Meter

 

NE grid (gas turbine efficiency at 50%): If one starts with 0.938 kWh/mile of primary energy fed to gas turbine power plants, about 0.350 kWh/mile is stored in batteries.

 

US grid (conversion efficiency at 37.79%): If one starts with 1.239 kWh/mile of PE fed to US power plants, about 0.350 kWh/mile is stored in batteries. See table 1

 

Table 1

G/Ts at 50%

G/Ts at 50%

US grid

US grid

LNG requirement

kWh/mile

kWh/mile

Primary energy; gas turbines

0.938

1.239

Efficiency

50.0%

0.469

37.79%

0.771

Electricity generation

0.469

0.468

Self-use loss

3.00%

0.013

3.83%

0.017

Fed to grid

0.455

0.451

T&D loss

7.50%

0.032

6.50%

0.028

To meters

0.424

0.424

EV charging loss

21.00%

0.074

21.00%

0.074

In batteries

0.350

0.350

- The US electrical system has a mix of generators, which typically have efficiencies of less than 50%. The US system efficiency is about 37.79%. See table 1.

- That means, EPA should reduce its MPGeq to 92.8 MPGeq/2.943 = 31.534 mpg, a far more realistic number, based on primary energy. See table 2.

- That means, EPA should reduce the above MPGeq to 92.8 MPGeq/3.178 = 29.198 mpg, a far more realistic number, based on source energy

 

Table 2

%

Source energy

108.000

Extract/Process/Transport loss, 8% of PE

8.000

Primary energy fed to generators

100.000

Efficiency, 37.79%

62.210

Gross electricity generation

37.790

Self-use loss, 3.83%

1.447

Net electricity generation fed to grid

36.343

T&D loss, 6.5%, US grid, per EIA

2.362

User electricity consumption

33.980

Primary energy factor, 100/33.980

2.943

Source energy factor, 108/33.980

3.178

Real mpg, PE basis

31.534

Real mpg, SE basis

29.198

Source Energy and Source CO2 factors for Gasoline, Ethanol and E10

 

Biofuels, including ethanol, require far more energy from various fossil fuels and chemicals to produce them than gasoline.

The combustion CO2 of ethanol is not counted, because the next crop reabsorbs the CO2 a year later, per international agreement. See table 3.

 

Producing 1 million Btu of gasoline, HHV, requires about 230000 Btu of various energy inputs.

Producing 1 million Btu of ethanol, HHV, requires about 914414 Btu of various energy inputs. See arb.ca URL.

Producing 1 million Btu of E10 requires 0.9 x 230000 + 0.1 x 914414 = 298441 Btu of various energy inputs.

A driver needs 1.0331 gallon of E10 to go the same distance as on one gallon of pure gasoline. See table 3.

If the combustion CO2 of E10 is not counted E10 has 194.839 lb CO2/million Btu and pure gasoline has 197.442 lb CO2/million Btu; the ethanol program is a gigantic, expensive, political scam.

 

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

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

https://h2tools.org/hyarc/calculator-tools/lower-and-higher-heating...

Table 3

Ethanol

Ethanol

Gasoline

E10 (90/10)

ENERGY

With credit

No credit

No credit

No credit

Fuel produced, HHV, Btu. See URL

1000000

1000000

1000000

1000000

Co-products, Btu. See URL

97301

0

0

0

Primary energy, Btu

1097301

1000000

1000000

1000000

.

Cropping, processing, transport, Btu

914414

914414

Extraction, processing, transport, Btu

230000

298441

Source energy, Btu

2011715

1914414

1230000

1298441

Factor = SE/PE

1.8333

1.9144

1.2300

1.2984

.

CO2 EMISSIONS

HHV, Btu/gal. See URL

84530

124340

120359

LHV ratio

LHV, Btu/gal, See URL

76330

116090

112114

1.0355

Combustion CO2, lb/gal. See URL

12.720

19.640

18.948

Crop, process, transport CO2, lb/gal

13.556

0.25 x 19.640 = 4.9100

Extract, process, transport CO2, lb/gal

4.9100

5.775

13.556 x 0.1 + 4.91 x 0.9

Source CO2, bio CO2 counted, lb/gal

26.276

24.550

24.723

Factor = Source/Combustion CO2

2.0657

1.2500

1.3048

Source CO2, bio not counted, lb/gal

13.556

24.550

23.451

13.556 x 0.1 + 24.55 x 0.9

Factor = Source/Combustion CO2

1.0657

1.2500

1.2376

1.25 per EPA

Gallon ratio

Fuel, HHV, gal/million Btu

11.830

8.042

8.308

1.0331

Total CO2, not counted, lb/million Btu

160.369

197.442

194.839

Adjusting EPA Combined Ratings For Upstream Energy

 

The EPA determines the EPA Combined MPGeq rating, tank basis, which enables fuel consumption comparison of one vehicle versus another. It ignores upstream energy for extraction, processing and transport to produce the fuel.

 

A better method, for environmental reasons, would be from source to wheel, which would enable energy consumption comparison of one pathway versus another, on an A to Z, lifecycle, cradle to grave basis.

 

If an EV were rated at 0.363 kWh/mile, wall meter basis, it would be rated 2.943, from table 2 x 0.363 kWh/mile = 1.068 kWh/mile on a PE basis.

 

Energy per mile would be 3412 Btu/kWh x 1.068 = 3645 Btu, PE basis. See table 2. 

 

If a future efficient compact E10 vehicle were rated at 38-MPG EPA Combined, tank basis, it would be rated

1000000, fuel PE/1298441, fuel SE x 38 = 29.3 MPG Combined on a PE basis.

 

Energy per mile would be 112114 Btu/gal/29.3 = 3831 Btu, PE basis. See table 4.

 

These two Btu/mile values are far more realistic than the 1239 Btu/mile concocted, in a politics-inspired manner, by the EPA method.

 

In each case, the E10 vehicle and EV would have to overcome about the same rolling and wind resistance to travel from A to B. It stands to reason they would use about the same energy to do that. See table 4.

 

Table 4

EV

E10 vehicle

EPA

Electricity, kWh/mile, wall meter basis

0.3630

0.3630

Primary energy factor, US grid, table 2

2.943

 

Primary energy, kWh/mile

1.068

 

Btu/kWh

3412

3412

Mileage, mpg

38.0

 

E10 upstream factor, see table 3

1.2984

 

EPA Combined, adjusted for upstream, mpg

29.3

 

Btu/mile, PE basis, including upstream

3645

3831

1239

    

Annual Cost of Driving and CO2 Emissions of Two EVs and a Future Compact IC Vehicle

 

- Because vehicles are very often driven in various NE states, the CO2 was assumed to be for the NE grid, which was 374 g/kWh, at the wall meter, SE basis, in 2016, per ISO-NE.

- The CO2 values are based on PE fed to power plants.

- The Prius plug-in was assumed to be driven 50% in electric mode and 50% in hybrid mode.

- EPA has not yet published the EPA Combined MPGeq for the 2018 Prius plug-in.

- The E10 CO2/gal includes upstream. See table 3

- It was assumed compact IC vehicles @ 38 mpg would be available within about 5 years.

- See Appendix 2.

 

Table 5/Prius plug-in

$/y

$/mile

Cost of travel/y, 50% electric mode

0.2533 x 18 c/kWh x 0.50 x 12000

274

Cost of travel/y, 50% hybrid mode

12000/54 mpg x 0.50 x $2.80/gal

311

Total cost of travel/y

585

0.0492

g/y

g/mile

CO2 emission, SE basis, electric mode

0.2533 x 12000 x 374 NE grid x 0.50

568405

95

CO2 emission, SE basis, hybrid mode

12000/54 x 23.451 lb x 454 x 0.50

1182973

197

Total CO2 emission, PE basis

1751378

146

.

Tesla, Model S, 4wd

$/y

$/mile

Cost of travel/y, 100% electric mode

0.381 x 18 c/kWh x 12000

823

0.0686

g/y

g/mile

CO2 emissions, SE basis

0.381 x 12000 x 374 NE grid

1709928

142

.

Tesla Model 3, 4wd, Edmunds road test

$/y

$/mile

Cost of travel/y, 100% electric mode

0.302 x 18 c/kWh x 12000

652

0.0544

.

g/y

g/mile

CO2 emissions, SE basis

0.302 x 12000 x 374 NE grid

1355376

113

.

Future compact IC vehicle @ 38 mpg

$/y

$/mile

Cost of travel

12000/38 x $2.80

884

0.0700

g/y

g/mile

CO2 emissions, SE basis

12000/38 x 23.451 x 454

3362133

280

.

Subaru Outback, 4wd @ 30 mpg

$/y

$/mile

Cost of travel

12000/30 x $2.80

1120

0.0933

g/y

g/mile

CO2 emissions, SE basis

12000/30 x 23.451 x 454

4258702

355

Long-Term Road Test of Tesla Model 3

 

Edmunds, in California, has been performing a long-term road test of a Tesla Model 3 since January 2018. Here are the latest results from the Edmunds website.

https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2017/long-term-road-test/2017...

 

A recent road test of the Tesla Model 3, performed by Edmunds, showed 1388 miles of driving in California, some of it on hills

 

- Wall meter consumption was 30.2 kWh/100 miles.

- Vehicle meter consumption was 25.17 kWh/100 miles.

- The charging/resting time loss was 16.7% to 21.29%, much greater than the 15% assumed in these articles.

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

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

- The charging/resting time loss was over 20% with different drivers and different road trips.

- Winter driving would require about 0.400/0.301 = 33% more electricity per mile than summer driving. See next section about Tesla Model S and URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-cars-lose-rang...

- EV drivers know little of the charging/resting time loss; they rely on the lower numbers of the EV meter.

- February, March and April were not shown, because of missing data. See table 6 and URL

https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

 

Table 6/ Model 3

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Odometer

1388

2922

3937

5237

6009

6659

7679

9329

10307

11174

Test travel, miles

1534

1015

1300

772

650

1020

1650

978

867

Wall meter, kWh/100m

Lifetime average

30.20

30.90

31.70

31.70

31.40

31.80

31.70

31.00

31.10

30.80

Veh. meter, kWh/100m

Lifetime average

25.17

24.83

25.03

25.09

24.76

24.70

24.49

Best fill, period

20.00

28.50

28.60

28.00

26.70

25.60

25.60

Best fill, lifetime

25.60

25.60

25.60

25.60

25.60

25.60

25.60

25.60

25.60

25.60

Charge/rest time loss

5.03

6.57

6.77

6.61

6.24

6.40

6.31

Charge/rest time loss, %

16.66

20.92

21.29

20.85

20.13

20.58

20.49

One-Year Experience With a Tesla Model S

 

An upstate New York owner of a Tesla Model S measured the house meter kWh, vehicle meter kWh, and miles for one year (bold numbers in table). There was significant kWh/mile variation throughout the year. His real world annual average was 0.392 kWh/mile, house-meter basis, and 0.333 kWh/mile, vehicle-meter basis.

 

- The Model S has regenerative braking as a standard feature.

- The owner did not take into account the source-to-house electrical losses.

- Owners may use more or less than 0.392 kWh/mile in other US regions. 

- New EVs would have less kWh/mile than older EVs, due to battery system degradation.

- Data as measured by owner in New York State covers only the driving energy. The embedded energy and its CO2 are ignored.

 

See URLs, especially the second, which has a wealth of data.

 

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1090685_life-with-tesla-model-s...

http://www.uniteconomics.com/files/Tesla_Motors_Is_the_Model_S_Gree...

 

NOTE: In these article, I used 0.350 kWh/mile, vehicle-meter basis, for a mix of NE LDVs (cars, SUVs, minivans, ¼-ton pick-ups, short- and long wheel base). As the Tesla Model S, with a very low drag coefficient, shows an annual average of 0.333 kWh/mile (vehicle meter basis), my assumed 0.350 kWh/mile likely is significantly too low. Table 2.

 

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

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

 

Table 2/Tesla, Model S

Electricity cost, c/kWh

19.0

Travel, miles/y

15243

Vehicle meter, kWh/y

5074

kWh/mile, vehicle meter

0.333

5074/15243

kWh/mile, vehicle meter

0.301

Apr-Oct

kWh/mile, vehicle meter

0.290

July

kWh/mile, vehicle meter

0.371

Nov-Feb

kWh/mile, vehicle meter

0.400

Jan

House meter, kWh/y 

5969

 

Charging, resting time factor

0.85

kWh/mile, house meter

0.392

5969/15243

Travel cost, c/mile

7.4

5969 x 19/15243

APPENDIX 1

CO2 Emissions of US Grid: US CO2 Emissions Decreased Due to Less Coal and More Natural Gas.The URL shows the unusually rapid decrease of CO2 emissions during 2015 and 2016. Such a rapid decrease likely will not occur during the next few years, as natural gas prices likely will increase due to exports, and as changes in EPA rules likely will cause fewer coal plants to close.

 

A “cleaner” US grid would mean EVs would compare more favorable with E10 vehicles regarding emissions.

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf

 

Table 6/Year

2013

2016

2017

CO2, per EIA, million metric ton

2053

1821

1744

To meters, per EIA, TWh

3845.38

3855.41

3797.54

kg CO2/kWh

0.5339

0.4723

0.4592

lb/kg

2.2046

2.2046

2.2046

lb CO2/kWh, PE basis

1.177

1.041

1.012

g/lb

454

454

454

g CO2/kWh, PE basis

534

473

460

Upstream factor

1.08

1.08

1.08

lb CO2/kWh, SE basis

1.271

1.125

1.093

g CO2/kWh, SE basis

577

511

496

APPENDIX 2

CO2 Emissions of NE Grid: The NE grid, managed by ISO-NE, covers all of New England. ISO-NE issued its 2016 emissions report in January 2019.

ISO-NE considers pumped storage, nuclear, wind and solar as non-emitting sources. In 2016 they were about 41% of all NE generation. See page 2 of URL

 

The emissions of each state are based on the physical locations of the generating units (connected to the NEgrid) in each state. ISO-NE operates the NE power system as one unified grid, dispatching a unit physically located in one state to serve the entire system, not only the unit’s own state. This does not include northern Maine and the Citizens Block Load (in Northern Vermont), which is typically served by New Brunswick and Quebec. These areas are not electrically connected to the ISO-NE Control Area.

 

The NE grid is significantly cleaner than the US grid due to generation by gas 48.0%, nuclear 30.8% and hydro 8.4% of all NE generation. See tables 7 and 8, and pages 2, 19 and 20 of ISO-NE URL

NOTE:

- About 8% of the combustion CO2 of the fuel fed to power plants (primary energy) needs to be added due to the CO2 of extraction, processing and transport of the fuel. The ISO-NE g/kWh values in its 2016 report do not include the 8%. Source energy CO2 = 1.08 x primary energy CO2. See table 7.

- About 25% of the combustion CO2 of a gallon of E10 fed to vehicles (primary energy) needs to be added due to the CO2 of extraction, processing and transport of the E10. Source energy CO2 = 1.25 x primary energy CO2. See table 7.

 

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2018/01/2016_emissio...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-gas-is-good-for...

 

Table 7/NE system

2014

2015

2016

2016

2016

PE basis

PE basis

PE basis

PE basis

SE basis

Fed to grid

Fed to grid

Fed to grid

Fed to meters

Fed to meters

lb CO2/MWh

726

747

710

763

824

g/lb

454

454

454

488

527

g CO2/kWh

330

339

322

347

374

In 2016, total NE generation was 105,572 GWh, of which 62,284 GWh (59%) had CO2 emissions and 43,288 GWh (41%) did not.

 

ISO-NE calculates LMU marginal CO2/MWh and allocates CO2 to each state, based on the generators located in that state.

 

In table 8 the calculated 105553 GWh is slightly different from the actual 105572 GWh, due to rounding. See URL.

 

Table 8/State

CO2 emission

CO2

Generation

 US ton

lb/MWh

GWh

CT

10,179,000

572

35591

ME

2,994,000

678

8832

MA

15,011,000

897

33469

NH

5,508,000

573

19225

RI

3,044,000

930

6546

VT

732,000

775

1889

Total in 2016

37,468,000

710

105553

Total NE generation in 2016, GWh

105572

 

Generation with CO2, GWh

62284

 

 

Generation without CO2, GWh

43288

 

 

37468000 x 2000/(105572 x 1000) = 710

 

 

 

APPENDIX 3

CO2 Emissions of VT Electricity Sector, PE basis

Table 9 includes data from the three URLs.

 

- VT-ANR estimated, with input from the VT-DPS, the 2015 CO2 emissions of the VT electricity sector.

- ISO-NE monitors and records the output of VT generating plants connected to the NE grid.

- ISO-NE calculates the CO2 emission of these plants, based on fuel consumption and kWh produced at various plant outputs.

- ISO-NE calculated 732000 short ton (664060 metric ton) of CO2 from 1889 GWh of in-Vermont generation; 775 lb/MWh, or 352 g/kWh, fed to the grid basis. See note and pages 19 and 20 of ISO-NE URL.

- ISO-NE calculated CO2 emission intensity would be about 352 g/kWh x 1.075, T&D factor = 378 g CO2/kWh, at user meters.

- H-Q supply, about 1348 GWh in 2016, about 98% hydro, was assumed to have 0 emissions.

- Emission from other generation and from supply to utilities is 335940 metric ton for 2793 GWh (by subtraction), or 119 g CO2/kWh, fed to grid basis. See table 8 and URLs.

 

NOTE: It is not clear to me how ISO-NE determined there was 1889 GWh of in-Vermont generation.

 

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2018/01/2016_emissio...

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

http://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/documents...

 

Table 9

 CO2 emissions

 Utility supply

Fed to grid

At user meters

 

PE basis

PE Basis

PE basis

PE basis

metric ton

 GWh

g CO2/kWh

1.075, T&D factor

VT-ANR, 2015

996000

6030

165

178

ISO-NE, instate generation, 2016

664060

1889

352

378

H-Q supply, about 98% hydro

0

1348

0

0

Emissions, other generation

335940

2793

119

128

APPENDIX 4

Table 10 was prepared from Energy Action Network data. The 2016 data were updated by EAN in 2018

 

Table 10/Energy Action Network

Vermont 2016 Electricity Sources

Electricity

% of total

Efficiency

Power plant input

% of total  PE

2018 update

MWh

%

million Btu

Biomass (wood chips)*

465470

7.7

22.75

6982047

18.0

Distillate (oil)

7288

0.1

31.89

77987

0.2

Farm methane*

22674

0.4

100.00

77364

0.2

H-Q system mix*

1347714

22.4

96.00

4790000

12.3

Hydropower*

720389

11.9

100.00

2457967

6.3

Landfill methane (muni refuse)*

95934

1.6

100.00

327327

0.8

Natural gas

17766

0.3

43.19

140350

0.4

Nuclear

773705

12.8

32.81

8046529

20.7

Solar*

256834

4.3

100.00

876318

2.3

ISO-NE Non-RE

1593721

26.4

43.19

12590386

32.4

ISO-NE RE*

250863

4.2

100.00

855945

2.2

Wind*

477332

7.9

100.00

1628658

4.2

Total

6029690

100.0

52.95

38850878

100.0

Total, RE

3610256

59.9

68.82

17899826

46.1

Total, Non RE

2419434

40.1

39.40

20951052

53.9

 

APPENDIX 5

2018 US Monthly sales of top 6 EVs and hybrids and total sales YTD. Prius Prime and Volt are hybrids. Tesla will sell about 200,000 EVs in 2018, based on present production rates. Hybrids are marked *. The low-priced Prius should be selling much better, but the styling is an abomination.

 

Table 11/2018

Jan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aug

Sep

YTD

Tesla Model S

         187

2485

3820

3750

6000

5902

14250

17800

22250

78,132

Toyota Prius Prime*

1496

2050

2922

2626

292

2237

1984

2071

2213

20,523

Tesla Model S

800

1125

3375

1250

1520

2750

1200

2625

3750

18,395

Tesla Model X

700

975

2825

1025

1450

2550

1325

2750

3975

17,575

Chevrolet Volt*

713

983

1782

1325

1675

1336

1475

1825

2129

13,243

Chevrolet Bolt

1177

142

1774

1275

1125

1083

1175

1225

1549

11,807

 

 

Views: 247

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

 

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!

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/

© 2022   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service