FORTRESS VERMONT, A MULTI-BILLION BOONDOGGLE FOISTED ONTO RATEPAYERS AND TAXPAYERS

Depending on how much the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, variable/intermittent wind and solar often supply too much or too little electricity. The solution of the 100%-in-state proponents is to store unused electricity in batteries (or some other medium) and then dispatch from storage as needed, 24/7/365, to maintain ISO-NE-specified grid conditions. 

 

The 100%-in-state proponents propose a $1.2 billion down-payment on “Fortress Vermont”.

 

- About $900 million would be for new electricity storage systems, during the 2020 – 2025 period, and tens of $billions thereafter, if their plan for 100% in-state renewable electricity were implemented.

The battery capacity would be about $900 million/($375/kWh) = 2400 MWh, i.e. 600 MW delivered for 4 hours. See Notes.

 

- About $300 million would be to pay wind/solar system owners whose electricity outputs would be curtailed during high winds and very sunny days, during the 2020 – 2025 period.

 

NOTE: The NREL states the average turnkey capital cost of grid-scale, 4-hour, battery systems was $375/kWh in 2018, and projects $250/kWh for 2025, $210/kWh for 2030, and 155/kWh for 2050. Such battery systems would absorb solar during mid-day hours and release it during late-afternoon/early-evening hours. See figure ES-2

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/73222.pdf

 

NOTE: NREL defines the 4-hour duration as the output duration of the battery, such that a 4-hour device would be able to discharge at rated capacity for 4-hours. In practice that would mean that the device would charge for more than 4 hours and would nominally hold more than its rated energy capacity in order to compensate for losses during charge and discharge.

FROM FORTRESS VERMONT TO FORTRESS NEW ENGLAND

 

If a future NE electricity mix would be 40% from wind, 40% from solar, and the rest from hydro and wood and refuse burning (gas and nuclear plants would be closed), and if all of New England were as foolish as Vermont, and Fortress Vermont were to become Fortress New England, instead of a “down-payment” of about $1.2 billion, about 122/6 x 1.2 = $24.4 billion would be required to install 122/6 x 2400 = 48,800 MW of battery storage systems during the 2020 – 2025 period. 

 

About 122/6 x 0.9 = $18.3 billion would recur every 15 years to replace the battery systems!

Additional multi-$billion "down-payments" would be required after 2025.

 

All that, and more, would be shifted onto ratepayers, taxpayers and debt, to support the massive build-outs of heavily subsidized cripples, called wind and solar, that could not even exist on the grid without the other generators and/or grid-scale storage systems. See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

6-Day Wind/Solar Lull: The normal average electricity fed to the NE grid during a 6-day period is about 122 billion/365 x 6 = 2 billion kWh.

 

In case of a randomly occurring, 6-day wind/solar lull, about 664.4 million kWh would be fed to the NE grid, as shown in table 1.

 

The NE battery (48,800 MWh) could provide only about 50% of its capacity (24,400 MWh), because the rest has to be available for 1) midday DUCK-curve management (which may involve curtailment) and 2) counteracting the ups and downs of wind/solar outputs, 24/7/365.

If demand management/rationing were applied to reduce normal average electricity fed to the NE grid from 2000 to 1600 million kWh, the shortfall would be 2000 – 400 - 664.4 = 935.6 million kWh, which could be made up by:

1) imports, if sufficient connections to adjacent grids, or

2) a very large capacity of batteries, which would be off-the-charts expensive.

Connections to Adjacent Grids: About 10,000 MW of new connections to adjacent grids (about $15 billion, turnkey), operated at 0.65 capacity factor, could provide the 935.6 million kWh shortfall during the 6 days.

NOTE: What would happen if a second lull comes along a few days later, and the battery systems are not yet sufficiently charged after dealing with the first lull, as happened in Germany. See URL

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

Some URLs for information:

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-ne-vt-hyd...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/response-to-energy-acti...

 

Embodied CO2 of Battery Storage Systems: Here is an estimate of embodied CO2 of the grid-scale NE battery system, which, as we saw, was not anywhere near adequate during a 6-d wind/solar lull in NE. Many more such batteries systems would be required.

 

Embodied CO2 of mass-produced batteries for EVs likely would be less per MWh, than of custom-built, field-erected, battery systems.

Embodied CO2 of a Nissan Leaf Plus battery (62 kWh) would be about 10.10/62 = 0.163 metric ton/kWh; battery life about 15 years

Embodied CO2 of the NE battery (48,800 MWh) would be at least 0.163 x 48,800,000/15 = 530,000 Mt/y.

That CO2 would need to be included with the overall CO2 of the NE grid. See URL, table 1

https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life-cycle-...

 

Table 1/6d W/S lull

Normal

Normal

6d W/S lull

6d W/S lull

Generation

%

million kWh

%

million kWh

Wind

40.0

800

6.0

120

Solar

40.0

800

6.0

120

Hydro/Wood/Refuse

20.0

400

20.0

400

Battery

0.0

0

3.7

24.4

Fed to NE grid

100.0

2000

35.7

664.4

Fed to grid shortfall

1335.6

Demand management

400.0

Fed to grid shortfall

935.6

Period, h

144

Imports, MW

6497

Capacity factor

0.65

New connections, MW

10000

FORTRESS PROPONENTS OPPOSED TO LOW-COST CANADIAN HYDRO ELECTRICITY

FORTRESS folks, who tirelessly peddle their heavily subsidized, expensive, variable/intermittent wind/solar electricity, that requires expensive, grid-scale, storage and expensive grid augmentation/expansion, absolutely do not want low-cost competition from any source, especially if that source would be 1) low-cost, say 5.7 c/kWh, and 2) would require no storage and minimal grid augmentation/expansion.

VT-DPS employees, on loan to the legislature, “are helping” legislators write a FORTRESS VERMONT bill that specifically limits Hydro-Quebec to about 33% of the Vermont electricity fed to grid. That way, FORTRESS folks get to play their expensive “islanding/fortress” games with the other 67%.

EXISTING CONDITIONS

At present, almost all of Vermont’s electricity is physically drawn from the ISO-NE-monitored, high-voltage grid, which delivers electricity “on demand”, i.e., there is very little need for grid-scale electricity storage.

 

There are paperwork arrangements, called PPAs, where utilities contract to buy renewable electricity from in-state and out-of-state producers, but that is merely bookkeeping for accountability, and has nothing to do with the physical drawing of electricity from the HV grid. 

 

Wind/solar could not even function on any grid without the other generators (mostly gas turbines) continuously varying their outputs, as needed, 24/7/365, to maintain ISO-NE-specified grid conditions

ELECTRICITY STORAGE REQUIREMENTS IN NEW ENGLAND AND VERMONT

 

If it were arbitrarily decided for Vermont to do without the other NE generators (rely only on in-state generated electricity, plus at most 33% from “big hydro”, i.e., Hydro-Quebec), grid-scale storage would be required to cover: 1) daily demand variations, 2) wind/solar lulls up to 6 days, and 3) seasonal variations. 

 

Estimated Storage Requirements for New England: If all of New England were to follow Vermont, about 10 TWh of storage would be required to cover: 1) daily demand variations, 2) wind/solar lulls up to 6 days, and 3) seasonal variations.

 

- The storage systems would have a useful life of about 15 years; I have taken low annual average capacity factors to reduce wear and tear, and prolong life, as shown in table 1

- Based on long-term studies of Tesla Model S batteries, a degradation up to 10% would occur during a 15-year lifetime.
https://electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-data/

- The energy source mix would be: 1) mostly wind, solar and hydro, plus 2) some tree and waste burning, 3) no nuclear, and 4) minimal gas turbine plants mostly for standby.

- The turnkey cost would be about $2.5 TRILLION, based on future turnkey storage at an average of $250/kWh.

See URLs 

 

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

Embodied CO2 of Battery Storage Systems:

- NE solar CO2/kWh is about 64 g/kWh, largely due to China’s energy-intensive mining of raw materials, and low-efficiency coal-fired power plants (high CO2/kWh).

- NE solar CO2/kWh is higher than most elsewhere in the US, because of poor NE solar conditions. CO2/kWh is lowest in the sunny US southwest.

- The embodied CO2 of batteries storage systems would be about 10.10/62 = 0.163 metric ton/kWh (Nissan Leaf Plus), or 1.63 billion Mt for 10 TWh of batteries, or 1.63/15 = 10.9 million Mt/y. That CO2 would need to be added to the overall CO2 of the NE grid. See URL, table 1

https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life-cycle-...

Estimated Storage Requirements for Vermont: If Fortress Vermont were implemented, Vermont would need:

 

Alternative No. 1: About 6/122 x 10 = 0.49 TWh of storage, if “big hydro” did not perform the peaking and filling-in, 24/7/365, for Vermont.

Peaking, filling-in and fine-tune balancing would be performed in Vermont.

The turnkey capital cost would be about (6, VT grid load) / (122, NE grid load) x $2500 billion = $123 billion

 

Alternative No. 2: About 20,000 MWh of storage, if “big hydro” did perform almost all of the peaking and filling-in, 24/7/365, for Vermont, as is done by Norway’s hydro plants for Denmark.

The storage systems would: 1) mitigate mid-day DUCK curves, 2) surges in wind electricity, and 3) fine-tune balancing.

The turnkey capital cost would be about 20000 x 1000 x 250 = $5.0 billion, i.e., the above $900 million would indeed be just a "down-payment for the Fortress", but only if “big hydro” helps out, just as Norway’s hydro plants help out Denmark.

  

STORAGE ECONOMICS IN CASE OF NET-METERED SOLAR; dealing with daily DUCK curves

 

The storage systems would mitigate the grid-disturbing DUCK curves, by absorbing unused mid-day solar electricity, when demand is low, and releasing it during late-afternoon/early-evening, when demand is high. 

 

Battery systems: 1) have an electricity loss of about 15 to 20%, grid-voltage to grid-voltage basis, 2) have high turnkey cost per installed kWh, and 3) last only about 15 years.

 

Net-Metered Cost: The lost quantity of electricity had been net-metered before entering the battery system and, as such, was added to the GMP rate base at about 21.8 c/kWh; a cost shift onto ratepayers. The more electricity going through storage, the larger the addition of expensive electricity to the rate base, and the greater the cost shift onto ratepayers. See table D in Appendix.

 

Battery Loss Cost: The additional cost of sending expensive, subsidized, solar electricity through a battery system would be about 15 to 20 c/kWh; includes amortizing the battery at 3.5% for 15 years.

 

Total Cost: Table 1 shows the cost of sending net-metered electricity through the $900 million, 2400-MWh, battery system, at various battery load cycles, at 17.5% throughput loss, with met-metered at 21.8 c/kWh, and amortizing at 3.5% for 15 years. Fixed and variable maintenance and operation costs are ignored

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

Total cost = 21.8 + 14.9 = 36.7 c/kWh. i.e., net-metered solar with batteries is about 7 to 8 times more expensive than just buying wholesale from the grid. See Notes

NOTE: The state government may claim amortizing the capital cost does not apply to the state, because it just extorts, interest-free, any money from ratepayers and taxpayers, as needed. All it needs is a law authorizing the extortions.

NOTE: Often the comment is made battery systems for shifting solar electricity from mid-day to late-afternoon/early-evening (a form of peak-shaving) does not pay, unless:

 

1) The electric rate differential is extremely high, and

2) The battery systems would perform other grid services, such as fine-tune balancing. However, the NE grid needs very little of such fine-tune balancing; i.e. a few battery systems could perform the service.

 

NOTE: NE wholesale prices of electricity have averaged about 5 c/kWh, starting in 2009, due to decreasing prices of low-cost, domestic gas and the already-low-cost prices of nuclear, which together were 76% of total NE generation of electricity in 2019. Those low prices have been a major boost for the NE economy.

 

NOTE: At present, the subsidized owners of net-metered solar systems get paid about 18 c/kWh, and GMP gets paid about 3.8 c/kWh, “to cover various costs”, for a total of 21.8 c/kWh. See Appendix,  table D. 

 

Table 1/Storage cost

 

 

 

 

Battery capacity

MWh

2400

2400

2400

Capacity factor

0.29

0.33

0.38

Into Battery, daily average

MWh/d

700

800

900

Loss fraction, A to Z basis

0.175

0.175

0.175

Out of battery, daily average

MWh/d

577.5

660

742.5

Loss

MWh/d

122.5

140

157.5

Net-metered cost

c/kWh

21.8

21.8

21.8

COST

Net-metered cost

$/d

26,705

30,520

34,335

Net-metered cost

$/15y

146,209,875

167,097,000

187,984,125

Amortizing cost

$/15y

1,158,109,717

1,158,109,717

1,158,109,717

Total cost

$/15y

1,304,319,592

1,325,206,717

1,346,093,842

Total out of battery

kWh/15y

3,161,812,500

3,613,500,000

4,065,187,500

Cost

c/kWh

41.3

36.7

33.1

Storage cost adder

c/kWh

19.5

14.9

11.3

REDUCING ISO-NE FCM AND RNS CHARGES WITH BATTERIES IS A FANTASY

 

FCM and RNS Reduction: The economics of the battery would be significantly improved, if the reduction of forward capacity market, FCM, and regional network services, RNS, charges were credited to the battery. See table 2

 

The storage systems would mitigate the grid-disturbing DUCK curves, by absorbing unused mid-day solar electricity, when demand is low, and releasing it during late-afternoon/early-evening, when demand is high. 

 

On average, this could reduce VT peak demand from, say 900 MW to 500 MW, which would reduce ISO-NE charges for FCM and RNS to VT utilities by about $81 million/y or 1.215 billion/15y; the charges are based on yearly peak demand and monthly peak demand, respectively.

 

The FCM charge reduction could be (900 – 500) x 7.03 x 1000 x 12 = $33,744,000 for the 2019/2020 period

The RNS charge reduction could be (900 – 500) x 9.83 x 1000 x 12 = $47,184,000 for the 2019/2021 period


However, that reduction would be a fantasy, because utilities in other NE states would also install grid-scale batteries.

The NE grid peak demands would be reduced, but not the costs of the FCM and RNS programs.

 

ISO-NE would significantly increase their rates, $/kW-month, to cover program costs, i.e., the FCM, RNS reduction would be much less, and the Net cost adder would be much larger. See table 2

Table 2/Total cost from table 1

$/15y

1,304,319,592

1,325,206,717

1,346,093,842

FCM, RNS reduction

$/15y

1,215,000,000

1,215,000,000

1,215,000,000

Net cost

$/15y

89,319,592

110,206,717

131,093,842

Total out of battery

kWh/15y

3,161,812,500

3,613,500,000

4,065,187,500

Net cost adder

c/kWh

2.82

3.05

3.22

Net-metered cost

c/kWh

21.8

21.8

21.8

Total cost

c/kWh

24.62

24.85

25.02

 

See URL pages 10 and 11 for historic FCM and RNS rates imposed on utilities by ISO-NE

https://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/Annual-2...

 

Table 3/Period

2018/2019

 2019/2020

2020/2021

 2021/2022

 $/kW-month

 $/kW-month

 $/kW-month

 $/kW-month

FCM

9.95

7.03

5.3

4.63

RNS

9.17

9.83

10.42

10.83

COST SHIFTING ONTO RATEPAYERS AND TAXPAYERS 

 Per standard practice, to make the cost “disappear”, the cost likely would be: 1) spread over the 6 billion kWh/y fed to the Vermont grid, just like all other such costs over the years, and/or 2) show up as a “Fortress Vermont” surcharge on electric bills, just as the onerous Efficiency Vermont surcharge.

 

Why are the subsidized owners of solar systems not paying for these storage systems, as they are the grid disturbers?

 

Instead, based on past history, the cost likely would be indiscriminately shifted onto ratepayers and taxpayers, the vast majority of whom do not even own, or cannot even afford, solar systems

EUROPEAN GRID INTERCONNECTION MUCH LESS COSTLY THAN BATTERY STORAGE  

European countries have been dealing with exactly those wind/solar problems for at least 15 - 25 years.

Their mantra is interconnect. interconnect, interconnect, which Germany, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, France, etc., did and are still doing. Just Google.

 

That is the OPPOSITE of what FORTRESS folks are fantasizing about. No wonder my reaction was:

 

VERMONT IS GOING TO HELL IN A HAND BASKET WITH FOOLISH ENERGY SYSTEMS

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

GERMANY

 

Germany has installed a lot of solar and wind systems, plus strong connections to nearby grids, such as France, Norway, the Netherlands, etc. That way any excess or shortage of solar/wind electricity (due to the randomness of winds blowing and sun shining) is balanced by electricity flows to and from the German grid. Germany is a net exporter of electricity.

 

As a result, Germany requires very little grid-scale battery storage, which, as shown above, would be insanely expensive, even at a future $250/kWh for turnkey systems. The expensive battery-storage approach would have adversely affected the competitiveness of the German economy.

Germany does not think of itself as FORTRESS GERMANY, because that would be considered beyond rational, by the engineers who run the energy systems.

The German electricity fed to grid is about 600 TWh/y versus Vermont about 6 TWh/y.

The folly of a $900 million “down-payment for a FORTRESS VERMONT” would be about $90 billion for a FORTRESS GERMANY.

High Household Electric Rates: Because Germany has installed a high level of wind/solar capacity per capita, it also has the highest household electric rates in Europe, about 30 eurocent/kWh. The more wind/solar, the higher the household electric rates.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electr...

DENMARK

 

Denmark does exactly the same as Germany. It has strong connections to nearby grids, such as Norway, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, etc. It could never have as much installed wind capacity/capita, if it it did not have such strong connections

 

Because Denmark has installed a high level of wind capacity/capita, it also has the highest household electric rates in Europe, about 30 eurocent/kWh. The more wind/solar, the higher the household electric rates.

 

IRELAND

Ireland, a much windier country than Vermont, especially on the west coast, had an island grid until a few years ago, similar to the NE grid, that prevented the installation of more wind turbines.

 

The EU, in Brussels, provided Ireland with subsidies to install strong connections with the larger UK and French grids to counteract the ups and downs of Irish wind electricity; no storage was required in Ireland, and many more wind turbines were installed.

 

If it had not been for lower prices of imported gas, electric rates would be closer to those of Denmark and Germany!!

NEW ENGLAND

 

If New England installs more wind and solar systems, it will need stronger connections to nearby grids in the near future (with nuclear and gas plants closing?), NE would:

 

- Get the peaking, filling-in of NE wind and solar practically for free, plus

- Have electricity imports under power purchase agreements, PPAs;

- Two birds with one stone.

- Fine-tune balancing would continue to be in NE.

 

NE would be exporting its excess of expensively subsidized wind/solar electricity during high winds or strong sunshine at low prices, which would benefit Hydro-Quebec, because it would merely vary the flow through its hydro plants, as needed by demand, 24/7/365.

 

The alternative would be to expensively store that excess electricity in heavily subsidized storage systems.

VERMONT

Why are Vermont career-bureaucrats and career-legislators advocating electricity storage systems costing $1.2 BILLION, as a down payment, towards creating “FORTRESS VERMONT”?

 

There are no good engineering reasons, as shown by Germany, Denmark and Ireland

Vermont should have strong connections to nearby grids as well, just as Germany, Denmark and Ireland.

 

LAES and Battery Systems in the NEK: However, this about having liquid air energy storage, LAES, and battery storage systems in northeast Vermont, NEK, because future 600-ft tall wind turbine systems on pristine, 2000-ft-high ridge lines are “planned” for that sparsely populated area, which has a weak grid to serve its low electricity demand.

 

The NEK people are opposed to being used as a doormat, i.e., suffer the blight, the noise, and the adverse environmental impact of hundreds of noisy wind turbines on their beautiful ridge lines, likely owned by out-of-state millionaires, to produce electricity for the west side of Vermont, which has high electricity demand, i.e., Manchester, Burlington, Montpelier, Rutland, etc.

The people in those towns control the legislature. They are “pro-wind”, just not in their backyard, per hypocrite-NIMBY syndrome.

 

NOTE: It is no accident Highview Power, a UK company, eager to do more business in the US, has been talking with Vermont Electric Co-op about its LAES systems. The LAES storage systems would serve to expensively reduce the disturbances wind electricity would impose on the weak NEK grid.

 

Clean Energy Development Fund: CEDF, likely would grant 50%, or more, of any capital cost required to build battery and LAES systems to make the “numbers” look better; CEDF used to be funded by Vermont Yankee and ARRA funds.


With enough subsidies, even pigs can be made to fly!

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/liquid-air-energy-storage-laes-in-vermont

NOTE: VY produced 4.7 billion kWh/y of steady electricity, year after year, with no particulates, near-zero CO2, at about 4.5 to 5 c/kWh.

It was a major benefit for the Vermont economy.

Closing VY was sold by Shumlin as a victory.

In reality, it was Shumlin shooting Vermont in the foot to get re-elected.

The loss of VY caused a significant recession/malaise in the south of Vermont.

 

FORTRESS VERMONT

Career-legislators/career-bureaucrats have come up with a catchy slogan, Fortress Vermont, to fool Vermonters and legislators, and to make it easier to get into their wallets and bank accounts.

 

No other state is aiming to be a “Fortress” regarding renewable energy, not even Germany, Denmark or Ireland.

 

All of rah-rah is just a ploy to get money, extracted from ratepayers and taxpayers, so CEDF could distribute largesse throughout the state to favored folks, such as the politically well-connected RE companies.

 

The tax payer funds would be used for subsidizing the building of expensive energy systems that later would turn out not to reduce CO2 at a reasonable cost as promised, as with:

 

1) The urging and subsidizing ASHPs in Vermont’s energy-hog houses.

Owners have annual losses, if amortizing the cost of ASHPs is taken into account.

Little CO2 is reduced/ASHP.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-savings-of-air-sou...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

 

2) The urging and subsidizing EVs replacing gasoline vehicles.

Owners have small $gains, or even losses, if amortizing the extra cost of EVs is taken into account.

The CO2 reduction is not nearly as large as bandied about by EAN, on an A to Z lifetime basis.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-proper-basis-for-ca...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

 

3) The urging and subsidizing of expensive and inadequate weatherizing of Vermont’s energy-hog houses, which would still not allow 100% space heat from ASHPs!!

 

Remember, these are the same folks who, some years ago, colluded to set up a subsidized program to have ASHPs in energy-hog houses, which turned out to be an expensive flop for almost all homeowners, but a bonanza for Efficiency Vermont’s “approved” installers, and Japanese ASHP manufacturers.

 

Remember, these are the same folks who, some years ago, colluded to set up a plethora of heavily subsidized energy programs that had the net effect of:

 

- Lining the pockets of the politically well-connected

- Imposing a lot of extra costs on the hard-working people, trying to make ends meet, in the near-zero, real-growth, Vermont economy.

Not reducing Vermont’s CO2 from 1990 to 2018, despite investing about $5 billion in energy systems over about 28 years.

APPENDIX 1

NE Electric Grid CO2

 

ISO-NE uses fuel/energy fed to power plants, PE, to calculate CO2/kWh.

ISO-NE does not include CO2 of upstream energy

Upstream is about 10.2% of PE CO2

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/01/draft_2018_e...

 

Fed to grid becomes 299 x 1.102 = 329 g CO2/kWh, SE basis.

Fed to wall meter becomes 323 x 1.102 = 356 g CO2/kWh, SE basis.

 

For analysis purposes, 356 g/kWh should be used for electricity via any wall meter in NE.

 

Table A shows:

 

Source energy required for a quantity of electricity at wall sockets.

Values for Tesla Model 3 (0.3080 and 0.2449 kWh/mile) and Model S (0.4339 and 0.3329 kWh/mile), based on real-world conditions in California and upstate NY, for a year. Both are more efficient EVs compared to other EVs.

Value for a mix of LDVs was assumed at 0.350 kWh/mile.

 

Table A/NE grid for 2018

LDV mix

Tesla

Tesla

Grid CO2

Grid CO2

Model S

Model 3

PE

SE

kWh/mile

kWh/mile

kWh/mile

g/kWh

g/kWh

Source energy

1.2291

1.1713

0.8315

Upstream for extract, process, transport, 10.2%

0.1138

0.1084

0.0770

Primary energy = Fed to power plants

1.1153

1.0629

0.7545

Conversion loss, 55.5%

0.6078

0.5793

0.4112

Gross generation

0.5075

0.4836

0.3433

Plant self-use loss, 3.0%

0.0152

0.0145

0.0103

Net generation = Fed to grid

0.4922

0.4691

0.3330

299

329

T&D loss, 7.5%

0.0369

0.0352

0.0250

Fed to wall meters = Fed to grid x 0.925

0.4553

0.4339

0.3080

323

356

Charging loss, 15% of WM

0.0683

0.0651

0.0462

Loss due to self-use, NE road/climate

0.0370

0.0359

0.0169

In batteries for a mix of LDVs, as DC

0.3500

0.3329

0.2449

420

463

 

APPENDIX 2

Vermont Electricity Sector CO2

 

Based on Physics, per ISO-NE: Electricity, via any wall socket, would have the NE mix of electricity; CO2 of 323 g/kWh, WM basis, PE basis, in 2018. See table A

  

Electricity loaded by generators into the Vermont grid is about 6 billion kWh/y, aka “grid load“

User consumption is about 6 x (1 – 0.075) = 5.55 billion kWh/y

CO2 would be 5.55 billion kWh x 323 g/kWh x 1 lb/454 g x 1 Mt/2204.62 lb = 1,791,043 Mt/y, WM basis, PE basis, in 2018

 

Based on PPAs, per VT-DPS: CO2 of the “Vermont electricity mix”, based on PPAs, yields an artificial/political value of 190,000 Mt/y in 2018, or 190000/1791043 x 323 34 g/kWh, WM basis, PE basis, in 2018 

   

See URL for GHG estimates for 2017 and 2018

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

 

APPENDIX 3

GMP and VT-DPS Reduce CO2

No CO2 is reduced by GMP signing paper PPAs with electricity generators, in-state or out-of-state.

It is unscientific for VT-DPS to calculate CO2 of the electricity sector, and CO2/kWh, based on paper PPAs, and for EAN to base CO2 reduction of ASHPs and EVs on VT-DPS numbers.

https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi...

   

VT-DPS calculates CO2 of the electricity sector at 32 g/kWh for 2018, based on PPAs

ISO-NE calculates CO2 at 299 g/kWh for 2018, based on CO2 of fuel combustion. See URL page 18

 

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

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2019/04/2017_emissio...

 

Table B/Grid CO2/Year

1990

2000

 2015

2016

2017, est.

2018, est.

VT-DPS, PE basis

 

 

 

 

 

 

Electricity fed to VT grid, GWh

6,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

Vermont electrical sector CO2, million Mt

1.09

0.43

1

0.81

0.49

0.19

Total CO2, all sectors

8.65

9.70

 10.19

9.76

9.41

9.02

CO2, g CO2/kWh, Fed to grid basis

72

167

135

82

32

CO2, g CO2/kWh, WM basis

78

180

146

88

34

ISO-NE, PE basis

NE generation fed to grid, GWh

110,199

107,916

105,570

102,562

103,740

NE grid CO2, lb//MWh, Fed to grid basis

726

747

710

682

658

NE grid CO2, g/kWh, Fed to grid basis

330

339

322

310

299

NE grid CO2, g/kWh, WM basis

357

366

348

335

323

 

APPENDIX 4   

Vermont Electricity Prices

Table C last column, shows the c/kWh for electricity from wind. solar, hydro, etc., paid to owners of Standard Offer and Net-metered systems; those prices would be much higher without cost shifting and subsidies, paid by ratepayers and taxpayers. See URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

Table C/VT In-state generation, fed to grid basis

2000

2000 – 2018

2018

2018

Existing

New added

Total

SO/NM

Energy Source

MWh

MWh

 MWh

c/kWh

Hydro, VT-DPS Utility Facts 2013

491,878

21,305

513,183

13.0

Solar, behind and before the meter; per ISO-NE

502,949

502,949

21.8

Ryegate, wood, per US-EIA

166,902

166,902

10.0

McNeil, wood, per US-EIA

244,755

244,755

10.0

Middlebury College, wood, per US-EIA

2,298

2,298

?

Farm methane; Standard Offer

22,674

22,674

14.5 to 20.0

Landfill methane

52,931

52,931

9.0

Wind

161,198

161,198

11.6 to 25.8

Total

903,535

763,355

1,666,890

VT total fed to grid, MWh

6,000,000

6,000,000

6,000,000

VT in-state, %

15.1

12.7

27.8

Vermont Yankee, nuclear, closed in 2015

4,733,640

4,733,640

Out-of-state purchases, incl. HQ

4,333,110

HQ, per Power Purchase Agreement

1,300,000

5.549

ISO-NE annual average price since 2009

5.000

 

APPENDIX 5

GMP Cost of Electricity in 2016 

Table D shows the prices GMP pays for electricity. 

Standard Offer and Net-metering prices are off-the-charts expensive.

EAN members want more SO and Net-metered,

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

 

In 2016, the PUC began competitive bidding of SO solar systems.

Some recent SO solar bids were as low as 11 c/kWh.

More SO systems would slowly reduce SO solar below 21.793 c/kWh in future years. See Appendix.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

Table D/GMP costs

1

2

3

4

5

GMP purchases, 2016

MWh

% of purchases

Cost, $

c/kWh

% of Cost

HQUS (Hydro-Quebec)

919312

22.13

51013678

5.549

20.34

Standard Offer

78920

1.90

17199202

21.793

6.86

Net-metered

71970

1.73

15699137

21.813

6.26

Ryegate (wood)

126707

3.05

12710175

10.031

5.07

ISO wholesale

575553

13.85

18645214

3.240

7.43

Misc. sources

1772462

42.66

115267406

6.503

45.96

Other sources

2382075

57.34

135516232

5.689

54.04

Total GMP purchases

4154537

100.00

250783638

6.036

100.00

ISO midday wholesale

6.000

 

APPENDIX 6

Gas Guzzler Fees to Reduce CO2

Vermont should have an energy efficiency standard for light duty vehicles.

Annual fees would be paid at time of annual registration.

Inefficient vehicles would rapidly disappear.

CO2 would be rapidly reduced.

The collected funds could be used for filling potholes.

The wasteful Comprehensive Transportation Initiative, TCI, would not be needed.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-and-m...

 

Table E/EPA combined, mpg

 Fee, $/y

40

 0

39

 10

38

 20

37

30

36

40

35

50

34

 60

Etc.

 

APPENDIX 7

GMP Purchased Electricity Mix

 

GMP electricity mix based on PPAs, i.e., paper contracts

GMP increased purchases of large hydro and nuclear, which have very low CO2/kWh.

GMP decreased purchases on the wholesale market, which had 299 g CO2/kWh in 2018, fed to grid basis, PE basis.

 

GMP’s paper PPAs for hydro and nuclear did not physically reduce any CO2 anywhere.

GMP is required to have such PPAs to satisfy state-RES mandates.

GMP did not need to spend any money to make any changes in its operations to reduce CO2

  

Table F/GMP Electricity Mix

2017

2018

2019

%

%

%

Large hydro

23.7

49.4

Existing VT hydro

6.3

6.3

Total hydro

30.0

55.7

60.6

Wholesale market purchases

30.4

28.2

9.8

Nuclear

14.7

14.7

27.9

Oil and natural gas

0.5

0.4

Methane

0.7

Hydro

5.5

Solar

5.2

0.9

1.7

Wind

8.0

Wood

5.0

Total RE

24.4

0.9

1.7

 

APPENDIX 8

More Wind, Solar and Storage Harmful for Vermont 

 

GMP would need to replace the nuclear electricity, as it cannot rely on Seabrook Nuclear to be generating far into the future.

 

If the replacement were in-state RE (primarily wind, solar and storage), there would be major adverse environmental impacts on pristine ridge lines and open spaces in Vermont, plus the cost would be prohibitively expensive, which would adversely affect the Vermont economy. See URLs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-more-wind-and-solar...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-subsidies-for...

 

APPENDIX 9

Electricity Moves as Electro-Magnetic Waves at Nearly the Speed of Light

 

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.

 

If a utility claims it is 100% renewable, it has PPAs with owners of renewable generators, i.e. wind, solar, biomass, hydro, etc. That mix has nothing to do with physical reality.

 

If a utility did not have PPAs and drew electricity from the grid, it would be stealing, just as a person would be by bypassing the utility electric meter.

 

Entities, such as VT-DPS, should not use PPAs to calculate the CO2 of the VT electricity sector and CO2/kWh

 

Electricity Mix Based on Physics

Once electricity is fed into the NE electric grid by any generator, it travels:

 

- On un-insulated wires, as electromagnetic waves 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

- 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/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

 

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

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

 

Entities, such as VT-DPS, should use the ISO-NE estimated CO2/kWh, at wall meters, to calculate CO2 of the VT electricity sector and CO2/kWh

 

Living Off the Grid

 

- If you live off the grid, have your own PV system, batteries, and generator for shortages and emergencies, then you use your own electricity mix.

- If you draw electricity from a wall socket, you draw the NE mix

 

APPENDIX 10

Highly Sealed, Highly Insulated House

In 2008, Transformations Inc., Townsend, MA, was chosen among six builders to participate in the state’s investor-owned utilities Zero Energy Challenge, a competition to encourage builders to plan and develop a home with a HERS Index below 35 before December 2009.

 

Carter Scott, President of Transformations, Inc. brought together a team of design and energy experts to not only meet the challenge, but to figure out how to get all the way to zero, while still building an affordable, new house. The team designed a three-bedroom 1,232-sq ft house, called the “Needham," which has a “- 4” HERS rating, i.e., the home is producing more energy than it is using. Sales price: $195,200 in 2009

https://www.buildingscience.com/sites/default/files/2011-03-08%20NE...

 

Major Design Features:

 

Roof (R75): 5 inches of high-density polyurethane foam, HDF, and 13 inches of high-density cellulose all along the slope of the second-floor roof rafters; 2 x 12s and a 2 x 4s held off by 3 inches for a thermal break separation 
Walls (R49): 2 x 4 outside wall; added a second 2 x 4 wall for a total depth of 12 inches; filled 3 inches with HDF and 9 inches with cellulose 
Basement Ceiling: 3 inches of HDF and a layer of R-30 fiberglass batts 
Windows: Paradigm triple-pane model with Low-E and krypton gas 
Heating/Cooling: Two Mitsubishi Mr. Slim mini-split, ductless, ASHPs

Ventilation: Lifebreath 155 ECM Energy Recovery Ventilator 

Leakage: About 175 cfm at 50 pascal, per blower door test (or 284 cfm for a 2000 sq ft house. See table 8)
Solar: Evergreen Solar’s 30 Spruce Line 190-watt PV panels to create a 6.4-kW system;

Hot Water: SunDrum Solar’s DHW heating system

Heat Loss: About 10,500 Btu/h, at 70F indoor, 6F outdoor (or 2000/1232 x 75 delta T/64 delta T x 10500 = 19,975 Btu/h for a 2000 sq ft house, at 65F indoor and -10F outdoor, in Vermont)


APPENDIX 11

CO2 of Gasoline and E10

E10 fuel (90% gasoline/10% ethanol) has a source energy, which is reduced due to exploration, extraction, processing and transport, to become the primary energy fed to E10 vehicles. See URL.

http://www.patagoniaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/How-muc...

 

Burning E10 (90% gasoline/10% Ethanol) = 0.9 x 19.569 + 0.1 x 12.720 = 18.884 lb/gal

Upstream = 0.9 x 4.892 + 0.1 x 13.556 = 5.759 lb/gal

 

Total = 24.643 lb/gal, if CO2 of ethanol fraction in gasoline (aka, gasohol, or E10) is counted.

Total = 24.643 - 1.272 = 23.371 lb/gal, if not counted.

 

Table G/Fuel CO2

 Combustion

 Upstream

Total

 lb CO2/gal

lb CO2/gal

lb CO2/gal

Burning pure gasoline

19.569

Upstream = 25% of combustion, per EPA

4.892

Total

 

24.461

Burning pure ethanol

12.720

Cropping, processing, blending

13.556

Total

26.276

Burning E10 (90/10)

18.884

Upstream

5.759

Total, if ethanol CO2 is counted

24.643

Total, if ethanol CO2 is not counted

17.612

5.759

23.371

.

Burning pure diesel

22.456

Upstream = 27% of combustion, per EPA

6.063

Total

28.519

Burning pure biodiesel, B100, soy oil

20.130

Upstream = 43% of combustion

8.656

Total, if biodiesel CO2 is counted

28.786

Total, if biodiesel CO2 is not counted

8.656

Burning B20 (80/20)

21.991

Upstream

6.582

Total, if biodiesel CO2 is counted

28.572

Total, if biodiesel CO2 is not counted

17.965

6.582

24.546

 

APPENDIX 12

The Prius Prime, plug-in hybrid, 8.8 kWh battery, partial AWD, travels about 25 miles on the battery, after which it functions as any other Prius.

Summer weather increases the 25-mile range and winter weather reduces it.

Total range about 640 miles.

Owners, with short commutes, need not buy any gasoline for months.

They only need to plug-in every day.

 

Per EPA, (33.7 kWh/gal-eq)/(133 mpg-eq) = 0.259 kWh/mile, WM basis; includes charging losses

Adjusted to 0.259 x 1.055, loss factor = 0.267 mile/kWh, WM basis; includes 1) charging loss, 2) self-use losses due to heating, cooling, electronics, etc., and 3) losses due to NE road/climate conditions, 4) losses due to idle time, such as parked at an airport. (Items 2, 3 and 4 are not measured by EPA)

 

On average, electricity use would be 25 x 0.267 = 6.675 kWh to travel 25 miles each day, WM basis.

 

Battery rated capacity is 8.8 kWh, DC, i.e., about 65% is utilized, because the battery control system renders the top and bottom 15% as off limits to extend battery life. The middle portion has the most efficient charging and discharging.

 

https://web.mit.edu/evt/summary_battery_specifications.pdf

https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/bu_1003a_battery_aging_...

 

Daily Commuting Cost

 

Commuting cost for 25 miles with a Prime would be 6.675 x $0.19/kWh = $1.27/day.

Commuting cost for 25 miles with a 30-mpg gasoline vehicle would be 25/30 x $2.50/gal = $2.08/day

 

Lifetime CO2

 

Lifetime CO2 of Prime would be about 26.49 Mt/105600 miles

Lifetime CO2 of 30-mpg vehicle would be about 43.02 Mt/105600 miles

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_Plug-in_Hybrid

https://calevip.org/electric-vehicle-charging-101

 

Table H/2020 Prius

Standard

Eco L

Prime, AWD

Plug-in

no

no

yes

Battery packs

2

2

5

Pack arrangement

parallel

parallel

series

Cells/pack

28

28

19

Cells

56

56

95

Cell energy, Ah

3.6

3.6

25

Battery energy, Ah = cells x 3.6

201.6

201.6

2375

Cell voltage, V

3.7

3.7

3.7

Battery voltage, V = 28 x 3.7

103.6

103.6

Battery voltage, V = 95 x 3.7

351.5

Battery capacity, kWh = V x Ah/1000

0.746

0.746

8.788

City

54

58

52

Highway

50

53

48

Combined

52

56

50

 

APPENDIX 13

WIND, SOLAR AND HYDRO

 

If massive build-outs of heavily subsidized wind and solar were to occur (at great expense and environmental damage), which would have upstream CO2 emissions, electric grids would gradually become “cleaner”, i.e., have less CO2/kWh.

 

That approach would take decades, plus the variable, intermittent, grid disturbing, electricity from:

 

1) Large-scale, ridge-line wind (competitively bid) would be charged to the rate base at about 9 c/kWh, if grid support costs and subsidy costs were shifted to ratepayers, taxpayers and debt; about 18.8 c/kWh, if no cost shifting,

 

2) New large-scale solar (competitively bid) would be charged to the rate base at about 11.8 c/kWh, if grid support costs and subsidy costs were shifted to ratepayers, taxpayers and debt; about 23.5 c/kWh, if no cost shifting,

 

3) Residential net-metered solar would be charged to the rate base at about 21.813 c/kWh, if grid support costs and subsidy costs were shifted to ratepayers, taxpayers and debt; about 25.5 c/kWh, if no cost shifting.

 

All those prices are much higher in NE than most elsewhere in the US, because of poor wind/solar conditions in NE. See table 5A, which uses data from:

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fortress-vermont-a-mult...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

Table I/Vermont & NE sources

Total

Grid support

Subsidies

Paid to

GMP

 Added to

cost

cost

to owner

owner

adder

rate base

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

Solar, residential rooftop, net-metered

25.5

2.1

5.4

18.0

3.8

21.8

Solar, com’l/ind’l, legacy, standard offer

34.4

2.1

10.5

21.8

?

21.8

Solar, com’l/ind’l, new, standard offer*

23.5

2.1

9.6

11.8

?

11.8

Wind, ridge line, new*

18.8

2.4

7.4

9.0

?

9.0

.

Gas, combined cycle, existing

5.0

Gas, combined cycle, new

6.0

Gas, open cycle, peaking, existing

15.0

Nuclear, existing

5.0

Nuclear, new

10.0

Coal, existing

5.0

Coal, new

10.0

Hydro, existing

5.0

Hydro, net metered, new

10.0

Wood burning, net-metered, existing

10.0

 

* Competitive bidding lowered prices paid to owners.

 

The NE wholesale price has averaged at less than 5 c/kWh, starting in 2009

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

Importing more low-cost hydro (about 5.549 c/kWh, per GMP) from Quebec to replace “dangerous nuclear” and “dirty fossil” would be a very quick, smart and economic way to reduce CO2.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/gmp-refusing-to-buy-add...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views: 305

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 Stephen Littlefield on April 26, 2020 at 5:49pm

Willem,

While that is true of large systems which can't be built in Maine, due to that progressive law. Bangor Hydro tested one that sat on the bottom and didn't require a dam, what few reports I've read it produced power enough for27 homes steady. It has specific location requirements but with all the rivers there are a number of location with steady flow. It would be a true advancement over inconsistent wind and solar with less destruction to our state's wilderness and mountains.

Comment by Willem Post on April 26, 2020 at 3:50pm

Stephen,

Regarding hydro, reservoirs are required to ensure adequate electricity to meet demand 24/7/365, year after year, as Norway and Hydro-Quebec have been showing us for decades. No mystery there.

The great thing about hydro, it can vary it’s output exactly to meet demand, at any time throughout the year, and do that at practically no extra cost. 

Hydro plants merely vary the water flow through their turbines.

Another great thing about hydro, their cost per kWh is far lower than wind and solar, and those could not function on any grid without the other generators, and/ or very expensive grid-scale storage

Comment by richard mcdonald on April 26, 2020 at 3:42pm

Although I dislike Michael Moore intensely, I invested an hour and viewed "The Planet of the Humans" directed and produced by Bill Gibbs. In all honesty, I was stunned. The documentary exposes in detail the lies and deceit we've all known existed for years - renewable energy is a hoax, a finanacial scheme and harmful to our environment. They shame the RE movement as a capitalist money grab. Gibbs goes after all the suspects - wind, solar, biomass, biofuels, energy storage -- highlighting and debunking the outrageuos claims made by McKibben (a total asshole), Gore, Bloomberg, Branson, R.Kennedy, Jr. Gibbs peels away the slimy veneer for all to see - the ethanol/sugar cane disaster in the Amazon, the enormous pollution produced by biomass and the blatant fallacy of powering the world with wind and solar. It's a classic -- the emperor has no clothes scenario. 

It has been severely panned by the enviro nazis (full of flase allegations) and its release has been cancelled - I have distributed it far and wde.

Janet Mills, her minions and cohorts would be well-served to invest an hour in getting a dose of the truth. 

Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

 

Comment by Stephen Littlefield on April 26, 2020 at 1:45pm

As we all seem to agree that the present direction of the state is a money pit that will break the backs of small businesses, the politicians, progressives both left and right are proving that they have blinders on to anything else! With the advancements in Hydro that make dams not required Maine over the next few years would be able to outpace wind and solar and do it for billions less. The newest generation of nuclear is also relatively safe and clean, Natural gas is an excellent transition fuel, but the other two are truelly clean and renewable. And the Hydro limitation bill needs to be repealed (thank you Troy Jackson) where dams are no longer a requirement with these new generators. How wonderful it would be to be able to have a rational factual discussion with lawmakers that WORK FOR US! Instead of these lawmakers cramming this half assed  reen fake energy lies down our throats while they pick our pockets!

Comment by Willem Post on April 24, 2020 at 10:36pm

Penny,

It is truly amazing to manage with so little electricity.

My hat is off for you!

You are proving the Disgusta folks to be hypocrites 

Comment by richard mcdonald on April 24, 2020 at 9:40pm

Ideology is predicated on lies. therefore Gov, Mills believes she is honorable in her renewable policies. 

Comment by Kenneth Capron on April 24, 2020 at 7:01pm

What interests me is the prediction by scientists that we may be approaching a solar minimum of significant size? This would result in cooling globally. And people would begin to question the billions of dollars they have paid for wind/solar. 

Wouldn't a modern nuclear power plant solve all the concerns assuming we recycled the fuel like they do in France? Just the hot air accumulation from all the phony climate debates have raised the temp a  degree or two.

Comment by Penny Gray on April 24, 2020 at 6:54pm

So, for 100% renewables, it should be 100% hydro.  Batteries aren't economically feasible. They're a pipe dream. Hydro has a massive built in battery called a resevoir.  With what's going on with the economy right now, hydro, natural gas and nuclear is all we can possibly afford.  We can't afford those feel-good boutique add-ons that demand such staggering tax payer subsidies.  Thank you, Willem Post, for the incredible work you do, laying it all out in black and white.  I've lived off grid for 37 years on a tiny 480 watt solar voltaic system with ten six volt batteries.  Few would want to live like I do, tho I'm perfectly content doing so. Reality demands real solutions that don't destroy the quality of place and the quality of life we hold so dear.

Comment by Willem Post on April 24, 2020 at 5:47pm

Richard,

If Mills were to stop reading and mouthing the trash she is being fed by RE idiots masquerading as energy experts, and Would read this article instead, she would be SO MUCH SMARTER.

That does not mean she would change her official tune, but she would know, in detail, that she was lying through her teeth.

Comment by richard mcdonald on April 24, 2020 at 5:04pm

I'm concerned Gov Mills is entertaining something similar - she's mentioned battery storage and hydrogen storage a few times in her renewable messages. This would be devastating to Maine's economy. Thank you again for your fine analysis Willem

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!

© 2020   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service