HEAT PUMPS ARE MONEY LOSERS IN MY VERMONT HOUSE, AS THEY ARE IN ALMOST ALL NEW ENGLAND HOUSES

Vermont “Electrify-Everything” Goals Will Cost $Billions and Will Reduce Little CO2

 

The Vermont state government wants to electrify-everything (heat pumps, electric cars, and transit and school buses, no matter the:

 

1) Very high turnkey capital cost,

2) Very meager energy cost savings

3) Very meager CO2 reductions, on an A-to-Z, lifetime basis.

 

VT-DPS CADMUS Survey of Vermont Heat Pumps

 

VT-DPS commissioned CADMUS to perform a survey of Vermont air source heat pumps (HPs), after numerous complaints from HP users regarding: 1) high electric bills and 2) minimal annual savings after installing HPs

 

The report and VT-DPS found the average energy cost savings regarding HPs was about $200/HP, as proven by the CADMUS survey report of operating data of 77 HPs at 65 sites. See URL

https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2017%20...

 

Those meager energy savings would be more than offset by the annual amortizing cost of $4,500/HP at 6%/y for 15 years, plus any annual maintenance costs, and parts and labor costs. HPs are significant money losers for Vermonters. See URLs

 

The main result of Vermont’s HP saga has been:

 

1) Lucrative benefits to the Efficiency-Vermont-approved HP installers

2) Lucrative benefits to Canadian-owned GMP, which sells a lot more high-priced electricity, using the same poles and wires.

3) Everyone else getting royally screwed; an example of “fighting” climate change; Don-Quixote tilting at wind mills.

 

Weatherizing Vermont’s Energy-Hog Houses

 

Please stop using the word “weatherizing”, which usually costs about $10,000/house.

 

Such a measure is not anywhere near sufficient for HPs to displace 100% of fossil fuel Btus with electricity Btus; it is a mere band-aid;

akin to whistling past the graveyard.

For 100% displacement, 2 to 3 HPs, with multiple heads, are required, PLUS a wood/propane/fuel oil stove on colder days.

 

A house would have to be highly sealed, highly insulated, R40 walls, R60 ceiling, R20 basement, R7 windows, R10 doors, with exhaust heat recovery system, etc., to have HPs economically displace 100% of fossil fuel Btus with electricity Btus.

Such houses do exist in Vermont, but are less than 2 to 3% of the entire housing stock.

 

Vermont has a government-subsidized weatherizing program, that aims to decrease the energy consumption for heating, cooling and electricity of average Vermont houses. The average weatherizing cost is about $10,000/house.

 

However, owners who have weatherized should not think their house has become suitable for HPs to displace 100% of fossil fuel Btus with electricity Btus. Nothing could further from the truth!

 

I have a well-sealed, well-insulated house, oriented/designed for passive solar gain, i.e., it is already weatherized, but my 3 HPs, with 6 heads, economically displace only 35% of my fossil fuel Btus with electricity Btus, based on 3 years of measured operating data.

 

One HP with one head, in an average Vermont house, displaces only 27.6% of the fossil fuel Btus with electricity Btus, as confirmed by the CADMUS survey report.

 

All of the above is well known by energy engineers at VT-DPS, and EAN, and VEIC, and Efficiency-Vermont, etc.

Those engineers likely know of some very energy-efficient Vermont houses, with HPs that displace 100% of fossil fuel Btus with electricity Btus, year-after-year.

 

HPs are Uneconomical at Low Temperatures

 

HPs are very uneconomical at low temperatures, which is exactly the condition when your house requires the most space heat. With HP system losses, aka overhead of about 10%, it would be almost like heating your house with electric heat; a very expensive hardship on cold days.

 

If a house had a space heat requirement of 11,500 Btu/h at 47F, the propane cost would be about 40 c/h, but the HP electricity cost would be about 16 c/h, for a saving of about 24 c/h

 

If a house had a space heat requirement of 35,000 Btu/h at 0F, the propane cost would be about 121 c/h, but the HP electricity cost would be about 141 c/h, for a loss of about 20 c/h

 

My Experience with HPs in my Well-Insulated, Well-Sealed House

 

I installed three heat pumps by Mitsubishi, rated 24,000 Btu/h at 47F, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads, each with remote control; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.

The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation.

The HPs last about 15 years.

Turnkey capital cost was $24,000, less $2,400 subsidy from GMP

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

 

My Well-Sealed, Well-Insulated House

 

The HPs are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, 3,600 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house.

The basement, 1,200 sq ft, has a near-steady temperature throughout the year, because it has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab, which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over the 35 years.

 

I do not operate my HPs below 10F to 15F (depending on sun and wind conditions), because all HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing outdoor temperatures.

The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of my efficient propane furnace. See table 3

 

High Electricity Prices

 

Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would:

 

1) Increase already-high electric rates and

2) Worsen the already-poor economics of HPs (and of EVs)!!

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

 

My Energy Cost Reduction is Minimal

 

- HP electricity consumption was from my electric bills, and an HP system electric meter.

- Vermont electricity prices, including taxes, fees and surcharges, are assumed at 20 c/kWh.

- My HPs provide space heat to 2,300 sq ft, about the same area as an average Vermont house

- Two small propane heaters (electricity not required) provide space heat to my 1,300 sq ft basement

- I operate my HPs at temperatures of 10 to 15F and greater (depending on wind and sun conditions)

- I operate my traditional propane system at temperatures of 10f to 15F and less

 

- My average HP coefficient of performance, COP, was 2.64

- My HPs required 2,489 kWh to replace 35% of my fossil Btus.

- My HPs would require 8,997 kWh, to replace 100% of my fossil Btus.

 

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-019-0199-y

https://acrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/HeatPumps-ACRPC-5_20.pdf

 

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

 

After HPs: I used 100 gal for DHW + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 550 gal for Viessmann furnace + 2,489 kWh of electricity.

 

My propane cost reduction for space heating was 850 - 550 = 300 gallon/y, at a cost of $2.339/gal (buyers plan) = $702/y

My displaced fossil Btus was 100 x (1 - 550/850) = 35%, which is better than the Vermont average of 27.6%

My purchased electricity cost increase was 2,489 kWh x 20 c/kWh = $498/y

 

My energy cost savings due to the HPs were 702 - 498 = $204/y, on an investment of $24,000!!

 

Amortizing Heat Pumps

 

Amortizing the 24000 – 2400 = $21,600 turnkey capital cost at 6%/y for 15 years costs about $2,187/y.

This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

Other Annual Costs

 

There likely would be annual cleaning of HPs at $200/HP, and parts and labor, as the years go by.

This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.

 

My Energy Savings of Propane versus HPs

 

Site Energy Basis: RE folks claim there would be a major energy reduction, due to using HPs. They compare the thermal Btus of 300 gallon of propane x 84,250 Btu/gal = 25,275,000 Btu vs the electrical Btus of 2,489 kWh of electricity x 3,412 Btu/kWh = 8,492,469 Btu. However, that comparison would equate thermal Btus with electrical Btus, which all ethical engineers know is an absolute no-no.

 

A-to-Z Energy Basis: A proper comparison would be thermal Btus of propane vs thermal Btus fed to power plants, i.e., 25,275,000 Btu vs 23,312,490 Btu, i.e., a minor energy reduction. See table 1A

 

BTW, almost all RE folks who claim a major energy reduction from HPs, do not know how to compose this table, and yet they mandate others what to do to save the world from Climate Change.

 

Table 1A, Energy Savings

Heat in propane, Btu/y, HHV

25275000

Fuel to power plant, Btu/y

23312490

Fuel to power plant, kWh/y

6833

Conversion efficiency

0.4

Fed to grid, kWh

2733

Transmission loss adjustment, 2.4%

2667

Distribution loss adjustment, 6.7%

2489

Heat in propane, Btu/gal, HHV

84250

Purchased propane, gal/y

300

Purchased electricity, kWh/y

2489

Heat in propane Btu/gal, LHV

84250

Standby, kWh

91

Defrost, kWh

154

To compressor, kWh

2244

COP

2.64

Heat for space heat, kWh

5926

Btu/kWh

3412

Furnace efficiency

0.8

Btu/y for space heat

20220000

20220000

.

Comparison of CO2 Reduction in my House versus EAN Estimate

 

My CO2 emissions for space heating, before HPs, were 850 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, from combustion = 4.897 Mt/y

 

My CO2 emissions for space heating, after HPs, were calculated in two ways:

 

1) Market based, based on commercial contracts, aka power purchase agreements, PPAs

2) Location based, based on fuels combusted by power plants connected to the NE grid

See Appendix for details.

 

Market Based

 

Per state mandates, utilities have PPAs with Owners of low-CO2 power sources, such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, and biomass, in-state and out-of-state.

Utilities crow about being “low-CO2”, or “zero-CO2” by signing PPA papers, i.e., without spending a dime.

Energy Action Network, a pro-RE-umbrella organization, uses 33.9 g CO2/kWh (calculated by VT-DPS), based on utilities having PPAs with low-CO2 power sources.

Using that low CO2 value makes HPs look extra good compared with fossil fuels.

 

My CO2 of propane was 550 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, combustion only = 3.168 Mt/y

My CO2 of electricity was 2,489 kWh x 33.9 g/kWh = 0.084 Mt/y

Total CO2 = 3.168 + 0.084 = 3.253 Mt/y

CO2 reduction is 4.897 - 3.253 = 1.644 Mt/y, based on the 2018 VT-DPS “paper-based” value of 33.9 g CO2/kWh

 

Location Based

 

Utilities physically draw almost all of their electricity supply from the high-voltage grid

If utilities did not have PPAs, and would draw electricity from the high-voltage grid, they would be stealing.

ISO-NE administers a settlement system, to ensure utilities pay owners per PPA contract.

 

Electricity travels as electric-magnetic waves, at near the speed of light, i.e., from northern Maine to southern Florida, about 1,800 miles in 0.01 second.

There is no physical basis for lay RE folks to talk about there being a “VT CO2” or a “NH CO2”, etc.

 

All electricity on the NE grid has one value for g CO2/kWh.

ISO-NE, the NE grid operator, calculated that value at 317 g CO2/kWh, at wall outlet, for 2018

 

My CO2 of propane was 550 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, combustion only = 3.168 Mt/y

My CO2 of electricity was 2,489 kWh x 317 g/kWh = 0.789 Mt/y

Total CO2 = 3.168 + 0.789 = 3.937 Mt/y

CO2 reduction is 4.897 - 3.937 = 0.939 Mt/y, based on the 2018 “real world” value of 317 g CO2/kWh, as calculated by ISO-NE

 

Cost of CO2 Reduction is ($2059/y, amortizing - $204/y, energy cost savings + $200/y, service, parts, labor) / (0.939 Mt/y, CO2 reduction) = $2,188/Mt, which is outrageously expensive. 

   

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

 

EAN Excessive CO2 Reduction Claim to Hype HPs

 

EAN claims 90,000 HPs, by 2025, would reduce 0.37 million metric ton of CO2, in 2025, or 0.37 million/90,000 = 4.111 Mt/y.

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

 

EAN achieves such a high value, because EAN assumes 100% displacement of fuel (gas, propane, fuel oil), which is completely unrealistic, because the actual fuel displacement in Vermont houses with HPs was only 27.6%, based on a VT-DPS-sponsored survey of HPs in Vermont, and 35% in my well-insulated/well-sealed VT house, as above stated.

 

The EAN 100% claim would be true, only for highly sealed and highly insulated houses, which represent about 2% of all Vermont houses.

In addition, the average Vermont house would need 2 to 3 HPs, with 4 to 6 heads, at a turnkey cost of at least $20,000, to achieve 100% displacement. See URL

 

Table 1/CO2 Reduction

With HP

With HP

Fuel displaced 35%

Electricity

Electricity

Market based

Location based

Electricity CO2, g/kWh

33.9

317

CO2 of 2489 kWh, Mt/y

0.084

0.789

CO2 of 550 gal of propane, Mt/y

3.168

3.168

Total CO2 with HPs, Mt/y

3.253

3.957

CO2 of 850 gal of propane, Mt/y

4.897

4.897

CO2 reduction by my HPs, Mt/y

1.644

0.939

.

Fuel displaced 100%

CO2 reduction by EAN, Mt/y

4.111

 

Coddling RE Businesses

 

Heavily subsidized businesses selling/installing/servicing HPs, etc., will be collecting hundreds of $millions each year over the decades, while already-struggling, over-regulated, over-taxed Vermonters will be further screwed out of a decent standard of living.

 

HP boosters Sens. Bray, McDonald, etc., know about those dreadful HP results in Vermont, and yet they continue shilling for HPs.

 

All these expensive Vermont GWSA efforts will be having ZERO IMPACT ON GLOBAL WARMING.

 

Burning Wood or Wood Pellets

 

If you have a wood stove or pellet stove, by all means use it, because it is the lowest-cost way to space heat houses, including Vermont energy-hog houses.

 

Be aware, the exhaust of woodstoves has mostly submicron particles (less than one millionth of a meter), that are most harmful to health, especially to: 1) people with heart and lung diseases, and 2) infants and children

 

A wood-burning open fireplace has negative efficiency, i.e., is sucks more heat out of a space, than it adds heat to a space. Do not use it at temperatures less than 35F.

 

These URLs are provided for information:

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-l...

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

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

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/the-proper-basis-for-ca...

 

High Electricity Prices

 

Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would:

 

1) Increase already-high electric rates and

2) Worsen the already-poor economics of HPs (and of electric cars and buses)

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

 

PART 1

 

Any experienced energy systems engineer can readily calculate the hourly cost of operating HPs and propane furnaces.

The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of an efficient propane furnace, because HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing temperatures. See table 3

Energy Cost Reduction Due to HPs is Minimal

 

- HP electricity consumption was from my electric bills

- Vermont electricity prices, including taxes, fees and surcharges, are about 20 c/kWh.

- My HPs provide space heat to 2,300 sq ft, about the same area as an average Vermont house

- Two small propane heaters provide space heat to my 1,300 sq ft basement

- I operate my HPs at temperatures of 15F, or greater; less $/h than propane

- I operate my wall-hung propane heater at temperatures of 15F, or less; less $/h than HP

 

- My average HP coefficient of performance, COP, was 2.64; if I operated my HPs at less than 10F, the average COP would become 2.0 or less

- My HPs required 2,489 kWh to displace 35% of my fuel.

- My HPs would require 8,997 kWh, to replace 100% of my fuel.

 

- The average Vermont house COP is about 3.34, because the HPs typically operate at about 28F to 35F and above

- The average Vermont house requires 2,085 kWh to displace 27.6% of its fuel, per VT-DPS/CADMUS survey. See URL

 

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-019-0199-y

https://acrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/HeatPumps-ACRPC-5_20.pdf

 

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

 

After HPs: I used 100 gal for DHW + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 550 gal for Viessmann furnace + 2,489 kWh of electricity.

 

My propane cost reduction for space heating was 850 - 550 = 300 gallon/y, at a cost of 2.339/gal = $702/y

My displaced fuel was 100 x (1 - 550/850) = 35%, which is better than the Vermont average of 27.6%

My purchased electricity cost increase was 2,489 kWh x 20 c/kWh = $498/y

 

My energy cost savings due to the HPs were 702 - 498 = $204/y, on an investment of $24,000!!

 

Amortizing Heat Pumps

 

Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y.

This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

Other Annual Costs

 

There likely would be service calls and parts for the HP system, as the years go by.

This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.

Table 1

Vermont HPs

My HPs

My HPs, if 100%

Before HPs

Per CADMUS survey

Propane

Fuel Displacement, %

27.6

35%

100%

100%

Operation

Down to 28F

Down to 15F

Down to -10F

Purchased electricity, kWh

2085

2489

8997

Standby, kWh

76

91

329

Defrost, kWh

129

154

557

Electricity to HPs, kWh

1880

2244

8111

COP, excl HP self-use

3.34

2.64

2.07

Space heat, kWh

6272

5926

16791

Btu/kWh

3412

3412

3412

Space heat, Btu/site

21400000

20220010

57290000

57290000

Efficiency

0.8

Btu/gal, LHV

 

 

 

84250

Unit cost

0.20

0.20

0.20

2.3390

Electricity cost, $

417

498

1799

Propane, gal

550

0

850

Propane cost, $

1286

0

Total energy cost, $

1784

1799

1988

Energy savings, $

204

189

 

Energy Savings of Propane versus HPs

 

Site Energy Basis: RE folks claim there would be a major energy reduction, due to using HPs. They compare the thermal Btus of 300 gallon of propane x 84,250 Btu/gal = 25,275,000 Btu vs the electrical Btus of 2,489 kWh of electricity x 3,412 Btu/kWh = 8,492,469 Btu.

 

However, that comparison would equate thermal Btus with electrical Btus, which all engineers know is an absolute no-no.

 

A-to-Z Energy Basis: A proper comparison would be thermal Btus of propane vs thermal Btus fed to power plants, i.e., 25,275,000 Btu vs 23,312,490 Btu, i.e., a minor energy reduction. See table 1A

NOTE:

Almost all RE folks involved with the GWSA claim energy reductions from HPs.

They likely do not know how to compose table 1A

However, they mandate Vermonters what to do, to save the world from Climate Change

This is a case of the blind leading the gullible

Table 1A, Energy Savings

Heat in propane, Btu/y, HHV

25275000

Fuel to power plant, Btu/y

23312490

Fuel to power plant, kWh/y

6833

Conversion efficiency

0.4

Fed to grid, kWh

2733

Transmission loss adjustment, 2.4%

2667

Distribution loss adjustment, 6.7%

2489

Heat in propane, Btu/gal, HHV

84250

Purchased propane, gal/y

300

Purchased electricity, kWh/y

2489

Heat in propane Btu/gal, LHV

84250

Standby, kWh

91

Defrost, kWh

154

To compressor, kWh

2244

COP

2.64

Heat for space heat, kWh

5926

Btu/kWh

3412

Furnace efficiency

0.8

Btu/y for space heat

20220000

20220000

PART 2

 

CO2 Reduction due to HPs is minimal

 

My CO2 emissions for space heating, before HPs, were 850 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, from combustion = 4.897 Mt/y

 

My CO2 emissions for space heating, after HPs, were calculated in two ways:

 

1) Market based, based on commercial contracts, aka power purchase agreements, PPAs

2) Location based, based on fuels combusted by power plants connected to the NE grid

See Appendix for details.

 

Market Based

 

Per state mandates, utilities have PPAs with Owners of low-CO2 power sources, such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, and biomass, in-state and out-of-state.

Utilities crow about being “low-CO2”, or “zero-CO2” by signing PPA papers, i.e., without spending a dime.

Energy Action Network, a pro-RE-umbrella organization, uses 33.9 g CO2/kWh (calculated by VT-DPS), based on utilities having PPAs with low-CO2 power sources.

Using that low CO2 value makes HPs look extra good compared with fossil fuels.

 

My CO2 of propane was 550 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, combustion only = 3.168 Mt/y

My CO2 of electricity was 2,489 kWh x 33.9 g/kWh = 0.084 Mt/y

Total CO2 = 3.168 + 0.084 = 3.253 Mt/y

CO2 reduction is 4.897 - 3.253 = 1.644 Mt/y, based on the 2018 VT-DPS “paper-based” value of 33.9 g CO2/kWh

 

Location Based

 

Utilities physically draw almost all of their electricity supply from the high-voltage grid

If utilities did not have PPAs, and would draw electricity from the high-voltage grid, they would be stealing.

ISO-NE administers a settlement system, to ensure utilities pay owners per PPA contract.

 

Electricity travels as electric-magnetic waves, at near the speed of light, i.e., from northern Maine to southern Florida, about 1,800 miles in 0.01 second.

There is no physical basis for lay RE folks to talk about there being a “VT CO2” or a “NH CO2”, etc.

 

All electricity on the NE grid has one value for g CO2/kWh.

ISO-NE, the NE grid operator, calculated that value at 317 g CO2/kWh, at wall outlet, for 2018

 

My CO2 of propane was 550 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, combustion only = 3.168 Mt/y

My CO2 of electricity was 2,489 kWh x 317 g/kWh = 0.789 Mt/y

Total CO2 = 3.168 + 0.789 = 3.897 Mt/y

CO2 reduction is 4.897 - 3.897 = 0.939 Mt/y, based on the 2018 “real world” value of 317 g CO2/kWh, as calculated by ISO-NE

 

Cost of CO2 Reduction is ($2059/y, amortizing - $204/y, energy cost savings + $200/y, service, parts, labor) / (0.939 Mt/y, CO2 reduction) = $2,188/Mt, which is outrageously expensive. 

   

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

 

EAN Excessive CO2 Reduction Claim to Hype HPs

 

EAN claims 90,000 HPs, by 2025, would reduce 0.37 million metric ton of CO2, in 2025, or 0.37 million/90,000 = 4.111 Mt/y.

 

EAN achieves such a high value, because EAN assumes 100% displacement of fuel (gas, propane, fuel oil), which is completely unrealistic, because the actual fuel displacement in Vermont houses with HPs was only 27.6%, based on a VT-DPS-sponsored survey of HPs in Vermont, and 35% in my well-insulated/well-sealed VT house, as above stated.

 

The EAN 100% claim would be true, only for highly sealed and highly insulated houses, which represent about 1.5% of all Vermont houses.

In addition, the average Vermont house would need 2 to 3 HPs, at a turnkey cost of at least $20,000, to achieve 100% displacement. See URL

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

 

Table 1/CO2 Reduction

With HP

With HP

Fuel displaced 35%

Electricity

Electricity

Market based

Location based

Electricity CO2, g/kWh

33.9

317

CO2 of 2489 kWh, Mt/y

0.084

0.789

CO2 of 550 gal of propane, Mt/y

3.168

3.168

Total CO2 with HPs, Mt/y

3.253

3.957

CO2 of 850 gal of propane, Mt/y

4.897

4.897

CO2 reduction, Mt/y

1.644

0.939

.

Fuel displaced 100%

CO2 reduction by EAN, Mt/y

4.111

4.111

PART 3

 

This section covers various topics related to HPs

 

HP Operating Cost During a Heating Season

 

If HPs are operated at low temperatures, they have low COPs, which would result in a greater electricity cost per hour than using the displaced fuel.

See table 3 and page 5 of URL

 

At 27.6% Fuel Displacement: Vermont houses with HPs, operated down to about 28F, would require 2,085 kWh/y, to deliver 21,400,000 Btu, at an average COP of 3.34, to displace 27.6% of space heat, at an electricity cost of $417/y, per VT-DPS survey

 

At 35% Fuel Displacement: My HPs, operated down to 15F, would require about 2,489 kWh/y, to deliver 20,220,000 Btu, at an average COP of 2.64, to displace 35% of my space heat, at an electricity cost of $498/y

 

At 100% Fuel Displacement: My HPs, operated down to -10F, would require about 8,997 kWh/y, to deliver 57,290,000 Btu, at an average COP of 2.07, to displace 100% of my space heat, at an electricity cost of $1,799/y.

 

This would displace 850 gal of propane, at a cost of 850 x $2.339/gal = $1,988/y.

 

My energy cost savings would be 1,988 - 1,799 = $189/y, on an investment of $24,000 !!! 

 

Comments on table 2

 

- Vermont HP data was from VT-DPS survey. See Appendix and table 4

- My HPs were operated down to 15F, which is less than the VT HPs, hence my average COP = 2.64

- Most VT HPs are operated down to about 28F; the traditional space heating system is operated below 28F. See figure 14 of URL

- I can operate down to 15F, because of better insulation and sealing than an average Vermont house.

- If my HPs were operated down to -10F, i.e., 100% fuel displacement, my average COP would be 2.07

https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2017%20Evaluation%20of%20Cold%20Climate%20Heat%20Pumps%20in%20Vermont.pdf

 

BTW, all energy systems engineers, including at EAN, know this, because every engineering college teaches that subject to its students.

Table 2

Vermont HPs

My HPs

Before HPs

Fuel Displacement, %

27.6

35%

100%

Propane

Operation

Down to 28F

Down to 15F

Down to -10F

Purchased electricity, kWh

2085

2489

8997

850

Gal

Standby, kWh

76

91

329

0.8

Efficiency

Defrost, kWh

129

154

557

84250

Btu/gal, LHV

Electricity to HPs, kWh

1880

2244

8111

COP

3.34

2.64

2.07

Space heat, kWh

6279

5926

16791

Btu/kWh

3412

3412

3412

Space heat, kWh

21400000

20220000

57290000

57290000

Highly Sealed, Highly Insulated Housing

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

NOTE:

 

1) About 1.5 percent of Vermont houses are highly sealed and highly insulated, i.e., suitable for economic use of HPs

2) Vermont’s weatherizing program, at about $10,000/unit, does next to nothing for making energy-hog houses suitable for HPs; it is a social program for poorer people.

 

Table 3 shows, I could have operated my HPs down to about 10F, instead of 15F, and break even regarding hourly cost of operation.

My 35% fuel displacement likely would increase to about 40 percent.

 

Table 3 shows, the cost of space heating at -10F is about 1.95/0.49 = 4 times greater than at 30F, whereas the space heat demand increased 40,000/20,000 = 2 times, due to HPs having low COPs at low temperatures, per Engineering Thermodynamics 101

 

BTW, the electricity draw by all HPs would place a high burden on pocket books and distribution grids, during such cold periods, at about the same time all those EVs would be charging.

 

In table 3, the COPs at low temperatures, 35F to 10F (bold), were adjusted downward for defrost losses.

The COPs, determined by manufacturers in a laboratory, exclude defrost losses, which were about 6.2%, per VT-DPS survey. See Appendix and URL

 

Most RE folks who write about, or analyze HPs: 1) fail to mention those losses, and 2) do not adjust the COPs

https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2017%20...

 

Cascading Benefits of a Highly Sealed and Highly Insulated Housing Stock

 

If my house were highly sealed and highly insulated, R-40 or better, R20 basement, etc.:

 

1) The space heat demand would be about 50% of the table values, such as 20,000 Btu/h at -10F

2) The electricity and propane cost would also be about 50% of the table values

3) The burden on the distribution grids and transmission grids would be about 50% less.

4) The need for new power plants and electric grids would be less.

 

All that falls under the heading, “putting the horse before the cart”, i.e., highly efficient housing stock first, then HPs

Table 3

Heat

Propane

HP

Elect

Diff.

Outdoor Temp

Demand

Cost

COP

Cost

F

Btu/h

$/h

$/h

$/h

-10

40000

1.39

1.20

1.95

0.57

0

35000

1.21

1.45

1.41

0.20

5

32500

1.13

1.55

1.23

0.10

10

30000

1.04

1.75

1.00

-0.04

15

27500

0.95

1.85

0.87

-0.08

17

26500

0.92

2.14

0.73

-0.19

20

25000

0.87

2.45

0.60

-0.27

30

20000

0.69

3.00

0.39

-0.30

35

17500

0.61

3.30

0.31

-0.30

40

15000

0.52

3.70

0.24

-0.28

47

11500

0.40

4.19

0.16

-0.24

50

10000

0.35

4.40

0.13

-0.21

60

5000

0.17

5.10

0.06

-0.12

70

0

Heat Pump Evaluation in Minnesota

 

The image on page 10 of URL shows:

 

1) Increasing COPs of an HP versus increasing outdoor temperatures (blue)

2) The defrost range from 37F down to 10F (yellow)

3) Operation of the propane back-up system from 20F to -20F (green).

 

Such operation would be least costly and would displace propane, that otherwise would be used.

The image shows, HPs are economical down to about 13 F, then propane, etc., becomes more economical; much depends on the prices of electricity and propane.

https://mn.gov/commerce-stat/pdfs/card-air-source-heat-pump.pdf

 

BTW, all of the above has been known for many years, in and out of government.

 

Ground Source HPs

 

They are widely used in many different buildings in northern Europe, such as Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland.

 

Their main advantage is the COP does not decrease with temperature, because the ground temperature is constant

GSHPs can economically displace 100% of fuel.

HPs can economically displace at most 50% of fuel; the percentage depends on how well a building is sealed and insulated.

 

The main disadvantage of GSHPs is greater turnkey capital cost, i.e., high amortization cost. See URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/residential-and-other-g...

 

NOTE: It is completely inane for RE folks to mindlessly repeat:

 

"Vermonters must have 25,000 HPs, by so and so year, to save the climate, even though it is required by the off-the-charts nutty GWSA act, and the grandiose Comprehensive Energy Plan.

The GWSA should be scrapped, and the CEP should be rewritten along realistic lines.

In the World-CO2 picture, Vermont is just a dot at the end of this sentence.

APPENDIX 1

 

Heat Pump Evaluation in Vermont by VT-DPS

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

- Owners started to turn off their HPs at about 28F, and very few owners were using their HPs at 10F and below, as shown by the decreasing kWh consumption totals on figure 14 of URL

https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2017%20...

 

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

 

1) To outdoor unit (compressor, outdoor fan, controls) + indoor air handling unit (fan and supplemental electric heater, if used) to provide heat 1,880 kWh;

2) Standby mode 76 kWh, or 100 x 76/2085 = 3.6%;

3) Defrost mode 129 kWh, or 100 x 129/2085 = 6.2%. Defrost starts at about 37F and ends at about 10F.

 

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

 

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

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

 

NOTE: Coefficient of Performance, COP = heat delivered to house/electrical energy to HP

See page 10 of URL

https://mn.gov/commerce-stat/pdfs/card-air-source-heat-pump.pdf

 

Displaced Fuel Percentage of Vermont Heat Pumps, based on survey

 

As a result of a few years of complaints by various HP users, mainly about energy cost savings being much less than stated on various websites, VT-DPS was ordered by the Legislature to hire a consultant to perform a survey. CADMUS gathered the operating data of 77 HPs at 65 sites, to determine annual energy cost savings of the heat pumps.

 

CADMUS calculated:

 

- Space heat to all sites was 65 x 92 million Btu/site = 5,980 million Btu from all fuels. See URL, page 22

- Heat from HPs was 77 x 21.4 million Btu/HP = 1,648 million Btu. See URL, page 21

- Traditional systems provided 5980 – 1648 = 4,332 million Btu, or 4332/5980 = 72.4% of the total space heat.

https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2017%20...

 

The energy cost savings were an average of about $200/HP per year, instead of the $1,200/y to $1,800/y bandied about by RE folks and GMP, VT-DPS, VPIRG, etc. After the CADMUS report, those estimates disappeared from booster websites. See URLs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-a...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fact-checking-regarding...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-baseless-claims...

Table 4/Space heat, per CADMUS

Sites

Million Btu/site

 Million Btu

%

Heat to sites

65

92.00

5,980

 See URL, page 22

HPs

 Million Btu/HP

 

Heat from HPs

1648/5980

77

21.40

1,648

27.6

See URL, page 21

Heat from traditional

 4332/5980

4,332

72.4

.

Million Btu/site

%

Heat from HPs, on average

1648/65

25.35

27.6

Heat from traditional, on average

92.00 – 25.35 = 66.65

66.65

72.4

92.00

APPENDIX 2

 

UNDERSTATING CO2 EMISSIONS PER KILOWATT-HOUR TO HYPE EVs AND HEAT PUMPS

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governme...

 

CO2 CALCULATIONS

 

The EPA Proscribes Two Methods for Calculating the CO2 Per Kilowatt-hour

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/electrici...

 

Method 1 is “location-based”. It is based on physical conditions, i.e., science-based

The CO2 of each electric power source on an electric grid is calculated, based on fuel consumption.

This method is used by the Independent Systems Operator of New England, ISO-NE.

 

Method 2 is “market-based” It has nothing to do with physical conditions.

The CO2 of each electric power source on an electric grid is calculated, based on EPA emission factors applicable to the electricity of commercial contracts. See page 3 of epa.gov URL

This method is used by the Vermont Department of Public Service.

 

Per international convention, the EPA declared wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, biomass (i.e., wood chip burning), farm methane, etc., as having zero CO2 emissions, for bookkeeping purposes. 

 

NOTE: Electricity travels, as electromagnetic waves, at slightly less than the speed of light, i.e., almost 1860 mile in 0.01 second, i.e., from northern Maine to southern Florida in 0.01 second! The electrons largely vibrate in place at 60 cycles per second.

 

It is nonsense for RE folks to talk of the “Vermont Energy mix”, or the “New Hampshire energy mix”, or to use a “paper PPA energy mix”. These fictitious mixes have no physical basis.

 

BTW, if electricity did not travel that fast, the operation of electric grids would be physically impossible.

 

https://vermontbiz.com/news/2021/may/20/vermont-makes-progress-carb...
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

 

Method 1, Location-Based

 

NE Grid CO2 Emissions, as calculated by ISO-NE

 

In 2019, about 82% of electricity loaded onto the NE grid was generated in NE, and 18% was imported. See Note and table in epa URL

 

The ISO-NE-calculated CO2 emissions for 2019 = (30.997 million US ton, see iso-ne emissions URL x 2000lb/US ton x 454 g/lb)/ (97,853,000 MWh, NE generation, per epa URL) x 1000 kWh/MWh) = 288 g/kWh, fed-to-grid basis, or 288/0.908 = 317 g/kWh, fed-to-user-meter basis, i.e., consumption based, if total grid loss = 2.5%, NE grid + 6.7%, distribution grids = 9.2%.

 

The grid CO2/kWh will be slowly decreasing as more low-CO2 electricity generators, such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, biomass (i.e., wood chip burning), farm methane, etc., are added to the electricity mix of the NE grid. 

 

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2021/03/2019_air_emi...

https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/merrimackstation/pdfs/ar/AR-1744...

 

NOTE: Since 2004, lower-priced electricity has been imported to serve NE demand; much of it is Canadian hydropower. The CO2 of the imports does not count toward NE grid emissions, by convention, because that CO2 is assumed to be counted in the “jurisdiction of origin”. See URL

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/air-emissions

 

Method 2, Market-Based

 

Vermont Electrical Sector CO2 Emissionsas calculated by VT-DPS

  

VT-DPS, without providing any calculations, announced the CO2 emissions of the VT electrical sector were 1,000,000; 810,000; 490,000; 190,000; and 130,000 metric ton, for 2015 through 2019.

See page 36 of URL

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

 

The VT-DPS emissions were almost entirely “market-based”, i.e., based on EPA emission factors applicable to the electricity of power purchase agreements, PPAs

 

VT utilities are legally required to have PPAs with the owners of in-state and out-of-state electricity producers  

 

If VT utilities did not have such PPAs, they would be drawing electricity from the NE grid without contracts, which is the legal equivalent of stealing!

 

Physically, VT utilities draw about 95% of their annual 6.0 billion electricity supply from the NE high voltage grid, i.e., they draw the mix of the NE grid.

The remaining 5% is fed to utility-owned distribution grids, such as rooftop solar. See Note

 

Because of losses, about 5.6 billion kWh/y arrives at user meters, a distribution loss of about 100 x (1- 5.6/6.0) = 6.7%

 

VT-DPS-calculated CO2 emissions for 2019 = 130,000 Mt/y / 5.6 billion kWh/y = 23 g CO2/kWh, fed-to-user-meter basis, i.e., consumption based, or only 100 x {1 - (1 - 23/317)} = 7.3% of the ISO-NE value.

 

Comments on Image

 

The below graph of the VT electric sector (blue) has been deceptive for many years

 

VT Location-based CO2, in 2019, was about 5.6 billion x 317 g/kWh = 1,773,918 Mt, per ISO-NE fuel data.  

 

VT Market-based CO2, in 2019, was about 130,000 Mt, per PPAs.

 

The market-based method enabled GMP to proclaim itself to be 95% CO2-free, without spending one dime, because it signed PPAs for wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, biomass (i.e., wood chip burning), farm methane, etc., which are designated as having zero CO2 emissions, per international convention.

 

 

SUPPLEMENTARY ARTICLES

 

NEW ENGLAND

 

By the way, all of this, including rolling blackouts at ZUB-ZERO temperatures, and a lack of gas and oil for  space heating, applies to New England, if:

1) New York State keeps obstructing new gas pipelines from Pennsylvania to New England; THIS SHOULD BE LEGALLY FORBIDDEN AS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INTERFERENCE OF INTER-STATE COMMERCE, and

2) The New England oil, gas and coal storage capacities near power plants are not increased by at least 100% to ensure RELIABLE ELECTRICAL SERVICE IN WINTER, WHICH WOULD BE ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT, IF UNCERTAIN, MOTHER-NATURE, WEATHER-DEPENDENT WIND AND SOLAR WERE FURTHER EXPANDED, AS THE US AIMS TO BLINDLY COPY THAT DISASTROUS EUROPEAN SCENARIO

These articles and image are provided for reference.

.

ISO-NE REPORT OF 2021 ECONOMIC STUDY: FUTURE GRID RELIABILITY STUDY PHASE 1

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2022/07/2021_economi...

 

DEEP DIVE SUMMARY OF THE ISO-NE REPORT

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-england-future-grid-study-iso/...

 

LIFE WITHOUT OIL

Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro.

Folks, including Biden's attendants, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.

The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries

If you do not have abundant low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.

APPENDIX 1

 

These articles contain significant information regarding wind, solar and grid-scale battery systems

 

GRID-SCALE BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND TO COUNTERACT SHORTFALL OF ONE-DAY WIND/SOLAR LULL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-scale-battery-sys...

COLD WEATHER OPERATION IN NEW ENGLAND DECEMBER 24, 2017 TO JANUARY 8, 2018

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cold-weather-operation...

ANALYSIS OF WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY LULLS AND ENERGY STORAGE IN GERMANY

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

IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED    

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...

BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN US NORTHEAST

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

CO2 is a Life Gas; No CO2 = No Life

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-c...

APPENDIX 2

 

These articles explain a lot about the world-wide “Climate Crisis” scam, based on highly compromised surface station measurements, which typically read HIGH.

 

Climate scientists SUBJECTIVELY adjust the readings for use in their SUBJECTIVE computerized-temperature-calculation programs, which are used in the reports of IPCC, etc., for scare-mongering purposes.

 

New Surface Stations Report Released – It’s ‘worse than we thought’

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-surface-stations-r...

 

Weather- Just how does it happen?

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/weather-just-how-does-...

 

A summary of the results of three “Physics of the Earth’s Atmosphere” papers, which were submitted for peer review at the Open Peer Review Journal.

https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/19/summary-the-physics-of-t...

 

APPENDIX 3

 

Satellites and balloons measure temperatures of the Troposphere, which starts at ground level, and has an average height of 59,000 ft at the tropics, 56,000 ft at the middle latitudes, and 20,000 ft at the poles. Above those levels starts the Stratosphere.

 

Balloons directly measure temperatures. Satellites measure radiation, from which temperatures are calculated. 

Both consistently measure much lower temperatures than the average of 102 computer-generated graphs.

See Appendix 2 and 3

 

The data in the below images is for a 43-y period.

There is global warming, but it is not anywhere near as much as scare-mongers are claiming.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-scale-battery-sys...

 

1) Objective satellite and balloon temperatures increased from 0.00 to 0.5 C, or, or 0.116 C/decade 

2) Subjective computer-generated temperatures increased from 0.00 to 1.20 C; or 0.28 C/decade, about 2.7 TIMES AS FAST

 

The temperature data by satellites and balloons are more accurate than land-based measurements.

See Appendix 2 and URL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset

Satellite measurements are made many times during every day and systematically cover almost the entire world; +/- 85-degree latitude.

The satellite data is vastly more complete, and accurate than would be gathered by ground stations. (See Appendix 2) 

 

Balloon measurements, made on a sampling basis, are vastly less complete than satellite measurements, but they serve as a useful crosscheck on the satellite measurements. 

 

NOTE: Behind the 102 computer graphs are hundreds of organizations that likely receive a significant part of their revenues from governments and subsidy-receiving wind, solar, battery, etc., businesses.

The livelihood and career prospects of the people creating these graphs is more secure, if they aim high, rather than low.

https://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/2021/2/22/latest-computer-c...

NOTEThe bottom dotted, squiggly graph is the Russian Model (IMM-C-M4), which is close to the balloon and satellite data.

 

A more detailed view of satellite temperatures.

APPENDIX 4

Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and also a member of the CO2 Coalition. Sheahen and the Coalition are collaborating on a brief.

SEPP’s October 8 newsletter contains a summary of a major 2021 paper by Happer and co-author William van Wijngaarden that completely undermines the fake “science” the IPCC and EPA used to support the case of climate alarm. 

Sheahen specifically discusses the efforts of Professors William van Wijngaarden and William Happer in their pioneering work in calculating the real-world Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) of the five most common Green-House Gases (GHGs).

Sheahan explains why the approach used by IPCC is faulty, but nonetheless used by its followers, such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the EPA.

These faulty methods lead to great exaggeration of the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, methane, and other minor greenhouse gases. . . .

Sheahan shows the stunning agreement between the calculations of van Wijngaarden and Happer (W & H) with satellite measurements (and balloon measurements) of outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the earth to space . . .

Sheahan claims, because of the exceptionally good agreement between observational data and the calculations of W & H, we can conclude the W&H model has been validated.

The W&H model embodies the scientific method.

In that case, it is reasonable to use it to study other hypothetical cases.

It is not possible to do so with IPCC models, which have never achieved agreement with observations. . . 

See Appendix 3

The gist of the H&W work is the greenhouse effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is almost entirely saturated, such that any additional CO2 can have almost no additional warming effect.

Here is a chart prepared by Sheahan to illustrate the H&W results.

As atmospheric CO2 increases, say from 380 to 420 ppm, it has less warming effect.

The most warming effect occurs at very low levels of CO2, say 20 to 60 ppm.

APPENDIX 5

 

A timely and important new paper has just been uploaded to the CO2 Coalition website on nitrogen.

The first half of the paper on the greenhouse warming effect of N2O is quite technical

It is summarized in the first link.

Link to the full paper is at the bottom. Please distribute widely.

 

Authors: Will Happer, C. A. de Lange, William Wijngaarden and J.D. Ferguson

 

Nitrous Oxide and Climate – Why restricting N2O emissions is unnece...

 

Nitrous oxide (N20) has now joined carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) in the pantheon of “human-generated demon” gases.
GW scare-mongers view increasing concentrations of these molecules are leading to unusual and unprecedented GW, which will lead to catastrophic consequences for both our ecosystems and humanity.

 

Countries around the world are in the process of greatly reducing, or eliminating, the use of nitrogen fertilizers, based on heretofore poorly understood properties of nitrous oxide.

Reductions of N2O emissions of 40 to 45 percent are being proposed in Canada  , and by up to 50 percent in the Netherlands .

Sri Lanka’s complete ban on fertilizer in 2021 led to the total collapse of their primarily agricultural economy.

 

The CO2 Coalition has published this paper, which evaluates the GW effect of the N20 and its role in the nitrogen cycle.

 

Policymakers can now proceed to make informed decisions about the costs and benefits of mandated N20 reductions of this beneficial molecule.

 

This new paper joins previous CO2 Coalition reports on other greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane.

 

Key takeaways from the paper:

 

  • At current rates, a doubling of N2O would occur in more than 400 years.
  • Atmospheric warming by N2O is estimated to be 0.064 C per century.
  • Increasing crop production requires continued application of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer to feed a growing population.

 

Download the entire PDF Nitrous Oxide

  

It is dangerous to be correct in matters, where established men are wrong, by Voltaire

 

Views: 795

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 Thinklike A. Mountain on September 18, 2021 at 8:26pm

Comment by Willem Post on September 18, 2021 at 3:39pm

Roger,

Thank for the compliment, and for spreading the article to your contacts.

I continue to make refinements, as time goes by.

Comment by Willem Post on September 18, 2021 at 8:45am

Hi Nancy,

I have added the URL to my article. 

I wonder what could happen during rush our traffic, or in a parking garage, or at a shopping mall, etc.

THETFORD; July 2, 2021 — A fire destroyed a 2019 Chevy Bolt, 66 kWh battery, EPA range 238 miles, owned by state Rep. Tim Briglin, D-Thetford, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Technology.

 

He had been driving back and forth from Thetford, VT, to Montpelier, VT, with his EV, about 100 miles via I-89

He had parked his 2019 Chevy Bolt on the driveway, throughout the winter, per GM recall of Chevy Bolts

He had plugged his EV into a 240-volt charger.

The battery was at about 10% charge at start of charging, at 8 PM, and he had charged it to 100% charge at 4 AM; 8 hours of charging. See Note

 

Li-ions (pos.) would plate out on the cathode (neg) each time when charging from 80 to 100%.

Li-ions would plate out on the anode (pos) each time when charging from 10% to 20%, especially when such charging occurred at battery temperatures of 32F or less.

 

Fire: Firefighters were called to Briglin’s Tucker Hill Road home around 9 AM Thursday.

Investigators from the Vermont Department of Public Safety Fire and Explosion Investigation Unit determined:

 

1) The fire started in a compartment in the back of the passenger’s side of the vehicle

2) It was likely due to an “electrical failure”.

 

https://www.vnews.com/Firefighters-put-out-blaze-in-car-of-Vt-State...

https://www.engadget.com/gm-chevy-bolt-fire-warning-215322969.html

https://electrek.co/2020/11/13/gm-recall-chevy-bolt-evs-potential-f...

 

GM Recall of Chevy Bolts: In 2020, GM issued a worldwide recall of 68,667 Chevy Bolts, all 2017, 2018 and 2019 models, plus, in 2021, a recall for another 73,000 Bolts, all 2020, 2021, and 2022 models.

GM set aside $1.8 BILLION to replace battery modules, or 1.8 BILLION/(68,667 + 73,000) = $12,706/EV.

 

https://insideevs.com/news/524712/chevrolet-bolt-battery-recall-cost/

https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/568817-gm-expands-bolt-ev...

 

Owners were advised not to charge them in a garage, and not to leave them unattended while charging, which may take up to 8 hours; what a nuisance!

I wonder what could happen during rush our traffic, or in a parking garage, or at a shopping mall, etc.

Rep. Briglin heeded the GM recall by not charging in his garage. See URLs

https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2021/09/16/electric-social-distancing/

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governme... 

NOTE:

- Cost of replacing the battery packs of 80,000 Hyundai Konas was estimated at $900 million, about $11,000 per vehicle

https://insideevs.com/news/492167/reports-lg-chem-cost-hyundai-batt...

- EV batteries should be charged from 20 to 80%, to achieve minimal degradation and long life, plus the charging loss is minimal in that range

- Charging EVs from 0 to 20% charge, and from 80 to 100% charge, 1) uses more kWh AC from the wall outlet per kWh DC charged into the battery, and 2) is detrimental to the battery. Also, it requires additional kWh for cooling the battery while charging.

- EV batteries must never be charged, when the battery temperature is less than 32F; if charged anyway, the plating out of Li-ions on the anode would permanently damage the battery.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/how-does-lithium-ion-battery-work

 

See section Charging Electric Vehicles During Freezing Conditions in URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governme...

Comment by Willem Post on September 18, 2021 at 8:33am

Kenneth,

A small capacity heat pump is used on Tesla EVs to provide for cabin and battery heating and cooling.

It has a patented, eight-way valve, which enables more loops to be "in-play", instead of the 4-way valve used on other EVs with heat pumps. The ranges of Teslas were increased, as a result.

Comment by Nancy Sosman on September 18, 2021 at 5:15am


https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2021/09/16/electric-social-distancing/

GM has just advised owners of the Chevy Bolt electric car to park the thing at least 50 feet away from other cars, so as to avoid burning them to cinders – along with the auto-igniting Bolt.

Comment by Willem Post on September 17, 2021 at 10:38pm

Roger,

There is a lot of misinformation out there regarding HPs, propagated by HP hucksters, i.e., career bureaucrats, who want to use Global Warming as a long-term pathway towards retirement and pensions, etc.

All keep on spouting the same talking points to reinforce the story, which they know to be untrue, because I have emailed my articles to them for at least 15 years.

Then, there are the HP installers, who arrive at your door to "assess your HP needs", with the latest/fanciest, crew-cab, pick-up trucks, $50,000 and up.

They charge extra, because it is a sellers market, and because of hyping and mandates, and they are "certified" by Vermont Energy Efficiency.

They are laughing all the way to the bank.

In the meantime, non-technical lay folks and most Legislators do not have enough information to make buying and legislative decisions.

In fact, most legislators are in cahoots with the hucksters and hypers, shower them with subsidies, etc., because that gets them re-elected.

Comment by Kenneth Capron on September 17, 2021 at 4:57pm

Anyone know what the smallest HP is? 
Or equivalent that I can put in a 4px gondola for heating and cooling?

Comment by Kenneth Capron on September 17, 2021 at 4:18pm

"there's only one solution: global government" - could also be a ruse to get us to buy more guns and bullets.

I'm going to run for Governor. Enough of this crap. Just close the doors behind you ....

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on September 17, 2021 at 3:44pm

In my opinion, manmade climate change is a ruse as are most of the remedies like wind, solar and hype for heat pumps in cold climates. Notice the word global is found in both globalism and global warming. It is all driven by globalists who want to be big fish in a big pond, the world. The hell with national sovereignty. Their scams are thus based on ideas for which national boundaries are meaningless such as CO2, Covid, terrorists, unlimited illegal migration, etc. When a threat knows no national boundaries, there's only one solution: global government. These people are more than dishonest. They are evil. Here in the U.S., the Democrat party is the more infected but a huge number of Republicans are also on board with destroying the U.S. and ushering in a new world order. The Bush crime family is a good example.

Comment by Kenneth Capron on September 17, 2021 at 1:07pm

Is everything related to GHG a ruse? In every instance whether wind, solar, HP etc, there is a scam underlying - a government funded scam. Must be a legal action that could be brought if the Judicial system were reliable. 

 

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/

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service