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

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 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

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

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.

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;

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 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

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 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

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:

- 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

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

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.

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.

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 below table, and yet these ignorami mandate others what to do to save the world.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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:

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

- 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

- 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

- 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 URLs

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 !!!

- 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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

"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.

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

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;

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.

NOTE: Coefficient of Performance, COP = heat delivered to house/electrical energy to HP. See page 10 of URL

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.

- 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021

During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW

Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%

At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%

https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-repo...

Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind...

Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!

Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.

Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:

1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and

2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.

Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)

Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in European specialized ships, then unloaded at a new, $500-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading area, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the floating turbines. The financing will be mostly by European pension funds paying pensions to retirees.

About 300 Maine people would have jobs during the erection phase

The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships

About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.

https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill...

The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies

The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government

The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024

The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.

The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment

Electricity Cost: Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.

Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y

Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.

Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh

Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.

Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh

All other items, 4 c/kWh

Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 35.827 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 17.913 c/kWh

Owner sells to utility at 17.913 c/kWh

NOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:

Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh

Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh

Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh

Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Grid Expansion on Shore: A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support system

There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England HV grid, which will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.

Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People: Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy. Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.

APPENDIX 2

Floating Offshore Wind in Norway

Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company

Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.

On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.

The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365

The generators will provide almost all the electricity during low-wind periods, and 100% during high-wind periods, when rotors are feathered and locked.

The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = $8,300/kW. See URL

That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher

The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites

The project produces electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies

In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.

Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.

If Norwegian units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of the additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus

A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.

The cables would need some type of flexible support system
The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid.

https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/arti...

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

APPENDIX 3

Offshore Wind in US and UK

Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, write about wind energy issues that only partially cover the offshore wind situation, which caused major declines of the stock prices of Siemens, Oersted, etc., starting at the end of 2020; the smart money got out
All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See costs/kWh in below article

US/UK Governments Offshore Wind Goals

1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the cabal of climate extremists in the US government
2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disfunctional UK government

Those US/UK goals are physically unachievable, even with abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about 9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See URL

US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...

US Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost

Electricity production about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.

Electricity Cost, c/kWh: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at $5,500/kW.

Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y

Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.

Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh

Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.

Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh

All other items, 4 c/kWh

Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 30.273 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 15.137 c/kWh

Owner sells to utility at 15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.

Not included: At a future 30% wind/solar penetration on the grid:

Cost of onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about 2 c/kWh

Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about 2.0 c/kWh

In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid

Cost of curtailments, about 2.0 c/kWh

Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites

APPENDIX 4

Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.

Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.

With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.

Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies

The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.

The adders become exponentially greater, with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid

The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems

Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.

Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.

The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.

W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies

W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.

1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,

2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers

3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365

4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and 100% during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,

5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced

6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.

APPENDIX 5

BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

EXCERPT:

Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing

Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2

Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y

Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)

Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million

Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)

Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss

(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh

At 10% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh

At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh

Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. Excluded costs would add at least 15 c/kWh

NOTE: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging

Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia

COMMENTS ON CALCULATION:

Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid.
Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment

If you divide total payments over 15 years by throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.

According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.

A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if used to absorb midday solar and discharge it during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening. They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations.

Remember, you have to draw about 50 MWh from the HV grid to deliver about 40 MWh to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.

A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, low-cost battery Nirvana is just around the corner.

Comment by Roger Caiazza on September 17, 2021 at 8:07am: Willem,

Absolutely brilliant. You answered a number of questions I had about heat pump performance as temperature decreases. I am definitely going to use this as a reference. Thank you.

Roger Caiazza

Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York

‹ Previous
1
2
Next ›

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

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

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

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