Comment

Comment by Robert Feller on July 6, 2021 at 8:45am

Please look at this website, we need to do the same thing.

https://stopthesethings.com/

Comment by Willem Post on July 6, 2021 at 8:42am

“Sen. Chris Bray, D-Addison, who chairs the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, said he wants to make sure homeowners have access to weatherization efforts, modifying buildings to reduce energy consumption and optimize energy efficiency. See VTDigger article.

https://vtdigger.org/2021/07/04/climate-council-has-until-december-...

Chris,

BUILDINGS

The standard “weatherizing”, at about $10,000 each, as practiced by Vermont, is totally inadequate for Vermont’s energy hog houses.
It is next to useless to make those houses suitable for heat pumps.

The only way to come anywhere near any CO2 goals, is to build EACH YEAR several thousand net-zero-energy houses and apartments, and energy-surplus houses and apartments.

All of them would need solar panels, batteries, and heat pumps, and large hot water storage tanks.

The energy surplus houses/apartments would have extra solar panels and extra batteries to power EVs.

GAS GUZZLER TAX

As you know, EAN has grossly overestimated the CO2 reduction of an EV, (about 4.5 metric ton/y/EV), because of incorrect assumptions.
The actual reduction is much less.

Vermont needs a gas-guzzler code to impose a fee on low-mileage vehicles.
The more below 40-mpg, the greater would be the fee.
Vehicles with greater than 40-mpg, such as the 54-mpg Toyota Prius, would be exempt.

EVs

RE folks would have everyone drive unaffordable EVs, that would not reduce much CO2 compared with EFFICIENT gasoline vehicles.

On a lifetime, A-to-Z basis, with travel at 105,600 miles over 10 years, the CO2 emissions, based on the present New England grid CO2/kWh, would be:

NISSAN Leaf S Plus, EV, compact SUV, no AWD, would emit 25.967 Mt, 246 g/mile; about a FIFTY PERCENT REDUCTION compared to the present VT LDV mix, which includes larger vehicles than the Nissan Leaf.

TOYOTA Prius L Eco, 62 mpg, compact car, no AWD, would emit 26.490 Mt, 251 g/mile
SUBARU Outback, 30 mpg, medium SUV, with AWD, would emit 43.015 Mt, 407 g/mile
VT LDV mix, 22.7 mpg, many with AWD or 4WD, would emit 56.315 Mt, 533 g/mile

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

HEAT PUMPS

Heat Pumps are Money Losers in my Vermont House (as they are in almost all Vermont houses)

My annual electricity consumption increased about 50% (the various taxes, fees, and surcharges also increased), after I installed three Mitsubishi, 24,000 Btu/h heat pumps, each with 2 heads; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.
The heat pumps last about 15 years.

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

They are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, well-sealed/well-insulated house. It has 2” of blueboard (R-10 vs R-0.67 for 8” concrete) on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab which has saved me many thousands of heating dollars over the 35 years.

Before heat pumps, my space-heating propane was 1000 gal/y, after heat pumps, it was 830 gal/y, a reduction of 170 gal/y, or $310/y, at $2.399/gal. Additional electricity costs were $609/y. I am losing money
Domestic hot water, DHW, heating, requires about 200 gallon/y

My existing Viessmann propane system, 95%-efficient in condensing mode, is used on cold days, 15F or less, because heat pumps have low efficiencies, i.e., low Btu/kWh, at exactly the same time my house would need the most heat; a perverse situation, due to the laws of Physics 101!!

The heat pumps would be slightly more efficient than electric resistance heaters at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature. It would be extremely irrational to operate air source heat pumps, at such temperatures.

I have had no energy cost savings, because of high household electric rates, augmented with taxes, fees and surcharges. Vermont forcing, with subsidies, the addition of expensive RE electricity to the mix, would make matters worse!!

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

There likely will be service calls and parts for the heat pumps, as the years go by, in addition to annual service calls and parts for the existing propane system; I am losing more money.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

NOTE:
If I had a highly sealed, highly insulated house, with the same efficient propane heating system, my house would use very little energy for heating.
If I would install heat pumps* and would operate the propane system on only the coldest days, I likely would have energy cost savings.
However, those annual energy cost savings would be overwhelmed by the annual amortizing cost, i.e., I would still be losing money, if amortizing were considered.

* I likely would need 3 units at 18,000 Btu/h, at a lesser turnkey capital cost. Their output, very-inefficiently produced, would be about 27,000 Btu/h at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature.

NOTE: VT-Department of Public Service found, after a survey of 77 heat pumps installed in Vermont houses (turnkey cost for a one-head HP system is about $4,500), the annual energy cost savings were, on average, $200, but the annual amortizing costs turned that gain into a loss of $200, i.e., on average, these houses were unsuitable for heat pumps, and the owners were losing money.

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

Comment by Kenneth Capron on July 1, 2021 at 12:12am

I don't disagree with Bob and Penny et al. But I have to caution that the only option available to block the climate folks is to elect a LePage type who is willing to immediately cause the demise of the wind towers wherever they are. You do that by insisting on an upfront deposit that would cover the full cost of removing the towers and restoring the sites to their original natural site. And the same for solar panels. Millions of dollars of upfront cash with a CPI add-on each year as prices go up.

If that won't work, expand mining on certain mountains.

Comment by Robert Feller on June 30, 2021 at 11:20am

These idiots never took a basic economics course in college and have probably never even heard of the book 'Wealth of Nations" written by Adam Smith.  Simply put, any entity that cannot stand by itself and requires government subsidy to exist is not feasible in the real world.  Warren Buffet clearly stated that without subsidies neither wind or solar make any sense and yet our democrat politicians continue to repeat the mistakes of the past, whitewashing the failures and repack it to a new group of unintelligent and gullible millennials making them think that they are actually making a difference in the climate.  All of this to make money [and lots of it] for the entities that donate to their campaigns.  We have met the enemy and it is them.  

Comment by Penny Gray on June 30, 2021 at 11:03am

They're still spouting the same old B.S.  It's actually quite funny to see that second article here about our looming double digit increases in electric bills due to the unreliables we've chosen to power our state. 

What a disgraceful legacy we're leaving behind for future generations to clean up.  Kibby Mountain and that whole area of the state of Maine was once a grand, wild place.  Lots more destruction to come.