Next step for Maine’s climate goals: Proposed laws to make them reality

Comment

Comment by Willem Post on January 27, 2021 at 10:17pm

Penny,

A moral compass would be OK?

Comment by Long Islander on January 27, 2021 at 6:17pm

Penny, and how about a media that gives them the third degree? And someone to give same to the media.

Comment by Penny Gray on January 27, 2021 at 4:59pm

How about another law requiring all elected government officials and regulators must have an engineering degree with secondary degrees in physics, economics and critical thinking?

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on January 27, 2021 at 1:31pm

How about a law forbidding all elected government officials & regulators and their family members from holding assets in offshore bank accounts?

Comment by Willem Post on January 27, 2021 at 12:38pm

CO2-EMISSION COMPARISON OF EVs AND GASOLINE VEHICLES; LIFETIME/A-to-Z BASIS

 

EV CO2 Reduction Compared to Efficient Gasoline Vehicles is Minimal

 

Any CO2 reduction analysis must be the difference of the CO2 emissions of an EV and an equivalent gasoline vehicle, on a lifetime/A-to-Z basis. Such evaluations of EVs versus gasoline vehicles have been performed for at least 25 years. All show EVs would reduce very little CO2 compared with efficient light-duty vehicles, LDVs, using gasoline or diesel.

 

As future electric grid CO2 emissions, g CO2/kWh, decrease more and more (a decades-long process), EVs would reduce CO2 emissions more and more, compared with LDVs, using gasoline and diesel.

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/

 

Proper Analysis of CO2 Reductions of EVs

 

Engineers, including at Vermont Energy Action Network, EAN, very well know, a proper evaluation of EVs versus gasoline vehicles must be based on:

 

1) Lifetime/A-to-Z basis such as the 105,600 miles for 10 years used in this article. Usually, batteries are manufacturer-warranted for 8 years. Very few people would replace an old battery with an expensive, new battery in a 10-y-old car, i.e., the car likely would be scrapped. See Notes.

 

2) CO2 of source energy, 23.371 lb/gal of gasoline = CO2 of upstream energy, 5.759 lb/gal + CO2 of primary energy, 17.612 lb/gal; EAN ignored upstream

 

3) CO2 of NE grid, 304 g/kWh, per ISO-NE; EAN used an artificial/concocted 34 g CO2/kWh.

See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi...

 

4) Embodied CO2/kWh of the vehicle body and battery; EAN ignored embodied

 

5) Comparison of EVs with efficient gasoline vehicles; EAN used the VT LDV fleet average of 22.7 mpg.

However, purchasers of EVs usually replace higher mileage vehicles, not gas guzzlers.

 

6) Long-term wall meter and vehicle meter readings, obtained during real-world driving conditions.

 

NOTE: On-the-road data from privately owned EVs was analyzed: 158,468,000 miles from 21,600 EVs

EVs travel about 10,000 miles/y

See page 17 of URL

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/07/f24/vss171_carlson_...

 

NOTE: Gasoline vehicles travel about 11,467 miles/y

See image in URL

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10309

 

EAN Overstating CO2 Reduction of EVs

 

EAN prepared a report listing the measures required to “meet Paris by 2025”, as mandated by the Global Warming “Solutions” Act, GWSA, and the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan. One measure is adding 90,000 EVs to reduce CO2 by 0.405 million metric ton/y, or 4.5 Mt/EV/y, based on the above EAN “parameters”.

 

However, the CO2 reduction would be much less, on a lifetime/A-to-Z basis, including 1) upstream and 2) embedded CO2, i.e., realistic parameters. See table 6 and 7.

 

EAN would need 4.5/3.035 (22.7 mpg) x 90,000 = 133,443 EVs, plus chargers, to reduce 0.405 MMT/y by 2025, based on EAN “parameters”.

 

EAN would need 4.5/1.705 (30 mpg) x 90,000 = 237,537 EVs, plus chargers, to reduce 0.405 MMt/y by 2025, based on realistic parameters.

 

Whether 90,000 or 237,537, such increases in EVs are a total fantasy, because, the capital cost would be at least $10.0 BILLION (EVs, chargers, grid upgrades), at $40,000/EV, which over-taxed, over-regulated Vermonters do not have. 

 

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

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi...

 

NOTE: The EAN “parameters” likely were aimed to deceive non-technical Legislators and non-technical Vermonters to obtain favorable RE-subsidy legislation, such as the Global Warming “Solutions” Act, GWSA.

 

- GWSA is designed to subsidize the RE companies of EAN members for decades, at everyone else’s expense. 

The members of the GWSA Committee of 23 are the same or similar people, who presided of 20 years of government energy programs, costing about $2 billion, which had the net result of increasing Vermont’s CO2.

- Vermonters would be much better served with increased energy efficiency of buildings and vehicles.

See URLs for much more information.

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-global-warming-sol...

 

Grid Upgrades, Peak-Smoothing, Load-Shifting, Storage

 

Vermont’s maximum grid load is about 1100 MW, and peak demand of users is about 900 MW, without significant quantities of heat pumps and EVs.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/reality-check-regardin...

 

Major distribution and high-voltage grid upgrades, peak-smoothing and load-shifting and electricity storage systems (battery, etc.) would be required, if, in the future:

 

- Vermont’s 200,000-plus EVs would plug in, demanding 200,000 x 9 kW; see table 2 = 1,800 MW, most of them recharging for 2 - 4 hours, some of them up to 10 hours, for next day driving.

 

NOTE: Vermont total registered gas/diesel vehicles was 547,000 in 2019

https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/planning/documents/plann...

 

- Vermont’s 200,000-plus heat pumps would be operating, demanding 200,000 x 2.8 kW = 560 MW, for many hours on cold days, to heat buildings.  Each free-standing, 2000 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house, would require 2 such heat pumps. See URL

https://www.thermospace.com/ductless_split/ymgi/inverter-16-seer-2-...

 

CO2 Emission Comparison of Five Vehicles; Lifetime/A-to-Z Basis

 

Base Vehicle:

 

The popular Nissan Leaf, 62 kWh, was used as base vehicle for comparison with four other vehicles

EPA rated at 118, city/97, highway/108, combined

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Nissan2020.shtml

 

(33.7 kWh/gal-eq)/(108 mpg-eq) = 0.299 kWh/mile; includes charging loss

Adjusted to 0.299 x 1.06, loss factor* = 0.317 mile/kWh, which includes:

 

1) Charging loss,

2) Self-use losses due to heating, cooling, electronics, etc., and

3) Losses due to NE road/climate conditions,

4) Losses due to idle time, such as parked in a garage, or at an airport.

 

* The loss factor covers items 2, 3 and 4, which are not measured by EPA

 

Comparison Vehicles:

 

Toyota Prius L Eco hybrid, 56 mpg

Mitsubishi Mirage gasoline vehicle, 39 mpg

Medium gasoline SUV, 30 mpg

“Vermont LDV mix”, 22.7 mpg

 

Comments on table 6:

 

Table 6 shows a CO2 comparison of the 5 vehicles.

 

NOTE:

Most EV owners are higher-income eco-people. About 50% also own PV systems. They received subsidies for PV systems and EVs.

Most people who buy EVs, already drive high-mileage vehicles., i.e., greater than 30 mpg. They just want to look extra green.

 

 

Table 6/Mfr.	Make	Size	Type	MPG	Mt CO2/y vs BASE
Nissan; BASE	Leaf	Compact SUV	EV		0.000
Toyota	Prius, L Eco	Compact car	Hybrid	56.0	0.052
Mitsubishi	Mirage	Compact car	Gasoline	39.0	0.844
Subaru	Outback	Medium SUV	Gasoline	30.0	1.705
Any mfr.		VT LDV mix	Gasoline	22.7	3.035

 

Comments on table 7:

 

Table 7 shows, a CO2 comparison of EVs versus efficient gasoline vehicles, on a lifetime/A-to-Z basis.

 

Table 7 shows, increasing the use of high-mileage vehicles, such as hybrids, and getting gas-guzzlers off the road (which need not involve any government subsidies), would reduce CO2 at much less cost per vehicle, than would the government-subsidized replacement of Vermont’s light duty vehicles with EVs.

 

Table 7/CO2; Lifetime/A-to-Z basis	Nissan	Toyota	Mitsubishi	Subaru	Any mfr.
	Leaf S Plus	Prius L Eco	Mirage	Outback
	Comp. SUV	Comp. car	Comp. car	Med. SUV	VT LDV mix
Type	EV	Hybrid	Gasoline	Gasoline	Gasoline
Plug-in	yes	no	no	no	no
Battery, kWh	62	0.75	no	no	no
Travel, miles/10 years	105600	105600	105600	105600	105600
EPA combined, WM basis, mpg		56	39	30	22.7
EPA combined, wall meter basis, kWh/mile	0.317
NE grid CO2, wall meter basis, g/kWh	304
E10, combustion, CO2 of ethanol not counted, lb CO2/gal		17.612	17.612	17.612	17.612
E10, upstream for extract, process, transport, lb CO2/gal		5.759	5.759	5.759	5.759
E10, total, CO2 of ethanol not counted, lb CO2/gal		23.371	23.371	23.371	23.371
.
CO2	Mt	Mt	Mt	Mt	Mt
E10, combustion, CO2 of ethanol not counted		15.064	21.631	28.120	37.163
E10, upstream for extract, process, transport		4.926	7.073	9.195	12.152
Electricity, wall meter basis, Mt/10 years	10.167
Body, with extract, process, fabrication, assembly, transport*	5.700	5.700	5.700	5.700	7.000
Li battery, with extract, process, fabrication, assembly, transport*	10.100	0.800
Total CO2, Mt/10 years	25.967	26.490	34.404	43.015	56.315
		Mt/y	Mt/y	Mt/y	Mt/y
CO2 reduction vs Base, Mt/y		0.052	0.844	1.705	3.035

 

* Numbers are partly based on Hall and Lutsey and on Hausfather at carbonbrief.org factcheck, adapted for Vermont conditions.

 

 

APPENDIX 1

 

POOR ECONOMICS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN NEW ENGLAND

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

 

REALITY CHECK REGARDING UTILITY-SCALE BATTERY SYSTEMS DURING A ONE-DAY WIND/SOLAR LULL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/reality-check-regardin...

 

ECONOMICS OF UTILITY-SCALE BATTERY SYSTEMS FOR DUCK-CURVES

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/economics-of-utility-s...

 

THE VAGARIES OF SOLAR IN NEW ENGLAND

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-...

 

COST SHIFTING IS THE NAME OF THE GAME REGARDING WIND AND SOLAR

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

 

BURNING WOOD IS NOT RENEWABLE BY A LONG SHOT

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/burning-wood-is-not-ren...

 

NEW ENGLAND IS THE LEAST FAVORABLE FOR PV SOLAR, except areas near rainy Seattle

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-is-the-leas...

 

WORLD AND US TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-con...

 

VERMONT’S GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT, A DISASTER IN THE MAKING

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi...

 

VERMONT IS GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET REGARDING FOOLISH ENERGY SYSTEMS

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

 

THE GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT A DECADES-LONG BURDEN ON VERMONT

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-global-warming-sol...

 

VERMONT SOLAR MARKET PATHWAYS REPORT BASED ON OPTIMISTIC ASSUMPTIONS

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-solar-market-pa...

 

THE PROPER BASIS FOR CALCULATING CO2 OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE

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

 

ELECTRIC VEHICLES COMPARED WITH GASOLINE VEHICLES

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

 

VERMONT CO2 REDUCTION OF ASHPs IS BASED ON MISREPRESENTATIONS

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

 

VERMONT CO2 REDUCTION OF EVs IS BASED ON MISREPRESENTATIONS

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

 

ENERGY ACTION NETWORK REPORT TO REDUCE CO2 IN VERMONT

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

 

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

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

Comment by Willem Post on January 27, 2021 at 12:34pm

THE “HURSTI HACK” OF A DIEBOLD VOTING MACHINE

 

A Diebold voting machine was selected, at random, from many machines, by one election official. See video.

An electronic card, which had been altered by a computer programmer, was inserted into the machine. See Note.

 

Eight volunteer election officials filled in ballots 6 to 2 that the Diebold voting machine could not be hacked

After running the ballots through the machine, the recorded vote was displayed as 7 to 1, i.e., the Diebold machines can be hacked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t75xvZ3osFg

 

A few of the officials were shocked, others were just quiet, and one, a woman, started to cry.

Obviously, she, as an experienced election official, had no idea such frauds could happen, and was deeply distraught to learn about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t75xvZ3osFg

 

The above video of the 'Hursti Hack' is an excerpt from a feature-length, Emmy-nominated documentary. Please watch the entire documentary.

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/hackingdemocracy

 

This hack proved any America election can be stolen, by using just a few lines of computer code.

All this has been well-known by many US (and foreign) election officials for years, especially those in the six swing states, which miraculously were donated to Biden-in-the-basement, who did not even campaign.

 

NOTE: When an electronic card is inserted into a computer slot, the computer code becomes visible on the screen. A computer programmer scans the code and alters a few lines that relate to the counting aspect, saves the changes, and the electronic is altered ready for nefarious use.

 

NOTE: Pam Bondi demonstrates that the Hunter Biden and Joe Biden corruption concerns in Ukraine and elsewhere, are legitimate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPvMuzyVOig

 

NOTE: This article summarizes a biography of Biden. There is a lot of information on the internet, because he ran twice for US President.

He could not get “traction”, largely due to the US Media relentlessly digging up dirt.

The US Media favored Clinton in 2016, but Trump won.

 

HIDING THE HUNTER BIDEN EVIDENCE TO PROTECT JOE BIDEN

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hiding-the-hunter-bide...

Comment by Willem Post on January 27, 2021 at 12:33pm

ELECTRIFYING EVERYTHING IS TOTALLY IDIOTIC

Here is an example for EVs and heat pumps

POOR ECONOMICS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN NEW ENGLAND

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

 

This article describes the efficiency of electric vehicles, EVs, and their charging loss, when charging at home and on-the-road, and the economics, when compared with efficient gasoline vehicles.

 

Any economic analysis must include the amortizing of the difference in capital cost of EVs and equivalent gasoline vehicles.

 

Any CO2 reduction analysis must be the difference of the CO2 emissions of an EV and an equivalent gasoline vehicle, on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis

 

This article shows, increasing the use of high-mileage vehicles, such as hybrids, and getting gas-guzzlers off the road (which need not involve any government subsidies), would reduce CO2 at much less cost per vehicle, than would the government-subsidized replacement of light duty vehicles with EVs.

 

The table show the total cost of owning and operating three vehicles.

The Kona is not nearly as versatile as the Subaru and the Tesla for New England conditions, especially in rural areas.

The difference in vehicle purchase cost was amortized at 3.5% for 10 years. Subsidies were omitted.

For CO2 see Appendix 2

 

EV cost/mile and CO2/mile	Electricity cost	Amortize cost difference	Total cost	CO2	CO2
	c/mile	c/mile	c/mile	Mt/y	g/mile
Kona, no AWD				2.529	239
Cost, on-the-road charging	8.39	12.3	20.69
Cost, at-home charging	5.98	12.3	18.28
Model Y, AWD				3.024	286
Cost, on-the-road charging	9.37	26.1	35.47
Cost, at-home charging	7.04	26.1	33.14
Subaru, Outback, AWD				4.302	407
Gasoline vehicle; 30 mpg	7.33	0	7.33

 

Heat Pumps in my Vermont House are Money Losers: My annual electricity consumption increased about 50%, after I installed three 24,000 Btu/h heat pumps for heating and cooling my, well-sealed/well-insulated house. They displaced a fraction of my propane consumption.

 

My existing propane system, 95%-efficient in condensing mode, is used on cold days, 10 F or less, because heat pumps would have low efficiencies, i.e., low Btu/kWh.

 

There were no energy cost savings, because of high household electric rates, augmented with taxes, fees and surcharges.

Amortizing the $24,000 capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years would be $2,059/y.

There likely will be service calls and parts, as the years go by, in addition to service calls and parts for the existing propane system.

I received a 10% subsidy.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com 

 

Government Electric Vehicle and Heat Pump Mandates

 

Subsidies do not just disappear. They would be charged to others, and/or would be added to government debts.

 

Celebrating energy cost savings, and ignoring amortizing costs, and having minimal CO2 reduction (see section after Example 3), is like living a fantasy.

 

Governments mandating hundreds of $billions be spent on such poor investments, as part of climate-change fighting,
meeting Paris”, etc., would impoverish the US people, and make the US less competitive on world markets. See URLs.

 

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

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

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-con...