REPLACING GASOLINE CONSUMPTION WITH ELECTRICITY IN VERMONT

RE proponents want to “electrify” the Vermont transportation sector. That means:

 

- Much less consumption of gasoline and much more generation of electricity.

- Internal combustion engines using gasoline, hereafter called E10 (a blend of 90% gasoline/10% ethanol from corn), would be replaced with electric vehicles.

 

For this article, it is assumed:

 

- Only EVs will be used to replace IC vehicles that currently are using gasoline. 

- Hybrids would not be allowed, unless they would use bio-fuels, of which the combustion CO2 would not be counted. If the energy used to produce the biofuels (cropping, processing, transport, etc.) were entirely from renewable sources, its CO2 would also not be counted. See note.

 

NOTE:

It would be a challenge to produce large quantities of biofuels.

For example, E10 is a blend of 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol.

It takes about 30 million acres of corn cropping to produce that 10% of the US E10 supply.

It would take about 450 million acres of corn cropping to have all E10 vehicles use 100% ethanol, because the ethanol Btu/gallon is about 2/3 of the gasoline Btu/gallon.

The US has a total agricultural area of about 300 million acres.

RE proponents say much more efficient ways of producing biofuels will be found.

However, it likely would take decades for them to be in mass production. See URLs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/politically-inspired-ma...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-predictions-o...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biofuels-from-pond-algae

 

NOTE: If ALL Vermont light duty vehicles, LDVs, (cars, crossovers, minivans, SUVs, ¼-ton pick-ups) were EVs at some future date, and the mix of LDVs is assumed to require 0.350 kWh/mile in the battery, as measured by the vehicle meter, it would require 6.252 billion miles/y, LDV travel x 0.350 kWh/mile, in batteries x 1.2, EV charging/resting loss, 1.075, T&D loss = 2.823 TWh/y to be fed to the VT grid to charge the LDVs during the year.

 

NOTE: Wind and solar would be unsuitable without TWh-scale energy storage, as people do need to reliably charge their vehicles to get to work.

 

NOTE: Some people will say biofuels would be used as well. Good luck with that, as there is not enough crop acreage in the US. The only other way is with algae ponds, which is at least 2 - 3 DECADES in the future to be in mass production. See URLs

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-predictions-o...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biofuels-from-pond-algae

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-gasoline-and-...

 

	kWh/mile
LNG or NG energy to gas turbine plants	0.930
Conversion loss, 50%	0.465
Electricity generation	0.465
Self-use loss, 3.0%	0.014
Fed to grid	0.452
T&D loss, 7.5%	0.032
Fed to meters	0.420
EV charging/resting loss, 20%	0.070
In batteries for a mix of LDVs	0.350

SUMMARY

 

EVs Charging, Impact on VT Grid and CO2 Reduction 

 

Proponents of subsidies for EVs likely do not understand the impact on the VT grid.

 

RE proponents often claim EVs would be charged at night, and that it would “flatten the demand” curve. In reality, peak demands would occur at night, instead of during the day.

 

- VT monthly average travel is about 6.252/12 = 0.521 billion miles; summer monthly maximum about 0.521 x 1.14 = 0.594 b miles, winter monthly minimum about 0.521/1.14 = 0.457 b miles. Daily averages, such as during a holiday weekend, likely would vary more than 14% from those averages.

 

 - If the charging of VT EVs were evenly distributed from 10 pm to 6 am, every day, the VT summer nighttime demand increase would be 1.14 x 2.823 billion kWh/y/(8 x 365)/1000 = 1101 MW.

 

- If the charging of VT EVs were evenly distributed during 24 hours of the day, the VT summer around-the-clock demand increase would be 367 MW. See table 1.

 

- That would be a significant increase of the normal nighttime demand of about 500 MW.

- That would be a significant increase of the normal daytime peak demand of about 700 MW, and about 900 MW during the late afternoons/early evenings of hot summer days.

 

https://www.bts.gov/content/us-vehicle-miles

https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-v...

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

https://ceic.tepper.cmu.edu/-/media/files/tepper/centers/ceic/publi...

http://www.igu.org/sites/default/files/node-page-field_file/LNGLife...

 

Summary Table 1	US LDV	NE LDV	VT LDV
Total E10 travel, billion miles	2849.718	130.678	6.252
E10 consumption, billion gal, per EIA	142.850	6.551	0.313
Transport fraction	0.9631	0.9631	0.9631
Transport E10, billion gal	137.579	6.309	0.302
E10 MPG	20.713	20.713	20.713
.
E10 (90% gasoline/10% ethanol)
Higher heating value, Btu/gal, per EIA	120359	120359	120359
Upstream factor; extraction, cropping, blending, transport, etc.	1.298	1.298	1.298
Source energy, TWh as heat	6301.293	288.954	13.823
CO2, including upstream CO2, lb/gal	23.451	23.451	23.451
CO2, SE basis, million metric ton	1463.455	67.109	3.210
.
IF LNG TO GAS TURBINES
Higher heating value, Btu/lb, per EIA		23726	23726
Upstream factor. See Appendix 12		1.4286	1.4286
Source energy, TWh/y		173.635	8.307
.
Primary energy fed to gas turbines, TWh/y		121.542	5.814
Electricity fed to grid, TWh/y		59.001	2.823
Grid load increase, summer month, 24-h charging, MW		7673	367
Grid load increase, summer month,  8-h charging, MW		23019	1101
.
Combustion CO2, lb/million Btu		120	120
Upstream factor. See Appendix 12		1.4286	1.4286
CO2, SE basis, million metric ton		32.247	1.543
CO2 reduction versus E10, million metric ton		34.861	1.668
.
IF NATURAL GAS TO GAS TURBINES
Higher heating value, Btu/lb, per EIA		22453	22453
Upstream factor. See Appendix 12		1.17	1.17
Source energy, TWh/y		142.204	6.803
.
Combustion CO2, lb/million Btu		120	120
Upstream factor. See Appendix 12		1.17	1.17
CO2, SE basis, million metric ton		26.410	1.263
CO2 reduction versus E10, million metric ton		40.669	1.947

 

Comparison of E10, LNG and Natural Gas

 

The energy and CO2 emissions of E10, LNG and NG are compared on a source energy basis in the Summary Table.

 

Using source energy is the proper way to make comparisons, because source energy factors vary for different fuels. NG is preferred, because it:

 

- Requires much less source energy than LNG

- Emits much less CO2 than LNG

- Is domestic; would not adversely affect the US trade balance

- Has 1/3 the cost of Russian/Middle East LNG 

- Requires much less capital cost

Summary Table 2	E10	LNG	LNG versus E10	NG	NG versus E10
Source energy	TWh	TWh	CO2 reduction	TWh	CO2 reduction
US	6301.293
NE	288.954	173.635		142.204
VT	13.823	8.307		6.803
CO2 Emissions	million metric ton	million mt	million mt	million mt	million mt
US	1463.455
NE	67.109	33.247	34.862	26.410	40.699
VT	3.210	1.543	1.667	1.263	1.947

Future Heat Pumps

Future heat pumps would impose very significant additional demand increases of daytime demand during hot days in summer (likely already with peak demands), and additional increases of winter demand during cold days in winter.

 

VT Grid Completely Inadequate

The winter demand increases due to EVs + heat pumps, would severely stress the NE grid. In fact, almost all VT high voltage and distribution grids would be completely inadequate.

 

Electricity Storage Systems

It would be financially unfeasible to use storage to cover the daily, weekly, and seasonal variation of wind and solar, as the turnkey capital cost of one TWh of storage systems (as delivered as AC to the HV grid) would cost about 1 billion kWh x $400/kWh = $400 billion. Even as future battery costs would decrease, the rest of the turnkey system costs likely would not. See Appendix and URLs.

 

Wind And Solar are Much Less than Meets the Eye

In 2017, the entire load on the VT grid was about 6.030 TWh. To feed to the grid an additional 2.823 TWh for charging EVs with highly subsidized, expensive, unreliable, variable, intermittent wind and solar would be a huge physical challenge, especially during summer when wind is minimal for months (just look out the window), and during winter when solar is minimal for months. See Appendix.

 

RE Proponents Have Plans for Our Energy Future

RE proponents in Massachusetts and New York are adamantly opposing additional gas lines to provide additional low-cost gas from Pennsylvania. They want to wean us off gas and nuclear to save the world. They say NE state governments have plans to temporarily import Russian and Middle East LNG at 3 times the price of domestic gas, until they build out wind and solar.

 

They do not say it would take a temporary period of at least 2 or 3 decades to actually implement:

 

- The planned wind and solar expansion

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/conservative-law-founda...

- Replacing nuclear plants with LNG-fired gas turbine plants

- Replacing gasoline light duty vehicles with EVs charging at night

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-gasoline-cons...

- Replacing traditional building heating systems with heat pump systems.

- About doubling the capacity of the NE grid for the increased demand and load.

 

NOTE: The capital cost would be much greater, if all the replacement electricity were from wind and solar, because TWh-scale energy storage systems would be required, as there would not be enough remaining gas turbine capacity to provide the peaking, filling-in and balancing services for the large quantities of variable/intermittent wind and solar.

 

A 377/32 = 12-fold increase of Everett-size tanker loads would be required, if Russian/Middle East LNG.

Everett could handle at most 100 Everett-size tanker loads/y, if operated at high output, 24/7/365.

The required expansion would be at least 377 - 100 = 277 tanker loads, plus for heat pumps. See table.

Summary Table 3	Capital cost	LNG tanker loads	Everett LNG tanker loads
	$billion	67500 mt/each	33340 mt/each
Existing		0	32
Planned wind and solar expansion	49.4
Nuclear to gas turbine plants	9.7	67	136
Gasoline to electricity from G/T plants	44.1	119	241
Total	103.2	186	377
Heat pump transition	TBA	TBA	TBA

 

RE proponents insist on saving the world by what would involve, during future decades:

 

- Permanently ruining tens of thousands of acres of meadows for solar, plus

- Permanently ruining hundreds of miles of pristine ridgeline for onshore wind, plus

- At least a thousand square miles of expensive offshore wind, plus

- Expanding the capacity of NE LNG terminals to deal with the additional tanker loads, plus

- Expanding the NE grid to about double its capacity, after heat pumps, etc., also are added. See Appendix and URLs.

 

RE proponents likely did not consider:

- Just the daily charging shows very significant increases in demand, if charging is evenly distributed from 10 pm to 6 am, or if charging is evenly distributed over 24 hours.

- Just to orchestrate the even distribution of charging EVs would be a major effort. The charging has to be evenly distributed otherwise, if everyone plugged in at certain hours, the grid would blow up.

- Just to provide the fuel (Russian and Middle East LNG at 2 to 3 times the price of domestic gas) for the new gas-fired generators would be a major effort.

 - Just to provide the grid for supporting a major increase in nighttime demand would be a major effort.

 - Heat pumps and converting transport diesel and other transport fuels to EVs would be in addition.

 - Hydro-Quebec could provide at most 20%, about 12 TWh/y, on a 24/7/365 basis, of what is needed just for the EVs. See Appendix 5 of URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-governors-statement-on-regional-energy-affordabilit-1

ANALYSIS

 

US LDV Miles and Mileage in 2016

- Miles driven by LDV, short wheel base, including passenger cars, light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles with a wheelbase (WB) equal to or less than 121 inches, was 2,191,764 million miles in 2016.

- Miles driven by LDV, long wheel base, including large passenger cars, vans, pickup trucks, and sport/utility vehicles with wheelbases (WB) larger than 121 inches, was 657,954 million miles in 2016.

- Total miles 2,849,718 million in 2016.

 

Table 1	US LDV
Short wheel base, million miles	2191764
Long wheel base, million miles	657954
Total, million miles	2849718
Total E10 production, billion gal	142.850
Transport fraction	0.9631
Transport E10, billion gal	137.579
E10 MPG	20.7
All fuel MPG. See URL.	22.0

 

https://www.bts.gov/content/us-vehicle-miles

https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-v...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/politically-inspired-ma...

 

E10 Consumption, Electricity for EVs, CO2 Emissions, Tanker Loads of LNG

 

NOTE: This analysis is for NE. The numbers for VT would be similar, except prorated downwards by a factor of 6.262/130.678 = 0.04791 

 

E10 Consumption

US total E10 consumption was 142.850 billion gallons in 2016.

NE transport E10 consumption was 6.309 billion gallon in 2016. See table 2, URL and Appendix.

http://ipsr.ku.edu/ksdata/ksah/energy/18ener6a.pdf

 

Electricity for EVs

New Englanders drove about 130.678 billion E10 miles/y in 2016, at an assumed 20.7 mpg, the same as US E10 average.

 

Electricity generation for EVs would be about 59.001 billion kWh/y. Generating for EVs from LNG would require 119 tanker loads/y, for a total of 186 tanker loads/y. See tables 2A and 2B.

 

The assumed 0.350 kWh/mile (in batteries as measured by EV meter) is the average of all LDVs (cars, minivans, SUVs, ¼-ton pick-ups, short and long wheel base). See table 2.

 

NOTE: Generating 31.538 billion kWh of NE nuclear in 2017 from LNG would require 67 tanker loads of LNG/y. See table 2B and URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-governors-s...

 

NOTE: This analysis covers only the transport E10. Any electricity generation required to replace other E10, diesel fuel and for operating heat pumps, etc., would be in addition.

 

NOTE: The nighttime charging of EVs requires a reliable, steady electricity supply, not dependent on wind and sun, otherwise millions of people likely would not be able to get to work the next day.

 

NOTE: The LNG supply during the next few decades likely would be from Russia and the Middle East at about $9/million Btu, which would be at least 3 times more costly than pipeline gas from Pennsylvania. Also:

 

- The imports from enemy and unstable countries would be politically unwise, and adversely affect the US trade balance. Massachusetts and New York politicians and their RE proponents are in favor of such imported LNG.

- The more expensive electricity from the imported LNG would be a major headwind for NE economic development and growth.

 

CO2 Emissions

In 2016, the CO2 emitted by NE transport E10 was about 6.309 b gal x 23.451 lb/gal = 67.109 million metric ton/y, including upstream from well to tank. See table 2.

 

 The total CO2 of a gallon of E10 is about 23.451 lb, including upstream. See Appendix. This value includes:

 

- Combustion CO2 of E10

- Upstream CO2 of energy for extracting, processing, and transporting E10 (well to tank)

- Combustion CO2 of ethanol, which was set at 0, per international convention.

- Cropping, processing, blending and transport CO2 to produce ethanol.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/politically-inspired-ma...

 

Table 2/2016	2016	42	20.7	0.350	CO2 emissions
	barrels of E10	1000 gallon of E10	billion miles with E10	TWh in batteries	million Mt
E10 vehicles	Transport	Transport	Transport	Transport	Transport
MA	64895	2725590	56.456	19.760	28.993
CT	34555	1451310	30.061	10.522	15.438
ME	18485	776370	16.081	5.628	8.258
NH	16513	693546	14.366	5.028	7.377
RI	8577	360234	7.462	2.612	3.832
VT	7186	301812	6.252	2.188	3.210
NE	150211	6308862	130.678	45.737	67.109

  

Table 2A		NE	VT	RI	NH	ME	CT	MA	Nuke to LNG
LNG requirement	kWh	TWh	TWh	TWh	TWh	TWh	TWh	TWh	TWh
PE, gas turbines	0.891	116.478	5.572	6.651	12.805	14.334	26.795	50.321	64.968
Conversion loss. 50%	0.446
Electricity generation	0.446	58.239	2.786	3.325	6.402	7.167	13.397	25.161	32.484
Self-use loss, 3.0%	0.013
Fed to grid	0.433	56.543	2.705	3.229	6.216	6.958	13.007	24.428	31.538
T&D loss, 7.5%	0.030
To meters	0.403	52.598	2.516	3.003	5.782	6.473	12.100	22.724
EV charging loss, 15%	0.053
In batteries; mix of LDVs	0.350	45.737	2.188	2.612	5.03	5.63	10.522	19.760

 

Tanker Loads of LNG; excludes heat pumps

 

Table 2B/Tanker loads	E10 vehicles to EVs	Nuclear to Gas turbine	Total LNG
	LNG	LNG	LNG
	million metric ton	million metric ton	million metric ton
LNG, TWh	116.478	64.968	178.840
LNG, million metric ton	8.062	4.497	12.379
Tanker loads of LNG	119	67	186
1 million metric ton LNG, MWh	14447205
1 million metric ton LNG, TWh	14.447
Tanker load of LNG, metric ton	67500

 

Charging the EVs During a Peak Summer Month

 

Miles travelled during a peak summer month is about 14% greater than the annual average.

 

- If the EVs were charged 24 hours/d, the NE grid load increase during that peak month would be an average of 7353 MW. The new gas turbine capacity would be about 9804 MW, at a turnkey capital cost of $14.7 billion, plus $billions more for grid expansion and new LNG terminals or pipelines from Pennsylvania.

 

- If the EVs were charged 8 hours/d, the NE grid load increase during that peak month would be an average of 22080 MW. The new gas turbine capacity would be about 29413 MW, at a turnkey capital cost of $44.1 billion, plus $billions more for grid expansion and new LNG terminals or pipelines from Pennsylvania.

 

	NE
Table 3/Fed to grid for EVs, billion kWh/y	56.543
Month/y	12
Summer factor	1.14
Summer generation, TWh/month	5.37
h/y	8766
h/m	730.5
Charging time, h/d	24	8
Summer grid load to charge EVs, MW	7353	22060
Capacity factor	0.9	0.9
Reserve margin	1.2	1.2
Installed capacity for charging of EVs, MW	9804	29413
Capital cost, $million/MW	1.5	1.5
Turnkey capital cost, $billion	14.7	44.1

 

Increased Load and Generation on NE Grid

  

If the charging of all EVs were evenly distributed from 10 pm to 6 am, every day, the nighttime demand increase during a peak summer month would be 22060 MW

 

If the charging of all EVs were evenly distributed during 24 hours of the day, the around-the-clock demand increase during a peak summer month would be 7353 MW.

 

- That would be a significant increase of the normal nighttime demand of about 12000 MW. The normal daytime peak demand is about 22000 MW, and about 24500 MW during the late afternoons of hot summer days.

 

- The existing gas turbine capacity (which by now would include the gas turbines needed to replace nuclear) definitely would not be sufficient to provide that new nighttime demand and electricity. 

 

- Future heat pumps would impose very significant additional demand increases of daytime demand during hot days in summer (likely already with peak demands), and additional increases of winter demand during cold days in winter.

 

- The winter demand increases due to EVs + heat pumps, would severely stress NE generation capacity and fuel supply, and the NE grid. In fact, NE generation capacity and NE grid would be completely inadequate.

 

That means the following requirements:

 

1) A full complement of gas turbines to provide peaking, filling-in and balancing services and any electricity not provided by wind and solar.

2) Significantly increased capacity of connections to New York and Canada 

3) TWh-scale storage systems (delivered as AC to high voltage grids).

 

NOTE: Wind and solar cannot ever be relied upon for electric service at 99.97% reliability, 24/7/365, year after year. 

On an AC-to-AC basis, up to 20% of any energy passing through storage is lost.

Additional generation is required to make up for that loss.

 

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-will-need-t...

APPENDIX 1

Source Energy and Source CO2 factors for Gasoline, Ethanol and E10

 

Biofuels, including ethanol, require far more energy from various fossil fuels and chemicals to produce them than gasoline. The combustion CO2 of ethanol is not counted, because the next crop reabsorbs the CO2 a year later, per international agreement.

See table 4.

 

Producing 1 million Btu of gasoline, HHV, requires about 230000 Btu of various energy inputs.

Producing 1 million Btu of ethanol, HHV, requires about 914414 Btu of various energy inputs. See arb.ca URL.

Producing 1 million Btu of E10 requires 0.9 x 230000 + 0.1 x 914414 = 298441 Btu of various energy inputs.

 

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/042308lcfs_etoh.pdf

https://h2tools.org/hyarc/calculator-tools/lower-and-higher-heating...

 

Table 4
	Ethanol	Ethanol	Gasoline	E10
ENERGY	With credit	No credit	No credit	No credit
Fuel produced, HHV, Btu. See URL	1000000	1000000	1000000	1000000
Co-products, Btu. See URL	97301	0	0	0
Primary energy, Btu	1097301	1000000	1000000	1000000
.
Crop, process, transport, Btu	914414	914414
Extract, process, transport, Btu			230000	298441
Source energy, Btu	2011715	1914414	1230000	1298441
Factor = SE/PE	1.8333	1.9144	1.2300	1.2984
.
CO2 EMISSIONS
HHV, Btu/gal. See URL		84530	124340	120359
LHV, Btu/gal, See URL		76330	116090	112114	LHV ratio = 1.0355
Combustion CO2, lb/gal. See URL		12.720	19.640	18.948
Crop, process, transport, lb/gal		13.556			0.25 x 19.640 = 4.9100
Extract, process, transport, lb/gal			4.9100	5.775	13.556 x 0.1 + 4.9100 x 0.9
Source CO2, bio CO2 counted, lb/gal		26.276	24.550	24.723
Factor = Source/Combustion CO2		2.0657	1.2500	1.3048
Source CO2, bio not counted, lb/gal		13.556	24.550	23.451	13.556 x 0.1 + 24.550 x 0.9
Factor = Source/Combustion CO2		1.0657	1.2500	1.2376	1.25 per EPA
.
Fuel, HHV, gal/million Btu		11.830	8.042	8.308	Gallon ratio = 1.0331
Total CO2, not counted, lb/million Btu		160.369	197.442	194.839

APPENDIX 2

EIA reported total E10 consumption of 142.85 billion gallons in 2017.

The transport fraction is about 0.9631.

Transport consumption was 137.579 billion gallons of E10 and E15, almost all E10.

Calculated transport CO2 was 1101.80 million metric ton in 2017.

EIA reported transport CO2 of 1102 million metric ton for 2016.

Numbers for 2017 are not yet available.

 

Table 5		E10	E10	E15	E15	2017
		90/10	90/10	85/15	85/15
Ethanol combustion, lb CO2/gal, counted	12.72	0.10	1.272	0.15	1.908
Ethanol combustion, lb CO2/gal, not counted			0		0
Gasoline combustion, lb CO2/gal	19.64	0.90	17.676	0.85	16.694
lb CO2/gal, counted			18.948		18.602
lb CO2/gal, not counted			17.676		16.694
Fraction			0.98		0.02
Total E10 in 2017, billion gallons						142.85
Transport fraction						0.9631
E10 + E15 consumption, billion gal			134.82		2.75	137.57
CO2, million metric ton, counted			1158.75		23.22	1181.97
CO2, million metric ton, not counted			1080.97		20.83	1101.80
EIA reported for 2016, gasoline						1102.00
EIA reported for 2016, diesel						437.00

APPENDIX 3

High Electricity Prices for RE in New England: The highly subsidized wholesale prices of wind and solar paid by utilities to producers are much higher than in the rest of the US, because of New England’s mediocre wind and solar conditions.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/subsidized-solar-system...

 

Wind and Solar Far From Competitive with Fossil in New England: The Conservation Law Foundation claims renewables are competitive with fossil. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is a list of NE wholesale prices and Power Purchase Agreement, PPA, prices.

 

NE field-mounted solar is 12 c/kWh; competitively bid

NE rooftop solar is 18 c/kWh, net-metered; GMP adds costs of 3.813 c/kWh, for a total of 21.813 c/kWh

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

NE wind offshore, until recently, was about 18 c/kWh. See Note.

NE wind ridgeline is at least 9 c/kWh

DOMESTIC pipeline gas is 5 c/kWh

Russian and Middle East imported LNG is at least 9 c/kWh

NE nuclear is 4.5 c/kWh

NE hydro is 4 c/kWh; about 10 c/kWh, if Standard Offer in Vermont.

Hydro-Quebec imported hydro is 6 - 7 c/kWh; GMP paid 5.549 c/kWh in 2016, under a recent 20-y contract.

NE annual average wholesale price about 5 c/kWh, unchanged since 2009, courtesy of low-cost gas and nuclear.

NOTE: Vineyard Wind, 800 MW, fifteen miles south of Martha’s Vineyard, using 8 or 10 MW turbines, 750 ft tall.

Phase 1 on line in 2021, electricity offered at an average of 8.9 c/kWh over 20 years

Phase 2 offered at an average of 7.9 c/kWh over 20 years

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/08/13/vineyard-wind-offer...

https://www.boem.gov/What-Does-an-Offshore-Wind-Energy-Facility-Loo...

 

NOTE: The NE grid is divided in regions, each with Local Market Prices, LMPs, which vary from 2.5 - 3.5 c/kWh from 10 pm to about 6 pm; slowly increase to about 6 - 7 c/kWh around noon time, when solar is maximal; are about 7 - 8 c/kWh in late afternoon/early evening (peak demand hours), when solar is minimal. Unusual circumstances, such as power plant or transmission line outages, can cause LMPs to increase to 20 - 40 c/kWh, and even higher when such events occur during peak demand hours.

 

NOTE: The above prices would be about 50% higher without the subsidies and even higher without cost shifting. See Appendix.

 

NOTE: Here is an ISO-NE graph, which shows for very few hours during a 13-y period were wholesale prices higher than 6 c/kWh. Those prices are low because of low-cost gas, low-cost nuclear and low-cost hydro. The last four peaks were due to:

 

- Pipeline constraints, aggravated by the misguided recalcitrance of pro-RE Governors of NY and MA

- Pre-mature closings of coal and nuclear plants

- Lack of more robust connections to nearby grids, such as New York and Canada. See URLs.

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

http://truenorthreports.com/rolling-blackouts-are-probably-coming-t...

 

APPENDIX 4

Wind and Solar Conditions in New England: New England has highly variable weather and low-medium quality wind and solar conditions. See NREL wind map and NREL solar map.

 

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/100m_wind/awstwspd100onoff3-1.jpg

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/solar/national_photovoltaic_2009-01...

 

Wind:

- Wind electricity is zero about 30% of the hours of the year (it takes a wind speed of about 7 mph to start the rotors)

- Wind is minimal most early mornings and most late afternoons/early evenings (peak demand hours), especially during summer

- Wind often is minimal 5 - 7 days in a row in summer and winter, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

- About 60% is generated at night, when demand is much less than during the late afternoons/early evenings

- About 60% is generated in winter.

- During winter, the best wind month is up to 2.5 times the worst summer month

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.262) of any US region, except the US South. See URL.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20112

 

Solar:

- Solar electricity is strictly a midday affair.

- It is zero about 65% of the hours of the year, mostly at night.

- It often is minimal 5 - 7 days in a row in summer and in winter, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

- It is minimal early mornings and late afternoons/early evenings

- It is minimal much of the winter months

- It is minimal for several days with snow and ice on most of the panels.

- It varies with variable cloudiness, which would excessively disturb distribution grids with many solar systems, as happens in southern California and southern Germany on a daily basis. Utilities use batteries to stabilize their grids.

- During summer, the best solar month is up to 4 times the worst winter month; that ratio is 6 in Germany.

- New England has the lowest capacity factor (about 0.145, under ideal conditions) of any region in the US, except some parts of the US Northwest.

 

NOTE: Even if the NE grid had large capacity connections with Canada and New York, any major NE wind lull and any major NE snowfall likely would affect the entire US northeast, i.e., relying on neighboring grids to "help-out" likely would not be prudent strategy.

 

Wind Plus Solar:

ISO-NE publishes the minute-by-minute outputs off various energy sources contributing their electricity to the grid.

All one has to do is add the wind and solar and one comes rapidly to the conclusion both are minimal many hours of the year, at any time during the year.

 

- Wind plus solar production could be minimal for 5 - 7 days in summer and in winter, especially with snow and ice on most of the panels, as frequently happens during December, January and February, as proven by ISO-NE real-time generation data.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/daily-shifting-of-wind-...

 

If we were to rely on wind and solar for most of our electricity, massive energy storage systems (a few hundred GWh-scale for Vermont, multiple TWh-scale for NE) would be required to cover multi-day wind lulls, multi-day overcast/snowy periods, and seasonal variations. See URLs.

 

Wind and solar cannot ever be expected to charge New England’s EVs, so people can get to work the next day, unless backed up by several TWh of storage, because wind/solar lulls can occur for 5 - 7 days in a row, in summer and in winter. BTW, the turnkey capital cost of one TWH of storage (delivered as AC to the grid) is about $400 billion.

 

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-example-of-elec...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/seasonal-pumped-hydro-s...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electricity-storage-to-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/pumped-storage-hydro-in...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-hype-ver...

 

APPENDIX 5

The below table shows the highly efficient Prius plug-in imposes much less load on the NE grid than a mix of LDVs.

EPA Combined MPGeq for a Prius plug-in = 33.7 kWh/0.2533 kWh/mile (wall meter) = 133.

The 322 g CO2/kWh is from the ISO-NE 2016 grid emissions report.

The 8% upstream is assumed the same as for the US grid. See table 6.

The material taken out of the ground, etc., requires energy for extraction, processing, transport to produce fuels for feeding to power plants which convert it to electricity, which, less self-use, is fed to the grid, plus imports, less T&D losses, finally arrives at electric meters.

 

Table 6	Mix of LDVs	Prius Plug-in	g CO2/kWh	g CO2/kWh
	kWh/mile	kWh/mile	No upstream	With 8% upstream
Primary energy to gas turbines	0.930	0.561
Conversion loss, 50%	0.465	0.280
Electricity generation for EVs	0.465	0.280
Self-use loss, 3.0%	0.014	0.008
Fed to grid = grid load	0.452	0.272	322	348
T&D loss, 7.5%	0.032	0.019
To meters, measured by EPA	0.420	0.253	346	374
EV charging/resting loss, 20%	0.070	0.042
In batteries	0.350	0.211	415	449

 

NOTE:

- About 8% of the combustion CO2 of the fuel fed to power plants (primary energy) needs to be added due to the CO2 of extraction, processing and transport of the fuel. The ISO-NE g/kWh values in its 2016 report do not include the 8%. Source energy CO2 = 1.08 x primary energy CO2.

- About 25% of the combustion CO2 of a gallon of E10 fed to vehicles (primary energy) needs to be added due to the CO2 of extraction, processing and transport of the E10. Source energy CO2 = 1.25 x primary energy CO2.

 

NOTE: Source energy - energy for extraction, processing, transport = primary energy = fed to power plants.

 

APPENDIX 5A

Below is a table based on EPA

 

The EPA measures EV electricity at the wall meter during testing.

The EPA upstream (if it is accounted for) would likely be based on primary energy, not source energy.

A Tesla Model S has slightly less CO2/mile than a Prius hybrid.

A Tesla Model 3 has significantly less CO2/mile than a Prius hybrid.

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

 

Table 7/Prius plug-in		$/y	$/mile
Cost of travel/y, 50% electric mode	0.2533 x 18 c/kWh x 0.50 x 12000	274
Cost of travel/y, 50% hybrid mode	12000/54 mpg x 0.50 x $2.80/gal	311
Total cost of travel/y		585	0.0492
		g/y	g/mile
CO2 emission, SE basis, electric mode	0.2533 x 12000 x 374 NE grid x 0.50	568405	95
CO2 emission, SE basis, hybrid mode	12000/54 x 23.451 lb x 454 x 0.50	1182973	197
Total CO2 emission, PE basis		1751378	146
.
Tesla, Model S, 4wd		$/y	$/mile
Cost of travel/y, 100% electric mode	0.381 x 18 c/kWh x 12000	823	0.0686
		g/y	g/mile
CO2 emissions, SE basis	0.381 x 12000 x 374 NE grid	1709928	142
.
Tesla Model 3, 4wd, Edmunds road test		$/y	$/mile
Cost of travel/y, 100% electric mode	0.302 x 18 c/kWh x 12000	652	0.0544
		g/y	g/mile
CO2 emissions, SE basis	0.302 x 12000 x 374 NE grid	1355376	113
.
Future compact IC vehicle @ 38 mpg		$/y	$/mile
Cost of travel	12000/38 x $2.80	884	0.0700
		g/y	g/mile
CO2 emissions, SE basis	12000/38 x 23.451 x 454	3362133	280
.
Subaru Outback, 4wd @ 30 mpg		$/y	$/mile
Cost of travel	12000/30 x $2.80	1120	0.0933
		g/y	g/mile
CO2 emissions, SE basis	12000/30 x 23.451 x 454	4258702	355

APPENDIX 6 (deleted)

APPENDIX 7

Vermont ALL Vehicles Miles and Mileage in 2015

- Vehicle miles driven on VT roads was about 7.31 billion in 2015, an estimate of the miles driven with all types of vehicles, using all types of fuel. See page 5 of URL.

- The E10, diesel and compressed natural gas, CNG, consumption were 319.8, 67.9 and 0.143 million gallon, respectively. See page 31 of URL.

- The all vehicle, all fuel mileage would be about 7.31 billion miles/(319.9 + 67.9 x 128488/112114, LHV ratio + 0.143 million gallon) = 18.4 mpg, which is similar to other calculated values. See table 1 and page 29 of URL.  

 

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

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

 

Table 9	VT
All vehicles, all fuels, billion miles	7.31
E10, million gal	319.8
Diesel, million gal	67.9
Diesel x (LHV ratio = 128488/112114)	77.8
CNG, million gal	0.143
Gal eq, million gal	397.8
All vehicle, all fuel MPG	18.4

APPENDIX 8

Just supplying the electricity to the NE EVs would require 56.543 TWh/y to be fed into the NE grid, equivalent to about 117 tanker loads of Russian and Middle East LNG per year, about 2.4 tanker loads per week (LNG at 3x the price of domestic gas). 

 

NOTE: The Jones act forbids LNG shipments from Louisiana to Everett, MA.

NOTE: Mass and New York are opposed to increased pipelines from Pennsylvania.

 

The LNG terminal would need to be able to store about 1 to 2 weeks of LNG to ensure continuous supply.

 

The present LNG terminal in Everett, MA, could handle at most about 61 tanker loads per year.

 

Storage, 3.4 billion cubic foot

Delivery, maximum continuous, could be 0.7 billion cubic foot/d.

All of the current Everett LNG is already spoken for.

All LNG supply for EVs, etc., would be additional. See table 10

 

NOTE:

- Each tanker load in this article holds 67500 metric ton of LNG.

- Each shipload at the Everett LNG terminal holds an average of about 33340 metric ton of LNG.

- About 120/y such shiploads would be required to operate the terminal at 100% capacity; current shiploads are at a rate of about 31.3/y.

- RE proponents want to ship more LNG through the terminal, but one must not forget that additional LNG would not be coming from friendly Trinidad at $5/million Btu, but from hostile Russia and the Middle East at $9/million Btu, in foreign-owned tankers, built in foreign shipyards, crewed by foreigners. Putting America first?

Table 10
Everett		Everett size
Storage capacity, billion cubic foot	3.4
Delivery, maximum continuous, bcf/d	0.7
Delivery, maximum continuous, billion Btu/d	700
Delivery, maximum continuous, billion kWh/d	0.205
Delivery, maximum continuous, TWh/y; 0.205 x 7866/24	67.241
LNG, million metric ton	4.654
Tanker loads/y, at 100% capacity factor	69	140
Tanker loads/y, at 26.2% capacity factor	18	37
NE EVs, additional LNG
LNG to gas turbines, TWh/y	116.478
LNG, million metric ton	8.062
Tanker loads/y	119	241
Nuclear to LNG, additional LNG
LNG to gas turbines, TWh/y	64.968
LNG, million metric ton	4.497
Tanker loads/y	67	136
Total tanker loads/y	186	377
1 TWh to million mt of LNG	0.06927
1 million metric ton LNG to TWh	14.447
Tanker load of LNG, metric ton	67500
Everett tanker load of LNG, metric ton	33340

APPENDIX 9

The Everett, MA, LNG terminal is operated at a capacity factor of about 0.26, the average of 2016/2017.

It received about 2.49 shiploads/month in 2017, and slightly less than 2.73 shiploads per month in 2016.

It operated at a capacity factor of about 0.46 during January and February 2016, during which it received 9 shiploads, or about 4.5 shiploads loads per month.

The increased shiploads is due to additional gas demand for generating electricity and space heating.

All this LNG is shipped from Trinidad from gas fields with decreasing outputs.

The average price of Russian/Middle East LNG is about $9/million Btu.

The average price of Trinidad LNG is about $5/million Btu.

The average price of pipeline gas from Pennsylvania is about $2.70/million Btu.

 

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_poe1_a_EPG0_IML_Mmcf_a.htm

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/04/f30/LNG%202016_0.pdf

 

Table 11	2016	2016	2017
	Trinidad	Trinidad	Trinidad
	million cf for 60 days	million cf	million cf
Shipload	9	33	30
Shipload/month	4.5	2.73	2.49
Supply, million cf	19225	69928	63936
Supply, bcf	19.2254	69.9280	63.9360
Gas/ship load, bcf	2.1362	2.1362	2.1362
Delivered gas to users, bcf/d	320	192	175
Period, d	60	365	365
Generated electricity, billion kWh	2.8173	10.2474	9.3693
Fed to NE grid, TWh/d	0.0454	0.0271	0.0248
Actual capacity factor	0.46	0.27	0.25

  

APPENDIX 10

Below are the results of two studies of the CO2 emissions of NG and LNG, life cycle basis.

The upstream factor for NG is 1.170

The upstream factor for LNG is (1.4115 +1.4457)/2 = 1.4286

Study 1

 

	NG	NG	NG	LNG	LNG	LNG	Total
	low	high	avg	low	high	avg
Extraction	6.20	7.30	6.75
Processing	3.00	3.00	3.00
Transmission/Storage	6.90	7.80	7.35
Distribution	3.30	3.30	3.30
Combustion	120.00	120.00	120.00
Liquefaction				11.00	31.00	21.00
Tanker transport				2.20	7.30	5.70
Regasification				0.85	3.70	2.28
CO2, lb/million Btu			140.40			28.98	169.38
Upstream factor, 140.40/120			1.1700				1.4115

Comparative Life Cycle Carbon Emissions of LNG versus Coal and Gas for Electricity Generation

Google the title and the PDF will appear.

Study 2

 

	LNG	LNG	LNG
	low	high	avg
Well drilling	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.7
Extraction	3.0	3.2	3.1	5.4
Processing/Dehydration	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Processing/All other	5.2	5.5	5.4	9.3
Transport to liquefaction	1.8	1.9	1.9	3.2
Shipping	7.5	12.5	10.0	17.4
Regasification	3.2	6.6	4.9	8.5
Transport to power plant	0.2	0.4	0.3	0.5
Electricity generation	5.2	4.6	4.9	8.5
	73.5	64.7	69.1	120.0
	100.0	99.8	99.9	173.5
Factor				1.4457

http://www.igu.org/sites/default/files/node-page-field_file/LNGLife...