New England states are aiming to reduce CO2 emissions to “fight global warming”. The federal government and each state provide various subsidies to Owners to build energy systems that have minimal CO2 emissions, such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, and


- Biomass (wood chip burning, which has the same toxic chemical emissions as coal. It has been declared renewable, but is, in fact, only partially renewable)

- Farm methane (the burning of methane = natural gas = CH4 in engines to generate electricity, instead of releasing the methane to the environment)

- Municipal waste (the burning of curbside household waste which has extremely toxic emissions, including dioxins, instead of land filling it.


If no subsidies, Owners would have to sell their electricity at prices up to about 2 times higher to Utilities.

Utilities are under statutory obligation to buy the electricity.

However, no cost ever disappears, per Economics 101.

The various costs not charged to Owners, are paid by ratepayers, taxpayers and added to government debts. See URL



This article describes:


1) Two EPA methods of calculating the CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour. Both are on fed-to-user-meter basis.

2) How these CO2/kWh values are used by RE folks to overstate/hype the CO2 reduction of EVs and HPs

3) Why the CO2 reduction of EVs and HPs is much less than calculated by RE folks




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



Method 1, Location-Based

It is based on physical conditions, i.e., science-based

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

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


Method 2, Market-Based

It has nothing to do with physical conditions, but everything to do with political conditions.

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

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


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 pure 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, as EM waves, did not travel that fast, the operation of electric grids would be physically impossible; this was known by scientists since before 1900.




Method 1, Location-Based


NE Grid CO2 Emissions, as calculated by ISO-NE


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


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


The grid CO2/kWh will be slowly decreasing, as more low-CO2 electricity generators, such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, 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 EPA/IPCC rules, because that CO2 is assumed to be counted in the “jurisdiction of origin”. See URL



Method 2, Market-Based


Vermont Electrical Sector CO2 Emissionsas calculated by VT-DPS


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

See page 36 of URL



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 by rooftop and meadow 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.


The DPS value is market/PPA-contract-based

It is only 100 x {1 - (1 - 23/317)} = 7.3% of the ISO-NE value, which is location/science-based

The DPS value is a political construct to make EVs and Heat Pumps more attractive regarding CO2 reduction.


Comments on Image


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


For example, in 2019, its CO2 was about 5.6 billion x 317 g/kWh = 1,773,918 Mt, based on ISO-NE fuel data.  


However, in 2019, its CO2 was about 130,000, per VT-DPS market-based method!!!


That method enabled GMP to proclaim itself to be 95% CO2-free, without spending one dime, because it signed paper PPAs for wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, etc., which are designated to have zero CO2 emissions, per EPA/IPCC rules.




Energy Action Network, EAN, Grossly Overstates CO2 Emission Reduction per EV


EAN, prepared a report listing the measures required to “meet Paris by 2025”. That goal is mandated by the Global Warming “Solutions” Act, GWSA, and in accordance with the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan.


EAN claimed, without providing any calculations, replacing 90,000 vehicles of the VT light duty vehicle mix with 90,000 EVs would reduce CO2 by 0.405 million metric ton/y, or 4.5 Mt/y per EV, tail-pipe basis.

See tables 1 and 2, and see page 4 of URL



 EAN ignored the A-to-Z CO2 of:


1) Upstream CO2 emitted for extraction, transport and processing fuels and electricity

2) Embodied CO2 emitted for materials extraction, making the battery packs, etc.

3) Lifetime conditions, including battery degradation.

4) Long-term storage of toxic EV batteries and other components at hazardous waste sites


If these items had not been ignored, the 4.5 Mt/y would be significantly less





CO2 Reduction of an EV, as calculated by EAN, not based on real-world values


EAN likely used the following values for its CO2 calculations


- Annual travel of 13,100 miles/y; but EVs travel a lot less miles per year than gasoline vehicles


- The 2018 VT LDV mileage of 22.715 mpg, per Department of Transportation

The VT light duty vehicle, LDV, mix includes small, medium and large vehicles, such as Tahoes, ¼-ton Pick-ups, Minivans, 4WD SUVs, Crossovers


- The 2018 VT-DPS “market-based” value of 190,000/5.6 billion kWh = 33.9 g CO2/kWh


- EV electricity consumption of 0.300 kWh/mile, from wall-outlet, which is adequate for a small EVs, such as a Tesla Model 3 and Y, but not for larger EVs.

The VT LDV, mix, as EVs, likely would require about 0.350 kWh/mile from the wall outlet.


EAN’s CO2 reduction is calculated at 4.492 Mt/y. See table 1 and next section





Table 1/CO2 Reduction/EV



LDV mix

Small EV













Combustion CO2, lb/gal


Electricity CO2, g/kWh


CO2, Mt/y




CO2 reduction, Mt/y


CO2 Reduction of an EV, based on real-world values


EVs travel less miles/y than assumed by EAN

According to the Haas study, EVs are driven an average of 7,000 miles/y, compared to 12,000 miles/y for the US and VT LDV mix.

The difference holds for: 1) all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, 2) single- and multiple-vehicle households, and 3) inside and outside California. See URL


This means, as a fleet, EVs would reduce much less CO2 /y, than envisioned by the dream scenarios of RE folks.


However, despite the lesser CO2 reduction, EVs are a way to significantly reduce CO2 emissions over the next 10 years.


In 2020, about 123.73 billion gallons of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United States.

In 2020 EVs and plug-in hybrids reduced gasoline consumption by 0.5 billion gallon.

It would take decades to achieve a 60 billion reduction due to EVs and plug-in hybrids.





However, increasing the mileage, mpg, of the VT LDV mix from 22.715 to 35 mpg, such as with highly reliable, very-long-range, 54 mpg, non-plug-in Toyota hybrids, could be achieved at far less cost, and would reduce CO2 at least as much as EVs. See URLs.





EV sales have been trending towards longer ranges. See table 3

EVs, with longer ranges, such as Teslas, are driven more miles per year, on average.

Thus, we can expect the 7,000 miles/y to increase over time.

This article used 9,000 miles/y


Table 2 is based on:


Before EVs

- Gasoline travel of 12,000 miles/y


With EVs

- EV travel of 9,000 miles/y, with the remaining 3,000 miles/y by gasoline vehicle (longer trips, etc)

- EV electricity consumption of 0.350 kWh/y, which is more realistic for the EV mix of LDVs

- ISO-NE CO2 of 317 g/kWh, which science-based on real-world conditions


The resulting CO2 reduction would be 2.180 Mt/y. See table 2


EAN, with help of VT-DPS, claimed, without providing any calculations, a CO2 reduction more than two times as great, i.e., 4.5 versus 2.180 Mt/y per EV; the reduction would be even less, if the A-to-Z CO2 and lifetime conditions had not been ignored


This excessive claim was made to deceive people, including legislators, and to hype the adoption of overly expensive, not-very-useful EVs.


NOTE: EAN, VT-Department of Transportation, “Concerned Scientists” (anyone can join), etc., would GROSSLY OVERSTATE CO2 emission reduction of EVs by assuming:


- Excessive EV travel of 12,000, or even 15,000 miles per year

- Ignoring A-to-Z CO2

- Excessive battery lifetimes of 15, or even 20 years, instead of as realistic 8 years!

- Ignoring EV battery degradation, which implies less range, greater kWh/mile, weaker acceleration, less uphill capability. This would be especially noticeable during cold winter days in colder climates; electric school/transit buses would also be affected. See URL



NOTE: I also made calculations for:


- 2000 miles/y for a gasoline vehicle and 10,000 miles/y for an EV; CO2 reduction was 2.422 Mt/y

- 0 miles for gasoline and 12,000 miles/y for EV; the resulting CO2 reduction was 2.906 Mt/y

Both values are far cry from 4.500 Mt/y claimed RE folks, such as by EAN, VT-DPS, VPIRG, Efficiency Vermont, VEIC, etc.


Remember, the 2.906 Mt/y would be even less, if upstream, embodied and degradation were included!


Table 2/CO2 reduction/EV

Before EV

With EV

With EV

LDV mix

LDV mix

LDV mix
















Combustion CO2, lb/gal



Electricity CO2, g/kWh


CO2, Mt/y





Total CO2, Mt/y

1.059 + 0.998


CO2 reduction, Mt/y

4.237 - 2.057


EVs with Longer Ranges are Driven More Miles/y


The 7,000 miles/y of the Haas study applies to a mix of EVs with short and long ranges.

The 7,000 miles/y would increase, because the EV sales trend has been towards longer ranges.

People who buy longer range EVs, say greater than 250 miles, likely would travel more miles/y.


Ranges, determined in an EPA laboratory, often are not achievable under real-world conditions


EV Range in Colder Climates: EVs, with longer ranges, say 250 miles, are required in colder climates, because real-world range is:


- About 10 to 20% less than EPA, moderate conditions

- Up to 40% less on hilly, snow/ice-covered roads, during 20F-and-below-days in winter.



Table 3 shows EVs with more than 250 miles of range were best sellers in the first quarter of 2021

Sales of 250+ mile EVs were 100 x 83,195/93,371 = 89% of total sales; it looks like that argument is settled.



Table 3/Model








Tesla Model Y, LR




Tesla Model 3, LR




Chevy Bolt

 up to 259



Mustang Mach-E

 up to 305



Tesla Model X, LR




Audi e-tron

 up to 222



Tesla Model S, LR




Nissan Leaf

 up to 226



Porsche Taycan

 up to 227



Hyundai Kona

 up to 258



Volkswagen ID.4

 up to 250



Hyundai, Ioniq

 up to 170




*MSRPs are without any subsidies; some models have no federal subsidies; excludes destination/documentation charges and taxes



Energy Action Network, EAN, Grossly Overstates CO2 Emission Reduction per Heat Pump


EAN, prepared a report listing the measures required to “meet Paris by 2025”. That goal is mandated by the Global Warming “Solutions” Act, GWSA, and in accordance with the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan.


EAN, with help of VT-DPS, claimed, without providing any calculations, 90,000 HPs would reduce CO2 by 0.370 million Mt/y, or 4.111 Mt/y per HP

See page 4 of URL



EAN ignored the A-to-Z CO2 of:


1) Upstream CO2 emitted for extraction, transport and processing fuels and electricity

2) Embodied CO2 emitted for materials extraction, making the HPs, etc.

3) Lifetime conditions, including HP degradation.





This article shows the real CO2 reductions of heat pumps in Vermont.






ISO-NE Payment Settlement Process


ISO-NE monitors/records all NE utility draws on a real-time basis, 24/7/365

ISO-NE apportions the draws according to the provisions of the PPAs.


For example,


GMP, a Vermont utility, had a PPA for 30.8% of its supply, at about 4 c/kWh, with the Seabrook Nuclear plant in 2020

ISO-NE allocates 30.8% of the GMP draw to Seabrook, which gets paid accordingly.

The same with the 55.4% of “Large Hydro” at 5.6 c/kWh, which is mostly from Hydro-Quebec.


Every grid has such a “settlement process” to ensure owners of electricity generators get paid by utilities.



Green Mountain Power Claims to be 95% CO2-free


This claim is made possible because:


1) VT-DPS declared nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, biomass (i.e., wood chip burning), farm methane, etc., as having zero CO2 emissions

The physical reality is quite different, according to 100% of realistic scientists and engineers.


NOTE: This article shows the renewability of CO2 emissions due to wood chip burning, on an A-to-Z basis, is only a small percentage of the combustion CO2, which, by itself, is only about 56% of the A-to-Z CO2.

For example, the McNeal power plant emits 2.907 lb of combustion CO2/kWh, which is 56% of the A-to-Z CO2, at an overall plant efficiency of 25%, and combustion CO2 of 213 lb/million Btu of dry wood. See URLs





2) GMP used CO2 emissions of 23 g/kWh, based on its “paper” PPAs, instead of 317 g/kWh, as calculated by ISO-NE


GMP signed “paper” PPAs to buy more nuclear, hydro, etc.

GMP does not have to invest one dime to comply with “being politically green”.

Legislators know it, and encourage it with grants, tax credits, fast depreciation write-offs, etc. See URLs.




Vermont Has Much Better Options Than Expensive Wind/Solar/Battery Systems




A state-wide building code, which would require new buildings to be highly sealed, highly insulated so they could easily be energy-surplus buildings, or be entirely off-the -grid. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc., have had such codes for at least a decade.


Vermont should be replacing run-of-the-mill, old houses, with up-to-date, energy-surplus, off-the-grid, new houses, at a rate of at least 5,000 houses per year. There would be 150,000 such houses by 2050.


Dabbling at weatherizing, at $10,000 per house, is politically attractive, but a gross waste of money. The goal should be energy conservation and high efficiency. Their combined effect would reduce CO2 at the least cost.


Energy efficiency measures to reduce energy consumption, CO2, and energy costs, such as by:


1) Exchanging traditional light bulbs for LEDs

2) Insulating and sealing energy-hog housing and other buildings

3) Increasing the mileage of existing gasoline vehicles


Such measures would cost $50 to $200 per metric ton, much less than the $2,100/Mt of electric school buses.





Gas Guzzler Fee


Instead of RE folks fantasizing about banning gasoline vehicles, it would be far less expensive for Vermont to immediately enforce a gas-guzzler code to impose a fee on low-mileage vehicles. The fee would be collected at time of registration.


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.




RE folks would have everyone drive UNAFFORDABLE, MATCHBOX-SIZE, IMPRACTICLE 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 (10,560 miles/y), 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

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


The above shows,


A NISSAN Leaf, a compact SUV, would have CO2 reduction of 30.3 Mt over 10 years (3 Mt/y), if compared with the VT LDV mix, which contains small and big vehicles.


A NISSAN Leaf would have CO2 reduction of 16.3 Mt over 10 years (1.63 Mt/y), if compared with my 30-mpg Subaru Outback, a vastly more useful vehicle

NOTE: About 50% of EV users also have PV solar systems, and already drive high-mileage vehicles.

Not much additional CO2 would be reduced, if they would replace a high-mileage vehicle for an EV



New England has Poor Conditions for Wind and Solar


Some areas of the US are favorable for wind and solar systems, because of good winds, such as from North Dakota to the Mexican Border, and the sunny US southwest.


NE has poor conditions for wind systems, except on pristine ridge lines, and offshore areas

NE has the most unfavorable conditions for solar, except the rainy US northwest. See images






As a result, the costs of wind and solar electricity, c/kWh, would always be significantly greater in NE, than in the more favorable areas.


In the windy areas of the US, owners of large-scale wind systems are paid about 5 c/kWh; they are said to be “competitive” with traditional fossil power plants.


However, these owners would need to be paid about 9 - 10 c/kWh, if there were no subsidies, including the Production Tax Credit, PTC, of 1.8 c/kWh; tax credits are like gifts, they are much better than deductions from taxable income. The PTC, started in 1992, has been in effect for 28 years!!



Vagaries of Wind and Solar in New England



Here is an example of a 6-day summer lull.



Here is an example of a multi-day winter lull.



Area Requirements of Energy Sources in New England


An August 2009 study for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory examined land-use data for 172 projects, representing about 80% of the installed and targeted wind capacity, in the U.S., and found an average area of 85 acres/MW. 



This study includes all area aspects of an energy source.

According to Tom Gray of the American Wind Energy Association, the average is 60 acres/MW. Table 1 assumes an average of (85 + 60)/2 = 72.5 acre/MW 



A 1000 MW combined-cycle, gas-turbine plant, CCGT, on 343 acres produces 5.5 times the electricity of a 1000 MW solar plant on 8100 acres, i.e., solar needs 5.5 x 8100/343 = 130 times the land area of a CCGT plant to produce a MWh


A 1000 MW nuclear plant on 832 acres produces 6.2 times the electricity of a 1000 MW solar plant on 8100 acres, i.e., solar needs 6.2 x 8100/832 = 60.4 times the land area of a nuclear plant to produce a MWh


Low-cost CCGT and nuclear electricity: 


- Is not season/weather-dependent

- Is not variable 

- Is not intermittent

- Has minimal CO2 

- Has near-zero particulates.


Table 5/Source




Ridge line




New England


acre/1000 MW

miles/1000 MW



































Ridge Line Wind Turbine Systems


Any NE wind systems would need to be located where the winds are, i.e., on pristine, 2000 ft-high ridge lines, which would require:


1) Significant blasting to provide spacious erection areas for the 450 to 500 ft-high wind turbines

2) Several miles of heavy-duty, 50-ft wide access roads to reach and connect the erection areas

3) Extensive facilities for managing any rain and snow-melt water flows, including infrequent heavy rain-falls


The wind systems would devastate the already-fragile, mountain-top ecologies, which would have significant impacts further down the mountains. No self-respecting environmentalist, or sensitive human being, could ever approve of such wanton, highly visible, noisy, environmental destruction.


The owners of other generators, mostly CCGT plants, are forced to expensively vary their outputs to counteract the variability of wind, 24/7/365.


The CCGT plant owners are not compensated for their increased wear and tear, lesser operating inefficiencies (greater Btu/kWh, greater CO2/kWh), and revenue losses. Those costs are shifted, in one way or another, to the rate bases of utilities, i.e., paid by ratepayers.

No cost ever disappears, per Economics 101.


Those costs are not charged to owners of wind systems, because that would “rain on the wind parade”


Lowell Mountain: The 63-MW wind turbine system, aka Kingdom “Community” Wind, on Lowell Mountain, owned by GMP, involved so much destruction that it “merited” a Manchester Guardian report, with aerial photos, a few years ago.


On top of that, it took about $20 million to connect that wind system to the NEK high voltage grid. It required:


1) A new synchronous condenser system, $10.5 million, to protect the high voltage grid

2) A new substation

3) Extensions/upgrades of high-voltage power lines, to ensure the rural grid would not be excessively disturbed, as the variable output might otherwise take down the entire northern Vermont grid.


- ISO-NE, the NE grid operator, on occasion, requires output curtailments, despite all these measures.

- GMP charges costs of the Lowell wind system to the rate base, subject to review by the VT Public Service Commission, PUC

- GMP uses various subsidies to reduce taxes it would have to pay on net profits, similar to Warren Buffett.


Future Build-outs of Offshore Wind Turbine Systems


- MA, RI, and CT are planning to have 8460, 880, and 4160 MW, respectively, a total of 13,500 MW of offshore wind by 2035, much greater than the above 1600 MW.

- If the same simulation were made for 13,500 MW of wind turbines, the up/down spikes would be about 10,000 MW

- The existing CCGT plants would be inadequate to counteract them, i.e., output curtailments would be required.

- The 2035 date has a ring of urgency to it, but likely would be unattainable in the real world. See page 13 of NE-pool URL


It would take at least 20 years to build out 13,500 MW wind turbines off the coast of New England, plus large-scale solar systems to reduce the NE grid CO2/kWh by about 30%


With that much wind and solar, the NE grid would become very unstable. The NE grid would need:


1) Curtailments of wind output, kWh, on windy days

2) Curtailments of solar output bulges on sunny days

2) Major connections to the Canadian grid

3) Grid-scale batteries, with a capacity of 3 to 4 TWh; turnkey capital cost about $1.5 to $2 TRILLION, at $500/kWh, delivered as AC






NOTE: Nearby countries import German overflow electricity, when it is windy and sunny, at low grid prices (because of a German surplus), and export to Germany, when it is not windy and not sunny, at high grid prices (because of a German shortage). 

The Netherlands is one of the major beneficiaries.

German households get to “enjoy” the highest electric rates in Europe, about 2.5 times as high as the US

Denmark, another wind country, is second!



Maine Offshore Wind Turbine Systems are Dead


The ocean waters near Maine are deep. Almost all offshore wind turbines would need to be floating units, anchored at the seafloor with at least 3 long cables.

The 700-ft tall wind turbines would need to be located at least 25 miles from any inhabited islands, to reduce the visuals, especially with strobe lights, 24/7/365

The wind turbines would be far from major electricity demand centers, such as Montreal and Boston.

Transmission systems would be required to connect the wind turbines to demand centers

All that would make the cost of electricity produced by these wind turbines more expensive than those south of MVI.



Maine is Desperate to Stay in the Wind Turbine Business


Maine wind/solar bureaucrats likely are in active discussions with stakeholders to add 751 MW of onshore wind turbines.

Maine wind/solar bureaucrats are not in active discussions with stakeholders to add offshore wind turbines, as shown by the interconnection proposals on page 13 of URL



Turnkey Capital Costs of Grid-scale Battery Systems


Starting in 2015, EIA has prepared annual reports regarding site-specific, custom-designed, grid-scale battery systems.

The average duration of delivering electricity increased from 0.5 h in 2015 to 3.2 h in 2019.


Excluded are: 


1) Financing costs

2) Benefits of subsidies, such as grants, tax credits, accelerated depreciation, loan interest deductions, waiving of state and local taxes, fees and surcharges, etc.

3) System aging/degradation costs, because the systems had been in operation only a few years.


EIA 2020 Report


The EIA graph, based on surveys of battery system users, shows slowly decreasing costs after 2018

It appears, the range of values likely would become $900/kWh to 450/kWh in 2025.

The values would be near the high end of the range in New England.



The US average turnkey capital cost of battery systems was about $590/kWh, delivered as AC, in 2019.

The NE average turnkey capital cost for such systems is about $700/kWh, delivered as AC, in 2019


Those prices will not decrease much for at least the next 5 to 10 years, per US EIA, unless major technical breakthroughs are discovered, and subsequently implemented on a large scale. See URL


EIA 2021 Report


Table 6 combines the data of prior reports and the 2021 report. See table 6 and page 18 of URLs





Such battery systems operate 8766 hours per year

About 65% of capacity can be used to achieve 15-year lives


Such battery systems are entirely different from the battery packs in electric cars, which operate about 700 hours per year, last about 8 years, and cost about $10,000 for a 60-kWh battery, or $165/kWh. 

That cost may become $125/kWh with more mass production in future years.


NOTE: Various financial services entities, such as Bloomberg and Lazard, issue reports that project lower battery system costs/kWh, delivered as AC, than the EIA, likely to hype their financial services business interests. It would be prudent to ignore those reports.

Table 6/Battery system turnkey cost





 $/kWh as AC


 $/kWh as AC


 2500 to 1750




 2800 to 750




 1500 to 700




 1250 to 500




1050 to 475




 900 to 450




Energy Losses of Grid-scale Battery Systems


The electricity loss of battery systems, i.e., efficiency, is much greater than generally understood.

Some energy systems analysts assume a loss for only the battery, such as 10%, but omit 1) Power Electronics, 2) Thermal Management and 3) Control and Monitoring.


1) This article identifies 18 losses of a battery system, totaling about 20% for a round-trip, excluding step-down and step-up transformer losses. See Note.


The system model has four coupled component models: BatteryPower ElectronicsThermal Management and Control and Monitoring.

Open URL and click on “View Open Manuscript”

See figures 3, 4 and 17 of article.



2) Per EIA survey of existing battery systems, the efficiency is about 80%, AC to AC basis, excluding step-down and step-up transformer losses.


Aging had only a minor effect, because the battery systems were only a few years old.



Battery System Losses, A-to-Z basis: Usually, AC electricity from a distribution, or high-voltage grid, has to pass through a step-down transformer, about a 1% loss, to reduce the voltage to that of the battery, then the AC is converted to DC, then inside the battery. The DC energy from the battery has to be digitized, then made into a sine wave with the same phase and 60-cycle frequency as the grid, then via a step-up transformer, about a 1% loss, to the distribution, or high-voltage grid, for an overall efficiency of about 78%, much less with aging at about 1.5%/y


EV Charging Losses


Electric vehicle charging has losses of about 16% in summer, about 18% in winter, from wall outlet, as AC, to a charge inside the battery, as DC. There are additional losses for the charged electricity to go from the battery to the wheels, plus losses for operating the vehicle, such as battery cooling/heating, cabin cooling/heating, heated seats, music, instrumentation, etc.


This article has four real-world examples of EV charging losses. See part 3 of article




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


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

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

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

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


Charging at 32F or less

Li-ions would plate out on the anode each time when charging, especially when such charging occurred at battery temperatures of 32F or less.


Here is an excellent explanation regarding charging at 32F or less.



Fire in Driveway: Firefighters were called to Briglin’s house on Tucker Hill Road, around 9 AM Thursday.

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


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

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






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

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





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

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

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






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


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

- Charging EVs from 0 to 20% charge, and from 80 to 100% charge:


1) Uses more kWh AC from the wall outlet per kWh DC charged into the battery, and

2) Is detrimental to the battery.

3) Requires additional kWh for cooling the battery while charging.


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



See section Charging Electric Vehicles During Freezing Conditions in URL


Charging Electric Vehicles During Freezing Conditions


A 3-layer tape (cathode, separator and anode) is wound on a core to make a battery cell.

An EV battery pack has several thousand cells.

The cells are arranged in strings, i.e., in series, to achieve the desired voltage

The strings are arranged in parallel to achieve the desired amps.

Power, in Watts = Volts x Amps


EV Normal Operation at 32F and below: On cold/freezing days, EVs would use on-board systems to heat the battery, as needed, during daily operation


EV Parking at 32 F and below: When at home, it is best to keep EVs plugged in during periods at 32F and below, whether parked indoors or outdoors.

When parking at an airport, which may not have enough charging stations, it is best to fully charge EVs prior to parking, to enable the on-board systems to heat the battery during parking, as needed.


Charging at 32F and below: Li-ion batteries must never be charged when the battery temperature is at 32F or below. Do not plug it in. Turn on “pre-conditioning”, to enable the battery heating/cooling system (which could be a heat pump) to very slowly heat up the battery to about 40F. After the battery is “up to temperature”, normal charging can be started, either at home, or at a fast-charging rate on the road.


If the battery does not have enough charge to heat itself at about 40F, it needs to be heated by an external heat source, such as an electric heater under the battery, or towed/driven to a warm garage. All this, while cumbersome, needs to be done to safeguard the expensive battery.


Pre-conditioning can be set to:


1) Preheat the cabin and/or seats

2) Defrost windshield wipers, windows, door handles and charge port, etc., in case of freezing rain conditions; newer Teslas have charge port heaters. See URL

3) Pre-heat the battery, before arriving at a fast charger.



Power Outage, while parked at 32F and below: During a power outage, partially charged batteries, connected to dead chargers, could use much of their remaining charge to keep the batteries at about 40F.

If the power is restored, and the EV is plugged in, charging must never begin, unless the battery temperature is 35 to 40F

See URLs.


During charging, Li-ions (pos.) are absorbed by the anode (pos.) at decreasing rates as the battery temperature decreases from 32F

Any excess Li-ions arriving at the anode will plate out on the anode and permanently reduce the absorption rate.


The plating is not smooth, like chrome plating; it is roughish and may have dendrites, which could penetrate the thin separator between the anode and cathode, and cause a short and a fire.


A similar condition exists, if charging from 0 to 20% and from 80 to 100%; the more often such charging, the greater the anode resistance to absorbing Li-ions, and the greater the likelihood of plating.


The plating condition is permanent, i.e., cannot be reversed.


Also, frequently charging from 0 to 20% and from 80 to 100%, increases the charging percentage, increases kWh/mile of travel, and reduces range.







- EV batteries have miscellaneous losses to provide electricity to on-board systems

- On cold/freezing days, an electric bus should be ready for service as soon as the driver enters the bus

- On cold/freezing days, the bus driver would need at least 70% charge, because travel would require more kWh per mile



If the battery temperature is less than 40F or more than 115F, it will use more kWh/mile of travel

The best efficiency, charging and discharging, is at battery temperatures of 60 to 80F.

Batteries have greater internal resistance at lower temperatures and at high temperatures.

Pro-bus folks often point to California regarding electric buses, but in New England, using electric buses to transport children would be a whole new ballgame, especially on colder days. See URLs





EV Electricity Supply: Where would the electricity come from, to charge and protect from cold, expensive batteries during extended electricity outages/rolling blackouts, due to multi-day, hot and cold weather events, with minimal wind and solar, as occur in New England throughout the year?

Would charging electricity be supplied by emergency standby diesel-generators, or emergency standby batteries?





1) Proterra Bus Fire Prompts California Agency to Consider Shelving Electric Bus Fleet



An electric bus manufactured by Proterra caught fire while charging in a southern California city that is now considering taking the electric buses off the road, according to government records.


The Foothill Transit agency, which serves the valleys surrounding Los Angeles, will decide on Friday whether costly Proterra buses purchased in the last decade are still operable.


Problems cited by the agency include not only the bus that caught fire in what's described as a "thermal event," but also buses that melt in the California heat and have transmission failures. Roland Cordero, the agency's director of maintenance and vehicle technology, says the problems with the buses are exacerbated by Proterra's inability to help with repairs.


"With the number of failures, we are experiencing and the inability of Proterra to provide parts, these [Battery Electric Buses] BEBs will only get worse as we continue to operate them whenever the BEBs are available for service," Cordero wrote ahead of Friday's executive board meeting, where the agency will debate taking Proterra buses out of service.


2) Electric-Bus Inferno in Hanover-Germany…Explosive Fire Causes “Millions in Damages”



Just a day before EIKE reported on burning e-vehicles in China, the electric vehicle curse struck in Hanover, Germany.

See video here.


A fire at a bus depot in Hanover caused millions of euros in damage. According to fire fighters, the fire broke out on Saturday afternoon at the Üstra transport company where electric buses were parked,


According to Üstra spokesman Udo Iwannek, the fire caused damage running in the millions. Five e-buses, two hybrids and two combustion engines were destroyed, as were also the building and the charging station.


According to the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), Hanover’s administration wants to run only e-buses in the city center area by 2023 and is purchasing 50 new vehicles in a bid to reduce the air pollution.


E-buses have shown to catch fire very rapidly. For example, five shuttle buses in Guangxi, China, exploded into flames last month. Watch slo-mo video



3) Massive fire breaks out at Stuttgart bus depot, sends smoke towering over city (VIDEOS)





Do ‘green’ buses pass the performance test?



And then there are the horror stories.


Philadelphia’s Proterra Electric Bus Fleet in Complete Shambles



More than two dozen electric Proterra buses, first unveiled by the city of Philadelphia in 2016, are already out of operation, according to a WHYY investigation.


The entire fleet of Proterra buses was removed from the roads by SEPTA, the city’s transit authority, in February 2020, due to both structural and logistical problems—the weight of the heavy battery was cracking the vehicles’ chassis, and the battery life was insufficient for the city’s bus routes.


The city raised the issues with Proterra, which failed to adequately address the city’s concerns.

The city paid $24 million for the 25 new Proterra buses, subsidized in part by a $2.6 million federal grant.

In 2016, Philadelphia defended the investment with claims that the electric buses would require less maintenance than standard combustion engine counterparts. See URL


Los Angeles Metro purchased BEBs from Chinese-owned BYD Ltd. but yanked the first five off the road within a few months. Agency staff called the buses “unsuitable,” poorly made, and unreliable for more than 100 miles.


Albuquerque returned seven out of its 16 BYD buses, citing cracks, leaking fluid, axle problems and inability to hold charges.


French journalist Alon Levy reported that BEB sales teams in Vancouver admitted their buses could not run for an entire day without recharging during layovers.


Worse, in Minneapolis, bus performance suffers tremendously in cold weather: at 20o F buses cannot last all day; on Super Bowl Sunday, at 5F, a battery bus lasted only 40 minutes and traveled barely 16 miles. Imagine being in a BEB in a blizzard.


In largely rural Maine, lawmakers proposed converting all school buses to BEBs. But Maine Heritage Policy Center policy analyst Adam Crepeau found that BEBs can travel no more than 135 miles per charge (in good weather), while diesel buses go up to 400 miles and can be refilled quickly almost anywhere. “This,” he said, “will severely impact the ability of schools to use them for longer trips, for sporting events, field trips and other experiences for students.” Or in bitterly cold Maine winters.










There aren’t enough batteries to electrify all cars — focus on trucks and buses instead



In 2019, the world produced about 160 gigawatt hours (GWh) of lithium-ion batteries. That’s enough for about three million standard-range Tesla Model 3s — and only if we use those batteries for cars, and don’t build any smart-phones, laptops or grid storage facilities.


The battery production capacity currently under construction will allow the production of the equivalent of 40 million electric vehicles annually by 2028, according to one estimate.

That sounds like a lot until you see that the world produced nearly 100 million cars, vans, buses and trucks in 2019 alone. There are around 1.4 billion motor vehicles in the world today — a number that will almost certainly continue to increase if we don’t take major steps to shift transportation onto other modes.


Even at the projected 2028 level of battery production capacity, it would take us 35 years to replace this global vehicle fleet with electric models.




Views: 574


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

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Willem Post on August 13, 2021 at 6:02am


A river of money to achieve next to NOTHING regarding GLOBAL WARMING?

The only thing it will achieve is more feel-good ECO-egoism of Dem/Prog RE folks, yearning for lucrative RE careers, and more and more CENTRALIZED command/control of the Vermont economy.

They will want more and more money, because their goals are EPHEMERAL, ELUSIVE FATA MORGANAs, akin to tilting at windmills, while wishing water would flow uphill.


The turnkey capital cost to implement the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP, would be in excess of $1.0 billion/y for at least 33 years (2017 - 2050), according to a 2015 Energy Action Network, EAN, annual report. If updated to 2021, the numbers would be about $1.25 billion/y for 29 years (2021 - 2050). See URLs.


Spending on government energy programs, including Efficiency Vermont, has averaged about $210 million/y from 2000 to 2015, a total of at least $2.5 billion, but Vermont CO2 emissions increased from 9.64 million metric ton in 2000, to 9.54 MMt in 2015, a decrease of 1.0%.
See page 36 of URL


EAN, with help of VT-DPS, claimed, without providing any calculations, a CO2 reduction more than two times as great, i.e., 4.5 versus 2.180 Mt/y per EV; the reduction would be even less, if the A-to-Z CO2 and lifetime conditions had not been ignored

This excessive 4.5 Mt/y claim was made to deceive people, including legislators, and to hype the adoption of overly expensive, not-very-useful EVs.
See table 1 and 2 in URL


EAN, with help of VT-DPS, claimed, without providing any calculations, 90,000 HPs would reduce CO2 by 0.370 million Mt/y, or 4.111 Mt/y per HP
See page 4 of URL

Heat pumps displaced only 35% of my space heating propane in my well-insulated/well-sealed house.
This is better than the AVERAGE displacement of 27.6% by HPs in AVERAGE Vermont houses, per VT-DPS study. See URL

The CO2 reduction of my displaced propane was 300 gal x 12.7 lb CO2/gal = 1.728 Mt/y, and the CO2 of the additional electricity was 2332 x 317 g/kWh = 0.739 Mt/y, for a reduction of 0.989 Mt/y, based on the ISO-NE value of 317 g/kWh, using fuel consumption of all power plants connected to the NE grid.

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

I installed three Mitsubishi, 24,000 Btu/h HPs, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms. The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation. The HPs last about 15 years. Turnkey capital cost was $24,000

I do not operate my HPs at 10F or below, because HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing temperatures.
The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of my highly efficient propane furnace. See URL

The cost of displaced propane was 300 x $2.399/gal = $720/y
The cost of additional electricity for HPs was 2332 x 0.20 = $466/y
My energy cost savings due to the HPs were $253/y, on an investment of $24,000!!
If all my investments had been this great, I would be in a poorhouse, and on welfare.

Cost of CO2 Reduction was (2,059, amortizing - 253, energy cost saving + 200, parts and maintenance)/0.998 Mt/y, CO2 reduction, table 6 = $2028/Mt, which is similar to money-losing, very expensive, electric transit and school buses. See URL

Weatherizing Vermont's energy-hog houses at $10,000 each would NOT render these house suitable for HPs, BY A LONG SHOT, as was proven in MY housed and by the VT-DPS study

Only high-efficiency houses that are HIGHLY SEALED AND HIGHLY INSULATED are suitable for HPs.

All of the above has been well known to VT-DPS and EAN, because I have kept them, and thousands of others, informed over the years.


Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power


Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT


(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."


© 2023   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service