THE PROPER BASIS FOR CALCULATING CO2 OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Go to any Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, etc., parking lot and you see at least 60% four-wheel-drive, and all-wheel-drive SUVs/crossovers/pick-up trucks.

 

People own these vehicles for many reasons, especially to drive on snowy, icy, hilly, pothole, muddy, rutted roads during cold winters. All-wheel-drive and 200+ range are preferred in Vermont, New Hampshire Maine, etc.

EVs would lose up to 40% of their already-limited range.

A full-battery, 200-mile range, would become a mere 120 miles.

A hybrid would be much better, provided it would have all-wheel-drive.

http://www.thedrive.com/news/26383/cold-weather-can-cut-an-electric...

 

Marketing and Cost of EVs

 

At current rates of EV production, it would take at least 5 more years before a variety of small, medium and large EVs would be marketed to suit the requirements of NE drivers. The medium and larger EVs, such as the Tesla Model S and Y, would have 80 to 100 kWh batteries and likely would cost at least $70,000 to $100,000. That cost would be totally out of reach for about 90% of households in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, etc.

 

NOTE: Tesla will start delivery of its AWD Model Y, a small SUV, with the same chassis as the AWD Model 3.

The long-range version, 316 miles, (33.7 kWh/gal-eq)/(121 mpg-eq) =  0.28 kWh/mile, would cost $52,990, plus destination & docs $1,200, sales tax $3,180, installed wall-mounted charger $2,000, a total of about $59,280.

If you order right now, you will get your Model Y in about one year.

https://www.tesla.com/modely/design#payment

 

Table 1 shows Vermont EVs on the road, as of October 2019.

The EPA kWh/mile includes charging loss.

The EPA kWh/mile excludes 1) self-use loss, such as heating, cooling, electronics, etc., and 2) losses due to NE road/climate conditions.

 

Table 1/Vermont EVs		On the road	Drive	Max 2020 Range	kWh/mile, per EPA
Nissan Leaf	Small SUV	573	FrWD	226	0.30
Chevy Bolt	Small SUV	270	FrWD	259	0.29
Tesla Model 3	Small sedan	243	AWD	322	0.28, 18” wheels
Tesla Model Y	Small SUV		AWD	316	0.28, 19” wheels
Tesla Model S	Full-size sedan	130	AWD	391	0.30, 19” wheels
Tesla Model X	Full-size SUV	66	AWD	351	0.35, 20” wheels
Volkswagen e-Golf		38	FrWD	123
Hyunda Kona	Small SUV	26	FrWD	258	0.27
Ford Focus electric		22	FrWD	115
Mitsubishi i-MiEV		21	FrWD	62

 

Career-Legislators/Career-Bureaucrats

 

Why do career-legislators/career-bureaucrats not understand EVs are unaffordable for Vermonters?

Why do they keep pestering us with their fantasy goals of “so many EVs by certain a date”?

 

The people who voted them into office do not have the money to meet those fantasy goals, usually grabbed out of a hat by cabals of self-seeking career-legislators/career-bureaucrats, who:

 

- Usually have near-zero technical education and experience in energy systems design and analysis.

- Hype EVs to the voters, despite their known performance shortcomings and high costs.

- Advocate giving more state subsidies to mostly higher-income households to get them to buy EVs.

- Continuously harangue/fear-monger voters to buy EVs, to “save the world/fight climate change”. 

 

 BASIS FOR CALCULATING CO2 OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES

 

Any lifetime comparison of CO2 from vehicles with batteries (pure EVs and plug-in hybrids) and gasoline vehicles must be based on: 1) source energy, 2) NE grid CO2/kWh, as determined by ISO-NE, 3) embedded CO2/kWh of the vehicle body and battery, and 4) long-term wall meter and vehicle meter readings, obtained during real-world driving conditions of EVs. Some comparisons also include battery degradation, about 10% at end of year 8.

 

NOTE:

Source energy, SE, is from mines, wells and forests, etc.

Primary energy, PE, is finished fuel/energy fed to power plants

Upstream = SE – PE

Calculations made on SE basis would include Upstream

Calculations made on PE basis would not include Upstream.

 

All other CO2 comparisons are completely bogus, because a large percentage of the CO2 is released before an EV has traveled one mile. See Table 2.

The long-term performance of gasoline vehicles is already well-known.

 

Wall meter and Vehicle Meter Readings: Any CO2 of electricity consumption must be based “wall meter readings”. See table 2

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-tesla-mod...

 

WM kWh/mile of an EV, over about one year, is at least 25% greater than VM kWh/mile, due to: 1) charging loss, 2) self-use loss, such as heating, cooling, electronics, etc., and 3) losses due to NE road/climate conditions.

 

That means, if an EV is used for daily commuting for a year, the:

 

- VM would show a daily change in battery charge of 20 kWh (totaling 5000 kWh for 250 days of commuting)

- WM would show a daily change of 25 kWh (totaling 6250 kWh)

- Loss factor would be 6250/5000 = 1.25

 

The loss factor of the Tesla Model 3 is about 1.2576, in California (good conditions for EVs; almost 50% of all US EVs are in California)

The loss factor of the Tesla Model S is about 1.3035, in upstate New York (more challenging conditions for EVs, especially in winter).

Both are based on about one year of real-world driving conditions. See URL
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-tesla-mod...

 

CO2 OF NE ELECTRIC GRID

 

ISO-NE uses primary energy to calculate CO2/kWh, i.e., fuel/energy fed to power plants.

ISO-NE does not include upstream energy to calculate CO2/kWh.

Upstream CO2/kWh of NE grid is about 10.2% of PE CO2/kWh.

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/01/draft_2018_e...

 

Fed to grid, 299 g CO2/kWh, PE basis, becomes 299 x 1.102 = 329 g CO2/kWh, SE basis.

Fed to wall meters, 323 g CO2/kWh, PE basis, becomes 321 x 1.102 = 356 g CO2/kWh, SE basis.

 

For EV analysis purposes, 356 g/kWh should be used for electricity via any wall meter in NE.

 

If battery charge change is used for calculating CO2:

 

CO2 would be 0.4553, WM readings / 0.3500, VM readings x 323 = 420 g/kWh, PE basis

CO2 would be 1.3035 x 356 = 463 g/kWh, SE basis. See URL for 1.3035 loss factor

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-tesla-mod...

 

Table 2 shows:

 

The source energy required for a quantity of electricity at WMs.

The values for the Tesla vehicles were based on real-world conditions for a year.

The value for the LDV mix was assumed at 0.350 kWh/mile from the battery.

The LDV mix includes cars, cross-overs, SUVs, minivans and 1/4-ton pick-ups, all sizes.

 

NOTE: 

Most non-engineer analysts of EVs do not use real-world values for upstream energy and driving energy.

Often, they omit the charging loss and self-use loss and their CO2.

Often, they do not ratio upwards wall meter / vehicle meter

Their faulty analysis leads to lesser calculated values of kWh/mile and CO2/mile.

That likely leads to rosy thinking regarding EVs, faulty decision-making and energy policies

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

 

Table 2/NE grid for 2018	LDV mix	Tesla	Tesla	NE grid CO2	NE grid CO2
		Model S	Model 3	PE basis	SE basis
	NE	NY	CA
	kWh/mile	kWh/mile	kWh/mile	gram/kWh	gram/kWh
Source energy	1.2291	1.1713	0.8315
Upstream for extraction, processing, transport, etc., 10.2%	0.1138	0.1084	0.0770
Primary energy fed to power plants	1.1153	1.0629	0.7545
Conversion loss, 55.5%	0.6078	0.5793	0.4112
Gross electricity generation	0.5075	0.4836	0.3433
Plant self-use loss, 3.0%	0.0152	0.0145	0.0103
Net electricity generation = Fed to grid, per ISO-NE	0.4922	0.4691	0.3330	299	329
T&D loss, 7.5%	0.0369	0.0352	0.0250
Fed to wall meters, as AC	0.4553	0.4339	0.3080	323	356
Charging loss, 15% of WM	0.0683	0.0651	0.0462
Self-use loss, NE road/climate	0.0370	0.0359	0.0169
Self-use loss, NE road/climate, %	8.1265	8.2738	5.4870
In battery, as DC	0.3500	0.3329	0.2449	420	463
.
Travel, miles/y	12000	15243	11174
Wall meter electricity, kWh/y	5475	6614	3442
2 EVs	10950

 

Lifetime CO2 Comparison of Prius and Lea

 

It is well-known, a proper evaluation of EVs versus gasoline vehicles has to be on a lifetime basis, covering at least 100,000 miles for 8 years. For this analysis travel = 13,200 x 8y = 105,600 miles

 

Multiple lifetime studies have shown similar results for at least 10 to 15 years, as is well-known within the engineering community and likely known by professional engineers within EAN.

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

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

Comparison Parameters:

- CO2, tailpipe plus upstream = 23.371 lb/gal; combustion CO2 of E10 not counted  

- CO2, electricity = 354 g/kWh, source energy basis, wall meter basis, per ISO-NE. See table 2

- Eco-conscious owners who would buy an EV, likely would already be driving higher mileage vehicles, say 30 mpg. Such a vehicle was included for comparison.

- "Vermont LDV mix" was included for comparison.

- Based on 1) source energy, 2) NE grid CO2/kWh, as determined by ISO-NE, 3) embedded CO2/kWh of the vehicle body and battery, and 4) long-term wall meter and vehicle meter readings, obtained during real-world driving conditions of EVs.

 

Gasoline (E10, gasohol) and Electricity CO2 of Prius and Leaf: Based on long-term, real-world data, obtained from multiple internet sites:

 

Prius: In 2019, 52 drivers with a 2019 Prius averaged 51.4 mpg, even though EPA combined is 52 mpg.

 

The 2020 Prius L Eco is rated at 56 mpg, EPA combined.

A similar slight reduction can be expected for the Prius L Eco.

L Eco, adjusted is 51.4/52 x 56 = 55.4 mpg, PE basis  

http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/prius/all

 

Leaf: The popular Nissan Leaf S Plus was taken as the base vehicle for comparison

The 2019 Leaf S Plus is EPA rated at 124, city/99, highway/112, combined (EPA 2020 ratings not yet available).

https://www.edmunds.com/nissan/leaf/2019/mpg/

(33.7 kWh/gal-eq)/(112 mpg-eq) = 0.3009 kWh/mile

Adjusted for 1) self-use loss (heating, cooling, instruments, etc.), and 2) losses due to NE road/climate conditions (not measured by EPA) to about 0.3009 x 1.055 = 0.317 mile/kWh, WM basis, PE basis. 

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

 

Table 3/CO2	Prius	Leaf
Travel, miles	105600	105600
EPA combined, WM basis, mpg	56
Adjusted consumption, mpg	55.4
EPA combined, WM, mpg-eq		112
Btu/gal		115000
Btu/kWh		3412
kWh/gal-eq		33.7046
Consumption, wall meter basis, kWh/mile		0.3009
Self-use/NE roads/climate, factor		1.055
Adjusted consumption, kWh/mile		0.317
.
E10, combustion	17.612
E10, upstream	5.759
CO2 of E10, lb/gal, well to tank	23.371
.
CO2, source energy basis, lb	44548
Consumption, WM basis, kWh
2019 NE grid CO2, WM basis, SE basis, g/kWh		354
CO2, SE basis, g		11868362
g/lb		454
CO2, SE basis, lb		26142
lb/metric ton	2204.62	2204.62
CO2, SE basis, metric ton	20.207	11.858

 

 

Table 4/CO2, metric ton; 105,600 miles; E10; 354 g/kWh	Prius	Leaf
	L Eco	S Plus
Type	Hybrid	EV
Plug-in	no	yes
Battery, kWh	0.75	62.00
E10, combustion plus upstream	20.21
Electricity, wall meter basis	0.00	11.86
Body, with extraction, processing, fabrication, assembly, transport*	5.70	5.70
Li battery, with extraction, processing, fabrication, assembly, transport*	0.80	10.10
Total	26.71	27.66

 

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

SEE THIS URL FOR LIFETIME CO2 OF VARIOUS EVS AND HYBRIDS

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-energy-ef...

Lifecycle Greenhouse Gases of Vehicles: A lifecycle assessment should cover four distinct phases of a vehicle’s life, and be based on driving, say 150,000 km (93,750 miles) during the 15 years of a vehicle’s life, using 10% ethanol/90% gasoline blend (E10), and a grid CO2 intensity of say 500 g CO2/kWh, or 1.10 lb CO2/kWh.

 

1) Vehicle production – to assess embedded CO2
2) In-use phase – to assess CO2 incurred during the driving
3) Disposal at end-of-life
4) Fuel production and delivery processes of electricity generation and gasoline production, depending on vehicle type.

 

The embedded greenhouse gases of average vehicles, as a percent of the lifecycle emissions, in metric ton, are shown in below table. CO2 estimates of the Toyota Prius, Toyota plug-in Prius and Tesla Model S were inserted for comparison purposes. See URL and click on press release.

http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/06/full-life-cycle-assesment-electric-cars-compares-co2-impact-conventional-cars/

 

Table 6/Vehicle	Embedded	Driving, etc.	Lifecycle
	CO2, Mt	CO2, Mt	CO2, Mt
Average E10 vehicle	5.6 (23%)	18.4	24.0
Average hybrid	6.5 (31%)	14.5	21.0
Hybrid, Prius	6.5 (31%)	12.0	18.5
Average plug-in hybrid	6.7 (35%)	12.3	19.0
Plug-in hybrid, Prius	6.7 (35%)	10.0	16.7
EV, medium-size battery	8.8 (46%)	10.2	19.0
EV, Tesla, Model S	11.5 (60%)	10.4	21.9

Here is a list of articles relating to electric vehicles

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/evs-and-plug-in-hybrids...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifecycle-co2eq-of-inte...

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/tesla-model-3-long-term...

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/flawed-epa-method-of-ca...

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-cars-lose-rang...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-tesla-mod...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-all-ic-ldvs-w...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ifo-institute-study-cas...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/reusing-old-electric-ve...

APPENDIX 1

MUCH MORE CLEAN, NEAR-ZERO CO2 HYDRO ELECTRICITY FROM CANADA

NE should have much more of clean (no particulates, etc.), near-zero-CO2 hydro electricity from Canada, which is eager to sell to us at a low c/kWh. GMP is buying about 1.2 million MWh/y of HQ electricity at about 5.7 c/kWh, under a recent 20-y contract.

 

However, greedy, subsidy-seeking, renewable energy entities in Vermont, working in cahoots with legislators and career bureaucrats, have been keeping it out for years.

 

They want electricity production, mostly heavily subsidized, wind and solar, done the home-grown, expensive way.

That electricity is made to LOOK less expensive by subsidies and cost shifting, but if subsidies and cost shifting are included, it would be very expensive. See Appendix.

 

A standard 1000 MW transmission line from Quebec to the Vermont border, about $1.5 billion, mostly paid for by Canada, could provide about 4.5 billion kWh/y of very clean, near-zero CO2/kWh, no particulate pollution/kWh, STEADY, 98% hydro-electricity, from Hydro Quebec, for about 6.0 - 6.5 c/kWh, under a 20-y power purchase contract.

 

The price would be adjusted based on at NE grid wholesale prices, which have been about 5 c/kWh starting in 2009, 11 years. It is the far beyond rational for Vermont to not buy more H-Q electricity.

 

Canada would build, and pay for, the transmission line to the Vermont border.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/gmp-refusing-to-buy-add...

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

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

APPENDIX 2

A COST NEVER GOES AWAY; IT IS ALL A MATTER OF WHO PAYS IT

Remember, there is no free lunch, per Economics 101.

The politically well-connected get all the bennies, because they claim they are helping to "save the world/doing something about climate change", which is totally bogus, and they know it.

Others get shafted and have to pay the bills.

See eye-opening URL.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

APPENDIX 3

Electricity Mix Based on Power Purchase Agreements: There are non-technical people talking about the “Vermont electricity mix” or the “New Hampshire electricity mix”. That mix exists only on paper, because it is based on power purchase agreements, PPAs, between utilities and owners of electricity generators.

 

A utility may claim it is 100% renewable. This means the utility has PPAs with owners of renewable generators, i.e. wind, solar, biomass, hydro, etc. That mix has nothing to do with physical reality.

 

If a utility did not have PPAs and drew electricity from the grid, it would be stealing, just as a person would be by bypassing the utility electric meter.

 

Electricity Mix Based on Physical Reality: Once electricity is fed into the NE electric grid by any generator, it travels:

 

- On un-insulated wires, as electromagnetic waves, EM, at somewhat less than the speed of light, i.e. from northern Maine to southern Florida, about 1800 miles in 0.01 of a second, per College Physics 101.

- On insulated wires, the speed decreases to as low as 2/3 the speed of light, depending on the application.

 

If those speeds were not that high, the NE electric grid would not work, and modern electronics would not work.

 

The electrons vibrate at 60 cycles per second, 60 Hz, and travel at less than 0.1 inch/second; the reason it takes so long to charge a battery.

 

It is unfortunate most high school teachers told students the electrons were traveling.

Teachers likely never told them about EM waves, or did not know it themselves.

http://www.djtelectricaltraining.co.uk/downloads/50Hz-Frequency.pdf

 

This article explains in detail what happens when electricity is fed to the grid.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/popular-misconceptions-...

 

NOTE:

- If you live off the grid, have your own PV system, batteries, and generator for shortages and emergencies, then you can say I use my own electricity mix.

- If you draw electricity, via a utility meter from a distribution grid, such as of GMP, which is connected to the Vermont HV grid and the NE HV grid, you draw the NE mix.

APPENDIX 4

EPA Method of Calculating Combustion CO2 of Pure Diesel and Pure Gasoline

 

Various government, commercial, and institutional entities calculate the combustion CO2 of various fuels, as becomes clear after Googling the internet for a few hours. As a result, a diversity of values is published year after year, which creates endless confusion among various people who use these values.

 

The EPA has the responsibility to annually report the CO2 emissions of the US economy.

The EPA co-ordinates its calculation standards with those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. If that co-ordination did not exist, each country would “invent” its own methods and confusion would be worldwide.

 

The IPCC guidelines for calculating emissions inventories require an oxidation factor be applied to the carbon content to account for a small portion of the fuel that is not oxidized into CO. For all oil and oil products, the oxidation factor used is set at 0.99, i.e., 99 percent of the carbon in the fuel is eventually oxidized, while 1 percent remains un-oxidized.

 

However, when EPA deals with the US Department of Transportation, etc., the 99% oxidation factor is not applied.

Among departments, the agreed CO2 value for gasoline is 8887 g/gal, and for diesel is 10180 g/gal. See URL

https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculato...

 

The Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 600.113) provides values for carbon content per gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel which EPA uses in calculating the fuel economy of vehicles:

 

Gasoline carbon content per gallon: 2421 grams

Diesel carbon content per gallon: 2778 grams

 

Pure diesel and pure gasoline consist of hundreds of different chemicals. As a result:

 

- Their densities, g/l, vary from 830 – 860 g/l for pure diesel, and 710 – 770 g/l for pure gasoline. See first URL

- I assumed 850 for pure diesel and 737 for pure gasoline.

- Both fuels have a Carbon fraction of about 0.86. See first URL

- EPA calculated the Carbon for pure diesel at 2778 g/gal, and for pure gasoline at 2421 g/gal. See second URL

- By working back, the Carbon/l and Carbon weight fraction for both fuels are obtained. 

- The combustion CO2 for pure diesel is 2778 x 44/12 = 10186 g/gal

- The combustion CO2 of pure gasoline 2421 x 44/12 = 8876 g/gal

- Both values are slightly different from the above-stated 10180 and 8887 g/gal.

 

https://www.iea-amf.org/content/fuel_information/diesel_gasoline

https://www.chargepoint.com/files/420f05001.pdf

 

NOTE: All this appears to be straight forward, but it took me an entire day of Googling among confusing and conflicting sources, before I, as an experienced Googler, had found, and re-found, the referenced URLs.

 

Table 7/Combustion CO2	EPA	EPA
Fuel	Pure diesel	Pure gasoline
Octane		95 - 98
Density range, g/l	830 - 860	710 - 770
Density assumed, g/l	850	737
C weight fraction	0.8634	0.8677
C, g/l	733.9	639.5
l/gal	3.7854	3.7854
C, g/gal	2778	2421
44/12	3.6667	3.6667
CO2, g/gal	10186	8876
g/lb	453.592	453.592
CO2, lb/gal	22.456	19.569

 

CO2 Emissions of Gasoline and E10: E10 fuel (90% gasoline/10% ethanol) has a source energy, which is reduced due to exploration, extraction, processing and transport, to become the primary energy fed to E10 vehicles. See URL.

http://www.patagoniaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/How-muc...

 

Burning E10 (90% gasoline/10% Ethanol) = 0.9 x 19.569 + 0.1 x 12.720 = 18.884 lb/gal

Upstream = 0.9 x 4.892 + 0.1 x 13.556 = 5.759 lb/gal

Total = 24.643 lb/gal, if CO2 of ethanol is counted, 24.643 - 1.272 = 23.371 lb/gal, if not counted.

 

Table 8/Fuel CO2	Combustion	Upstream	Total
	lb CO2/gal	lb CO2/gal	lb CO2/gal
Burning pure gasoline	19.569
Upstream = 25% of combustion, per EPA		4.892
Total			24.461
Burning pure ethanol	12.720
Cropping, processing, blending		13.556
Total			26.276
Burning E10 (90/10)	18.884
Upstream		5.759
Total, if ethanol CO2 is counted			24.643
Total, if ethanol CO2 is not counted	17.612	5.759	23.371
.
Burning pure diesel	22.456
Upstream = 27% of combustion, per EPA		6.063
Total			28.519
Burning pure biodiesel, B100, soy oil	20.130
Upstream = 43% of combustion		8.656
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is counted			28.786
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is not counted			8.656
Burning B20 (80/20)	21.991
Upstream		6.582
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is counted			28.572
Total, if biodiesel CO2 is not counted	17.965	6.582	24.546

APPENDIX 5

Here is an example of a “save the world program”, which subsidizes and hypes air source heat pumps, ASHPs, in energy-hog houses. It turned out to be a total flop that causes owners to have a net annual loss, on an overall cost basis.

 

According to the CADMUS SURVEY of 77 ASHPs, at 65 sites, only 28% of existing fuel energy was displaced by electricity, but the CEP goal is to have 100% of fuel energy displaced.

 

The CEP goal is a fantasy, unless about 125,000 free-standing houses have major retrofits, at about $30,000 each, plus $20,000 for 100% space heating with ASHPS.

 

An up-scale, “eco-conscious” household, in a 2000 sq ft house, would have to make periodic investments to be “somewhat green”, on a long-term basis. See table 9.

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

 

Table 9/ “Save the World” investments	Cost, $	Life, y
EV, Tesla Model 3, 4-wd; range 322 miles	56,000	10
Energy upgrade, insulation, sealing, windows, doors, etc.	30,000	100
ASHP capacity for 100% space heat at -10F	20,000	10 to 15
Solar panels, 6 kW, production 7500 kWh/y	20,000	25
Batteries for outages	8,000	10
Total per household	134,000
Total all households, excludes financing costs and subsidies	16.75 billion

APPENDIX 6

GMP and VT-DPS Reduce CO2

 

No CO2 is reduced by GMP signing paper PPAs with electricity generators, in-state or out-of-state.

It is unscientific for VT-DPS to calculate CO2 of the electricity sector, and CO2/kWh, based on paper PPAs.

It is unscientific for EAN to base CO2 reduction of ASHPs and EVs on VT-DPS numbers.

The Global Warming Spending Act specifically requires SCIENCE to be the basis.

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

 

GMP contracted to purchase more no-particulate, low-CO2, low-cost, nuclear electricity from Seabrook Nuclear for 2018, and beyond, plus more no-particulate, low-CO2, low-cost, hydro electricity for 2017, and beyond.

 

GMP, by merely signing contract papers, and without making physical changes to its operations to reduce CO2, gets credit for reducing CO2 of electricity sold to ratepayers

  

VT-DPS calculated CO2 of the electricity sector at 32 g/kWh for 2018, based on paper PPAs

ISO-NE calculates CO2 of the NE grid at 299 g/kWh for 2018, based on 1) CO2 of fuel combustion and 2) CO2 associated with imports from nearby grids. See Appendix and URL page 18

 

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document...

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2019/04/2017_emissio...

 

Table 10/NE and VT grid CO2/Year	1990	2000	2015	2016	2017, est.	2018, est.
Electricity fed to VT grid, GWh	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000	6,000
Vermont electrical sector CO2-eq, million Mt	1.09	0.43	1.00	0.81	0.49	0.19
Total CO2, all sectors	8.65	9.7	10.19	9.76	9.41	9.02
% above 1990		12	18	13	9	4
CO2, per VT-DPs based on PPAs, PE basis, fed to grid basis		72	167	135	82	32
CO2, per VT-DPs based on PPAs, Pe basis, fed to WM basis		78	180	146	88	34
.
NE generation fed to NE grid, GWh		110,199	107,916	105,570	102,562	103,740
NE grid CO2, lb//MWh		726	747	710	682	658
NE grid CO2, Mt		36,289,462	36,565,600	33,998,920	31,727,592	30,962,669
NE grid CO2, g/kWh, PE basis, fed to grid basis		330	339	322	310	299
NE grid CO2, g/kWh, SE basis, fed to grid basis		363	374	355	341	329
NE grid CO2, g/kWh, PE basis, fed to WM basis		356	367	348	335	323
NE grid CO2, g/kWh, SE basis, fed to WM basis		393	404	384	369	356
NE grid CO2, g/kWh, PE basis, in battery basis		464	477	453	435	420
NE grid CO2, g/kWh, SE basis, in battery basis		511	526	500	480	463

 

APPENDIX 7

Vermont Electricity Sector CO2

 

Based on Physics, per ISO-NE

 

Electricity, via a wall socket, would have the NE mix of electricity; CO2 of 321 g/kWh, PE basis, wall meter basis, in 2018. 

  

Vermont grid load is about 6 billion kWh/y

User demand at wall sockets is about 6 x (1 – 0.075) = 5.55 billion kWh/y

CO2 associated with user demand would be 5.55 billion kWh x 321 g/kWh x 1 lb/454 g x 1 Mt/2204.62 lb = 1,779,953 Mt/y, PE basis, wall meter basis, in 2018

 

Based on PPAs, per VT-DPS

 

VT-DPS definition of “Vermont electricity mix”, based on power purchase agreements, PPAs, yields an artificial value for CO2/kWh.

 

VT-DPS estimated the CO2 of the Vermont electricity sector at 190,000 Mt/y in 2018, or 190000/1779953 x 321 = 34 g/kWh, PE basis, wall meter basis. 

 

The artificial value for CO2 would make ASHPs and EVs appear very clean compared to gasoline vehicles.

Political chicanery to promote ASHPs and EVs.

  

See URL for GHG estimates for 2017 and 2018

https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document...