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...

Views: 587

Comment

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 Stephen Littlefield on February 9, 2020 at 6:10pm

Thank you Willem for the tremendous amount of valuable information! It validates that all the hype is just that, hype. All the false adds saying that all the electricity will go to Massachusetts is right, that's where the grid is! 

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."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

 

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

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(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!

© 2020   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service