VERMONT CO2 REDUCTION OF ASHPs IS BASED ON MISREPRESENTATIONS

Vermont has a Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP. The capital cost for implementing the CEP would be in excess of $1.0 billion/y for at least 33 years, per Energy Action Network annual report, not counting financing and replacements of short-life systems, such as EVs, heat pumps, battery storage systems, etc. See URLs.

 

http://eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/EAN-2015-Annual-Report-... 

https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservices/Shared%20Documents/2016...

ENERGY ACTION NETWORK

“Meeting Paris”: In 2019, EAN made estimates of what it would take to “meet Paris”, i.e., reduce CO2 from 9.76 million metric ton, at end 2016, to 7.46 MMt, at end 2025, or 2.281 MMt.

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

 

Capital Cost to “Meet Paris”: The measures are a multi-billion-dollar wish list of EAN members with a cost exceeding $15.046 billion during 2020 – 2025, about $3.010 billion/y. 

 

Amortizing the cost of the mostly short-life assets (EVs, ASHPs, battery storage systems, etc.), at 3.5% over 15 years, would require payments of $1.291 billion/y, more than offsetting the EAN energy cost savings of 800/5 = $160 million/y, during the 2020 – 2025 period.

 

Existing spending is about $210 million/y, including Efficiency Vermont. 

The spending to “meet Paris” during 2020 - 2025 would be about 15 times greater.

 

EAN Savings and Capital Cost Estimate: Why does EAN not provide the spreadsheet that calculated these energy cost savings, as part of its glossy report? Why does EAN not provide a capital cost estimate of outlays for each year of the 2020 – 2025 period, by 1) Vermonters, 2) Federal government, 3) State government, 4) Local governments.

 

EAN Members Eager to “Meet Paris”: EAN eagerly urged the Vermont legislature to “meet Paris” a few years ago, because that would be good for: 1) RE businesses of members, and 2) would display proper “virtue signaling”.

 

EAN Members Eager for GWSA and “Fortress Vermont”: EAN is eagerly urging the Vermont Legislature to pass the Global Warming Solutions (Spending) Act. That act would turn aspirational goals of the CEP into mandated goals.

 

The capital cost of GWSA would dwarf “meeting Paris”. That would be great for EAN members. They would have expanding, heavily subsidized businesses and job security for decades at everyone else’s expense, despite knowing their RE scam would not be making one iota of difference regarding Vermont’s climate and the world climate.

 

Gross Conflict of Interest: The membership of EAN includes ten prominent members of Vermont Department of Public Service, VT-DPS: June Tierney, Riley Allen, Ed McNamara, TJ Poore, Anne Margolis, Andrew Perchlik, Maria Fischer, Phillip Picotte, Ed Delhagen, Kelly Launder.

- June Tierney is the Commissioner.

- Andrew Perchlik is on loan to the Legislature to shepherd the GWSA and $1.2 billion “Fortress Vermont” bills to ensure they contain all the bennies for EAN members.

- Perchlik manages the Clean Energy Development Fund that donates taxpayer money to renewable energy programs.

- No wonder VT-DPS resorts to artificial/political CO2 calculations regarding Vermont’s electrical sector, and EV and ASHP programs.

https://www.eanvt.org/about/people/network-members/

 

Table 1 is based on data from the EAN report

 

Table 1/Meet Paris

Existing

Addition

Total

CO2 reduction

CO2 Reduction

Year

2019

2025

2025

2025

million Mt

%

EVs/plug-in hybrids

3,541

90,000

93,541

0.405

Fleet mileage increase

0.187

Solo driving increase

0.172

Total

0.764

33.5

ASHPs, space heat

17,717

90,000

107,717

0.370

Adv. wood. heat

21,421

25,000

46,421

0.258

Building retrofits

27,186

90,000

117,186

0.160

ASHPs, DHW

11,687

90,000

101,687

0.106

Total

0.894

39.2

Electricity; in-state

MWh

MWh

MWh

Wind

161,198

250,000

411,198

Solar

502,949

700,000

1,202,949

Hydro

513,183

50,000

563,183

Total

1,177,330

1,000,000

2,177,330

0.373

16.4

Miscellaneous

0.250

11.0

Total

2.281

100.0

 

Table 2 shows the cost of EAN measures to “meet Paris”

 

Table 2/ Costs

EVs

ASHPs

Adv. Wood Heat

Wind/Solar/Storage

Hydro

Total

$billion

$billion

$billion

$billion

$billion

$billion

EVs

8.483

Deep retrofits

2.700

Wind

0.095

Chargers

0.318

ASHPs, space

0.410

Solar

0.570

ASHP, DHW

0.360

Grid

0.100

Storage

0.900

8.801

3.470

0.250

1.665

0.860

15.046

Annual

3.010

 

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

SE basis includes Upstream

PE basis excludes Upstream

Wall meter = WM

Vehicle meter = VM

Metric ton = Mt = 2204.62 lb

1 lb = 454 g

Wall outlet basis or wall meter basis = WM basis

Air source heat pump = ASHP

WI/WS = well-insulated/well-sealed

HI/HS = highly insulated/highly sealed

Electric vehicle = EV

New England = NE

Power purchase agreements = PPAs

New England grid operator = ISO-NE

SUMMARY

1) The VT CEP has a goal to install 35,000 ASHPs at end 2025

About 17,717 units were installed at end 2009, per VT-DPS.

The current installation rate is about 2900 units/y

It appears the CEP goal will be achieved.

 

2) Per CADMUS survey, about 81.5% of ASHPs are single-zone systems (one ASHP/site with one head).

The rest were: 1) Multi-zone (one ASHP/site with more than one head, or 2) two ASHPs/site, each with one or two heads.

Heating/cooling an entire house, 2000 ft2 or larger, would require 2 or 3 ASHPs, each with 2 heads. See examples in Appendix.

3) An owner in an average, 2000 ft2 VT house, with one ASHP, one head, on average, would have energy cost savings of $208/y, but would have a financial loss of $178/y, if the $4500 turnkey capital cost were amortized at 3.5% over 15 years, not counting service calls and parts. See tables 5 and 6

Fuel displacement: 27.56%

CO2 reduction: 2.389 Mt/y, or 21.0%

4) An owner in an average, 2000 ft2 VT house, with two ASHPs, each with two heads, on average, would have energy cost savings of $178/y, but would have a financial loss of $1,366/y, if the $18,000 turnkey capital cost were amortized at 3.5% over 15 years, not counting service calls and parts. See tables 5 and 6

Fuel displacement: 100%

CO2 reduction: 7.750 Mt/y, or 68.0%.

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

5) Owners with ASHPs in well-insulated/well-sealed houses, and in highly insulated/highly sealed houses, and Passivhaus-standard houses would have an annual financial gain, even after amortizing, not counting service calls and parts. See table 5.

 

6) “Weatherizing” average VT houses, costing about $10,000/site, would not make these houses suitable for heating 100% with ASHPs.

“Deep retrofits” of average VT houses, likely costing $30,000+/site, would make most of these houses suitable for 100% heating with ASHPs

7) Vermont needs to build thousands of highly insulated/highly sealed houses each year to ensure: 1) Annual cost savings for owners and 2) A CO2 reduction of about 80% versus existing conditions.

FLAWED ASHP ANALYSIS BY EAN

1) Ignored the upstream CO2 of fuels and electricity.

2) Used an artificial value of 34 g/kWh, concocted by VT-DPS

 

No wonder EAN obtained an extremely high CO2 reduction/EV

EAN used that fake value to claim 90,000 heat pumps, installed by 2025, would reduce CO2 by 0.370 million Mt, or 4.111/y per ASHP 

 

The 34 g CO2/kWh is an artificial/political value for 2018, concocted by VT-DPS, based on “paper” power purchase agreements, PPAs. It has nothing to do with physical reality. It is about 8 times less than the NE grid CO2. See tables 9 and 10

 

Vermont ASHP Installations

The existing addition rate of ASHPs is about 2,900/y, per VT-DPS

EAN would add 90,000 ASHPs, or 18,000/y, by end 2025, which is not realistic.

 

REALISTIC ASHP ANALYSIS

 

1) Includes CO2 of upstream energy of the fuels and electricity.

2) Uses CO2 from electricity at 304 g/kWh, at wall outlet, per ISO-NE.

3) Includes the cost of amortizing the ASHPS.

 

With those values, EAN’s 90,000 heat pumps, installed by 2025, would reduce CO2 by only 0.215 million Mt/y, or 2.389 Mt/y per ASHP.

EAN would need 4.111/2.389 x 90000 = 152,138 ASHPs to have a CO2 reduction of 0.370 million Mt/y. See table 6

COMPARISON OF TWO ALTERNATIVES

1) CADMUS SURVEY, 27.6% of space heat from ASHPs per site

https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2017%20...

 

The CADMUS survey sample had 77 ASHPs at 65 sites, i.e., only 12 of 65 sites, or 81.5%, had more than ASHP. See pg. 55 of URL.

Systems with 2 or 3 ASHPs are a rarity.

 

NOTE: Average turnkey contractor quotes are about $6,100 in South Burlington, Winooski and Colchester, Vermont.

That average likely includes at least 81.5% of contracts with one ASHP, similar to the CADMUS ASHP sample.

https://www.manta.com/cost-heat-pump-burlington-vt

 

Owner Complaints About Capital Costs and Savings

Many owners had complained about annual energy cost savings being much smaller than they had been led to believe.

After all, VPIRG, EV, etc., were stating energy cost savings on their websites of $1000/y to $1800/y.

However, those unrealistic numbers were deleted after the CADMUS report was published in 2017.

 

Legislators had urged VT-DPS to have CADMUS perform a survey of 77 ASHPs at 65 sites, which showed, average energy cost savings were about $208/y per ASHP

If amortizing of the ASHPs had been included, owners would have, on average, a loss of about $220/y per ASHP, not counting any service calls and parts

 

Location of ASHPs

The metered ASHPs were almost all single-zone systems (one ASHP with one head).

They likely served one room of a house. See page 55 of URL.

Only 5 metered ASHPs were multi-zone (one ASHP with more than one head). See page 42 of URL

Heating/cooling an entire house would require 2 or 3 ASHPs, each with 2 heads

 

Average Electricity Consumption for Heating
https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2017%20...

 

On average, each ASHP consumed 2,085 kWh during the heating season to provide 21.4 million Btu.

Heat for the season, from -18F to 68F = 1880 kWh/ASHP

Standby loss, average 76 kWh/ASHP

Defrost loss, average 129 kWh/ASHP. See page 20 of URL

Heating season COP = 21.4 million Btu/(2085 kWh, x 3412) = 3.008
See fig. 11, grey line, on page 24 of URL

 

Table 3 is entirely based on CADMUS data.

Table 3/Space heat, per CADMUS

Sites

Million Btu/site

 Million Btu

%

Heat to sites

65

92.00

5,980

100.00

 See URL, page 22

ASHPs

 Million Btu/ASHP

 

Heat from ASHPs

1648/5980

77

21.40

1,648

27.56

See URL, page 21

Heat from traditional

 4332/5980

4,332

72.44

.

Btu/site

Heat from ASHPs, on average

1648/65

25,353,846

27.56

Heat from traditional, on average

92.00 – 25.35

66,646,154

72.44

92,000,000

100.00

ASHP Operation at 47F, 34F, 17F, 0F, and -10F

Electricity consumption, kWh, and COP were obtained from fig. 11, pg. 24 of URL

 

Table 4

kWh

COP

Btu/kWh

Btu/h

Btu/h/site

47

51.420

4.524

3412

793747

12211

34

93.069

3.336

3412

1059452

16299

17

58.875

2.300

3412

462036

7108

0

22.620

1.618

3412

124876

1921

-10

8.741

1.163

3412

34677

533

 

The ASHP output steadily decreased to almost zero Btu/h at -10F, i.e., owners were turning OFF their ASHPs, as it became colder, except the very few owners, who had 1) well-insulated/well-sealed, or highly insulated/highly sealed houses, or 2) kept their ASHPs running regardless of outdoor temperatures.

 

The heat demand of all sites was about 48000 x 65 = 3,120,000 Btu/h at -10F

ASHPs could have delivered about 700,700 Btu/h, at -10F, or 10,780 Btu/h/site.

Actual delivery was only 533 Btu/h/site, because almost all owners had turned off their heat pumps.

See table 4A below.

An owner in an average, 2000 ft2 VT house, with one ASHP, one head, on average, would have energy cost savings of $208/y, but would have a financial loss of $178/y, if the $4500 turnkey capital cost were amortized at 3.5% over 15 years, not counting service calls and parts. See tables 5 and 6

Fuel displacement: 27.56%

CO2 reduction: 2.389 Mt/y, or 21.0%

 

Table 4A/Space heat

Temp

Capacity

Cap

Demand

Fr. ASHPs

COP

Electricity

Trad.’l

Trad.’l

F

Btu/h

Btu/h/site

Btu/h/site

Btu/h/site

kWh/site

Btu/h/site

%

47

1338842

20598

13800

12211

4.524

0.791

1589

11.5

34

1106607

17025

21600

16299

3.336

1.432

5301

24.5

17

802916

12353

31800

7108

2.300

0.906

24692

77.6

-10

700700

10780

48000

533

1.163

0.134

47467

98.9

2) 100% of space heat from multiple ASHPs per site

Required ASHPs capacity would be 48,000 lb/h at -10F, or 20598/10780 x 48000 = 91,700 Btu/h at 47F

Electricity to 2 or 4 ASHPs at -10F = 77 x 48000/3412/1.163 = 822.32 kWh; maximum electricity consumption

Each site would need 4 ASHPs, each 23,400 Btu/h at 47F, each with one head (or 2 ASHPs with double the capacity, each with 2 heads), at a turnkey cost of about $18,000

An owner in an average, 2000 ft2 VT house, with two ASHPs, each with two heads, on average, would have energy cost savings of $178/y, but would have a financial loss of $1,366/y, if the $18,000 turnkey capital cost were amortized at 3.5% over 15 years, not counting service calls and parts. See tables 5 and 6

Fuel displacement: 100%

CO2 reduction: 7.750 Mt/y, or 68.0%.

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

Table 4B shows the very large increase in electricity, kWh, if Vermont decided to have 100% fuel displacement by ASHPs in average Vermont houses. That increase would be much less with WI/WS, HI/HS, and Passivhaus-style houses.

 

Table 4B/Electricity

CADMUS/EAN

100% ASHP

Temperature, F

34

-10

CO2 reduction, %

21

68

Fuel displaced, %

 

27.6

100

kWh

kWh

Electricity to ASHPs

93.07

822.32

ASHP, end 2009

17717

21,415

189,208

ASHP, end 2025

35000

42,305

373,782

 

Table 5 shows owners with ASHPs, in average houses, would have annual financial losses, on average

Owners of WI/WS and HI/HS houses would have financial gains, even after amortizing.

Excludes service calls and parts

See table 8 and example of HI/HS house in Appendix.

Table 5/ASHPs

 Displ.

Fuel cost

 Elect. Cost

Energy

Savings

 Amort.

Total

Min.

CO2

CO2

CO2

Fuel

$2.75/gal

$0.19/kWh

cost

3.5%, 15y

Loss

Red'n

Red'n

%

$/y

$/y

$/y

$/y

$/y

$/y

$/y

Mt/y

Mt/y

%

No ASHPs

0

2,455

0

2,455

0

2,455

11.390

CADMUS/EAN

27.56

1,779

469

2,248

208

386

2,634

178

9.001

2.389

21.0

ASHPs only

100.00

0

2,277

2,277

178

1,544

3,821

1,366

3.640

7.750

68.0

WI/WS house

100.00

0

1,423

1,423

1,032

965

2,388

-67

2.275

9.115

80.0

HI/HS house

100.00

0

949

949

1,507

643

1,592

-863

1.517

9.873

86.7

Table 6 shows the data of the 2 alternatives in greater detail

Annual average efficiency of 0.75 covers existing, mostly older, heating systems at the 65 sites; some systems are more efficient than others.

NE grid CO2 = 304 g/kWh, source energy basis, at wall outlet. See Appendix 1. 

Table 6/CO2 Reduction

Before ASHP

After ASHP

After ASHP

ULS, <50 ppm S, fuel oil

CADMUS/EAN

Fuel oil displaced, %

27.56

100.00

Fuel oil remaining, %

100.00

72.44

Purchased fuel oil

gal/y

892.9

646.8

Annual average efficiency

0.75

0.75

Available heat

gal/y

669.7

485.1

.

Higher heat value

Btu/gal

137,381

137,381

Lower heat value

Btu/gal

131,579

131,579

Fossil heat/site

Btu/y

92,000,003

66,646,154

ASHP heat/site

Btu/y

25,353,846

92,000,000

COP, acerage

3.01

2.25

.

Combustion CO2

lb/gal

23.509

23.509

Upstream CO2, 25% of combustion

lb/gal

5.627

5.627

Total CO2, SE basis

lb/gal

28.123

28.123

Fuel oil CO2

Mt/y

11.390

8.251

.

Purchased electricity

kWh/y

2,470

11,984

CO2, NE grid, WM, SE basis

g/kWh

304

304

CO2, NE grid, WM, SE basis

Mt/y

0.750

3.640

.

Total CO2, NE grid, WM, SE basis

Mt/y

11.390

9.001

3.640

CO2 reduction

Mt/y

2.389

7.750

CO2 reduction

%

21.0

68.0

.

COST

Fuel cost at $2.75/gal

$/y

2,455

1,779

0

Electricity cost at $0.19/kWh

$/y

0

469

2277

ASHP cost, turnkey

$

4,500

18,000

Amortizing at 3.5%/y for 15 y

$/y

0

386

1,544

Total cost

$/y

2,455

2,634

3,821

LOSS

$/y

179

1,366

Houses added with ASHPs

 

 

90,000

90,000

CO2 reduction 

MMt/y

 

0.2150

0.6975

HEATING OF HOUSING IN VERMONT

Table 7 shows space heat energy sources of Vermont houses, per CEP.

 

The CEP goal of 63% of buildings having ASHPs for space heat and DHW could be achieved, if buildings were highly sealed and highly insulated. Such buildings could be economically heated 100% by ASHPs, even with amortizing the ASHPs.

 

Table 7/Housing units

Existing

Future, per CEP

Source

Description

Units

Source

%

Units

Cordwood/pellets

Primary fuel for space heat

65,000

Cordwood/pellets/biofuels

34

90,100

No. 2 fuel oil, propane or natural gas 

Primary fuel for space heat

190,000

ASHPs

63

166,950

Electricity

Primary energy for space heat

10,000

Fossil

3

7,950

Total

265,000

100

265,000

 

ABOUT 84% OF VERMONT HOUSING UNSUITABLE FOR ASHPs

About 88,000 of Vermont's 100,000 free-standing houses, and about 59,000 of Vermont’s 66,950 apartments, condos, etc., are economically unsuitable for 100% space heat from ASHPs.

 

Only highly insulated/highly sealed houses and Passivhaus-style houses are economically suitable for 100% space heat from ASHPs.

  

Table 8/Vermont

Built

Area

Htg. Demand

Pk. Demand

Times

Air Leak

ACH

Unsuitable for ASHPs

%

ft2

(Btu/h)/ft2

Btu/h at -10F*

Passiv

ft3/min

@ -50 pascal

Typical older house

1750 - 1990

68.4

2000

40.0

80,000

12.6

2667

10.0

Newer house

1990 - 2000

10.0

2000

24.0

48,000

7.6

1600

6.0

Newer house

2000 - 2012

10.0

2000

20.0

40,000

6.3

1867

7.0

Suitable for ASHPs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WI/WS house 

2012 - 2021

10.0

2000

15.0

30,000

4.7

800

<3.0

HI/HS house 

2000 - present

1.5

2000

10.0

20,000

3.0

400

<1.5

Passivhaus

1985 - present

0.1

2000

3.2

6,348

1.0

160

<0.6

Winter 99% design temperature: The outdoor air where you live will be colder than this temperature for 1% of the hours of a year (88 h), based on a 30-year average; that temperature is -10F in Vermont. See URL, page 112

https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/bldrs_lenders_raters/downloa...

CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE

Deep Retrofits: 90,000 x $30,000/housing unit = $2.7 billion

ASHPs for space heat: 90,000 x $4,500/ASHP, one head = $0.41 billion

ASHPs for DHW: 90,000 x $4,000/system = $0.36 billion 

Total = 2.70 + 0.41 + 0.36 = $3.47 billion

APPENDIX 1

NE Electric Grid CO2 in 2018

 

ISO-NE uses fuel/energy fed to power plants to calculate CO2/kWh; primary energy basis.

Page 13 of URL shows 658 lb CO2/MWh, or 658 x 454/1000 = 299 g/kWh; PE basis

 

ISO-NE does not include CO2 of upstream energy

Upstream is about 10.2% of PE CO2

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

 

Fed to grid becomes 299 x 1.102 = 329 g CO2/kWh; source energy basis.

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

 

Imports were 17% of total electricity fed to the NE grid.

We assume imports has zero g CO2/kWh, because we have no other data.

Adjusted for imports 323/1.17 = 276 g/kWh, PE basis

Adjusted for imports 356/1.17 = 304 g/kWh, SE basis

 

Table A/NE grid for 2018

Grid CO2

Grid CO2

PE basis

SE basis

g/kWh

g/kWh

Source energy

Upstream for extract, process, transport, 10.2%

Primary energy = Fed to power plants

Conversion loss

Gross generation

Plant self-use loss

Net generation = Fed to grid

299

329

T&D loss, 7.5%

Fed to wall outlets

323

356

Fed to wall outlets, adjusted for imports

276

304

 

APPENDIX 2

Vermont Electricity Sector CO2 in 2018

 

Based on Physics, per ISO-NE: Electricity, via a wall socket, would have the NE electricity mix; CO2 of 276 g/kWh, PE basis, in 2018. See table A

  

Fed to Vermont High Voltage Grid: Electricity fed by generators (in-state and out-of-state) into the Vermont high voltage grid is about 6 billion kWh/y

 

Consumption via Wall Sockets: Consumption is about 6 x (1 – 0.075, T&D losses) = 5.55 billion kWh/y

 

Solar: Almost all Standard-Offer solar and Utility solar is fed into high voltage grids and instantly becomes part of the NE mix.

Almost all Net-Metered solar, such as rooftop solar, is fed into distribution grids.

 

Wind: The output of all in-state wind plants is fed into high voltage grids

 

McNeal, Ryegate: The output of both plants is fed into high voltage grids and instantly becomes part of the NE mix.

The CO2 of both plants is not counted, because it is from burning trees, which has been ordained by the EPA to be “renewable”.

 

Hydro Plants: Almost all in-state hydro plant output is fed into high voltage grids and instantly becomes part of the NE mix.

 

ISO-NE Values in Table 1A, at wall outlet: Vermont CO2 would be about 5.55 billion kWh x 276 g/kWh x 1 lb/454 g x 1 Mt/2204.62 lb = 1,530,426 Mt/y, PE basis, in 2018

 

VT-DPS Using PPAs, at wall outlet: CO2 of the “PPA Vermont electricity mix” yields an artificial/political value of 190,000 Mt/y in 2018, or 190000/1530426 x 276 = 34 g/kWh, PE basis, in 2018 

   

See page 18 of Agency of Natural Resources URL for GHG estimates for 2017 and 2018.

The rapid GHG reduction from 2015 to 2018 is miraculous.

It may have to do with GMP buying more nuclear and hydro.

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

 

APPENDIX 3

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, chicanery for:

 

1) VT-DPS to calculate CO2 of the Vermont electrical sector and CO2/kWh, based on paper PPAs

2) EAN to use those artificial numbers to evaluate the CO2 reduction of ASHPs and EVs

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

   

VT-DPS calculates CO2 of the Vermont electrical sector at 32 g/kWh for 2018, fed to grid basis

ISO-NE calculates CO2 at 299 g/kWh for 2018, fed to grid basis. See 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 B/Grid CO2/Year

1990

2000

 2015

2016

2017, est.

2018, est.

VT-DPS, PE basis

 

 

 

 

 

 

Electricity fed to VT grid, GWh

6,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

6,000

Vermont electrical sector CO2, million Mt

1.09

0.43

1.00

0.81

0.49

0.19

Total CO2, all sectors

8.65

9.70

 10.19

9.76

9.41

9.02

CO2, g CO2/kWh, Fed to grid basis

72

167

135

82

32

CO2, g CO2/kWh, WM basis

78

180

146

88

34

ISO-NE, PE basis

NE generation, fed to grid, GWh

110,199

107,916

105,570

102,562

103,740

NE grid CO2, lb//MWh, Fed to grid basis

726

747

710

682

658

NE grid CO2, g/kWh, Fed to grid basis

330

339

322

310

299

NE grid CO2, g/kWh, WM basis

357

366

348

335

323

* Table CO2 values not adjusted for imports

APPENDIX 4

Highly Insulated, Highly Sealed House

In 2008, Transformations Inc., Townsend, MA, was chosen to participate in an investor-owned utilities Zero Energy Challenge, to encourage builders to design a house with a HERS Index below 35 before December 2009. 

The team designed a house with a - 4 HERS rating. Price: $195,200, in 2009

https://www.mass.gov/doc/getting-to-zero-final-report-of-the-massac...

https://www.buildingscience.com/sites/default/files/2011-03-08%20NE...

Roof (R75): 5" HDF, and 13" high-density cellulose along the slope of the 2nd-floor roof rafters; 2 x 12 and a 2 x 4 held off by 3" 
Walls (R49): Double 2 x 4 wall, total depth 12"; 3" HDF and 9" cellulose 
Basement Ceiling: 3" HDF and R-30 fiberglass batts 
Windows: Paradigm, triple-pane, Low-E and krypton gas 
Heating/Cooling: Two Mitsubishi Mr. Slim mini-split, ductless ASHPs; capacity about 11,000 Btu/h/ASHP at 47F, each with one head

Ventilation: Lifebreath 155 ECM Energy Recovery Ventilator 

Leakage: About 175 cfm at 50 pascal; ACH = 1.065. See table 8
Solar: Evergreen Solar panels; 6.4 kW; 30 Spruce Line 190W

DHW: SunDrum Solar

Table D shows the values of the above house and the corresponding values for a 2000 ft2 house.

The 19,975 Btu/h corresponds with the 20,000 Btu/h in table 8.

Table D/HI/HS

MA

VT

Area, ft2

1232

2000

Volume, ft3

9856

16000

Temp, indoor, F

70

65

Temp, outdoor, F

6

-10

Temp diff, F

64

75

Leakage, ft3/min

175

284

APPENDIX 5

CO2 of Gasoline and E10 and Propane

E10 (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 “gasoline” vehicles. See URL.

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

 

Ethanol production CO2 is 13.556 lb CO2/gal. See page 6

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

 

E10 combustion CO2 = 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 fraction in gasoline (aka, gasohol, or E10) is counted.

Total = 24.643 - 1.272 = 23.371 lb/gal, if not counted.

 

CO2 of Propane  

The upstream CO2eq of propane is 18.204 kg/million Btu (lower heating value of 84,250 Btu/gal), or (18204/454) lb/(1000000/84250) gal = 3.378 lb/gal

The combustion CO2 of propane is 68.060 kg/million Btu (LHV), or 68060/18204 x 3.378 = 12.630 lb/gal.

See pages 12 and 14 of URL

https://www.npga.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/A-Comparative-Analy...

 

Table G/Fuel CO2

 Combustion

 Upstream

Upstream

Total

 lb CO2/gal

lb CO2/gal

% of comb.

lb CO2/gal

Pure gasoline

19.569

4.892

25.0

24.461

Pure ethanol

12.720

13.556

106.6

26.276

E10 (90/10), ethanol CO2 is counted

18.884

5.759

30.5

24.643

E10 (90/10), ethanol CO2 is not counted

17.612

5.759

32.7

23.371

Pure diesel

22.456

6.063

27.0

28.519

Pure biodiesel, B100, soy oil, bio diesel CO2 is counted

20.130

8.656

43.0

28.786

Pure biodiesel, B100, soy oil, bio diesel CO2 is not counted

8.656

8.656

B20 (80/20), biodiesel is counted

21.991

6.582

29.9

28.572

B20 (80/20), biodiesel is not counted

17.965

6.582

36.6

24.547

Propane

12.630

3.378

26.7

16.008

APPENDIX 6

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

 

My annual electricity consumption increased about 50% (the various taxes, fees, and surcharges also increased), after I installed three Mitsubishi, 24,000 Btu/h heat pumps, each with 2 heads; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.

 

They are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, well-sealed/well-insulated house.

They displaced a small fraction of my normal 1200-gallon propane consumption.

 

My existing Viessmann propane system, 95%-efficient in condensing mode, is used on cold days, 15F or less, because heat pumps have low efficiencies, i.e., low Btu/kWh, at exactly the same time my house would need the most heat; a perverse situation, due to the laws of Physics 101!!

 

I have had no energy cost savings, because of high household electric rates, augmented with taxes, fees and surcharges

 

Amortizing the $24,000 capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y; losing money.

 

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

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

NOTE: VT-DPS found, after a survey of real-world use of 87 heat pumps (turnkey cost about $4,500/hp), the energy savings were, on average, $200/y, but the amortizing costs turned that gain into a loss, i.e., on average, these houses were unsuitable, and the owners were losing money.

 

Heat Pump System

The system includes 3 Mitsubishi Hyperheat H2i heat pumps, each with 2 heads

The indoor heads and outdoor units are very quiet.

Model: MXZ-3C24NAHZ2

 

http://www.mitsubishicomfort.com/sites/default/files/manual/m-serie...

https://www.theacoutlet.com/documents/Owners-Manual-Mitsubishi-MXZ2...

 

Cooling and Heating Capacity per Heat Pump

Cooling:

Rated capacity 22,000/23,600 Btu/h

Heating:

Rated capacity 25,000/24,600 Btu/h, at 47F; maximum fan/medium compressor

Rated capacity 14,000/14,000 Btu/h, at 17F; maximum fan/medium compressor

Maximum capacity 25,000/24,600 Btu/h, at 17F; maximum fan/maximum compressor

Maximum capacity at 25,000 Btu/y, at 5F; maximum fan/maximum compressor

The capacity decreases at temperatures less than 5F

 

NOTE:

Manufacturers usually provide rating data at maximum fan/medium compressor, which prevents excessive wear of the compressor to increase the likelihood of achieving the 10-y factory warrantee.

The maximum capacities can be achieved by speeding up the compressor (higher wear operation).

That works down to about 5F.

Below 5F, the output decreases, even with maximum fan and maximum compressor.

The air blown into the room gets cooler 

Output would be 87% of 25,000 Btu/h at -2F and 78% of 25,000 at -13F. See image.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/52175.pdf

Heat Distribution

Kitchen: 1 head @ 15,000 Btu/h,

Upstairs master bedroom: 1 head @ 9,000 Btu/h
Living/dining room: 2 heads @ 18,000 Btu/h;

Upstairs bedrooms: 1 head each @ 6,000 Btu/h

 

Turnkey Capital Cost

The quote for the turnkey system was $24,300, or $8,100 per 2-head heat pump.

GMP and EV provided total subsidies of about $2,000; net capital cost $22,300

The prices were much higher than on the VT-DPS, VPIRG, GMP and EV websites

Annual Energy Cost Savings

Electricity for space heating about 6,500 kWh/y ($1,300/y)

Electricity for space cooling about 800 kWh/y ($160/y)    

Displaced propane for space heating is about 800 gal/y, costing about $1,600/y (current prices), i.e., energy cost savings of about 1600 - 1300 = $300/y

The other 400 gal/y is used by the furnace to provide heat for:

1) Domestic hot water, about 150 gal/y
2) Space heating during the colder days of the year about 250 gal/y:

- Heat pump output would be about 3 x 14,000 = 42,000 Btu/h, at 17F, which would be adequate to heat my house.

- The COP would be decreasing, when the temperature decreases

- The COP would be about 1.5 (adjusted downward for defrost cycling) at about 10F.

- That would be better than heating my house with electric heat!!

- I turn off the heat pumps at about 10F, and use my efficient propane system.

- Propane displaced for space heating = 800/(1200 – 150) = 69.6%

CO2 Reduction

 

Table F/My House

Combustion

Heating

Cooling

Total

Electricity, kWh

6500

800

7300

g CO2/kWh, incl. upstream

304

304

Propane reduction, gal/y

800

lb CO2/gal, incl. upstream

16.012

lb/Mt

2204.62

2204.62

2204.62

g/lb

454

454

CO2, Mt/y

5.810

1.974

0.243

2.217

CO2 reduction, Mt/y

3.836

CO2 reduction, %

66.0

See table A for 304 g CO2/kWh

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

Heat Pumps are Financial Losers for Almost all Vermonters

Heat pumps have a useful service life of about 15 years
Amortizing 24,300, turnkey cost – 2,000, subsidies = $22,300 at 3.5% for 15 year would require payments of $1,827.24/y

That is equal to about 87% of my 1050 x $2/gal = $2,100/y propane cost for space heating.

https://www.myamortizationchart.co

Views: 445

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

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!

© 2021   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service