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.
U.S. Sen Angus King
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!
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/
© 2025 Created by Webmaster.
Powered by
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