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. 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.

 

About 0.405 MMt from 90,000 electric vehicles, EVs

About 0.370 MMt from 90,000 air source heat pumps, ASHPs. See Note and pages 3, 4 and 5 of URL

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

 

All of Europe (550 million people, excl. Russia) is not “meeting Paris”, and neither are China (1.4 billion people), India (1.4 billion people), etc.

 

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.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

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: The EAN report states undefined energy cost savings. It lacks a capital cost estimate to “meet Paris”.

 

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 by: 1) Vermonters, 2) the federal government, 3) state government, and 4) local governments, for each year of the 2020 – 2025 period?

 

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”.

However, no entity, including EAN, made a capital cost estimate of what would be required to “meet Paris” at that time, or since.

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 sweet music 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.

 

NOTE:

- 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”, based on source energy and, real-world values for CO2/kWh, per ISO-NE, instead of the artificial/political values concocted by VT-DPS.

 

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

Wall socket basis or wall meter basis = WM basis

Air source heat pump = ASHP

Electric vehicle = EV

New England = NE

Power purchase agreements = PPAs

New England grid operator = ISO-NE

AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS FOR SPACE HEAT

A Cold Day in Vermont

 

1) An average Vermont 2,000 sq ft house requires about 48,000 Btu/h, at 65F indoor and -10F outdoor. See table 8 in URL

 

- If fuel oil, at seasonal efficiency of 75%, about (48,000 Btu/h/0.75)/(137,381 Btu/gal) = 0.47 gal/h would be required, at a cost of 0.47 x $2.75/gal = $1.29/h.

 

- If heat pumps, at coefficient of performance of 1.15 at -10F, about (48,000/1.15 Btu/h)/(3,412 Btu/kWh) = 12.23 kW would be drawn via the wall socket, at a cost of 12.23 kW x $0.19/kWh = $2.32/h

 

- The required heat pump capacity to displace 100% of fuel oil would be about 50,000 Btu/h at -10F, or about 100,000 Btu/h at 47F (standard industry rating temperature), i.e., 4 units, each rated 25,000 Btu/h, costing about 4 x 4500 = $18000, turnkey, or $1544.15/y, if amortized at 3.5% over 15 years. See URLs

 

 - An owner would have a loss of about $1366/y, not counting service calls and parts, compared with continuing his paid-for fuel oil heating system. See table 5

 

2) A highly insulated, highly sealed (HI/HS), 2000-sq ft house requires about 20,000 Btu/h at -10F. The heating cost would be 20000/48000 x 1.29 = $0.54/h, if fuel oil, and $0.97/h, if heat pumps.

 

- The required heat pump capacity to displace 100% of fuel oil would be about 20,000 Btu/h at -10F, or about 40,000 Btu/h at 47F (standard industry rating temperature), i.e., 2 units, each rated 20,000 Btu/h, costing 2 x 4200 = $8400, turnkey, or about $643.40/y, if amortized at 3.5% over 15 years. See table 5 and 8 and URLs

NOTE: Typical turnkey costs of ASHPs in Burlington, South Burlington, Winooski, Colchester are in excess of $5000.

This article uses $4,500/ASHP for capital cost estimating.

 

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

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

Unrealistic EAN Method; Primary Energy Basis

 

The EAN report claims a CO2 reduction = 0.370 million Mt, based on:

 

1) Ignoring the CO2 of upstream energy of fuel oil and electricity

2) By using for CO2 from electricity an artificial/political value of 34 g/kWh, concocted by VT-DPS. See Notes.

 

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 9 times less than the NE grid CO2. See tables 9 and 10. 

Every energy-systems engineer, including at EAN, knows CO2 estimates should be made based on source energy, which includes upstream energy and CO2 of fuels and electricity.

CADMUS/VT-DPS Study and ASHPs

 

Many owners complained regarding annual energy cost savings being much smaller than promised. No wonder, the heat pumps had been installed in energy-hog houses.

 

Finally, legislators pressured VT-DPS to have CADMUS perform a survey of 77 ASHPs at 65 sites, which showed, average energy cost savings were about $207/y per ASHP;

 

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

 

Vermont free-standing houses with ASHPs would have about 27.6% of space heat from ASHPs and continue to have 72.4% of space heat from traditional systems, per CADMUS. See table 3

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

 

NOTE: Fanciful estimates, likely based on naïve analysis, of energy cost savings of $1000 to $1800 per year, had been bandied about on various RE websites, which deceived Vermonters to install ASHPs. Amortization of ASHPs not included.

 

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

23,353,846

27.56

Heat from traditional, on average

92.00 – 25.35

66,646,154

72.4

92,000,000

100.00

 

Realistic Method; Source Energy Basis 

 

This method of analysis: 1) includes CO2 of upstream energy of the fuel oil and electricity, 2) uses CO2 from electricity at 304 g/kWh, per ISO-NE, and 3) includes the cost of amortizing the ASHPS

 

The CEP has a goal to install about 35,000 ASHPs, at end 2025

Usually there is one ASHP per site, which reduces CO2 by about 2.393 Mt/y. See CADMUS report and table 6

NOTE: EAN uses 90,000 ASHPs to reduce CO2 by 0.370 MMt, about 4.111 Mt/y per ASHP, using primary energy and 34 g CO2/kWh.

That is not possible, if using source energy and 304 g CO2/kWh.

This article assumes 4.111 Mt/site for the EAN case.

 

Table 4/ASHPs

CEP goal

EAN goal

“Meet Paris”

Year

Start of year

Added

2016

6652

4118

2017

10770

4161

2018*

14931

2786

2019

17717

2881

2020

20598

2881

2021

23479

2881

2022

26360

2881

2023

29241

2881

2024

32122

2881

2025

35003

90,000

* CADMUS survey report appeared in November 2017 with bad news for ASHPs

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-is-going-to-hel...

 

Per CADMUS, 27.6% space heat from ASHPs per site

Total building space heat demand, 65 sites, would be about 2,323,154 Btu/h at -10F

Total ASHP capacity could have delivered about 590,000 Btu/h, at -10F, or 590,000/65 = 9,077 Btu/h/site, but did not, because owners had turned them off. See figure 14 in CADMUS report

 

An owner with one ASHP (output 9,077 Btu/h at -10F) in an average Vermont free-standing house, would have a loss of $179/y, if the $4500 is amortized at 3.5% over 15 years, not counting service calls and parts.  See tables 5 and 6

The CO2 reduction would be 2.393 Mt/y, or 21.0%

 

Whereas, there is a gain of about $207/y, due to energy cost reduction (as confirmed by VT-DPS and CADMUS), subtracting annual amortizing costs of the ASHPs results in an annual loss

 

Per EAN, 51% space heat from ASHPs per site

The ASHP would deliver about 18,462 Btu/h, per site, at -10F

This would require 2 ASHPs per site, at a turnkey cost of about 2 x 4500 = $9,000

Total ASHPs required = 45,000 sites x 2 = 90,000

 

An owner with two ASHPs (output 18.462 Btu/h, at -10F) in an average Vermont free-standing house would have a loss of $586/y, if the $9,000 is amortized at 3.5% over 15 years.

The CO2 reduction would be 4.111 Mt/y, or 36.1%

 

If 100% space heat from ASHPs

Minimum required ASHP capacity would be 2323154/590,000 = 3.94 greater than CADMUS, or 3.94 x 9077 = 35,741 Btu/h, per site, at -10F.

The site would need four ASHPs at a turnkey cost of about 4 x 4500 = $18,000

 

An owner with four ASHPs (output 35.741 Btu/h, at -10F) in an average Vermont free-standing house, would have a loss of $1,366/y, if the $18,000 is amortized at 3.5% over 15 years.

The CO2 reduction would be 7.750 Mt/y, or 68.0%.  

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

 

Table 5 compares the results for an average Vermont house, which has a string of losses, and a WI/WS and HI/HS houses, which have gains. All cases do not count the costs of service calls and parts.

Only, WI/WS and HI/HS houses can be economically heated 100% with ASHPs. See tables 5 and 8

NOTE: None of this would ever be publicly mentioned, or elaborated on, by engineers at VT-DPS, CADMUS, EAN, VEIC, etc., because lay people, in average Vermont houses, likely would be too-well informed, and would shy away from ASHPs. See table 8.

 

Table 5/Status

 Displ. Fuel

Fuel cost

 Elect. Cost

Ener. Cost

Savings

 Amort.

Total

Min. Loss

CO2

CO2

CO2

$2.75/gal

$0.19/kWh

3.5%, 15y

Red’n

Red’n

Average house

%

$/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

27.56

1,779

469

2,248

208

386

2,634

179

9.001

2.389

21.0

- EAN

51.08

1,201

1068

2,269

-22

772

3,041

586

7.279

4.111

36.1

- ASHPs only

100.00

0

2,277

2,277

-8

1,544

3,821

1,366

3.640

7.750

68.0

WI/WS house

100.00

0

1423

1423

1032

965

2388

-67

2.275

9.115

80.0

HI/HS house

100.00

0

949

949

1,328

643

1,592

-873

1.517

9.875

86.7

 

Table 6 shows three alternatives for space heating, SE basis, i.e., CO2 of upstream energy is not ignored

 

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

On average, each ASHP used 2085 kWh to provide 21.40 million Btu, per CADMUS, or 2470 kWh to provide 25.35 million Btu.

 

A larger capacity (Btu/h) of ASHPs would be needed, if a greater percentage of fuel oil would be displaced.

ASHPs have decreasing outputs (Btu/h) the colder it gets, whereas, at the same time, the building requires more and more space heat.

As a result, the purchased electricity in table 6 significantly increases, if displacing 100% fuel oil, compared to displacing only 27.6%, per CADMUS survey. 

 

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

 

Table 6/CO2 Reduction

Before ASHP

After ASHP

After ASHPs

After ASHP

ULS, <50 ppm S, fuel oil

CADMUS

EAN

Fuel oil displaced, %

27.56

51.08

100.00

Fuel oil remaining, %

100.00

72.44

48.92

Purchased fuel oil

gal/y

892.9

646.8

436.8

Annual average efficiency

0.75

0.75

0.75

Available heat

gal/y

669.7

485.1

327.6

.

Higher heat value

Btu/gal

137,381

137,381

137,381

Lower heat value

Btu/gal

131,579

131,579

131,579

Fossil heat/site

Btu/y

92,000,000

66,646,154

45,003,456

ASHP heat/site

Btu/y

25,353,846

46,996,547

92,000,000

COP

3.01

2.45

2.25

.

Combustion CO2

lb/gal

23.509

23.509

23.509

Upstream CO2, 25% of combustion

lb/gal

5.627

5.627

5.627

Total CO2, SE basis

lb/gal

28.123

28.123

28.123

Fuel oil CO2

Mt/y

11.390

8.251

5.572

.

Purchased electricity

kWh/y

2,470

5,622

11,984

CO2, NE grid, WM, SE basis

g/kWh

304

304

304

CO2, NE grid, WM, SE basis

Mt/y

0.750

1.708

3.640

.

Total CO2, NE grid, WM, SE basis

Mt/y

11.390

9.001

7.279

3.640

CO2 reduction

Mt/y

2.389

4.111

7.750

CO2 reduction

%

21.0

36.1

68.0

.

COST

Fuel cost at $2.75/gal

$/y

2,455

1,779

1,201

0

Electricity cost at $0.19/kWh

$/y

0

469

1068

2277

ASHP cost, turnkey

$

4,500

9,000

18,000

Amortizing at 3.5%/y for 15 y

$/y

0

386

772

1,544

Total cost

$/y

2,455

2,634

3,041

3,821

LOSS

$/y

179

586

1,366

 

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 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.

 

NOTE: Standard weatherizing has good-hearted intentions, but will not make a house suitable for space heating 100% with ASHPs.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-a...

  

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

*

- well-insulated/well-sealed

- highly insulated/highly sealed

 

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:

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

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

ASHPs for DHW: 90,000 x $4,000/system = $360 million 

Total = 2.70 + 0.41 + 0.36 = $3.47 billion

APPENDIX 1

NE Electric Grid CO2

 

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

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, SE basis.

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

Imports were 17%. This article assumes imports, mostly hydro, has zero g CO2/kWh

Adjusted CO2/kWh = 356/1.17 = 304 g/kWh

Table A values not adjusted for imports

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2019/01/new_england_...

 

Table A/NE grid for 2018

Grid CO2

Grid CO2

PE

SE

g/kWh

g/kWh

Source energy

Upstream for extract, process, transport, 10.2%

Primary energy = Fed to power plants

Conversion loss, 55.5%

Gross generation

Plant self-use loss, 3.0%

Net generation = Fed to grid

299

329

T&D loss, 7.5%

Fed to wall meters

323

356

APPENDIX 2

Vermont Electricity Sector CO2

 

Based on Physics, per ISO-NE: Electricity, via a wall socket, would have the NE electricity mix; CO2 of 323 g/kWh, WM basis, PE basis, in 2018. See table A

  

Electricity loaded by generators into the Vermont grid is about 6 billion kWh/y

User consumption is about 6 x (1 – 0.075) = 5.55 billion kWh/y

CO2 would be 5.55 billion kWh x 323 g/kWh x 1 lb/454 g x 1 Mt/2204.62 lb = 1,791,043 Mt/y, WM basis, PE basis, in 2018

 

Based on PPAs, per VT-DPS: CO2 of the “Vermont electricity mix”, based on PPAs, yields an artificial/political value of 190,000 Mt/y in 2018, or 190000/1791043 x 323 34 g/kWh, WM basis, PE basis, in 2018 

   

See URL for GHG estimates for 2017 and 2018

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 VT-DPS to calculate CO2 of the electricity sector, and CO2/kWh, based on paper PPAs, and for EAN to base CO2 reduction of ASHPs and EVs on VT-DPS numbers.

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

   

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

ISO-NE calculates CO2 at 299 g/kWh for 2018, based on CO2 of fuel combustion. 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

0.81

0.49

0.19

Total CO2, all sectors

8.65

9.7

 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   

Vermont Electricity Prices

Table C last column, shows the c/kWh for electricity from wind, solar, hydro, etc., paid to owners of Standard Offer and Net-metered systems; those prices would be much higher without cost shifting and subsidies, paid by ratepayers and taxpayers. See URL

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

 

Table C/VT In-state generation, fed to grid basis

2000

2000 – 2018

2018

2018

Existing

New added

Total

SO/NM

Energy Source

MWh

MWh

 MWh

c/kWh

Hydro, VT-DPS Utility Facts 2013

491,878

21,305

513,183

13.0

Solar, behind and before the meter; per ISO-NE

502,949

502,949

21.8

Ryegate, wood, per US-EIA

166,902

166,902

10.0

McNeil, wood, per US-EIA

244,755

244,755

10.0

Middlebury College, wood, per US-EIA

2,298

2,298

?

Farm methane; Standard Offer

22,674

22,674

14.5 to 20.0

Landfill methane

52,931

52,931

9.0

Wind

161,198

161,198

11.6 to 25.8

Total

903,535

763,355

1,666,890

VT total fed to grid, MWh

6,000,000

6,000,000

6,000,000

VT in-state, %

15.1

12.7

27.8

Vermont Yankee, nuclear, closed in 2015

4,733,640

4,733,640

Out-of-state purchases, incl. HQ

4,333,110

HQ, per Power Purchase Agreement

1,300,000

5.549

ISO-NE annual average price since 2009

5.000

APPENDIX 9

Electricity Moves as Electro-Magnetic Waves at Nearly the Speed of Light

 

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.

 

If a utility claims it is 100% renewable, it 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.

 

Entities, such as VT-DPS, should not use PPAs to calculate the CO2 of the VT electricity sector and CO2/kWh

 

Electricity Mix Based on Physics

Once electricity is fed into the NE electric grid by any generator, it travels:

 

- On un-insulated wires, as electromagnetic waves 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

- 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/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

 

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

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

 

Entities, such as VT-DPS, should use the ISO-NE estimated CO2/kWh, at wall meters, to calculate CO2 of the VT electricity sector and CO2/kWh

 

Living Off the Grid

 

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

- If you draw electricity from a wall socket, you draw the NE mix

 

APPENDIX 10

Highly Sealed, Highly Insulated House

In 2008, Transformations Inc., Townsend, MA, was chosen among six builders to participate in the state’s investor-owned utilities Zero Energy Challenge, a competition to encourage builders to plan and develop a home with a HERS Index below 35 before December 2009.

Carter Scott, President of Transformations, Inc., brought together a team of design and energy experts to not only meet the challenge, but to figure out how to get all the way to zero, while still building an affordable, new house. The team designed a three-bedroom 1,232-sq ft house, called the “Needham," which has a "- 4" HERS rating, i.e., the house produces more energy than it is using. Sales price: $195,200 in 2009

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

 

Major Design Features:

 

Roof (R75): 5 inches of high-density polyurethane foam, HDF, and 13 inches of high-density cellulose all along the slope of the second-floor roof rafters; 2 x 12s and a 2 x 4s held off by 3 inches for a thermal break separation 
Walls (R49): 2 x 4 outside wall; added a second 2 x 4 wall for a total depth of 12 inches; filled 3 inches with HDF and 9 inches with cellulose 
Basement Ceiling: 3 inches of HDF and a layer of R-30 fiberglass batts 
Windows: Paradigm triple-pane model with Low-E and krypton gas 
Heating/Cooling: Two Mitsubishi Mr. Slim mini-split, ductless, ASHPs

Ventilation: Lifebreath 155 ECM Energy Recovery Ventilator 

Leakage: About 175 cfm at 50 pascal, per blower door test (or 284 cfm for a 2000 sq ft house. See table 8)
PV Solar: Evergreen Solar’s 30 Spruce Line 190-watt PV panels to create a 6.4-kW system;

Hot Water: SunDrum Solar’s DHW heating system

Heat Loss: About 10,500 Btu/h, at 70F indoor, 6F outdoor (or 2000/1232 x 75 delta T/64 delta T x 10500 = 19,975 Btu/h for a 2000 sq ft house, at 65F indoor and -10F outdoor, in Vermont)

APPENDIX 11

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

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

 

Table G/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

 

 

 

 

 

Views: 232

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!

© 2020   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service