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