VERMONT CO2 REDUCTION OF EVs 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 $14.626 billion during 2020 – 2025, about $2.925 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 $1,255 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 14 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 turnkey capital 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

7.606

Deep retrofits

2.700

Wind

0.095

Chargers

0.285

ASHPs, space

0.410

Solar

0.570

ASHP, DHW

0.360

Grid

0.100

Storage

0.900

7.891

3.470

0.250

1.665

0.860

14.626

Annual

2.925

 

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

 

GRID UPGRADES, PEAK-SMOOTHING, LOAD-SHIFTING, STORAGE

 

Vermont’s maximum grid load is about 1100 MW, and peak demand of users is about 900 MW, without significant quantities of heat pumps and EVs.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/reality-check-regardin...

 

Major distribution and high-voltage grid upgrades, peak-smoothing and load-shifting and electricity storage systems (battery, etc.) would be required, if, in the future:

 

- Vermont’s 200,000-plus EVs would plug in, demanding 200,000 x 9 kW; see table 2 = 1,800 MW, most of them recharging for 2 - 4 hours, some of them up to 10 hours, for next day driving.

 

NOTE: Vermont total registered gas/diesel vehicles was 547,000 in 2019

https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/planning/documents/plann...

 

- Vermont’s 200,000-plus heat pumps would be operating, demanding 200,000 x 2.8 kW = 560 MW, for many hours on cold days, to heat buildings.  Each free-standing, 2000 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house, would require 2 such heat pumps. See URL

https://www.thermospace.com/ductless_split/ymgi/inverter-16-seer-2-...

 

CO2 REDUCTION OF EVs COMPARED WITH GASOLINE VEHICLES

 

There are 2 methods of comparing the CO2 emissions of EVs vs gasoline vehicles:

 

1) A simplified energy comparison, which makes EVs appear favorable compared to gasoline vehicles. EAN used the simplified method. It is easily understood by non-technical, lay people, which leads to widespread misunderstanding of reality.

 

2) A more-inclusive comparison shows, EV CO2 reduction compared to efficient gasoline vehicles is minimal, on a lifetime/A-to-Z basis. This article uses the more-inclusive method, which is vastly more realistic.

 

Simplified Method

 

In addition to the simplified method, EAN also inflated CO2 reduction of EVs by cherry-picking parameters for evaluation to make EVs appear much better than gasoline vehicles, such as:

 

1) Using an excessive miles/y; EVs travel significantly less miles per year than gasoline vehicles. See notes

 

2) Using a low 22.7 mpg, which equals the “VT LDV mix” that includes all sizes of LDVs. See URL, page 2.

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

 

3) Omitting: 1) the upstream CO2 of gasoline and electricity, 2) the embodied CO2 of the vehicle body, 3) the embodied CO2 of the battery.

 

4) Comparing the compact EV using only 0.317 kWh/mile, whereas the “VT LDV mix”, converted to EVs, would use about 0.400 kWh/mile.

 

5) Using a low value of 34 g CO2/kWh for the NE grid electricity, as concocted by the VT-DPs, whereas the real-world NE grid value is about 304 g/kWh, as measured at a wall meter.

 

EAN prepared a report listing the measures required to “meet Paris by 2025”. That goal is mandated by the Global Warming “Solutions” Act, GWSA, and in accordance with the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan.

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

 

One EAN measure is adding 90,000 EVs to reduce CO2 by 0.405 million metric ton/y, or 4.5 Mt/EV/y, based on the above EAN “parameters”. Table 3 shows the likely parameters used by EAN. See detailed analysis in Appendix 1.

 

Table 3/CO2

EAN

EAN

VT LDV mix

Compact SUV

miles/y

13200

miles/y

13200

mpg

22.7

kWh/mile

0.317

gal/y

581

kWh/y

4158

CO2, WM basis, lb/gal

17.612

CO2, WM basis, g/kWh

34

CO2, Mt/y

4.642

Mt/y

0.142

CO2 reduction, Mt/y, per EV

4.500

 

More-Inclusive Method

 

Any CO2 reduction analysis must be the difference of the CO2 emissions of an EV and an equivalent gasoline vehicle, on a lifetime/A-to-Z basis. Such evaluations of EVs versus gasoline vehicles have been performed for at least 25 years. All show EVs would reduce very little CO2 compared with efficient light-duty vehicles, LDVs, using gasoline or diesel.

 

As future electric grid CO2 emissions, g CO2/kWh, decrease more and more (a decades-long process), EVs would reduce CO2 emissions more and more, compared with LDVs, using gasoline and diesel.

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/

 

Engineers, including at Vermont Energy Action Network, EAN, very well know, a proper evaluation of EVs versus gasoline vehicles must be based on:

 

1) Lifetime/A-to-Z basis such as the 105,600 miles for 10 years used in this article. Usually, batteries are manufacturer-warranted for 8 years. Very few people would replace an old battery with an expensive, new battery in a 10-y-old EV, i.e., the EV likely would be scrapped. See Notes.

 

2) CO2 of a gallon of gasoline = CO2 of upstream energy, 5.759 lb/gal + CO2 of combustion energy, 17.612 lb/gal = 23.371 lb/gal. EAN ignored upstream CO2

 

3) CO2 of NE grid, 304 g/kWh, per ISO-NE; EAN used an artificial/concocted 34 g CO2/kWh.

See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi...

 

4) CO2 embodied energy in the vehicle body and battery; EAN ignored embodied CO2

 

5) Comparison of EVs with efficient gasoline vehicles; EAN used the VT LDV fleet average of 22.7 mpg.

Typically, EVs replace vehicles that have 30 mpg or better. 

 

6) Long-term wall meter and vehicle meter readings, obtained during real-world driving conditions, as show in the above three examples.

 

The more-inclusive method would yield a CO2 reduction of only 3.035 Mt/EV/y, on a lifetime/A-to-Z basis, which would include: 1) the CO2 of upstream energy, and 2) the CO2 embedded in the vehicle, 3) a realistic g CO2/kWh for EV electricity. See table 6 and 7.

 

EAN would need 4.5/3.035 x 90,000 = 133,443 EVs, plus chargers, to reduce 0.405 MMT/y by 2025, if the VT LDV mix,

22.7-mpg, were used for comparison. See tables 6 and 7

 

EAN would need 4.5/1.705 x 90,000 = 237,537 EVs, plus chargers, to reduce 0.405 MMt/y by 2025, if a Subaru Outback, 30-mpg, were used for comparison.

 

Whether 90,000 or 237,537, such increases in EVs, by end 2025, are a total fantasy, because, the capital cost would be at least $10.0 BILLION, at $40,000/EV, which over-taxed, over-regulated Vermonters do not have to pay for:

 

1) EVs

2) Chargers at home and on the road

3) Grid expansion/augmentation, to connect wind and solar, and to serve the greater demand EVs and heat pumps

4) Additional electricity generation to serve EVs and heat pumps

5) Utility-scale battery storage in case of wind and solar build-outs, as proposed by EAN “to meet Paris”

 

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

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi...

 

NOTE: On-the-road data from privately owned EVs was analyzed: 158,468,000 miles from 21,600 EVs

EVs travel about 10,000 miles/y

See page 17 of URL

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/07/f24/vss171_carlson_...

 

NOTE: Gasoline vehicles travel about 11,467 miles/y

See image in URL

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10309

 

NOTE: The EAN “parameters” likely were aimed to deceive non-technical Legislators and non-technical Vermonters to obtain favorable RE-subsidy legislation, such as the Global Warming “Solutions” Act, GWSA.

 

- GWSA is designed to subsidize the RE companies of EAN members for decades, at everyone else’s expense. 

The members of the GWSA Committee of 23 are the same or similar people, who presided over 20 years of government energy programs, costing about $2 billion, which had the net result of increasing Vermont’s CO2.

 

- Vermonters would be much better served with increased energy efficiency of buildings and vehicles.

See URLs for much more information.

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-global-warming-sol...

 

More-Inclusive Method: CO2 Emission Comparison of Four Vehicles; Lifetime/A-to-Z Basis

 

Base Vehicle:

 

The popular Nissan Leaf, 62 kWh, was used as base vehicle for comparison with three other vehicles

EPA rated at 118, city/97, highway/108, combined

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Nissan2020.shtml

 

(33.7 kWh/gal-eq)/(108 mpg-eq) = 0.299 kWh/mile; includes charging loss

Adjusted to 0.299 x 1.06, loss factor* = 0.317 mile/kWh, which includes:

 

1) Charging loss,

2) Self-use losses due to heating, cooling, electronics, etc., and

3) Losses due to NE road/climate conditions,

4) Losses due to idle time, such as parked in a garage, or at an airport.

 

* The loss factor covers items 2, 3 and 4, which are not measured by EPA

 

Comparison Vehicles:

 

Toyota Prius L Eco hybrid, compact SUV, 56 mpg

Subaru Outback, medium SUV, 30 mpg

“Vermont LDV mix”, a mix of all LDV sizes, 22.7 mpg

 

Comments on table 4:

 

Table 6 shows a CO2 comparison of the 5 vehicles.

 

NOTE:

Most EV owners are higher-income eco-people. About 50% also own PV systems. They received subsidies for PV systems and EVs.

Most people who buy EVs, already drive high-mileage vehicles., i.e., greater than 30 mpg. They just want to look extra green.

 

Table 4/Mfr.

Make

Size

Type

MPG

Mt CO2/y vs BASE

Nissan; BASE

Leaf

Compact SUV

EV

0.000

Toyota

Prius, L Eco

Compact car

Hybrid

56.0

0.052

Subaru

Outback

Medium SUV

Gasoline

30.0

1.705

Any mfr.

VT LDV mix

Gasoline

22.7

3.035

 

Comments on table 5:

 

Table 5 shows, a CO2 comparison of EVs versus efficient gasoline vehicles, on a lifetime/A-to-Z basis.

 

Table 5 shows, increasing the use of high-mileage vehicles, such as hybrids, and getting gas-guzzlers off the road (which need not involve any government subsidies), would reduce CO2 at much less cost per vehicle, than would the government-subsidized replacement of Vermont’s light duty vehicles with EVs.

 

Table 5/CO2; Lifetime/A-to-Z basis

Nissan

Toyota

Subaru

Any mfr.

Leaf S Plus

Prius L Eco

Outback

Comp. SUV

Comp. car

Med. SUV

VT LDV mix

Type

EV

Hybrid

Gasoline

Gasoline

Plug-in

yes

no

no

no

Battery, kWh

62

0.75

no

no

Travel, miles/10 years

105600

105600

105600

105600

EPA combined, WM basis, mpg

56

30

22.7

EPA combined, wall meter basis, kWh/mile

0.317

NE grid CO2, wall meter basis, g/kWh

304

E10, combustion, CO2 of ethanol not counted, lb CO2/gal

17.612

17.612

17.612

E10, upstream for extract, process, transport, lb CO2/gal

5.759

5.759

5.759

E10, total, CO2 of ethanol not counted, lb CO2/gal

23.371

23.371

23.371

.

CO2

Mt

Mt

Mt

Mt

E10, combustion, CO2 of ethanol not counted

15.064

28.120

37.163

E10, upstream for extract, process, transport

4.926

9.195

12.152

Electricity, wall meter basis, Mt/10 years

10.167

Body, with extract, process, fabrication, assembly, transport*

5.700

5.700

5.700

7.000

Li battery, with extract, process, fabrication, assembly, transport*

10.100

0.800

Total CO2, Mt/10 years

25.967

26.490

43.015

56.315

Mt/y

Mt/y

Mt/y

CO2 reduction vs Base, Mt/y

0.052

1.705

3.035

* Numbers are partly based on Hall and Lutsey and on Hausfather at carbonbrief.org factcheck, adapted for Vermont conditions.

 

NOTE: It should be abundantly clear why EAN engineers chose to:


- Consider only the combustion CO2 of the fuel and electricity, plus use flawed values, plus use unmatched vehicles (apples to oranges), because they knew that approach would have large CO2 reduction/EV, compared to gasoline vehicles, which would fit the RE narrative of the EV hyping strategy.

 

- Shy away from lifetime analysis, that includes upstream CO2, combustion CO2 and embodied CO2, plus uses realistic values, plus uses matched vehicles (apples to apples), because that approach would have low CO2 reduction/EV, compared to efficient gasoline vehicles, which would not fit the RE narrative of the EV hyping strategy.

Capital Cost

 

EAN claimed a CO2 reduction of 4.500 Mt/y per EV, PE basis

A more realistic CO2 reduction would be only 1.705 Mt/y, SE basis, lifetime analysis

EAN would have needed 4.50/1.705 x 90000 = 237,537 EVs to reduce CO2 by 0.405 MMt by end 2025

 

Cost for EVs; about 237,537 x $40000/small EV = $9.5 billion

Cost for private and public chargers; about 237,537 x $1500 = $0.356 billion

Total = 9.500 + 0.356 = $9.856 billion

 

EVs on the Road in Vermont  

 

- In table 3, adjusted kWh/mile includes 1) charging loss, about 15% of WM, 2) self-use loss, such as heating, cooling, electronics, etc., and 3) losses due to NE road/climate conditions, 4) losses due to idle time, such as parked at an airport.

- MSRP excludes: delivery, dealer prep, documents, sales tax, and federal/state subsidies.

- The federal EV subsidy is disappearing

- Minimum MSRPs are for low-end models, no-extras

- Tesla MSRPs are for long range, AWD models, no extras

- In house, Level 2 charger (220 V), about $1500 - $2000 installed, is required in most Vermont houses

- My cut-off is 200 miles, as being "VT-adequate" to drive on snowy, icy, hilly, pothole, muddy, rutted roads during cold winters, which could reduce range by up to 40%, during cold days.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-cars-lose-rang...

https://www.driveelectricvt.com/Media/Default/docs/fact-sheet-drive...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-proper-basis-for-ca...

 

Table 5/Vermont EVs

On the road

Drive

2020 Range

kWh/mile

Adj. kWh/mile

MSRP*

Max

Per EPA

5.50%

$

Nissan Leaf S Plus

Small SUV

573

FrWD

226

0.3009

0.3174

38200

Chevy Bolt

Small SUV

270

FrWD

259

0.2856

0.3013

36620

Tesla Model 3

Small sedan

243

AWD

322

0.2785

0.2938

48990

Tesla Model Y

Small SUV

AWD

316

0.2785

0.2938

52990

Tesla Model S

Full-size sedan

130

AWD

402

0.2880

0.3038

74990

Tesla Model X

Med-size SUV

66

AWD

351

0.3510

0.3703

79990

Hyunda Kona

Small SUV

26

FrWD

258

0.2808

0.2962

37190

Kia Niro

Small SUV

FrWD

239

0.3008

0.3173

38500

 

Determining the Loss Factor

 

Due to the above four losses, the total kWh drawn via a WM to charge the battery is about 25 to 30 percent greater than the total of battery storage changes over, say one year, as determined from long-term driving tests of a Tesla Model 3 in California, and a Model S in upstate NY

 

The loss factor is higher in NY and NE than in CA

The Tesla Model 3 and Model S are known to be more efficient than other EVs.

The loss factors of equivalent EVs, not as efficient as Teslas, driven in NE, likely would be about 1.055

The factor 1.055 was used in this article. See URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-tesla-mod...

 

Table 6/Loss

WM

Loss factor

Charge factor

VM

WM/VM

Model S; Upstate NY

kWh AC

kWh DC

kWh AC/kWh DC

Charge

100.00

0.85

85.00

Misc. losses

5.12

1.0512

0.85

4.35

Charge + Misc. losses

105.12

80.65

1.3034

Model 3; California

Charge

75.00

0.85

63.75

Misc. losses

2.50

1.0333

0.85

2.13

Charge + Misc. losses

77.50

61.62

1.2578

 

ANECDOTAL INFORMATION REGARDING EVs

 

Eco-conscious persons, who would buy EVs, likely already drive higher-mileage gasoline vehicles. Just ask them what they drove before buying an EV.

 

1) A friend, who owns a community supported agriculture company, CSA, traded her 54-mpg Prius for a $45000 EV Bolt, which, after federal, state, GMP, and dealer subsidies, cost her $26000!! I was astounded.

There is no free lunch ever. One person’s subsidy, becomes another person’s cost, per Economics 101

She makes delivery runs to various stores that sell her products.

She found the Bolt has much less useful storage space than the Prius.

She found the Bolt has about 35 to 40% less range in winter than in summer.

She had not counted on that range loss, and no one had told her.

She said, if it had not been for all the incentives (paid for by other Vermonters) she would have never done it

She can write it off in 3 years, which significantly reduces her federal and state income taxes (other Vermonters have to pay more)

 

2) Another friend, a landscaper, has a Prius plug-in. 

She has short travels to clients.

Her tools, etc., are loaded in the vehicle

She hardly ever buys gas, except when it gets colder in fall, winter, spring

Her 25-mile electric range becomes about 15 miles on colder days.

 

3) The EPA range of an EV can only be obtained, if the car is driven on a level road, at a steady 55 mph, with only the driver. 

I observed a video of a Tesla Model S going 400 miles, at 55 mph, on a level 4-lane divided highway in Norway. 

It was an experiment by a professional driver, who had borrowed the car. 

Conditions were ideal, not too hot, not too cold.

The test was stopped with 3% left in the battery, per owner requirement.

I used to live near Oslo, Norway and know that road very well.

Add a passenger, less range; hilly terrain, less range; cold weather, less range; add some cargo, plus a passenger, plus a hilly road, on a cold day and range reduction is about 35 to 40%.

These are real-world facts in Vermont, but very few people are made aware of them.

People who bought EVs find drawbacks later, tell their friends, and EV sales do not “take off”, no matter how much subsidies.

Some higher-income people, use a heavily subsidized EV for commuting, shopping, etc., and find it quite adequate.

They usually have gasoline vehicles as well.

REQUIRED HYDRO PLANT CAPACITY, IF ADDED EVs USED ONLY HYDRO POWER

This is a “what if” exercise to provide some reality regarding the electricity required for the added EVs. What if hydro plants were to provide the electricity for the added EVs?

 

The Vermont LDV mix of gasoline vehicles consists of small, medium and large vehicles. The larger, the heavier the vehicle, the greater the kWh/mile. Almost all EVs currently marketed and bought are smaller vehicles, which require about 0.317 kWh/mile, WM basis; this includes 1) charging loss, 2) self-use loss due to heating, cooling, electronics, etc., and 3) losses due to NE road/climate conditions, 4) losses due to idle time, such as parked at an airport.

 

At end 2025, about 190,140 EVs would be added and in operation to reduce 405,000 Mt of CO2/y, per above lifetime analysis. That large number of EVs likely would replace most of the smaller gasoline vehicles in the LDV mix.

 

Assuming their average requirement is 0.317 kWh/mile, their electricity consumption would be 190,140 EVs x 13200 miles/y x 0.317 kWh/mile x 1.075 (T&D loss) = 855,293 MWh/y, fed to grid basis.

 

One of the larger hydro plants is in Wilder, West Lebanon, NH. The Wilder Dam is 59 ft high. The water pool extends 45 miles from the dam. The reservoir usable capacity is 13,350 acre-ft with a 5-ft drawdown, or 16.47 million m3. The annual average production is about 153,738 MWh. See page 16 of URL

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&...

 

The added EVs would require new hydro plants with a capacity of about 855,293/153,738 x 41 MW = 5.6 Wilder Dams just for meeting Paris!! Bonjour

 

That would far exceed the existing the total hydro plant capacity in Vermont

If Vermont were to have about 400,000 EVs at some future date, even greater hydro plant capacity would be required

 

In NE, in spring, hydro plant monthly output is about two times the monthly output during summer, i.e., hydro reservoirs would be needed to ensure steady output throughout the year.

 

Also, miles-travelled per day during winter is about 15% less than during summer, i.e., any hydro plants would need to provide electricity to cover miles-travelled during summer.

 

Table 7/Wilder Dam

Water pool

miles

45

Drawdown

ft

5

Usable volume

acre-ft

13,350

m^3/acre-ft

1233.48

Usable volume

m^3

16,466,958

Avg. production, 1982 - 2011

MWh/y

153,738

h/y

8766

Average plant output

MW

17.54

Plant rated capacity

MW

41

CF

0.428

WIND, SOLAR and HYDRO

 

If massive build-outs of heavily subsidized wind and solar were to occur (at great expense and environmental damage), which would have upstream CO2 emissions, electric grids would gradually become “cleaner”, i.e., have lower CO2/kWh.

 

That approach would take decades, plus:

 

1) Variable, intermittent, grid disturbing, electricity from large-scale wind would cost about 9 c/kWh

2) New large-scale solar about 11 c/kWh, and from residential net-metered solar about 21.813 c/kWh.

3) The NE wholesale price has averaged at less than 5 c/kWh, starting in 2009

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

 

NOTE: Importing more low-cost hydro (about 5.549 c/kWh, per GMP) from Quebec to replace “dangerous nuclear” and “dirty fossil” would be a very quick, smart and economic way to reduce CO2.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/gmp-refusing-to-buy-additional-hydro-energy-from-hydro-quebec

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 meter 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 meters

323

356

Fed to wall meters, 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 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 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. See table F

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   

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 5

GMP Cost of Electricity in 2016 

Table D shows the prices GMP pays for electricity. 

Standard Offer and Net-metering prices are off-the-charts expensive.

EAN members want more SO and Net-metered,

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/green-mountain-power-co...

 

In 2016, the PUC began competitive bidding of SO solar systems.

Some recent SO solar bids were as low as 11 c/kWh.

More SO systems would slowly reduce SO solar below 21.793 c/kWh in future years. See Appendix.

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

 

Table D/GMP costs

1

2

3

4

5

GMP purchases, 2016

MWh

% of purchases

Cost, $

c/kWh

% of Cost

HQUS (Hydro-Quebec)

919312

22.13

51013678

5.549

20.34

Standard Offer

78920

1.90

17199202

21.793

6.86

Net-metered

71970

1.73

15699137

21.813

6.26

Ryegate (wood)

126707

3.05

12710175

10.031

5.07

ISO wholesale

575553

13.85

18645214

3.240

7.43

Misc. sources

1772462

42.66

115267406

6.503

45.96

Other sources

2382075

57.34

135516232

5.689

54.04

Total GMP purchases

4154537

100.00

250783638

6.036

100.00

ISO midday wholesale

6.000

 

APPENDIX 6

Gas Guzzler Fees to Reduce CO2

Vermont should have an energy efficiency standard for light duty vehicles.

Annual fees would be paid at time of annual registration.

Inefficient vehicles would rapidly disappear.

CO2 would be rapidly reduced.

The collected funds could be used for filling potholes.

The wasteful Comprehensive Transportation Initiative, TCI, would not be needed.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-and-m...

 

Table E/EPA combined, mpg

 Fee, $/y

40

 0

39

 10

38

 20

37

30

36

40

35

50

34

 60

Etc.

 

APPENDIX 7

GMP Purchased Electricity Mix

 

GMP electricity mix based on PPAs, i.e., paper contracts

GMP increased purchases of large hydro and nuclear, which have very low CO2/kWh.

GMP decreased purchases on the wholesale market, which had 299 g CO2/kWh in 2018, fed to grid basis, PE basis.

 

GMP’s paper PPAs for hydro and nuclear did not physically reduce any CO2 anywhere.

GMP is required to have such PPAs to satisfy state-RES mandates.

GMP did not need to spend any money to make any changes in its operations to reduce CO2

  

Table F/GMP Electricity Mix

2017

2018

2019

%

%

%

Large hydro

23.7

49.4

Existing VT hydro

6.3

6.3

Total hydro

30.0

55.7

60.6

Wholesale market purchases

30.4

28.2

9.8

Nuclear

14.7

14.7

27.9

Oil and natural gas

0.5

0.4

Methane

0.7

Hydro

5.5

Solar

5.2

0.9

1.7

Wind

8.0

Wood

5.0

Total RE

24.4

0.9

1.7

 

APPENDIX 8

More Wind, Solar and Storage Harmful for Vermont 

 

GMP would need to replace the nuclear electricity, as it cannot rely on Seabrook Nuclear to be generating far into the future.

 

If the replacement were in-state RE (primarily wind, solar and storage), there would be major adverse environmental impacts on pristine ridge lines and open spaces in Vermont, plus the cost would be prohibitively expensive, which would adversely affect the Vermont economy. See URLs.

 

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-more-wind-and-solar...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-subsidies-for...

 

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)
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: 495

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Kenneth Capron on March 22, 2020 at 3:54pm

I am trying to change that maglev deficit but on a micro-scale.

Comment by Willem Post on March 22, 2020 at 11:12am

Ken,

Regarding maglev, China has thousands of mile of high speed rail road tracks, more than the rest of the world combined.

China already has the world’s fastest commercial maglev service in operation, which reaches 267mph on its 18.6 mile journey between Shanghai’s airport and city center.

China’s leading train manufacturer has unveiled a prototype maglev train that will eventually carry passengers at speeds of up to 373 mph

 Japan set a new world speed record with a maglev train of 375 mph, in 2015.

Japan is currently building a 314 mph maglev rail line between Tokyo and Nagoya that’s due to open in 2027.

Both these countries have huge trade surpluses with the US and others

The US is planning nothing to write home about.

 

Comment by Willem Post on March 22, 2020 at 7:01am

Hi Ken,

Thank you for the compliment.

My aim is to make the analysis as accurate and as rational as possible

I have the advantage of multiple degrees in engineering and science, plus about 40 years experience in professional energy systems analysis

The aim of EV hypers is to leave out as much as possible, write glossy reports, and befuddle Vermonter with mantras and slogans.

Shameful legislators, who are supposed to work for voters, not for lobbies, do know better, but sell themselves to get re-elected and have some power and control.

THESE SHENANIGANS WILL NOT END UNTIL THERE ARE TERM LIMITS

Comment by Kenneth Capron on March 21, 2020 at 11:51pm

Who gets credit for this complex analysis? Such analyses are difficult mostly because there people use quantities and terms that are inconsistent and obviously intended to discourage analysis. but this analysis sorts that all out and make a clear argument.

I've been trying to come up with a CO2 savings number for maglev vehicles and still need adjustments. This will help.

Kudos to the mathematician/economist who did all the work!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

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

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

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

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2021   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service