VERMONT’S GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT, A DISASTER IN THE MAKING

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...

 

Vermont Gross Emissions, actual

 

9.00 MMt in 2012

9.99 MMt in 2015

9.76 MMt in 2016

9.41 MMt in 2017, estimated

9.02 MMt in 2018, estimated

 

See figs. 1 and 16 of URL

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

 

See page 18 of URL

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

 

US Gross Emissions

 

About 6,700 MMt in 2018

Vermont emissions are just a tiny fraction of US emissions.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

 

Turnkey Capital Cost to Implement GWSA

 

Here is a brief summary of the turnkey capital cost of Phase 1, i.e., reduce CO2 by at least 26%.

Vermont is lucky, because it has the 14-y, GWSA-experience of California as a guide.

http://www.truenorthreports.com/welcome-to-hell-says-california-pol...

 

GWSA Financial Implications: Almost no one, including most legislators, have any idea regarding the reductions of CO2 and the turnkey capital cost to achieve them.

This article has some background numbers regarding GWSA.

This article includes an analysis of the Energy Action Network CO2-reduction plan for the 2020 – 2025 period

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

 

GWSA-Required Gross Emissions Reductions and Cost

 

Phase 1

26%+ below 2005, i.e., (1 - 0.27) x 10.22 = 7.46 MMt, by Jan. 1, 2025, to “meet Paris”

The Council would take about a year to develop plans, which means most of 2021 would have elapsed before any action.

The actual CO2 reduction would be from 9.02, at end 2018 (latest numbers) to 7.46, Jan. 1, 2025, or 1.56 MMt, during the years 2022, 2023, and 2024, effectively a 3-y period.

The turnkey capital cost would be about $6.32 billion

The CO2 reduction appears to be a physical and financial impossibility.

See table 1A and Note.

 

NOTE: The EAN plan lists the measures required to reduce CO2 from 9.76, in 2016 to 7.46, in 2025, for a reduction of 2.28 MMt.

That CO2 reduction has an estimated capital cost of at least $9.25 billion. See table 1

The estimated capital cost of Phase 1 would be about 1.56/2.28 x $9.25 billion = $6.32 billion.

 

Phase 2

40%+ below 1990, i.e., (1 - 0.40) x 8.59 = 5.15 MMt, by Jan. 1, 2030

The CO2 reduction would be 7.46, Jan 1, 2025 - 5.15, Jan. 1, 2030 = 2.31 MMt, during the 5-y period 

 

Phase 3

80%+ below 1990, i.e., (1 - 0.80) x 8.59 = 1.72 MMt, by January 1, 2050

The CO2 reduction would be 5.15, Jan. 1, 2030 - 1.72, Jan. 1 2050 = 3.43 MMt, during the 20-y period

 

GWSA 23-Member Council

The Council likely would be the sole decider how hundreds of millions of $dollars would be spent, each year, for decades, with no relief ever, because:

 

The Council make-up would include:

 

1) Eight Government Secretaries and Commissioners

2) Eight members appointed by the Speaker of the House

3) Seven members appointed by the “Committee on Committees”, C of C

The members of the C of C are the Lt Governor, Senate president pro tem, and a “third member” elected by the Senate

See URL

https://legiscan.com/VT/text/H0688/2019

 

The Governor’s Secretary of Administration would be the Chairman.

He/she has the power to call meetings.

If he/she delays calling meetings, any 12 of 23 members could call a meeting.

 

NOTE: The Governor would have only 8 votes, plus may be a few more, but likely not 5, i.e., the Governor could not override the 12 members calling a meeting.

 

The action sequence would be as follows:

 

Council would approve plans.

VT Agency of Natural Resources, ANR, would write rules to implement plans,

Council would approve rules

Approved rules sent to the Governor’s Interagency Committee on Administrative Rules, ICAR

ICAR is composed of Governor Appointees

ICAR can reject the rules, i.e., the Governor can stop the process.

 

What happens next likely would be lawsuits

Any entity, such as the Conservation Law Foundation, could sue the state, if Council decisions would not reduce CO2 in accordance with GSWA/CEP goals.

Legislators and Other Vermonters Disenfranchised

 

If mandated goals are not attained, there would be mandated financial penalties, prohibitions (you shall do this; you shall not do that), fees and surcharges

If the Council would decide to impose the equivalent of a carbon tax, so be it. 

 

Legislators would not be allowed to vote on any plan, or any proposed rules.

Legislators would not be voting on GWSA-related financial penalties, prohibitions, and increases in fees and surcharges.

Legislators, and the people who voted for them, would be disenfranchised.

Legislators would be “off-the-hook”.

GWSA Likely is Unconstitutional

On the face of it, GWSA has to be unconstitutional, because the Governor, and his administration, and Legislators, appear to have no effective say in any Council decisions.

Such extremism could only come about due to the present, veto-proof control by Dem/Progs.

This is Centralized Command and Control. 

It has nothing to do with Democracy.

 

ENERGY ACTION NETWORK CO2 REDUCTION PLAN FOR  2020 - 2025

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

 

EAN listed the measures required to reduce CO2 from 9.76, in 2016 to 7.46, in 2025, for a reduction of 2.28 MMt.

That CO2 reduction has an estimated capital cost of at least $9.25 billion.

GWSA requires a reduction of 1.56 MMt, by January 1, 2025, i.e., its estimated capital cost would be 1.56/2.28 x $9.25 billion = $6.32 billion.

See table 1

 

Capital Cost Estimate of EAN Plan

 

I made a turnkey capital cost estimate of the EAN plan, because EAN did not, but should have.

 

EVs: 90,000 x $40000/small EV = $3.6 billion; installation rate 18000/y vs about 750/y, at present

High-speed in-house chargers: 90,000 x $2000 = $0.18 billion

 

“Deep” retrofits: 90,000 x $30,000/housing unit = $2.7 billion

ASHPs for space heat: 90,000 x $5,000/housing unit = $0.45 billion; installation rate18000/y vs about 2900/y, at present

ASHPs for DHW: 90,000 x $3,000/system = $0.27 billion; installation rate 18000/y vs about 1000/y, at present  

 

Wind turbines: 250000/(8766 x 0.30) x $2.5 million/MW = $0.095 Billion

Solar systems: 700000/(8766 x 0.14) x $3.5 million/MW = $0.57 Billion

Expanding/augmenting of the grid: $0.1 billion

Fortress Vermont to deal with excessive DUCK-curves, due to midday solar surges.

Energy storage: $0.9 billion

Curtailment payments: $0.3 billion

 

Hydro power plants: 50000/(8766 x 0.40) x $6 million/MW = $0.086 billion

 

The turnkey capital cost would be exceeding $9.25 billion, during 2020 – 2025, about $1.85 billion/y. 

 

NOTE: EAN-proposed solar build-outs would be from 438.84 dc, at end 2019 to at least 1000 MW dc, at end 2025

Solar is the most expensive electricity on the Vermont grid. It would not be smart to have more of it.

It requires about 3.5 acres per MW, and is charged to the utility rate base at 11 to 21 c/kWh

 

NOTE: Current cost shifting to ratepayers for solar production of 473,686 MWh, at end 2009, was about $64 million.

The cost shifting would become at least $130 million, if solar production were increased by 700,000 MWh during the 2020 – 2025 period. See table 4 in URL and Appendix

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

 

Amortizing Short-Life Items

 

EVs, heat pumps, battery storage systems, etc., have lives of less than 15 years. 

Amortizing the cost of the short-life assets, $5.7 billion, at 3.5% over 15 years, would require payments of $489 million/y for 15 years, more than offsetting the EAN estimated energy cost savings of 800/5 = $160 million/y, during the 2020 – 2025 period.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

Vermont’s existing RE spending is about $210 million/y, including Efficiency Vermont. 

The additional spending, during 2020 – 2025, would be about 489 – 160 = $329 million/y, per EAN plan

Annual costs would be even higher, because the amortizing of longer-life items has been temporarily excluded.

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

 

Table 1/Capital Cost Estimate

$

$Billion

$Billion

Short Life

EVs

90000

40000

3.60

3.60

Chargers

90000

2000

0.18

0.18

Deep retrofit

90000

30000

2.70

ASHPs, space heat

90000

5000

0.45

0.45

ASHPs, DHW

90000

3000

0.27

0.27

Wind turbines

0.10

Solar systems

0.57

Grid expansion/augmentation

0.10

Energy storage

0.90

0.90

Curtailment payments

0.30

0.30

hydro power

0.09

Total turnkey capital cost

9.25

5.70

Years

5.00

5.00

Cost/y

1.85

1.14

 

HOWEVER, THERE IS A SMALL HITCH WITH THE EAN PLAN

 

In reality, the CO2 reduction of the EAN plan would not be achieved, because the analyses are flawed.

 

EAN, with help from VT-DPS:

 

- Used fudged emission data for electricity, grams CO2/kWh

- Did not consider upstream CO2 for heat pumps and electric vehicle analysis

- Did not consider embodied CO2 of electric vehicles

- Did not determine the amortizing cost of the short life assets.

 

That means:

 

EAN claimed a CO2 reduction per EV much higher than in reality.

EVs compared to 30 mpg vehicles, such as a Subaru Outback, have a CO2 reduction of about 2.13 Mt/y, much less than the 4.50 Mt/y claimed by the flawed EAN method.

EAN would need 90000 x 4.50/2.13 = 190,141 EVs to achieve its CO2 reduction of 0.405 MMt/y, at 2025

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

 

EAN claimed a CO2 reduction per ASHP much higher than in reality.

ASHPs, in average Vermont 2000 ft2 houses, have a CO2 reduction of about 2.389 Mt/y per ASHP, much less than the 4.111 Mt/y per ASHP claimed by the flawed EAN method.

EAN would need 90000 x 4.111/2.389 = 139,385 ASHPs to achieve its CO2 reduction of 0.37 MMt/y, in 2025  

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

 

The EAN-claimed energy cost savings per heat pump and per EV were overstated, as confirmed by the CADMUS survey

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

 

Additional explanation is in this URL, which also shows turnkey capital cost estimates:

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/response-to-energy-acti...

 

EAN performed the flawed analysis likely to:

 

- Bamboozle legislators to get them to vote for GWSA (“all we need is this and that, and we will get these fabulous results”)

- Bamboozle/befuddle most of the rest of Vermonters, who would:

 

1) Be suffering GWSA-induced headaches for decades to come

2) See no discernible effect on the Vermont climate…. 

 

NOTE: I sent this and other articles to VT-DPS, VT-PUC, VT-ANR, and VT Media, who likely do not read them.

I almost never receive a comment!!

 

Artificial Emissions of Vermont Electrical Sector

 

The CO2 reduction from 9.99 MMt in 2015 to 9.02 MMt in 2018 was artificially “achieved” by basing the CO2 of the Vermont electrical sector on power purchase agreements, PPAs, utilities have with owners of in-state and out-of-state electricity generating plants.

 

All utilities, which draw almost all of their electricity supply from the NE grid, must have such agreements, per ISO-NE requirements, as otherwise they would be stealing from the grid.

 

EAN/VT-DPS concocted an artificial value of 34 g CO2/kWh, based on PPAs, about 8 times less than NE grid CO2/kWh, to “evaluate” the CO2 reduction of heat pumps and electric vehicles to make them look extra good!!! Sheer chicanery. See Appendix and URLs

 

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

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

THE GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT A DECADES-LONG BURDEN ON VERMONT

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

 

The Vermont House overrode Governor Scott's veto of GWSA, and sent it to the Vermont Senate for an override vote

GSWA converts the aspirational goals of the CEP, to mandated goals.

If mandated goals are not attained, there would be mandated financial penalties, prohibitions (you shall do this; you shall not do that), fees and surcharges. 

 

The “Fight Climate Change” agitators, many of whom would stand to financially gain from the GWSA mandates, have failed to get a carbon tax enacted for five years.

With GWSA, they get a bonanza beyond their wildest dreams.

They labelled GWSA as “this year’s must-pass legislation”.

A RATIONAL ALTERNATIVE TO GWSA

 

California: California has had a GWSA law since 2006, which resulted in:

 

- Rapid increases of electric rates and gasoline prices

- Huge DUCK-curves, due to midday solar electricity bulges

- Unwise/untimely/political/ideological shutdown of gas plants, which resulted in rolling blackouts, when, during a multi-day heat wave, wind and solar were minimal starting in late-afternoon/early-evening (DURING PEAK HOURS), with solar not reappearing until mid-morning THE NEXT DAY

- A host of rules, regulations, taxes, fees and surcharges, and penalties to enforce behavior modification programs

 

Fourteen years later, Vermont decided to copy the wonderful/nightmare experience of Calizuela, from which people are leaving by the thousands each week, with is very own GWSA.

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-...

http://www.truenorthreports.com/welcome-to-hell-says-california-pol...

 

Vermont: For Vermont, the only thing that makes any sense is to stop “emulating” California.

Vermont should immediately scrap GWSA, and concentrate on:

 

1) Energy conservation
2) Energy efficiency
3) Building net-zero-energy, and energy-surplus houses and other buildings, by the thousands, each year. See Appendix
4) Provide incentives to buy vehicles that get more than 35 mpg, EPA combined; the more above the limit, the greater the incentive.

5) Charge annual fees, paid at time of registration, on existing and new vehicles that get less than 25 mpg, EPA combined; the more below the limit, the greater the fee.

 

The above 4 items would save money for Vermonters, and make the state economy more competitive

Most of the other energy measures are just expensively subsidized hogwash that would not make one iota of difference regarding climate change.

APPENDIX 1

1) VT-DPS Concocting an Artificial CO2/kWh for Vermont, based on PPAs

 

VT-DPS concocted an artificial CO2 emission for the Vermont grid of 34 g/kWh, based onpaper power purchase agreements, PPAs, utilities have with in-state and out-of-state electricity producers.

This concocted value, which has no physical basis, is about 8 times less than the NE grid CO2 value, as determined by ISO-NE.

 

GMP, et al., merely signs some papers, and presto, its electricity is certified green, and has low CO2. 

Break out the champaign. The system has been gamed.

 

All other Vermonters have to bust their chops, and save hard-earned money, because they are mandated to buy heat pumps, EVs, insulate their homes to be "net zero", etc. to be certified green

 

Physically, almost all Vermont electricity is drawn by utilities from high voltage grids. There is absolutely no reason for not using the NE grid CO2 value, other than deliberate deception. See below explanation.

 

2) NE Electric Grid CO2 in 2018, based on Primary Energy

 

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 from Nearby Grids: Imports were 17% of total electricity fed to the NE grid.

 

New York State electric grid CO2 was 464 lb/MWh in 2018, or 211 g/kWh

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/newyork/

 

Quebec electric grid CO2 was 500 g/MWh in 2018, or 0.5 g/kWh

https://www.hydroquebec.com/data/developpement-durable/pdf/co2-emis...

 

I assumed imports has zero g CO2/kWh, which likely understates the real-world conditions.

 

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

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

 

Table 2/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

 

3) 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...

 

4) Vermont Utilities and VT-DPS “Reduce” CO2

 

No CO2 is reduced by GMP and other Vermont utilities 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 3/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 2

Solar and Wind Complementing Each Other in New England?

 

Solar may be 30% in summer, and 15% in winter, on average

Wind may be 15% in winter, and 30% in winter, on average

Naïve RE people look at this, and conclude solar and wind “nicely complement” each other, which to energy systems analysts is pure nonsense.

How could non-existent solar at night in winter “nicely complement” wind at night in winter?

And how would that happen during a 5 to 7-day wind/solar lull?

Would such people be part of the GWSA “Council of Wise Men” to “fight climate change”? See URL

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

 

Table 4 shows the prices of solar, before and after subsidies, and before and after cost shifting, in sun-starved New England.

 

Table 4/Vermont & NE sources

Total

Grid support*

Subsidies

Paid to

GMP

 Added to

cost

cost

to owner

owner

adder

rate base

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

Solar, residential rooftop, net-metered, new

24.6

2.0

5.2

17.4

3.7

20.8

Solar, residential rooftop, net-metered, legacy

25.4

2.0

5.4

18.0

3.7

21.7

Solar, com’l/ind’l, standard offer, new*

22.6

2.0

9.6

11.0

?

11.0

Solar, com’l/ind’l, standard offer, legacy

34.2

2.0

10.5

21.7

?

21.7

Wind, ridge line, new*

18.6

2.2

7.4

9.0

?

9.0

 

* Grid support includes costs for: 1) grid extension/augmentation, 2) storage to deal with DUCK curves, 3) curtailment payments to solar system owners, 4) payments to traditional generators (mostly gas turbines) counteracting solar output variations, etc.

Item 2 and 3 would be part of $1.2 billion Fortress Vermont programduring the 2020 - 2025 period, with more $billions thereafter.

* Competitive bidding reduced prices paid to owner from 24 – 30 c/kWh to about 11.0 c/kWh

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fortress-vermont-a-mult...

APPENDIX 3

Vermont total use was about 5,600,000 MWh (as fed to user meters), of which solar was about 473.686/5600 = 8.5%, in 2019

See page 24 of URL and table 5

https://www.velco.com/assets/documents/2018%20LRTP%20Final%20_asfil...

 

Table 5 summarizes the above three major categories of solar in Vermont.

 

Table 5/ Vermont Total Solar

End 2018

End 2019

Average 2019

Average 2019

 

 End 2019

 

MW ac

MW ac

Average MW ac

Average MW dc

CF

MWh

Vermont Net-Metered, VTDigger URL

196.492

229.924

213.208

256.877

0.1300

292,732

Vermont Standard Offer, per VEPP, Inc.

53.542

58.797

56.170

67.674

0.1404

83,270

Vermont Utility, by subtraction

56.266

75.519

65.893

79.389

0.1404

97,684

Total, per ISO-NE pv solar forecast

306.300

364.240

335.270

403.940

 

473,686

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, each with one head

Ventilation: Lifebreath 155 ECM Energy Recovery Ventilator 

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

DHW: SunDrum Solar 

 

Table 6 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 5.

 

Table 6/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

Heat Demand, Btu/h

10500

19975

APPENDIX 5

Most people are familiar with the logging industry claim it harvests low value trees for burning, i.e., misshapen, diseased trees, standing deadwood, etc., called net available low grade, NALG, whereas, in fact, that is often not true, based on satellite and drone photos of clearcutting on harvested areas.

 

The other logging industry claim is "wood burning is renewable" and therefore its CO2 should not be counted (the EPA and IPCC are proponents of this fallacy), whereas, in fact, wood-burning is not renewable at all.

I have written extensively on the CO2 released just after clearcutting.

This article has 5 examples of CO2 released, due to clearcutting

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-emissions-from-logg...

 

In northern climates, it takes about 35 years for the CO2 to get back to neutral

The initial CO2 release, due to belowground biomass decay, is very high, and the decay is on-going for about 80 to 100 years. 

The released CO2 far exceeds any CO2 absorbed by the regrowth on the HARVESTED AREA.

That negative condition continues for about 17 years.

But to offset that negative condition, and get back to neutral, regrowth on the HARVESTED AREA needs to take place for another 17 to 18 years

 

The decay CO2 is entirely independent from 1) combustion CO2, and 2) harvesting and other CO2.

 

- Combustion CO2 of year 1 would have to wait for 35 years to start being absorbed by regrowth on the HARVESTED AREA, which takes about 80 - 100 years.

 

- Harvesting and other CO2, due to: 1) logging, 2) chipping, 3) transport, 4) in-plant processing, and 5) plant operations other than combustion, etc., is like all other CO2.

 

However, in the real world, loggers would come along, see 40 to 45-y-old trees, and cut them down; veni, vidi, vici; i.e., the CO2 absorption process is CUT SHORT.

 

The logging industry continues to claim, without blushing: "Burning wood is renewable".

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/burning-wood-is-not-ren...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-forests-and-co2...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/dartmouth-biomass-boile...

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-case-against-intens...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/dartmouth-reconsidering...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-is-harvesting-w...

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/dartmouth-s-planned-bio...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-emissions-from-logg...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/burning-wood-produces-e...

APPENDIX 6

GWSA requires a lot of ADDITIONAL wood burning to meet CEP targets.

Where is that wood going to come from?

 

Presently, Vermont obtains all of its annual harvest from about 2.2 million AVAILABLE acres, even though VT has 4.5 million acres of timberland. The rest is unavailable for many reasons.

 

The ANNUAL biomass growth on the 2.2 million acres is about equal to Vermont’s ANNUAL harvests; i.e., VT harvesting is maxed out!!!

 

However, Vermont’s national and state forests, heretofore mostly OFF LIMITS, are now going to be harvested big time, according to plans on file with the US Forest Service. Here are some websites for your information.

 

Government bureaucrats and logging proponents often claim there is little clearcutting in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.

That is not true, based on-site inspections, and satellite and drone surveillance.

Just Google and you will find plenty of clearcutting all over the place, including in national and state forests.

Vermont Clearcutting

Here are some random Google Earth images of clearcutting in Vermont, before the proposed logging and clearcutting of the Green Mountain National Forest, GMNF.

http://www.maforests.org/VERMONTCLEARCUTTING.pdf

 

As you look through the plans, at the list of proposed acreage of each logging type, in each plan, it is worth noting “group selection” in USFS timberspeak, is simply a bunch of “smaller” one to two football field sized clearcuts, not in any sense what people think of when they think of “selective” logging.  An example can be seen on page 15 of URL

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/108977_FSPLT3_5339483.pdf

 

Also, the 15-year GMNF plan is set to expire in 2021. GMNF is pushing these long-term, “programmatic” projects to essentially tie its own hands, before it gets around to revising its Forest Plan. These projects have the real danger of pre-allocating lands to active management (including portions of inventoried roadless areas) before the forest goes through a proper Forest Plan revision process.

GMNF is rushing to get these projects done while the current administration is in office. See URL

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gmfl/landmanagement/planning/?cid=FS...

New Hampshire Clearcutting

Here are some random Google Earth images of clearcutting in the White Mountain National Forest, in NH, similar to what is planned now for the GMNF, though the plans for GMNF appear got be even more aggressive.  

http://www.maforests.org/WMNF.pdf

 

For a view of what the logging will look like, see the identical “vegetation treatments” in White Mountain National Forest in NH

http://www.maforests.org/WMNF.pdf

 

Massachusetts Clearcutting

Much of Maine has already been heavily cutover, and I don’t have any images of that, but in this report, the green areas show forests with greater biomass (i.e., larger trees), where much new logging is being targeted 

http://www.maforests.org/DFW.pdf

 

Lots of Clearcutting Coming to GMNF 

 

15,000 acres, 12,000 acres of it is clearcutting

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/108891_FSPLT3_4658907.pdf

 

About 6700 acres more logging in GMNF

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/97348_FSPLT3_2363593.pdf

 

Thousands more acres here

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/103699_FSPLT3_3987566.pdf

 

Look at the logging on just this one "project":

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/97348_FSPLT3_3032534.pdf

 

Burning Wood is NOT Clean

Regarding the "cleanliness" of wood...

http://www.pfpi.net/air-pollution-2

 

High Asthma Rates in Vermont

Vermont already has some of the highest asthma rates in the country

https://learn.uvm.edu/blog/blog-health/asthma-rates-in-vermont

 

Oregon, the Paragon of Clearcutting

And for twice the fun, for anyone interested just to see how bad an unchecked logging industry can get, see this video from Oregon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0j_Msmz44M

 

 

 

 

Views: 226

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 Willem Post on September 14, 2020 at 8:43am

GWSA will result in major bloodsucking from average Vermonters, FOR DECADES!!
Almost all Vermonters have no idea the extent GWSA will impact their lives, while tiny Vermont is making NO IMPACT on global warming

GWSA is a gigantic subsidy con game for the RE companies of Vermont.
It is a bankrupt approach by the Dem/Prog-dominated legislature, instead of having proper/healthy industrial development/growth by the private sector.

VT-DPS, VT-PUC, VT-ANR, VELCO and the CAPTIVE VT Media have issued reports and articles to:

– Bamboozle legislators to get them to vote for GWSA (“all we need is this and that, and we will get these fabulous results”)
– Bamboozle/befuddle the rest of Vermonters, who will be suffering GWSA-induced headaches for decades to come, and who would see no discernible effect on the Vermont climate….

For some months already, comments are no longer allowed on VTDigger articles, because, regarding GWSA, they would be at least 10 to 1 against.

The comments likely would sway more legislators to vote no, and likely would sway a lot more voters to oust the RE-smitten legislators in November….

The Dem/Prog elites likely leaned on VTDigger to no longer allow any comments on VTDigger Articles and Commentaries

“Seven-Days”, likely was also leaned on. It also no longer allows any comments.
Vermont’s Media likely are being cowed into silence; “support us, or else no donor support”.

This article has a detailed engineering explanation of the impacts of GWSA on the VT economy.
Read the cited URLs to be more fully informed
COMMENTS ARE ALLOWED AND INVITED

VERMONT’S GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT, A DISASTER IN THE MAKING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warmi...

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