WIND AND SOLAR TO PROVIDE 30 PERCENT OF NEW ENGLAND ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION BY 2050

Energy systems analysts of Denmark, Ireland, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, etc., have known for decades, that if you have a significant percentage of (wind + solar) on your grid, you better have available:

 

- An adequate capacity, MW, of other power plants to counteract any variations of (W+S), 24/7/365

- High-capacity, MW, connections to nearby grids

- An adequate capacity of energy storage, such as:

 

1) Pumped hydro storage

2) Hydro plants with reservoir storage

3) Grid-scale battery systems

 

The more presence of variable (W+S) on the NE grid, the more the other generators have to vary their outputs, which causes these other generators to be less efficient (more wear and tear, more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh).

Owners in European countries with much wind and solar get compensated for their losses.

Those compensations are charged to the general public, not to the Owners of wind and solar systems, as part of the political (subsidy + cost shifting) regimen, to make wind and solar appear price-competitive versus fossil fuels.

 

RE folks often advocate:

 

1) Electricity must be 100% renewable, or zero carbon, or carbon-neutral by 2050

2) Getting rid of the remaining nuclear plants as soon as their licenses expire, or sooner

3) Getting rid of natural gas, coal, and oil plants to reduce CO2

4) More biomass burning. Its combustion CO2 has been declared “renewable”, per international agreements.

 

NOTE: In this article, battery systems are site-specific, custom-designed, utility-grade, battery systems used 8,766 h/y

Such battery systems are not comparable to mass-produced battery packs for electric vehicles, used about 750 h/y

 

PART 1; MISCELLANEOUS ENERGY TOPICS

Closing Down “Dirty” Fossil Plants

 

RE folks, using rules, regulations, and targets, forced utilities to become imprudent regarding reliability of production under all weather conditions.

 

Accordingly, the UK, Texas and California had been closing down fossil plants, and building out wind and solar systems. Utilities took actions that underestimated the risk to electricity production and grid stability of too much wind and solar. All three had rolling blackouts, and 100% blackouts, that lasted several days, during weather events, similar to what had occurred in the past.

 

1) The UK and nearby countries had long periods with minimal winds, leading to fuel shortages.

2) Texas had a rare frost adversely affecting the outputs of gas plants and wind turbines

3) California had high electricity demand during a US Southwest heat wave, and minimal imports from nearby states.

 

The minds of RE folks, who often have no technical education, get infected by the “wishful thinking syndrome”.

However, after some reflection of the physical realities of energy systems, that syndrome would immediately reveal themselves as irrational. 

 

Because of group-think, and peer-pressure, and livelihood-security aspects, too few people dare speak out in opposition.

If they do, they face unpleasant consequences

 

UN Nuclear Chief Sees Atomic Energy Role in Climate Fight

 

Rafael Mariano Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, sees near-zero-CO2 nuclear playing a key role regarding the world’s energy needs and CO2 reduction.

RE folks have demonized nuclear, because of waste processing and storage.

https://www.mymotherlode.com/news/science/2083337/un-nuclear-chief-...

 

Japan

Japan, with minimal domestic fossil fuel sources, adopted a new energy policy on October 22, 2021, that promotes nuclear and renewables as sources of clean energy to achieve the country’s pledge of reaching “carbon neutrality” in 2050.

https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2021-10-22/japan-oks-...

Vermont

Folks with RE business interests, financed a scare-mongering campaign for several years, to close down the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, to “make room” on the grid for their own expensive, highly subsidized wind and solar electricity.

 

The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, after producing at about 100% of design output for 500 days, would have a shut-down for a few weeks to refuel, then would produce at 100% of design output for another 500 days.

 

The plant proved itself highly reliable for decades, with an annual capacity factor of over 90%. In fact, the entire US nuclear sector has an annual capacity factor of over 90%, which proves it is highly reliable.

 

Russia

Russia plans to build a fleet of floating nuclear power plants and small on-shore installations, based on Russian-made small modular reactors (SMRs). These units will be available for deployment to hard-to-reach areas of Russia's North and Far-East, and for export. Such power plants could be used all over the world, instead of CO2-emitting fossil plants.

 

A Russian-built floating nuclear power plant is equipped with two KLT-40S reactor systems, each with a capacity of 35 MW, similar to those used on icebreakers. It is 144 m long and 30 m wide, and has a displacement of 21,000 metric ton.

 

The project was started in May 2009. Reactors were installed in 2013. Since December 2019, the ship has been anchored at a dock in the City of Pevek, in northern Siberia, to provide electricity to power the plant and the entire town.

 

Steam from the low-pressure end of the steam turbine is used to produce hot water for domestic hot water and for building heating. The hot water is pumped, via underground piping, to a large number of nearby buildings, i.e., a near-zero-CO2, highly efficient (about 65%), DHW/district heating system.

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/russia-tests-nuclear-powered-showe...

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Russia-connects-floating-pl...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akademik_Lomonosov

Global Energy Data Shows Fossil Fuels Completely Dominate World Energy Use in 2020

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/11/2020-global-energy-data-show...

 

World Fossil Fuel Supply was 84 Percent of World Primary Energy in 2020

 

Primary energy is used for all purposes by users, such as power plants, industrial/commercial entities, processing plants, farming, buildings, transport, etc., to produce goods and services, including electricity.

 

The world percentage of fossil fuels for primary energy has remained about the same for several decades, even though wind and solar energy quantities have increased.

 

In 2020, the percentages of the world primary energy mix were:

 

Coal, 27%; Natural Gas, 24%; Oil, 33%, a total of 84%, plus Nuclear, 4%; Hydro, 6%; Renewables, 5%, after more than 20 years of subsidies.

 

Some of the primary energy, about 10%, is used for exploration, extraction, processing and transport to provide primary energy to users. That 10% of primary energy is often called “upstream energy”.

 

For example, the A-to-Z production of ethanol from corn requires a very significant quantity of primary energy to produce a gallon of ethanol for blending with gasoline. Often, the upstream CO2 (13.56 lb CO2/gal) is ignored, and the combustion CO2 of ethanol (12.72 lb CO2/gal) is not counted; its combustion CO2 has been declared "renewable", per international agreements.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/06/20/bp-review-new-highs...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/politically-inspired-ma...


China, India, etc., to Continue High Levels of Coal Burning, per Glasgow COP26

 

China and India will not sacrifice their economic progress on the altar of global warming. Do you really believe China and India can afford to stop burning coal? Do you think they want to? Of course not.

 

India

India made it perfectly clear at the beginning of the Glasgow COP26, the developed nations should de-industrialize first, before asking developing nations to follow suit.

 

India declared it would not sign the statement of COP26 goals regarding coal burning. The statement read “close down coal by 2030”. India insisted that be replaced by “phase down unabated coal”.

 

Unabated refers to the common practice of Indian households, etc., cooking over open fires with coal, a major source of local air pollution. It would be phased down (no time limit was stated).

 

All this means:

 

1) Burning coal in power plants, with air pollution abatement systems, would be unaffected (no time limit was stated).

2) The major coal burning countries, such as China, India, Australia, Brazil, etc., would continue to burn coal.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cop26-caves-on-coal-ph...

 

China

Despite various RE boosters, such as financial adviser Bloomberg, hyping China’s wind and solar efforts, the reality is, almost 80% of China’s electricity growth is from fossil fuels, almost entirely coal. Because China is so big, that fossil growth is worsening its own air pollution, plus the air pollution around the world; the soot falls on snow/ice-covered areas. Melting of snow/ice is much quicker.

 

China burns about 4 BILLION metric ton of coal each year, more than the rest of the world combined. Its reliance on coal is increasing.

China has expanded its mines to produce an additional 220 million Mt of coal in 2021, up almost six percent from 2020.

China is planning to build 43 new coal-fired power plants and 18 new blast furnaces.

 

From third qtr. 2020, to third qtr. 2021, China added 460.2 TWh of fossil electricity, which is 3.9 times the total annual electricity supply of NE, or 76.7 times the annual electricity supply of Vermont.

 

Electricity production growth was 586.9 TWh, up 10.7%, of which 460.2 TWh, or 78.4%, was from fossil fuels, mostly coal.

Wind growth was 89 TWh, up 28.4%, from a low base

Solar growth was 12.6 TWh, up 10.2%, from a low base.

Nuclear growth was 33.2 TWh, up 12.3%, from a low base

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/03/china-still-burning-more-mor...

https://chinaenergyportal.org/en/2021-q3-electricity-other-energy-s...

 

China plans to build 200,000 MW of near-zero-CO2 nuclear plants; about 150 units, each 2,350 MW, on about 75 sites, at a cost of $440 billion, by 2035

 

Amortizing the capital cost at 3.5%/y over 60 years would be ($17,556,485,920/y) / (200,000 MW x 8,766 h/y x 0.90, CF) = $0.01113/kWh, about one third the cost of EU and US nuclear plants.

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/uranium-stocks-soar-market-discov...

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

World Electricity Production, by source

Fed to grids by electricity producers = net production = gross production - self-use

“Other renewables” include electricity from biomass/tree-burning power plants

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked

Table 1A/Source

 TWh

%

Other renewables

702.89

2.7

Solar

844.39

3.3

Wind

1590.19

10.0

Hydro

4355.04

16.8

Nuclear

2616.61

10.1

Oil

1128.39

4.4

Gas

5892.44

22.8

Coal

8735.8

33.8

Total

25865.75

100.0

Fossil

15756.63

60.9

  

PART 2; EXISTING NEW ENGLAND GRID CONDITIONS 

Wind Capacity Factors

 

Unite Kingdom: This image shows the daily average capacity factors of the UK offshore (blue), and onshore (red) versus temperature (degree C).

The UK annual average CF is about 32% on-shore, and 40.4% offshore.

Note the large number of red dots for CFs of 0% to 10%, i.e., many days with weak onshore winds.

On very-weak-wind days, wind turbines use about the same electricity as they produce, i.e., minimal net feed to grids.

The UK has about 60 to 80 weak-wind days, spread out over a year

 

New England: The image for New England would be similar, except it would be shifted to the left, because NE has colder temperatures than the UK.

 

In 2020:

Electricity loaded onto the NE grid by all generators was about 117 million MWh/y, or a daily average of 321,000 MWh/d

NE wind had an annual average CF of about 3,613,000 MWh/(1,400 MW x 8,766 h/y) = 29.4%

NE wind daily average generation was 9,899 MWh/d

Almost all wind generation occurred between 5,000 MWh/d (CF = 14.9%), and 20,000 MWh/d (CF = 59.5%)

NE has about 80 weak-wind days, spread out over a year, with generation at less than 1,500 MWh/d

Periods with weak winds may last 5 to 7 days, and can occur at any time during a year.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/25/cccs-net-zero-plans-rely-on-dramatic-rise-in-windy-days/

http://www.nvda.net/files/Renewable%20Energy%20Options%20presentation%20-%20Luce.pdf

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2021/03/new_england_power_grid_regional_profile.pdf

 

“All-in” Electricity Cost of Wind and Solar in New England

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

 

RE folks always point to the “price paid to owner” as the cost of wind and solar, purposely ignoring the other cost categories.

The all-in cost of wind and solar, c/kWh, includes:

 

1) Above-market-price paid to Owners 

2) Subsidies paid to Owners

3) Grid extension/augmentation

4) Grid support services

5) Utility average cost = 6 c/kWh, purchases + 1.5 c/kWh, network and capacity charges

 

NOTE: The return on invested capital of private and utility owners is about 9%/y

 

Table 1A/Vermont & NE sources

Paid to

Subsidies

Grid*

GMP

 Added to

Total

Utility

Times

owner

to owner

support cost

adder

rate base

cost

avg. cost

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

Solar, resident roof, net-metered, new

17.4

5.2

2.1

3.5

20.9

28.2

7.60

3.7

Solar, resident roof, net-metered, legacy

18.2

5.4

2.1

3.5

21.7

29.2

7.60

3.8

Solar, com’l/ind’l, SO, combo

11.0

6.74

2.1

11.0

19.84

7.60

2.6

Solar, com’l/ind’l, SO, legacy

21.7

10.5

2.1

21.7

34.3

7.60

4.5

Wind, ridge line, new

9.0

4.1

2.4

9.0

15.5

7.60

2.0

Wind, offshore, new

12.1

5.4

2.8

12.1

20.3

7.60

2.7

*

Excludes costs for very expensive battery systems

Excludes costs for very expensive floating, offshore wind systems

Excludes extra costs for dealing with shortfalls during multi-day wind/solar lulls. 

 

“Added to rate base” is for recent 20-y electricity supply contracts awarded by competitive bidding in NE.

“Added to rate base” would be much higher without subsidies and cost shifting.

Areas with better wind and solar conditions, and lower construction costs/MW have lower c/kWh, than NE

EIA Dashboard of NE Grid Data

 

Here is a “Dashboard” of the production and other data of the NE grid, prepared by the EIA (an agency of the US-DOE), which is much more useful than the ISO-NE URL.

 

Production data are shown on an hourly basis, for 2 days and 2 weeks, and on a daily basis, for a year

https://www.eia.gov/dashboard/newengland/electricity

 

Electricity Production Data for NE Grid

 

ISO-NE posts real-time data regarding grid operations, every few minutes, on a daily basis.

 

1) Go to fuel mix graph, click on rectangle with arrow, download the outputs on an Excel spreadsheet, MW, of the various electricity sources, such as gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, biomass, etc., connected to the NE grid.

 

2) Go to system load graph to obtain the corresponding demand, MW

System load = Electricity loaded onto the NE grid, by all producers connected to the NE grid, including net imports from nearby grids.

 

Graphs can be prepared, based on the downloaded data, for any selected period

https://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/web/charts

NOTE: The images were created by Warren Van Wijck

Example 1

This image shows a stack of the electricity from all sources loaded onto the NE grid, in 2020. See table 1

Such images are often used in articles, but they lack clarity regarding the presence of each source.

It is clearer to show individual sources. See example 2

Example 2

The below data was obtained from interactive ISO-NE graphs I could not transfer to this article.

 

Below are 5 images of electricity sources

 

Image 1: On July 28, 2020, a very-high-demand day, the system load, from all sources, was 493,409 MWh, of which wind was 8,144 MWh, and solar was 7,088 MWh. The image shows,

 

- Solar was minimal from January 1, 2020 to March 1, 2020.

- Wind was minimal from July 1, 2020 to September 1, 2020, while electricity demand was at highest levels.

 

BTW, solar peaks around mid-day, but NE peak demands occur in late-afternoon/early-evening. By that time, solar is retiring until it starts to wake up about 8 pm, in summer, or 9 pm, in winter, the NEXT day.

If wind were 20% and solar 10% of the NE grid load by 2050, the image would be similar, but the electricity quantities would be greater.

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar

Image 2: Hydro was 15,494 MWh. Hydro is minimal in summer, when peak demands occur; whereas solar goes to sleep at night, hydro is producing, 24/7/365

 

Image 3: Gas was 292,657 MWh. The gap between the gas curve and the system load curve was filled mostly by nuclear, imports, plus some minor sources.

Gas plant capacity required during the peak demand was (292,657 MWh/d) / (24 h/d x 0.90, capacity factor) = 13,549 MW, which means almost all of NE available gas plant capacity would have to operate at very high output.

 

Image 4: NE imports were 82,447 MWh/d. Imports from NY state and Canada supply about 19% of the grid load. See table 1

 

Image 5: Nuclear was 79,447 MWh. All nuclear plants will be shut down by 2050. That would leave a large electricity supply gap to be filled with increased imports, wind and solar.

Image 1; wind, solar, system load

Image 2; hydro, system load

Image 3; gas, system load 

Image 4; imports, system load 


Image 5; nuclear, system load 

Playing Russian Roulette with Reliable Electricity Service to New England

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/playing-russian-roulette-with-reliable-electricity-service-to-new

 

This image shows the NE system fuel usage during the cold spell from December 24, 2017 – January 8, 2018

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

 

 

The next images were created by Warren Van Wijck, Ferrisburgh, Vermont

 

Link to Interactive page

The electricity sources, on the left side, can be clicked to display how the fuels stack up. 
Interactive display of Fuel Usage and Demand during Arctic Freeze

 

The interactive page reveals oil generation increasing from a normal of about 1,000 MWh/d (thin grey line) to a maximum of 129,912

MWh, on January 7, 2018, equivalent to about 100* 129,912/430,000 = 30.1% of the system load!!

 

On Jan. 7, 2018, wind and solar made minor contributions to the 430,000 MWh grid load.

 

Wind was 13,591 MWh from 1,300 MW of wind turbines connected to the NE grid, at a capacity factor of 13,591 MWh/(1,300 MW x 24 h) = 0.436, i.e., slightly above average winds.  See URL

 

Solar was a miniscule 1,235 MWh

https://nawindpower.com/report-how-new-england-is-moving-toward-cle...

 

Obstructions by RE folks: Pennsylvania is blessed with an abundant supply of gas, but the infamous Governor Cuomo, of NY, to polish his "climate-change-fighting” credentials, has been obstructing, the much needed, extension/augmentation of the gas pipe lines that are needed to provide reliable electricity service to New England. 

 

Various RE entities, in Connecticut and Massachusetts, were his allies. They had been obstructing, the much needed, augmentation of gas and oil storage capacities.

 

BTW, similar tactics had been used by such RE folks in California, which resulted in major havoc and blackouts, during a US southwest heat wave, i.e., no air conditioning with 115F temperatures!!

 

As a result of these RE tactics, the NE dual-fuel gas plants, that reliably, and efficiently, produce steady, low-CO2, low-cost electricity (at about 5 c/kWh), did not have enough gas during the cold spell (temperatures were in single digits for 8 days, and as low as 4.2F), because much of the Pennsylvania gas supply was diverted for building heating in Boston and other cities.

 

Those dual-fuel plants were forced to use much more expensive oil, which is much "dirtier" than gas, i.e., it has much more particulate/kWh than gas, and much more CO2/kWh than gas.

 

Rolling black-outs, and 100% black-outs, were imminent, because the stored oil supply was almost used up towards the end of the cold spell.

Millions of people would have been freezing their butts off, in the dark, with leaking pipes.

Note the large amount of oil generation (grey area) from Dec. 26 to Jan. 9

Note the cold spell temperatures (thin line) from Dec. 26 to Jan. 9

 

RE folk obstructions

 

- Required additional capital costs for 1) converting gas plants to dual fuel, 2) expanding oil and gas storage systems

- Worsened global warming by having 1) more particulate/kWh, 2) more CO2 per kWh

 

Bitter Fruits of RE-folk “Successes”: If RE folks had been successful to ban “dirty” oil, it would have taken 9,000 MW of offshore wind turbines, connected to the NE grid, to produce the same quantity of electricity, as was produced by oil, i.e., 9,000 MW x 24 h x 0.601, CF = 129,912 MWh (a high CF means favorable winds), on Jan. 7, 2018.

The wind electricity would have been at least 2 to 2.5 times the cost of gas, on and “all-in” basis. See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

 

The turnkey capital cost of the RE-folk “success” would have been $36 to $40 BILLION, including grid expansion/augmentation. 
More of such RE-folk “successes”, and we would all be in the poorhouse!!

 

BTW, if the 8,000 MW of wind turbines had less favorable winds, the wind electricity production might have been 60,000 MWh, instead of 129,912 MWh, on Jan. 7, 2018. Gas plants would have had to come to the rescue to reliably fill in the wind shortfall, if there were sufficient oil or gas.

 

If, per wishes of RE folks, gas plants had been shut down, and oil and gas storage systems had been empty, 100% black-outs would have been required to avoid shutting down the entire NE system. Using battery systems to provide 69,912 MWh shortfall to the grid would cost at least 69,912 x 1,000 x 1/0.8, use factor x $700/kWh = $61.1 BILLION, if the batteries would be discharging from 90% full to 10% full

 

These URLs provide examples of wind/solar lull conditions in Germany and New England

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/analysis-of-a-6-day-lu...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-plus-solar-plus-st...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-...

PART 3; FUTURE NEW ENGLAND GRID CONDITIONS IN 2030

 

Grid Stability and Grid Load Shaping

 

An electric grid consists of substations, cables and wires. Such a grid does not store electricity 

An electric grid with various types of synchronous power producing sources, and with minor or major connections to nearby grids, becomes an electricity delivery system, if the power sources can quickly vary their outputs, as needed by user demand.

 

The total electricity of various sources loaded onto a grid must always be equal to demand.

Temporary oversupplies, such as during high winds and mid-day sunshine, must be counteracted, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, by quick-reacting power plants, or absorbed by storage systems, or curtailed, to avoid instability and congestion on the grid.

 

Grid Load Shaping:

 

This ISO-NE report covers many of the issues regarding operating the grid in 2030. The report does not explicitly cover wind/solar lulls.

ISO-NE assumes, in 2030, there would be:

 

Offshore wind would be increased from 35 MW, in 2020 to 8,000 MW

Gas and nuclear would be about the same as in 2020.

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/06/2019_nescoe_...

 

Regarding Grid Load Shaping, the report has an image of what the shape would look like in 2030. The main purpose of grid load shaping is to:

 

1) Avoid grid disturbance/instability issues, due to wind and solar.

2) Flatten the daily shape by managing supply and demand.

 

Wind and solar:

 

- Have weather-dependent, i.e., random outputs, which, in case of wind, can be controlled by partially feathering rotor blades, aka, curtailment.

 

- Can cause frequent disturbance/stability problems on the grid, especially on grids with a large presence of wind and solar.

 

- Require quick-reacting plants, such as CCGTs and hydro plants, to counteract the (W+S) output variations, 24/7/365. The ISO-NE report shows curtailments of wind and solar would be required, if the variations would be too large, such as during high winds and mid-day solar, to avoid instability and congestion on the grid.

 

In the future, there would be millions of mandated smart heat pumps, and smart major appliances, smart HVAC systems, and PHEV/EVs. Local utilities would be orchestrating the use-times of these devices. If they were turned on/off by the whims of users, there would be chaos on the grid.

 

Comments on below image:

 

1) ISO-NE used projected, hour-by-hour generation data, to obtain the below image, which shows the Modified System Load during July 27 and 28, 2030, which were high-demand days.

 

BTW, the image vertical axis is called "Production", but it should be called "Modified System Load". See figure 6.5, on page 15 in URL

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/06/2019_nescoe_...

 

2) The image shows, gas and nuclear continue to be major sources of electricity in 2030, and likely much longer.

 

3) The image projects the presence of about 8,000 MW of new offshore wind systems, in 2030, just 8 years from now.

 

Such a rapid build-out, plus major extension/augmentation of the NE grid, would not be physically achievable, in such a short time.

 

If the EU would not build any offshore wind turbines for its own use from 2022 - 2030, and would build only for the US market, the EU offshore turbine-building capacity would insufficient to have 8,000 MW of NE offshore systems operating, by the end of 2030.

See Note.

 

The production would be 8,000 MW x 8,766 h/y x 0.45, CF = 31,557,600 MWh, about 27% of the NE grid load in 2020.

 

BTW, the UK offshore CF is 40.4% in the windy North Sea.

 

If the NE grid load increased from 2020 to 2030, the percentage would be less in 2030. The narrow, dark-green sections of the image show the entire output could be near-zero for many hours. See page 15 of report URL

 

4) The image shows

 

Onshore wind, light green, is a mere sliver, because few additional onshore wind systems would be built by 2030. Placing thousands of 500-ft-tall wind systems, on 2000 ft-high NE ridge lines, would be environmentally unacceptable, especially by nearby people.

 

Offshore wind, dark green, often is minimal in summer, and many other hours of the year, based on historic weather data. Major wind output curtailments would be required during gusty, high-wind periods; wind output increases by the cube of wind speed!

 

5) The image shows legend items, such as Heat Pumps, PHEV/EVs, Pumped Storage and Batteries.

Those items would be used for Grid Load Shaping

Their use would involve significant electricity losses, measured on an A-to-Z basis.

 

ISO-NE Doing Grid Load Shaping with: 

 

- Grid-scale batteries, pumped storage, etc., connected to the NE grid

- Expanded demand-curtailment-load shifting program, PRD. See table 1.

- Expanded connections to nearby grids, as practiced by many countries in Europe.

 

NE Utilities Doing Grid Load Shaping with Building Systems: Each NE state has energy efficiency programs that subsidize the installation of various “smart” electricity consuming systems in commercial, industrial and residential buildings.

 

These “smart” systems consume a certain quantity of electricity during a day. The on/off times of the “smart” systems would be remotely controlled by a local utility, to shift demand during a day.

Electricity consumption would not be reduced. It would be shifted to different parts of the day.

The quantity of electricity subject to shifting is shown as orange in the image.

 

BTW, the ISO-NE report incorrectly labelled it Energy Efficiency

 

NE Utilities Doing Grid Load Shaping with EVs: If an EV originally drew 100 kWh AC from a wall outlet, about 85.0 kWh DC would end up in the EV battery, and about 1.5 kWh DC would have been sent to the EV’s 12 V battery to power various auxiliary systems during charging, for a net of 83.5 kWh DC in the EV battery.

 

A utility drawing electricity from the EV battery, such as during peak demands, as part of Grid Load Shaping, would cause a loss of about 10%, due to: 1) battery discharge losses, 2) converting the DC to synchronous AC, and 3) feeding the AC into distribution grids via a step-up transformer.

 

If 100 kWh AC were originally drawn from the grid, about 75.2 kWh AC would be returned to the grid, for a loss of 24.9%.

See table 1B

 

Would the EV owner be properly compensated by the utility, including additional wear and tear of the EV battery? See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

 

Table 1B/From outlet

kWh AC

100.0

Charging loss

%

15.0

In EV battery

kWh DC

85.0

To 12 V battery during charging

kWh DC

1.5

Net in EV battery

kWh DC

83.5

Discharge loss

%

10.0

To grid

kWh AC

75.2

AC to AC loss

%

24.9

 

NOTE:

What would provide electricity, if offshore wind were minimal during a multi-day wind lull, which could last 5 to 7 days, and could occur at random throughout the year?

What would provide electricity, if solar, yellow, were minimal during overcast/rainy days, and during winter, after a major snowfall?

 

NOTE: Some folks think batteries produce electricity. That is not true. Batteries merely store electricity for a time period, and then release about 80% of it for later use. The other 20% are various losses, measured on an A-to-Z basis.

 

BTW, ISO-NE used 90% for battery efficiency in its 2019 Economic Report, which is in error.

See page 10 of URL. See Appendix.

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/06/2019_nescoe_...

PART 4; FUTURE NEW ENLAND GRID CONDITIONS WITH MULTI-DAY WIND/SOLAR LULL IN 2050

We have to imagine the grid in 2050, after many major changes are implemented, such as closing low-cost, low-CO2 gas plants, and low-cost, near-zero CO2 nuclear plants. During a 5-7-day wind/solar lull, which occurs at random throughout the year, according to NE weather data, there would be:

 

Grid Load Shaping

More Wind, Solar, and Import capacity, MW

More Remaining Sources capacity

More Electricity Storage capacity, such as batteries.

 

The Remaining Sources, such as domestic hydro, biomass and refuse burning, etc., normally operate at high outputs. They would be able to make only a minor contribution to offset the (W+S) shortfall during a wind/solar lull.

 

Regarding nearby grids, if a multi-day, NE-wide wind/solar lull would occur, it likely would also occur in nearby states, which could decide not to export to NE, during a lull period

 

NOTE: This actually happened when the US Southwest had a heat wave, during which California could not import enough electricity from nearby states, because these states did not have any electricity left over for export to California

 

California RE folks had “successfully” shut down 15 of 19 Pacific Coast, low-cost, highly efficient, low-CO2, minimal-polluting, gas plants, because they were warming up the Pacific Ocean. The other 4 plants were due to be shut down, but that “climate fighting” measure has been placed on hold, not cancelled. None of the above had anything to do with the California transmission and distribution grids.

 

Analysis Method in this Article

 

Analyses, based on hour-by-hour values, could be made. However, such an approach would be laborious, not easy to understand by lay people, including Legislators, and would involve many spreadsheet calculations.

 

The analysis in this article is less complex, but it will provide a good understanding of some of the issues. It is based on daily averages, i.e., dividing annual generation by 365 to obtain average daily generation.

 

Comments on table 1

 

Table 1 shows the annual and daily generation of each electricity source connected to the NE grid, in 2020.

Also shown are:

 

1) The daily generation of (W+S) on the grid, in 2050

2) The daily generation of (W+S), during a lull, assumed at 0.15 x 30 = 4.5% on the grid, in 2050

 

- Wind annual average MWh/d would increase from 3.1% in 2020, to 20% in 2050, equivalent to 64,041 MWh/d

- Solar annual average MWh/d would increase from 1.8% in 2020, to 10% in 2050, equivalent to 32,020 MWh/d

- (W+S) would average about 96,061 MWh/d, in 2050

- (W+S) would average about 0.15 x 96,061 = 14,409 MWh/d, during a lull in 2050

 

Operation in 2050

 

It was assumed the NE grid load would remain constant from 2020 to 2050, to simplify the analysis.

In the real world, this assumption would not be valid, due to increased use of EVs and heat pumps.

 

Column 2 shows the output flexibility of a plant. Only Gas, Hydro, and Oil plants can quickly vary their outputs to counteract (W+S) output variations

Wind and solar have wind/sun-dependent, random outputs. They could not exist on any grid, without the presence of other generators that can quickly/automatically vary their outputs to counteract the output variations.

Pumped storage systems, grid-scale battery systems, and connections to nearby grids can also be used to counteract output variability.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/pumped-storage-hydro-in-new-england

 

Columns 3 and 4 show the production of various electricity sources in 2020.

Pumped storage systems and battery systems have losses, which reduce the load on the grid.

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

 

Column 5 shows MWh/d in 2050, with (W+S) increased to 30% of total NE grid load.

As a result, the NE grid fossil percent of 42.9% in 2020 became only 0.3% in 2050

  

Column 6 shows NE Lull production of (W+S) would be (15% x 64,041 = 9,606) + (15% x 32,020 = 4,803), a total of 14,409 MWh/d, in 2050, for a shortfall of 133,844 MWh/d

It is assumed the shortfall would be offset by:

 

1) A spare capacity of CCGTs (100,000 MWh/d)

2) Rolling black-outs (25,000 MWh/d); about 100 x 25,000/320,203 = 7.8% of the NE daily load.

3) Battery storage (8,844 MWh/d)

BTW, if rolling black-outs would cause too much protest from people, they could be reduced, if the spare capacity of CCGTs would be increased. Increasing battery storage would be too expensive, as shown below.

The shortfall would be variable during a (W+S) lull. The CCGTs would need to be operated at a CF = 0.75, and ramping up/down, to offset these variations.

 

The wind/solar shortfall would require a capacity of 100,000 MW/d / (24 h/d x 0.75, CF) = 5,556 MW of CCGTs.

  

The reserve CCGTs would have to be fueled, staffed, and maintained in good working order, to counteract the (W+S) shortfall, if called upon to do so by ISO-NE.

 

Per Battery University, to achieve a long life, say 15 years, Li-ion batteries should not be discharged to less than 15%, and not be charged in excess of 80%; i.e., a working range of 65%. That range also happens to have the highest operating efficiency

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180801093718.htm

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/05/tesla-jaguar-and-nissan-evs-lose-power-in-freezing-temps-.html

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/chevy-bolt-catches-fire-while-charging-on-driveway-in-vermont

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/here-is-an-excellent-explanation-regarding-ev-charging-at-32f-or

 

Because battery systems perform other functions, in addition to counteracting (W+S) lulls, battery average “fullness” is assumed at 75%, i.e., available capacity to counteract a wind/solar shortfall would be 75%, average - 15%, low point = 60%

 

The battery system working capacity would be 8,844 MWh/d x 6 days, shortfall x 1/0.60, available withdrawal x 1.01, transformer loss = 89,324 MWh, delivered as high voltage AC to the NE grid.

 

Turnkey capital cost:

 

CCGT plants: 5,556 MW of CCGTs would be about $7 billion; life about 40 years

Battery systems: 89,324 x 1000 kWh/MWh x $500/kWh = $45 billion; life about 15 years

NOTE: The Hornsdale Power Reserve, HPR, battery system, 100 MW/129 MWh, in Australia, was the largest battery in the world in 2017. It is located on a 10-acre site.

NE would need 89,324 MWh/129 MWh = 692 of such systems on 6,924 acres.  

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia

 

NOTE: The battery systems would be near 15% full after the 6-day wind/solar lull.

If a second lull would occur a few days later, existing electricity sources would not have been able to fill the battery in those few days, i.e., a second battery, of similar capacity, would be needed, unless additional CCGT capacity and connection capacity to nearby grids were available.

 

NOTE: Battery-system aging, under year-round utility service (8,766 hour/y), would be at least 1.5%/y, compounded

Their capacity reduction would be at least 10%, at the 7-y mid-life, and at least 19%, at the 14-y near-end-life.

 

NOTE: Remember, none of those costs would be charged to owners of solar and wind systems.

The costs would be charged to ratepayers, taxpayers, and added to government debts. 

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/having-fun-watching-wind-and-solar-failing-to-step-up-to-power

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems

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

Table 1/ISO-NE

2020

2020

2020

2050

2050

2050

Grid Load

W+S

W+S

W+S Lull

30%

30%

30%

MWh/y

%

MWh/d

MWh/d

%

MWh/d

Generation

94945000

81.2

260123

260123

81.2

260123

Gas/GLS/Storage

Quick varying

49793000

42.6

136419

0.0

0.0

133844

Nuclear

Steady

25580000

21.9

70082

0.0

0.0

0.0

Renewables

11507000

9.8

31526

209019

65.3

45716

Wind

Random

3613000

3.1

9899

64041

20.0

9606

Refuse

Steady

3013000

2.6

8255

8255

2.6

8255

Wood

Steady

2315000

2.0

6342

6342

2.0

6342

Solar

Random

2079000

1.8

5696

32020

10.0

4803

Landfill gas

Steady

448000

0.4

1227

2000

0.6

2000

Methane

Steady

39000

0.0

107

300

0.1

300

Steam

Steady

0

0.0

0

0

0.0

0

Hydro

Quick varying

7728000

6.6

21173

23000

7.2

23000

Coal

Steady

147000

0.1

403

403

0.1

403

Oil

Quick varying

147000

0.1

403

403

0.1

403

PRD

15000

0.0

41

150

0.0

150

Other

27000

0.0

74

74

0.0

74

Net imports

23531000

20.1

64468

95541

29.8

125000

Quebec

Quick varying

13969000

12.0

38271

0.0

New Brunswick

Quick varying

2491000

2.1

6825

0.0

New York

Quick varying

7070000

6.0

19370

0.0

Pumping load

-1601000

-1.4

-4386

-4386

-1.4

-4386

Battery load

0.0

0.0

0

-4000

-1.2

-4000

Net for Load

116874000

100.0

320203

320204

100.0

320204

Fossil

 

50087000

42.9

 

 

0.3

 

New Wind and Solar Capacity in 2050

 

Table 2/Source

2050

2050

Existing

New capacity

MWh/y

CF, %

h/y

MW

MW

MW

Wind, on and offshore

23374800

40.0

8766

6666

1400

5266

Solar

11687400

14.5

8766

9195

1636

7559

 

Turnkey Capital Cost for New Wind and Solar Capacity in 2050

 

Table 3/Source

New capacity

Grid cost

Plant cost

Total cost

Turnkey cost

MW

$/MW

$/MW

$/MW

$Billion

Wind, on and offshore

5266

600000

4000000

4600000

24.2

Solar

7559

300000

3000000

3300000

24.9

APPENDIX 1

Cost of Operating a Battery System

 

The turnkey capital cost of battery systems in 2021 would be about $700/kWh, delivered as AC to a high voltage grid.

Such systems would be used year-round, i.e., 8,766 h/y. See Note 

Much of each battery system would need to be replaced every 15 years.

 

The calculations in table 4 assumed:

 

A battery system able to deliver 1 MW of power for 4 hours, i.e., a rating of 1 MW/4MWh

Battery normal operation from 15% full to 80% full, to achieve a 15y life.

Battery annual capacity factor at 50%

The daily charging at 70% from the grid at night, at 3.5 c/kWh, and 30% from mid-day solar, at 19.84 c/kWh (the ALL-IN cost of solar. See table 1) 

Investors, including GMP, requiring a return on invested capital of about 9%/y

 

Alternative 1: 100% borrowed from a bank; the amortizing of the capital cost was at 3.5%/y for 15 years. See column 3

Alternative 2: 100% investor money; the amortizing of the capital cost was at 9%/y for 15 years. See column 4


NOTE: Such grid-scale battery systems are not comparable to mass-produced battery packs for electric vehicles (about $100 to $150/kWh), that are used about 750 hour/y

 

What about all the other costs?

 

Any battery costs/kWh, due to system degradation at about 1.5%/y, power electronics, thermal management, HVAC of enclosures, control and monitoring, site protection, lighting, staffing, insurance, taxes, etc., would be in addition to the 22.2 c/kWh. See table 4

https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/07/f65/Storage%20Co...

 

The battery owning and operating cost/kWh would be reduced by various subsidies. However, no cost ever disappears. It is merely shifted to ratepayers, taxpayers and added to government debts, per Economics 101

 

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

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

Table 4/Conditions

Rated

Allowed

Normal

Normal

Amortizing at

3.5%/y

9%/y

15y life

15y life

15y life

Battery rated output, kWh @ 4 h

4000

4000

4000

4000

Battery cost, $/kWh as AC

700

700

700

700

Turnkey capital cost, $

2800000

2800000

2800000

2800000

Amortizing cost, $/y

60050

60050

60050

85198

Operating range, %

100

65

50

50

Cycle per day

1

1

1

1

Daily output, kWh/d

4000

2600

2000

2000

Charge/Discharge loss, HV to HV, %

20

20

20

20

Daily input, kWh/d

5000

3250

2500

2500

Annual throughput, kWh/y

1460000

949000

730000

730000

Amortizing cost, $/kWh

0.0411

0.0633

0.0823

0.1167

Charging from grid, $/kWh

0.035

0.035

0.035

0.035

Grid proportion

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7

Grid cost, $/kWh

0.0245

0.0245

0.0245

0.0245

Grid cost, $/d

122.50

79.63

61.25

61.25

Charging from solar, $/kWh

0.1984

0.1984

0.1984

0.1984

Solar proportion

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

Solar cost, $/kWh

0.05952

0.05952

0.05952

0.05952

Solar cost, $/d

297.6

193.44

148.8

148.8

Total charging cost, $/d

420.10

273.07

210.05

210.05

Total charging cost, $/y

153337

99669

76668

76668

Total cost, $/y

213387

159719

136718

161866

Total cost, $/kWh

0.146

0.168

0.187

0.222


APPENDIX 2

Turnkey Capital Costs of Grid-scale Battery Systems

 

Starting in 2015, EIA has prepared annual reports regarding grid-scale battery systems.

The average duration of delivering electricity increased from 0.5 h in 2015 to 3.2 h in 2019.

Excluded are: 

 

1) Financing costs

2 Benefits of subsidies, such as grants, tax credits, accelerated depreciation, loan interest deductions, waiving of state and local taxes, fees and surcharges, etc.

3) System degradation costs, because the systems had been in operation only a few years.

EIA 2020 Report

The EIA graph, based on surveys of battery system users, shows slowly decreasing costs after 2018

It appears, the range of values likely would become $900/kWh to 450/kWh in 2025.

The values would be near the high end of the range in New England. See URL

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45596

 

EIA 2021 Report

Table 6 combines the data of prior reports and the 2021 report.

See table 6 and page 18 of URL

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/batterystorage/pdf...

 

The US average turnkey capital cost of battery systems was about $590/kWh, delivered as AC, in 2019.

The NE average turnkey capital cost for such systems is about $700/kWh, delivered as AC, in 2019

 

Such costs are likely to prevail for at least 5 more years, unless major technical breakthroughs are discovered, and subsequently implemented on a large scale

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/economics-of-utility-s... 

 

NOTE: Grid-scale battery systems, used 8,766 h/y, have a much higher turnkey cost per kWh (at least $600 per kWh, at present), than mass-produced battery packs for EVs, used about 750 h/y (about $125 - $175 per kWh, at present). They are not comparable.

 

NOTE: Various financial services entities, such as Bloomberg and Lazard, issue reports that project lower battery system costs/kWh, delivered as AC, than the EIA, likely to hype their financial services business interests. It would be prudent to ignore those reports.

 

Table 6/Battery system turnkey cost

Range

Duration

Average

Year

 $/kWh as AC

hour

 $/kWh as AC

2015

 2500 to 1750

0.5

 2102

2016

 2800 to 750

1.5

 1417

2017

 1500 to 700

1.8

 755

2018

 1250 to 500

2.4

 625

2019

1050 to 475

3.2

589

2025

 900 to 450

 

 500

APPENDIX 3

Energy Losses of Battery Systems

 

The electricity loss of battery systems, i.e., efficiency, is much greater than generally understood.

Some energy systems analysts assume a loss for only the battery, such as 10%, but omit 1) Power Electronics, 2) Thermal Management and 3) Control and Monitoring.

.

1) This article identifies 18 losses of battery system, totaling about 20% for a round-trip, excluding step-down and step-up transformer losses. See Note.

 

The system model has four coupled component models: BatteryPower ElectronicsThermal Management and Control and Monitoring.

Open URL and click on “View Open Manuscript”

See figures 3, 4 and 17 of article.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261917315696

 

2) Per EIA survey of existing battery systems, the efficiency is about 80%, AC to AC basis, excluding step-down and step-up transformer losses.

 

Aging had only a minor effect, because the battery systems were only a few years old. See Note.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46756

 

NOTE: Usually, AC electricity from a distribution, or high-voltage grid, has to pass through a step-down transformer, about a 1% loss, to reduce the voltage to that of the battery, then the AC is converted to DC, then inside the battery. The DC energy from the battery has to be digitized, then made into a sine wave with the same phase and 60-cycle frequency as the grid, then via a step-up transformer, about a 1% loss, to the distribution, or high-voltage grid, for an overall efficiency of about 78%, much less with aging

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-inverters-work.html

APPENDIX 4

 

European Companies Building Offshore Wind Systems

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

 

Almost the entire physical supply of US East Coast offshore wind systems would be by European companies, because they have the required expertise and the domestic onshore and seagoing facilities, due to building at least 25,014 MW (end 2020) of offshore turbine systems, during the past 35 years.

 

Those companies would hire qualified US labor, as needed. 
Those companies would build US facilities, as needed. 
Those companies would not be interested in training a potential competitor.

 

The EU vs the US

 

The US, with a low-cost, self-sufficient, energy sector would attract European, Korean, Japanese, etc., energy-intensive, heavy-industry and industrial product production to the US.

 

Europe is interested to make sure the US has a high-cost electrical sector, with lots of high-priced wind and solar and batteries, to handicap the US, and to enhance its competitiveness vs the US.

 

The UN is helping out by urging the US to expensively reduce its CO2 by 50% by 2030, which is not possible. See URL.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/21/the-latest-co2-fantasy/

 

- Europe desperately needs more low-cost gas from Russia to remain competitive on world markets

- Europe has to build out wind and solar to limit energy imports from unstable countries; the US does not need to.

APPENDIX 5

 

Offshore Wind Systems

 

Denmark

 installed the first offshore wind system in 1983; Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, etc., followed.

National grids were connected with high-voltage DC lines. Electricity is distributed/curtailed, during high winds, as needed.

European companies have installed more than 25,000 MW of offshore wind systems (the US has 35 MW) during the past 40 years, about 1,000 MW/y during recent years.

 

Massachusetts, Connecticut

It took several years for Massachusetts and Connecticut to sign contracts with EU/US wind consortia for about 1,000 MW of NE offshore wind systems

Almost all of the NE offshore wind systems would be supplied and installed by European companies, during the next 20 years. 

See Appendix

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/having-fun-watching-wi...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

 

Maine

Maine RE folks have a goal to install hundreds of 12 MW, 850-ft-high, offshore FLOATING wind turbines.

However, that approach would be much more expensive per MW, than normal offshore wind systems, and would require major extension/augmentation of the NE grid.

 

At present, there are no major wind companies with any experience, other than minor experience by Norway having a demonstration system off the coast of Scotland.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/deep-water-floating-off...

Views: 632

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 October 6, 2021 at 1:26pm

Bernies $3.5 TRILLION is an initial down payment for many decades of CLIMATE FIGHTING (tilting at wind mills)?

Oh, no, no, no!

The real purpose is to increase existing government programs, and to create new government programs to REMAKE the US into a CENTRALLY MANAGED, COMMAND/CONTROL entity, as Bernie has been striving for all his life.

Dem/Progs will be running these existing and new programs, which will provide career opportunities for many "Dem/Progs-in-Government". 

Dem/Progs will be spreading themselves throughout all departments of government, federal, state and local, including in the election centers that count the votes to achieve whatever outcome they like.

The Republican Party will be toast.

That is the true swamp.

Dislodging them, en masse, in nearly impossible, because they made laws to prohibit it.

The government programs will be used to bribe the largely naive inhabitants of Dem/Prog-controlled cities to vote Dem/Prog forever.

“Global warming fighting” has nothing to do with reducing the world temperature, because mankind’s very puny efforts would completely pale compared to the daily energy input from the sun.

Vermont, in fact, all of New England, could completely disappear, and it would not make one iota of difference regarding the world climate or climate change.

This is all about centralized command/control of all phases of our lives, while the “politically unfavored” are mandated to toil to meet the increasingly nutty GWSA-like mandates of Dem/Progs.

About half the world population is exempt from those world-saving toils, by Paris agreements.

Totally ineffective John Kerry flies his private jets worldwide, spewing CO2, while playing the role of climate TSAR.
China folks laugh at him, and ignore him.

Bernie refuses to fly, except first class, or on borrowed private planes to collect his lucrative speaking fees (aka bribes) to fatten his tax-free “Foundation”, as do the Clintons, who detest other folks, and call them trailer trash and despicables.

Life is already great for ELITE Dem/Progs (with Obama in a $15 million compound), and is about to get even better

Comment by Steve Thurston on August 26, 2021 at 6:52am

Thank you for your tireless work Willem.  It must be frustrating to be an engineer, schooled in the science of mathmatics and possessing logic and reason, to see your detailed warnings of impending disaster ignored by those who are determined to control our future.

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on August 25, 2021 at 12:18pm

Garbage Elites looting America

America is currently suffering its own humiliating Afghanistan defeat and messy withdrawal. The whole-of-government approach to failure in a 20-year, $2 trillion fraud and money-laundering scheme has resulted in an epiphany for Americans: their country is ruled by crooks, liars, and thieves.

If there was any doubt about the illegitimacy of this police state, one only need look at the FBI’s latest fabricated terror plots or the Department of Homeland Security’s alarmingly evidence-free security warnings that we, the people are the main enemy of America. Expect to see DHS warnings that Americans who are unhappy with the United States’ wholesale surrender and foreign policy incompetence are potential terrorists. America is now a clown show where everyone who doesn’t clap is labeled a terrorist.

Like with the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, our defeat there has exposed the nation’s failed leadership busy looting and wrecking what is left of our country. We can now see that we are led by the worst of humanity—a collection of garbage elites, tyrants, and political grifters. Like the Soviets before us, there are two only two classes in modern America: the ruling class, and everyone else.

More at weblink: https://thefederalist.com/2021/08/24/americas-failure-in-afghanista...

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on August 25, 2021 at 11:26am

Bannon Calls On Trump To Assemble ‘Shadow Government’ to Keep Biden ‘From Destroying the Country’

https://conservativebrief.com/assemble-49165/

Vaccine mandates may herald the end of the republic
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/08/vaccine_mandates_may_h...

SUICIDE: How Vaccine Passports Will Cause the Economic Collapse of America

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/wayne-root-suicide-vaccine...

None Dare Call It Conspiracy

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/08/none_dare_call_it_...

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on August 25, 2021 at 11:18am

Tucker Carlson Warns “Elitist Authoritarians” Are Intent On Making Us All “Shut Up And Obey”

Watch the short video at the following weblink:

https://www.infowars.com/posts/video-tucker-carlson-warns-elitist-a...

Fox News host Tucker Carlson issued a stark warning Tuesday, emphasising that “we’re seeing now what happens when countries tolerate authoritarians, even for a moment” as people worldwide are being told to submit to increasingly draconian “rules” in the wake of the pandemic.

Carlson noted “Has there ever been a clearer window into the society they’re trying to build? Our formerly middle-class nation now has a serf class. They’re the ones wearing the masks, being forced to take drugs they don’t want, being told not to communicate with one another, except through digital channels the Democratic Party controls.”

He continued, “We now have two groups of Americans, not a broad middle. The favored and the unfavored. The saved and the damned. The vaccinated and the unvaccinated. That’s how the architects of all this see the country.”

Carlson also pointed to former NSA head Michael Hayden’s assertion that Trump supporters should be sent to Afghanistan to die.

“That’s how contemptuous they feel about you,” Carlson noted, adding “Shut up and fetch another glass of Riesling.

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