WORLD AND US ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CAPITAL COST

World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the latest from the US Energy Information Administration, EIA.

See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on to page 4 of PowerPoint

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/

 

Most of this growth is expected to come from countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.

 

Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.

 

PARIS AGREEMENTS

 

China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America need to use low-cost energy, such as coal, to be competitive.

 

They would not have signed up for “Paris”, if they had not been allowed to be more or less exempt from the Paris agreements

 

Obama agreed to commit the US to the Paris agreements, i.e., be subject to its financial and other obligations for decades.

However, he never submitted the commitment to the US Senate for t*ratification, as required by the US Constitution.

Trump rescinded the commitment. It became effective 3 years later, one day after the US presidential elections on November 3, 2020.

If the US had not left “Paris”, a UN Council likely would have determined a level of renewable energy, RE, spending, say $500 billion/y, for distributing to various poorer countries by UN bureaucrats.

The Council would have assessed OECD members, likely in proportion to their GDPs.

The US and Europe would have been assessed at 100 to 150 billion dollars/y each.

The non-OECD countries likely would continue to be more or less exempt from paying for the Paris agreements.

SUMMARY OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, CAPEX

 

The analysis  in this article includes two scenarios: 1) 50% RE by 2050, and 2) 100% RE by 2050.

The CAPEX values exclude a great many items related to transforming the world economy to a low-carbon mode. See next section.

 

50% RE by 2050

 

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years

World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.

World CAPEX for RE would be $24,781 billion for 2019 - 2050, 32 years; compound growth 5.76%/y

 

US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 - 2019, 10 years.

US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.

US CAPEX for RE would be $7,233 billion for 2019 - 2050, 32 years; compound growth 8.81%/y

 

100% RE by 2050

 

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years

World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.

World CAPEX for RE would be $60,987 billion for 2019 - 2050, 32 years; compound growth 10.08%/y

 

US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 - 2019, 10 years.

US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.

US CAPEX for RE would be $16,988 billion for 2019 - 2050, 32 years; compound growth 13.42%/y

 

THE BIGGER CAPEX PICTURE FOR THE WORLD AND THE US

 

World More-Inclusive CAPEX

 

The above CAPEX numbers relate to having 50% RE, or 100% RE, in the primary energy mix by 2050, which represents a very narrow area of “fighting climate change”. See Appendix for definitions of source, primary and upstream energy.

 

This report, prepared by two financial services organizations, estimates the world more-inclusive CAPEX at $100 trillion to $150 trillion, over the next 30 years, about $3 trillion to $5 trillion per year

https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/research-and-markets/fundi...

US More-Inclusive CAPEX

 

The ratio of World CAPEX for RE / US CAPEX for RE = 16,988/60,987 = 0.279

 

A more-inclusive US CAPEX could be $27.9 trillion to $41.8 trillion

 

The US CAPEX could be less, because, at present, the world is adding a quad of RE at about $58.95 billion, compare to the US at about $102.78 billion.

 

It is unclear what accounts for the large difference.

Part of it may be due to differences of accounting methods among countries.

 

NOTE: The CAPEX numbers exclude costs for replacements of shorter-life systems, such as EVs, heat-pumps, batteries, wind-turbines, etc., during these 30 years. For comparison:

 

Hydro plants have long lives, about 100 years.

Nuclear plants about 60 years

Coal and gas-turbine plants about 40 years

Wind turbine systems about 20 years

Solar systems about 25 years

Additional Considerations

1) Fossil Fuel Feedstocks: There are a vast number of systems and activities requiring fossil fuel feedstocks to produce millions of every-day products and services. What would replace these fossil fuel feedstocks? Biofuels would require more than a billion of acres of fertile land.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-land-area-needed-...

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

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-predictions-o...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biofuels-from-pond-algae

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/replacing-gasoline-and-...

 

2) Rebuilding for Energy Efficiency: Reforming transportation systems and vehicles, and rebuilding almost all buildings, including housing, would be required to reduce their energy consumption by at least 50%. The world fleet of cruise ships and private yachts and private planes would be outlawed?

 

Any costs (in the US at least $50 trillion) associated with these 2 items are excluded from the CAPEX numbers.

Any costs for on-going replacements of mostly, short-life RE systems, are excluded from the CAPEX numbers.

 

NOTE: Achieving 100% RE by 2050, as a slogan, sounds attractive. It likely would be not feasible for a multitude of reasons.

World RE was about 100.18 quads, or 15.98% of total energy consumption in 2019, per EIA.

EIA projects world RE at 252.25 quads, or about 252.2 / 910.69 = 27.7% of world energy consumption by end 2050

See table 1A.

See URL, click on PPT to access data, click on page 4 of PowerPoint for inter-active graph.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/

 

3) Reliability of Electric Service: High levels of wind and solar on electric grids would require an HVDC overlay grid, connected at many points to the existing HVAC grids.

 

The HVDC overlay grid would move around electricity to wherever it would be needed, to ensure 99.97% reliability of service throughout the US. The CAPEX for a US overlay grid would be about a $400 to $500 billion.

 

The CAPEX for site-specific, custom-designed, utility-scale, storage would be about $400 billion/TWh, if $400/kWh, delivered as AC.

 

For example: The New England grid, with a fed-to-grid of about 110 TWh/y, would need about 9 to 10 TWh of storage (battery storage or pumped-hydro with reservoir storage) to cover wind/solar lulls and seasonal variations, if it had 1) much more wind and solar, and 2) no gas-fired CCGT plants, and 3) no nuclear plants, and 4) no major transmission connections to NY and Quebec.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-plus-solar-plus-storage-in-new-england

 

4) Standards for Determining CO2 Reduction: Presently, there exists no standard way to verify the CO2 emissions and RE build-out claims of various countries! The opportunities for cheating/fudging/obfuscation are endless.

 

- The CO2 of upstream energy is usually ignored.

- Energy systems are rarely analyzed on an A-to-Z basis, because various RE promotion programs would not be anywhere near as attractive, regarding annual costs and CO2 reduction. See Appendix.

CO2 REDUCTIONS OF WIND AND SOLAR MUCH LESS THAN CLAIMED

Whereas world and US RE goals may be partially achieved by 2050, CO2 reductions would be significantly less than claimed by wind and solar proponents.

 

If combined-cycle, gas-turbine power, CCGT, plants would perform the peaking, filling-in and balancing, to counteract variable, intermittent wind and solar electricity on the grid, they would operate at varying outputs (less efficient), and lower-than-normal outputs (less efficient), and have more frequent start/stops (less efficient).

 

Less efficient means: 1) more Btu/kWh, 2) more CO2/kWh, and 3) more wear and tear, and 4) more grid augmentation/expansion/storage.

 

The more wind and solar on the grid, the more extreme the output variations, and the more frequent the start/stops.

Excerpts from several articles are in the Appendix.

 

High levels of wind and solar on US grids would require an HVDC overlay grid, connected at many points to the existing HVAC grids, about a $400 to $500 billion item.

 

For example, the New England grid, with a fed to grid of about 110 TWh/y, would need about 9 to 10 TWh of storage to cover wind/solar lulls and seasonal variations, if it had: 1) much more wind and solar, and 2) no gas-fired CCGT plants, and 3) no nuclear plants, and 4) no major transmission connections to NY and Quebec.

CAPEX for site-specific, custom-designed, utility-scale, storage would be about $400 billion/TWh, if $400/kWh, delivered as AC.

CO2 CONTINUES UPWARD TREND REGARDLESS OF MANMADE EFFORTS

 

The CO2 graph shows increasing CO2 ppm versus years, despite various “fighting-climate-change” RE programs and $trillions of CAPEX for RE.

 

The annual up/down CO2 ppm values, having a range of about 6 - 7 ppm, are due to world's biomass growth of winter/summer conditions, i.e., natural variations.

 

To “reset” the atmosphere’s CO2 ppm to pre-industrial levels, Mankind's RE build-out efforts would have to significantly reduce annual man-made CO2.

That would allow natural absorption of CO2 to reduce the atmospheric CO2 ppm from about 410 ppm in 2019 to about 280 ppm in 2050

 

The graph shows, RE efforts appear to have had no effect over the past 60 years.

 

REDUCING MAN-MADE CO2 EMISSIONS

 

If man-made CO2 emissions would instantly stop, about 50% of the man-made CO2 in the atmosphere would be absorbed by natural sinks in about 50 years, increasing to 70% by about year 100, with the remainder absorbed in about 25,000 years.

In the real world, annual man-made CO2 emissions could only gradually be reduced, say 1% - 2% per year, first to decrease its upward trend to zero, and then reduce it.

That phase likely would last about 10 - 15 years.

That phase would start after a worldwide consensus is reached to finance and implement it, which likely would take several years.

Any determined effort would be lasting for many decades.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconcep...

PART 1

 

WORLD ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CAPITAL COST

 

In 1850, the world population was about 1.26 billion people

In 2018, it was about 7.63 billion people.

The more people and economic growth, the more energy is required.

https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth#how-is-the-globa...

 

In October 2020, EIA projected world energy consumption at 910.69 quads in 2050

In this article, I assumed:

- World energy consumption would be 800 quads, and RE would be 400 quads at end 2050, 50% of world energy consumption.

- Significant additional CAPEX would be invested in efficiency measures.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/ 

Table 1A/EIA

EIA

EIA

EIA

EIA

This article

This article

2019

2020

2050

2050

2050

2050

Quad

%

Quad

%

Quad

%

RE

100.18

15.98

252.25

27.70

400

50.00

Nuclear

28.35

4.52

37.87

4.16

Coal

158.15

25.22

179.22

19.68

Gas

138.89

22.15

198.88

21.84

Oil

201.41

32.12

242.48

26.63

Total

626.98

100.00

910.70

100.00

800

100.00

Capital Cost Estimate

 

World RE consumption is shown in table 1.

See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on page 4 of PowerPoint for interactive graph.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/

 

The capital cost estimate has two parts:

 

1) Historic: The RE growth from start of 2010 to end of 2021, 12 years

 

2) Transition and Beyond: The historic RE growth rate of 5.5%/y likely would be unsustainable with future, larger RE increases,

CAPEX growth of RE would be contained by slowing RE growth to about 4.30%/y, over a period of about 10 years, and continue at that rate to the end of 2050.

 

Historic Period

 

RE capital expenditures, CAPEX, were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years

https://www.fs-unep-centre.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GTR_2020.pdf 

 

The CAPEX was extrapolated for 2020, 2021, based on the average of years 2017, 2018, 2019.

CAPEX compound growth, start of 2010 to end of 2019, 10 years, was 2.92%/y, greater than the Gross World Product growth.

 

The RE increase was 110.937 - 58.347 = 54.92 quad, during 2010 - 2021, a compound growth of 5.5%/y

CAPEX per quad was $3237.2 billion/54.92 quad = $58.95 billion. See table 1.

In addition, capital cost would be required to replace short-life systems, such as heat pumps, EVs, batteries, etc.

Also, as more and more quads are added to prior levels, adding quads becomes more difficult, and expensive.

Table 1/CAPEX

RE

RE increase

CAPEX

Quad

Quad

$billion

2009

56.022

2010

58.347

2.325

213.0

2011

60.768

2.421

264.7

2012

63.896

3.128

239.9

2013

68.142

4.246

211.7

2014

71.120

2.978

265.1

2015

72.680

1.560

300.3

2016

77.507

4.827

280.0

2017

89.092

11.585

315.1

2018

94.843

5.751

280.2

2019

100.180

5.337

282.2

2020

106.332

6.152

292.5

2021

110.937

4.605

292.5

RE increase, quad

54.92

Years

12

CAPEX

3237.2

CAPEX/quad

58.95

 

Transition Period and Beyond 

 

It was assumed:

 

- There would be a transition period from the 5.5%/y compound growth to 4.3%/y to avoid excessive growth of CAPEX 

- Inflation would be at 2%/y.

 

World spending on renewable energy, RE, systems was $282.2 billion in 2019.

Table 2 shows the CAPEX would need to increase to about $360.35 billion in 2022, and grow at a compound rate of about 5.76%/y, after the transition period (much in excess of Gross World Product growth), to achieve 50% RE in 2050.

 

Comments on table 2

 

The second column shows the cost per quad of RE escalated at 2%/y.

The fourth column shows decreasing RE growth for 10 years.

The fifth column shows RE increasing to 400.6 quad/y, about 50% RE in 2050

The sixth column shows increasing annual CAPEX for RE; the CAPEX was $282.2 billion in 2019. Table 1

Table 2/Transition

$billion/quad

Inflation

RE growth

RE

CAPEX

and Beyond

%/y

quad

$/y

2021

58.95

1.02

5.50

110.937

292.50

2022

60.13

1.02

5.40

116.930

360.35

2023

61.33

1.02

5.30

123.130

380.25

2024

62.56

1.02

5.20

129.530

400.37

2025

63.81

1.02

5.10

136.140

421.77

2026

65.08

1.02

5.00

142.940

442.58

2027

66.39

1.02

4.90

149.950

465.37

2028

67.71

1.02

4.80

157.150

487.54

2029

69.07

1.02

4.70

164.530

509.73

2030

70.45

1.02

4.60

172.100

533.31

2031

71.86

1.02

4.50

179.840

556.19

2032

73.30

1.02

4.40

187.760

580.50

2033

74.76

1.02

4.30

195.830

603.33

2034

76.26

1.02

4.30

204.250

642.09

2035

77.78

1.02

4.30

213.030

682.93

2036

79.34

1.02

4.30

222.190

726.74

2037

80.92

1.02

4.30

231.750

773.64

2038

82.54

1.02

4.30

241.710

822.13

2039

84.19

1.02

4.30

252.110

875.62

2040

85.88

1.02

4.30

262.950

930.92

2041

87.60

1.02

4.30

274.260

990.71

2042

89.35

1.02

4.30

286.050

1053.41

2043

91.13

1.02

4.30

298.350

1120.95

2044

92.96

1.02

4.30

311.180

1192.64

2045

94.82

1.02

4.30

324.560

1268.64

2046

96.71

1.02

4.30

338.510

1349.14

2027

98.65

1.02

4.30

353.070

1436.30

2028

100.62

1.02

4.30

368.250

1527.41

2049

102.63

1.02

4.30

384.090

1625.69

2050

104.68

1.02

4.30

400.600

1728.35

Total

24,781.07

 

PART 2

 

US ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CAPITAL COST

 

The below graph, in quads, shows US energy consumption was 100.2 quads in 2019.

Coal, oil and gas were 11.4 + 36.7 + 32.1 = 80.2% of total energy consumption

RE was 11.469/100.2 = 11.45% of total energy consumption, of which wind and solar were 3.78/100.2 = 3.78% of the total.

Historic Period

The RE for 2010 and 2019 were obtained from the Livermore energy flowcharts, which are based on EIA data.

The RE compound growth was 3.48 %/y for the 2010 - 2021 period, 12 years

 

The CAPEX of 2020 and 2021 was based on the average CAPEX of years 2017, 2018, 2019

RE growth for the 2010 - 2021 period was 4.842 quad, 12 years

CAPEX/quad 497.7/4.842 = $102.78 billion, which is greater than world CAPEX/quad, likely due to China adding RE quads at lower costs.

https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy

https://www.statista.com/statistics/186818/north-american-investmen...

 

Table 3/ US RE CAPEX

RE

RE increase

CAPEX

Year

Quad

Quad

$billion

2009

7.608

2010

8.267

0.659

34.6

2011

8.613

0.346

50.3

2012

8.974

0.361

40.7

2013

9.350

0.376

36.1

2014

9.742

0.392

38.4

2015

10.150

0.408

46.9

2016

10.576

0.425

44.4

2017

11.019

0.443

48.6

2018

11.480

0.462

47.1

2019

11.469

-0.011

59.0

2020, est.

11.950

0.481

51.6

2021, est.

12.450

0.501

51.6

RE increase, quad

4.842

Years

12

CAPEX

497.7

CAPEX/quad

102.78

Transition Period and Beyond 

 

It was assumed:

 

- There would be a transition period from the 3.48%/y compound RE growth to 5.70%/y to avoid excessive growth of CAPEX/y 

- Inflation would be at 2%/y.

 

US spending for RE systems was $59.0 billion in 2019.

Table 4 shows the CAPEX/y would need to increase to about $55.47 billion in 2022, and grow at a compound rate of about 5.76%/y, after the transition period (much in excess of US GDP growth), to achieve a 50% RE in 2050

 

Comments on table 4

 

The second column shows the cost per quad of RE, escalated at 2%/y.

The fourth column shows increasing RE growth for 7 years.

The fifth column shows RE increasing to 60 quad/y, to achieve 50% RE in 2050

The sixth column shows increasing annual CAPEX for RE; the CAPEX was $59.0 billion in 2019. See Table 3

  

Table 4/Transition

$billion/quad

Inflation

RE growth

RE

CAPEX

and Beyond

%/y

quad

$/y

2021

102.78

1.02

4.19

12.450

51.60

2022

104.84

1.02

4.25

12.979

55.47

2023

106.94

1.02

4.50

13.563

62.46

2024

109.07

1.02

5.00

14.241

73.97

2025

111.26

1.02

5.50

15.025

87.14

2026

113.48

1.02

5.60

15.866

95.48

2027

115.75

1.02

5.65

16.762

103.76

2028

118.07

1.02

5.70

17.718

112.81

2029

120.43

1.02

5.70

18.728

121.62

2030

122.84

1.02

5.70

19.795

131.12

2031

125.29

1.02

5.70

20.924

141.37

2032

127.80

1.02

5.70

22.116

152.42

2033

130.35

1.02

5.70

23.377

164.33

2034

132.96

1.02

5.70

24.709

177.17

2035

135.62

1.02

5.70

26.118

191.01

2036

138.33

1.02

5.70

27.607

205.94

2037

141.10

1.02

5.70

29.180

222.03

2038

143.92

1.02

5.70

30.843

239.38

2039

146.80

1.02

5.70

32.601

258.08

2040

149.74

1.02

5.70

34.460

278.25

2041

152.73

1.02

5.70

36.424

299.99

2042

155.78

1.02

5.70

38.500

323.43

2043

158.90

1.02

5.70

40.695

348.71

2044

162.08

1.02

5.70

43.014

375.96

2045

165.32

1.02

5.70

45.466

405.33

2046

168.63

1.02

5.70

48.058

437.01

2027

172.00

1.02

5.70

50.797

471.15

2028

175.44

1.02

5.70

53.692

507.97

2049

178.95

1.02

5.70

56.753

547.66

2050

182.53

1.02

5.70

59.988

590.46

Total

7233.09

Here is a graph of US primary energy consumption from 1949 to 2019

 

Download Table 1.1 Primary energy overview. It tabulates monthly and annual US primary energy production and consumption from 1949 to 2019

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/

Here is a graph using the same data, but as percentages of US total primary energy consumption from 1949 - 2019.

 

Fossil fuels were 91% in 1949, 80% in 2019

RE was 9% in 1949, 11% in 2019

 

The graph shows fossils started to decrease in 1970, as nuclear increased.

After 2000, nuclear remained nearly unchanged, but RE (mostly heavily-subsidized wind and solar) increased, which further decreased fossils.

 

WORLD PRIMARY ENERGY; Two Sources

Tables 8 and 9 show the values from two sources.

The values are at variance with each other, which is likely due to data gathering methodology.

The EIA values are used in this article.

 

Source 1: This WORLD in DATA report shows the year-by-year primary energy data of the world from 1800 - 2019.

It shows:

 

World PE was 173,340 TWh, in 2019

RE was 29,656/173340 = 17.11%, in 2019

 

World RE growth, from end of 2010 to end of 2019, 9 years, was a compound 1.23%/y. 

Wind and solar had significant growth from 0.65% in 2010 to 3.07% in 2019. 

See interactive graphs in URL

https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix

 

Table 8/World PE

2010

2010

2010

2019

2019

2019

World in Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source

TWh

Quad

%

TWh

Quad

%

Modern Bio

734

2.50

0.48

1143

3.90

0.66

Other RE

990

3.38

0.65

1614

5.51

0.93

Solar

88

0.30

0.06

1793

6.12

1.03

Wind

903

3.08

0.59

3540

12.08

2.04

Hydro

8958

30.57

5.88

10455

35.67

6.03

Trad. Bio

11667

39.81

7.66

11111

37.91

6.41

Total RE

23340

79.64

15.33

29656

101.19

17.11

Nuclear

7219

24.63

4.74

6923

23.62

3.99

Gas

31606

107.84

20.76

39292

134.07

22.67

Coal

41997

143.30

27.58

43849

149.62

25.30

Oil

48087

164.08

31.58

53620

182.96

30.93

Total

152249

519.49

100.00

173340

591.46

100.00


 

Source 2: This EIA website shows year-by-year PE data of the world from 2010 to 2050

It shows:

In 2019, world RE was 100.18 quads, or 100.18/626.98 = 15.98%

World RE growth, from end of 2010 to end of 2019, 9 years, was a compound 4.39%/y. 

See interactive graphs in URL

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/

 

Table 9/World PE

2010

2010

2019

2019

Source: EIA

Quad

%

Quad

%

Modern Bio

Other RE

Solar

Wind

Hydro

Trad. Bio

Total RE

58.35

10.86

100.18

15.98

Nuclear

27.38

5.09

28.35

4.52

Gas

119.47

22.23

138.89

22.15

Coal

155.18

28.87

158.15

25.22

Oil

177.11

32.95

201.41

32.12

Total

537.49

100.00

626.98

100.00

APPENDIX 1

SOURCE, PRIMARY AND UPSTREAM ENERGY AND CO2 REDUCTION

 

Source Energy, SE: The raw materials taken from coal and uranium mines, oil and gas wells, forests, crops from: 1) corn-for-ethanol farms, 2) sugarcane-for-ethanol farms, 3) soybean-for-biofuel farms, etc.

 

The electricity from wind and solar systems is counted as primary energy, per UN conventions. One consequence of this counting method is that the contribution of wind and solar energy is under reported compared to fossil energy sources.

There is an international debate on how to count primary energy from wind and solar.

 

Primary Energy, PE: SE becomes PE (fuels and feedstock) after extraction, processing, and transport and distribution to end users. 

Worldwide, PE is about 70% of SE.

 

PE is better understood on an A-to-Z basis.

 

PE, as fuels ready for burning/conversion, is used by power plants to produce a product, electricity, which is transmitted and distributed to electric meters.

 

PE, as fuels and feedstock, is used by refineries, process, industrial plants, and farms to produce products which are transported and distributed to gas stations, natural gas meters in buildings, including housing.

See URL

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

 

Upstream Energy: Measured as a percent of PE, because it takes PE to obtain the SE.

 

In the US, about 10% of PE is consumed for extraction, agricultural cropping, processing, transport and distribution to end users, such as electric power plants, and to the transportation, industrial, residential and commercial sectors.

The 10% is usually called Upstream Energy.

Some energy sources require very high upstream energy and have high upstream CO2.

Almost all energy and CO2 analyses ignore upstream energy.

As a result, they understate CO2 emissions.

Here are some high upstream energy sources with high upstream CO2:

 

- No. 2 fuel oil for power plants, about 25% of combustion CO2 to be added

- Coal for power plants, about 4 - 5 % of combustion CO2 to be added

- Natural gas, primarily from fracking, for power plants, about 17% of combustion CO2 to be added

- Pure gasoline from petroleum about 25% of combustion CO2 to be added

- Pure diesel from petroleum about 27% of combustion CO2 to be added 

- Pure biodiesel from soy oil about 43% of combustion CO2 to be added

- Pure ethanol-from-corn about 106.6% of combustion CO2 to be added

 

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41093

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/source-energy-and-prim...

APPENDIX 2

Ireland Wind System CO2 Reduction 

 

Ireland had an island electric grid until a few years ago, i.e., it had low-capacity, MW, connections to the UK. As a result, almost all the variations of wind electricity had to be counteracted by Irish CCGT plants.

 

Eirgrid, the grid operator, posted real-time, 1/4-hour, grid operating data, and the grid CO2/kWh, as calculated by Eirgrid. However, independent analysts claimed the CO2/kWh was significantly greater, because of the reduced efficiency of the CCGT plants, i.e., increasing wind (and solar) would not reduce CO2 as much as proponents were, and still are, claiming. The below write-up shows independent analysts were correct.

 

The EPA, EIA, EU, IPPC, Eirgrid, and wind proponents use the one-to-one principle.

 

If one MWh of wind is added, they claim the US grid CO2 of one MWh is reduced, i.e., a net reduction of 449 kg/MWh, grid - 40 kg/MWh, wind = 409 kg/MWh.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11

 

However, that MWh of wind causes disturbances, which the OTHER generators have to deal with 24/7/365.

 

Those generators have more CO2/MWh, because they:

1) Have to operate at part load, say 75%, to be able to ramp up 25% and ramp down 25%, in case of gas-fired CCGT plants to counteract the variations of wind and solar.
2) Have more frequent start/stops.
3) Have more MW of plant in synchronous mode, i.e., hot standby.
4) Have more wear and tear
5) And wind requires more grid augmentation/expansion, which releases CO2 to implement and operate.

6) And wind requires detailed weather and wind fore casting, which releases CO2 to implement and operate.

 

On the Irish grid:

 

With 17% wind, CO2 was reduced not 17%, but only 0.526 x 17% = 8.94%, per Dr. Wheatley
With 22% wind, CO2 was reduced not 32%, but only 0.320 x 22% = 7.04%, per Dr. Mearns

The more wind electricity trying to disturb the grid, the less efficient the other generators, that have to counteract the variations of wind electricity.

 

Gas Imports Consumed by Ireland Power Sector: When imported gas consumption by the Ireland power sector was not sufficiently reduced with increased wind, the Irish government held an inquiry.

Eirgrid, the grid operator for all of Ireland, under oath, finally had to admit, what had been obvious from its own 15-minute, real-time grid operating data.

 

In the appendix are three articles that explain in detail the less-than-claimed CO2 reduction of wind electricity on the electric grid.

 

NOTE: US CO2 emissions from electricity generation are down to 1980 levels, mostly due to fracked gas, and wind and solar, replacing coal. It is likely the CO2 reductions are overstated by the EPA and the EIA.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/11/eia-us-co2-emissions-from-el...

 

NOTE: Some people claim utility-scale battery systems could take the place of combined-cycle, gas-turbine, CCGT, plants.

However, the batteries would add a significant cost to the cost of any electricity passing through the batteries, as explained in this article.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/economics-of-tesla-powe...

 

APPENDIX 3

The Irish Power System is very similar to the New England Power System.

Both have a major component of gas power plants. 

Ireland has a major component of wind turbines, because it has very good winds.

New England has a minor component of wind turbines, largely because it has mediocre winds.

New England is planning to have a major component of offshore wind turbines. Almost nothing has been built

 

The below article shows, if New England had a major component of wind turbines, and if gas turbines were used for peaking, filling-in and balancing, the efficiency of the gas turbines would deteriorate, i.e., more fuel/kWh, more CO2/kWh, to result in only a few percent of CO2 reduction of the entire New England power system


Read the article to learn the details.

 

ISO-NE should take note, because the CO2 reduction, due to adding wind electricity to the grid, is not nearly as much as wind proponents have been proclaiming, especially at higher wind energy percentages planned for the future by Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

 

WIND TURBINES REDUCING VERY LITTLE CO2 IN THE ENTIRE IRISH POWER SYSTEM

https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-energy-in-the-irish-power...

 

This article describes the influence of wind energy on the CO₂ output of the fossil-fired generation of electricity in Ireland. Where most available publications on this subject are based on models, the study makes use of real-time production data. It is shown that in absence of hydro energy, the CO₂ production of the conventional generators increases with wind energy penetration. The data show the reduction of CO₂ emissions is, at most, a few percent, if gas fired generation is used for balancing a 30% share of wind energy.

 

That study is quite revealing.

 

Regarding electricity, the wind proponents say, one kWh of wind displaces one kWh of traditional, which is true.

 

But regarding CO2, the story is quite different. In the Irish power system, the CO2 reduction due to wind, based on 15-minute, real-time grid operating data, showed:

 

12% wind decreased CO2/kWh by 4% for the ENTIRE IRISH SYSTEM

28% wind decreased CO2/kWh by 1%

30% wind decreased CO2/kWh by 3%

34% wind decreased CO2/kWh by 6%

 

The percentage depends on which gas plants are performing the filling-in, peaking and balancing; some are more efficient than others.   

 

Since the date of the study, based on 2011 data, several similar studies, by prominent scientists in the Netherlands and Ireland, were presented to EirGrid and the EU in Brussels, Belgium.

 

Initially, the EirGrid and EU reactions (as part of a united front) was silence, then denial.

Eirgrid claimed the CO2 reduction was not that little.

 

After the Irish government gas import statistics showed gas consumption by the Irish power system had not sufficiently decreased with increased wind, there was a government inquiry.

Eirgrid, under oath, had to admit the truth. Brussels, true to form, never admitted anything.

 

As a “remedy”, Ireland has installed increased-capacity connections with the much larger UK grid and French grid, thanks to generous EU subsidies.

 

The Irish wind energy disturbances would be buried in the noise of the three power systems; no one would be able to analyze anything.

That is similar to the mantra: “Dilution is the solution for pollution”.

 

NOTE: France, which has been providing the UK with electricity when winds in the UK are insufficient, just threatened the UK, no more electricity from France, unless the UK yields fishing rights. A French welcome to BREXIT.

 

APPENDIX 4

FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED    

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...

 

Ireland’s Power System: Eirgrid, the operator of the grid, publishes ¼-hour data regarding CO2 emissions, wind electricity production, fuel consumption and total electricity generation. Drs. Udo and Wheatley made several analyses, based on operating data of the Irish grid in 2012 and earlier, that show the effectiveness of CO2 emission reduction is decreasing with increasing annual wind electricity percentages on the grid.

 

Wheatley Study of the Irish Power System

http://docs.wind-watch.org/Wheatley-Ireland-CO2.pdf

 

According to Wheatley, the CO2 reduction efficacy of wind energy = (CO2 intensity, metric ton/MWh, with wind)/(CO2 intensity with no wind) = (0.279, @ 17% wind)/(0.530, @ no wind) = 0.526, based on ¼-hour, operating data of each generator connected to the Irish grid, as collected by SEMO.

 

Wind proponents claim: If 17% wind, the CO2 reduction is 17%, i.e., efficacy is 100%, or at most slightly less than 100%.

However, real-time gas turbine plant operating data, and grid operating data, showed:

If 17% wind, the CO2 reduction is 0.526 x 17% = 8.94%, i.e., a little better than 50%

 

Ireland had an island grid with a minor connection with the UK grid until October 2012. All the wind energy disturbances have to be dealt with in Ireland. As a result, Ireland provides an ideal case for demonstrating the lack of CO2 reduction due to wind energy.

 

Providing the Irish grid with additional connections to the much larger UK and French grids (which have much lower percent wind on their grids) merely makes Irish wind energy variations disappear in the noise of the data.

 

- What applied to the Irish grid would apply to the New England grid as well; it also has minor connections to nearby grids.

- Europe is stuck with mostly gas turbine balancing, as it does not have nearly enough hydro plant capacity with storage.

http://www.theenergycollective.com/willem-post/2389832/german-renew...

 

Natural Gas and CO2 Reductions Less Than Claimed, per Wheatley’s Study

 

No Wind; Turbine efficiency = 50%; Production = 100 kWh

Required gas = 100 x 3413/0.5 = 682,600 Btu

Emitted CO2 = 682600 x 117/1000000 = 79.864 lb.

 

If 17% wind, wind proponents claim:

Required gas = (100 – 17) x 3413/0.50 = 566,558 Btu

Emitted CO2 = 566558 x 117/1000000 = 66.287 lb

CO2 reduction = 79.864 - 66.287 = 13.577 lb

 

If 17% wind, real-time grid operating data shows:

CO2 reduction = 13.577 x 0.526 (see Wheatley URL) = 7.142 lb

Remaining CO2 = 79.864 – 7.142 = 72.722 lb CO2.

Required gas = 72.722/(117/1000000) = 621560 Btu

Turbine efficiency = (100 – 17) x 3413/621560 = 0.4558, if producing 83 kWh with 621,560Btu of gas,

Turbine efficiency reduction = 100 x (1 – 0.4558/0.50) = 8.85%.

 

NOTE: The above calculations are for generating 100 kWh, for demonstration purposes.

Ireland’s turbines produce much more than 100 kWh in a year, but whatever they produce would be at a reduced efficiency. See next section.

 

This means the wind turbines have to operate less efficiently to deal with the variable wind energy.

That leads to a lesser gas and CO2 reductions than claimed by wind proponents.

 

The above bold numbers are summarized in the below table.

 

Table 8/Ideal World

Gas, Btu

CO2, lb

Turbine Eff., %

No Wind generation

682,600

79.864

0.5000

17% Wind generation

566,558

66.287

0.5000

Claimed Reduction

116,042

13.577

 

Real World

 

 

 

17% Wind generation

621,560

72.722

0.4558

Actual Reduction

61,040

7.142

 

Turbine efficiency reduction

 

 

8.85

 

Lack of CO2 Reduction in 2013

 

The above example was for 100 kWh. However, in 2013, natural gas consumption was 2098 ktoe*/4382 ktoe = 48% of the energy for electricity generation; see SEIA report.

 

This included 2098 x (1 - 1/1.0855) = 171 ktoe for balancing wind, which had a CO2 emission of about 171 x 39653 million Btu/ktoe x 117/million Btu = 791.4 million lb.

 

This was at least 791.4 million lb of CO2 emission reduction that did not take place, because of less efficient operation of the gas turbines.

 

*ktoe means kilo ton oil equivalent

 

Lack of Gas Cost Reduction in 2013:

 

The cost of the gas was about 171 x 39653 million Btu/ktoe x $10/million Btu (2013 price) = $67.6 million.

 

This was at least $67.6 million of gas cost reduction that did not take place, because of less efficient operation of the gas turbines.

 

Cost of Wind Balancing/kWh

 

In 2013, the fuel cost of wind energy balancing was 5,872,100,000 kWh of wind/$67.6 million = 1.152 c/kWh, which would become greater as more wind is added. It is likely there were other costs, such as increased wear and tear.

 

Natural Gas Imports Greater Than Expected

 

Ireland imports its gas. The Irish people had been told building wind would reduce gas imports. When the gas imports were much less reduced than promised, the government made an investigation, which proved the efficiency degradation of the gas turbines.

 

A similar outcome is in store for New England, if it builds out wind on ridgelines and offshore. The laws of physics apply on both sides of the Atlantic.

 

Irish People Disappointed

 

It must be a real downer for the Irish people, after making the investments to build out wind and despoiling the visuals of much of their beautiful country, to find out the reductions of CO2 emissions and the cost of imported gas, at 17% wind energy, are only about 52.6% of what was promised*, and, as more wind is added, that percentage would decrease even more!!

 

*Not included are the embodied CO2 emissions for build-outs of:

 

1) Flexible generation system adequacy

2) Grid system adequacy

3) Storage system adequacy to accommodate variable wind (and solar)

High percentages of wind (and solar) on a grid could not exist without storage system adequacy. See URL.

http://www.theenergycollective.com/willem-post/2396941/wind-and-sol...

 

Gas-Turbine Power Plants Support of Wind and Solar Systems 

 

If gas turbine power plants perform the peaking, filling-in and balancing, to counteract variable, intermittent wind and solar on the grid, they would operate at varying outputs (less efficient), and lower-than-normal outputs (less efficient), and have more frequent start/stops (less efficient). Less efficient means: 1) more Btu/kWh, 2) more CO2/kWh, and 3) more wear and tear, and 4) more grid augmentation/expansion/storage.

The more wind and solar on the grid, the more extreme the output variations, and the more frequent the start/stops.

 

Operation becomes unstable below 40%.

Hence, the practical operating limit is about 50%, which limits the ramping range from 50% to 100%.

 

Here is an example showing efficiencies at low outputs.

 

Table 9 

Output

 Efficiency

 

 Output

Efficiency

Simple Cycle

100%

38%

 

40%

26%

Combined Cycle

100%

55%

 

40%

47%

 

http://www.wartsila.com/energy/learning-center/technical-comparison...

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-em...

http://www.seai.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/Energy_in_I...

http://www.clepair.net/Udo20150831-e.html

http://fredudo.home.xs4all.nl/Zwaaipalen/17E_Wind_in_the_Irish_grid...

 

SUMMARY OF THREE IRELAND GRID STUDIES

 

Wheatley Study

The Wheatley study showed the efficacy of wind energy regarding CO2 reduction was 52.6%, at 17% wind penetration

 

Wind turbine proponents claim: If 17% wind, the CO2 reduction is 17%, i.e., the efficacy is 100%, or slightly less than 100%.

However, Wheatley’s study, based on EirGrid real-time grid operating data, shows: If 17% wind, the CO2 reduction is 0.526 x 17% = 8.94%, i.e., a little better than 50%.

 

My calculations yielded a combined-cycle, gas-turbine, CCGT, plant annual average fuel efficiency of 45.58%, at 17% wind penetration.

My assumed efficiency was 50%, at zero wind penetration.

The loss of efficiency was 100 x (1 – 0.4558/0.50) = 8.85%, at 17% wind penetration

 

The Wheatley value of wind efficacy percent regarding CO2 reduction likely is optimistic. See Mearns and Udo studies

http://docs.wind-watch.org/Wheatley-Ireland-CO2.pdf

 

Euan Mearns study

The 2016 study by Euan Mearns corroborated the loss of CCGT plant efficiency due to increased wind penetration.

 

During 2014 and 2015, average wind penetration was 22%.

The CCGTs produced 575 kg of CO2 per MWh.

The average operating efficiency was 32%, compared with a design specification of 55%.

The CCGT plant average operating efficiency could be 50%, or less.

The loss of efficiency was 100 x (1 – 0.32/0.50) = 36%, at 17% wind penetration

 

The Mearns study showed the efficacy of wind energy regarding CO2 reduction was much less than Wheatley’s 52.6%

http://euanmearns.com/co2-emissions-variations-in-ccgts-used-to-bal...

 

Fred Udo study

The Udo study was for 17% wind penetration.

 

12% wind decreased CO2/kWh by 4% for the ENTIRE IRISH SYSTEM

28% wind decreased CO2/kWh by 1%

30% wind decreased CO2/kWh by 3%

34% wind decreased CO2/kWh by 6%

 

The Udo study showed the efficacy of wind energy regarding CO2 reduction is much less than Wheatley’s 52.6%

 

The Udo study has greater detail regarding gas turbine efficiency during the year

The combustion efficiency of the gas turbines varies at zero wind, depending on which gas turbine plants are in operation; some are more efficient than others.

https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-energy-in-the-irish-power...

 

APPENDIX 5

NEW ENGLAND WIND/SOLAR POLICIES ARE UNSUSTAINABLE

 

New England has:

 

- The highest electric rates in the US

- Mediocre wind and solar conditions.

- Wind and solar simultaneously near zero almost every morning and evening

- Wind/solar lulls throughout the year. Some of these lulls last up to 7 days. See URL

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

 

Based on the above, it is beyond rational for New England to have any carbon taxes, and solar panels, and wind turbines, because they produce expensive electricity, which would act as an additional brake on NE economic growth.

See URL for more information.

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

 

Real Costs of Solar in Vermont

 

Vermont has three major categories of solar

 

NET-METERED solar is charged to the utility rate base at about 21 c/kWh

 

SPECIAL OFFER solar (new, large-scale, field-mounted systems) are charged to the utility rate base at about 11 c/kWh.

SPECIAL OFFER solar (legacy systems) are charged to the utility rate base at about 20 c/kWh; that price is very slowly decreasing, as more 11 c/kWh systems are added to the mix.

 

UTILITY solar (new, large-scale, field-mounted systems) are charged to utility rate base at about 11 c/kWh

UTILITY solar (legacy systems) are charged to the utility rate base at 11 to 20 c/kWh; whatever price is negotiated.

 

Those costs do not include grid augmentation/expansion to connect the solar systems and dealing with the output variations of solar systems, such as daily DUCK-curves.

 

Table 3 shows the prices of solar, before and after subsidies, and before and after cost shifting, in sun-starved New England.

 

Table 7/Vermont & NE sources

Total

Grid support*

Subsidies

Paid to

GMP

 Cost added to

 

Economic Cost

Shifted

Shifted

Owner

Costs

rate base

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

Solar, residential rooftop, net-metered, new

24.7

2.1

5.2

17.4

3.7

20.8

Solar, residential rooftop, net-metered, legacy

25.5

2.1

5.4

18.0

3.7

21.7

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

22.7

2.1

9.6

11.0

?

11.0

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

32.1

2.1

9.3

20.7

?

20.7

Wind, ridge line, new*

18.8

2.4

7.4

9.0

?

9.0

 

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

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

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fortress-vermont-a-mul...

Real Cost of Solar with Battery Systems in Vermont

 

Assume $625/kWh (delivered as AC to the grid) is the turnkey capacity cost of a utility-scale battery storage system, per EIA

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

 

Annual payments would be $53.62/y, or $0.147/kWh per cycle, per day, if amortized at 3.5%/y over the 15-year life of the system.

This is only the cost of the battery system.

There are many other costs, such as for annual operations and maintenance, service contracts, etc.

 

- If DC solar electricity were charged into the battery system, at about 20 c/kWh, the cost at which Vermont net-metered solar is added to the utility rate base (see table 3 in URL), there would be a system loss of about 15%.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-con...

 

As a result, the price would become 20/0.85 = 23.5 c/kWh (delivered as AC to the grid), plus at least 14.7 c/kWh for amortizing the battery system, a total of 38.2 c/kWh, charged to the utility rate base.

 

- If AC from the grid were charged into the battery system, at about 5 c/kWh, the NE average wholesale price starting in 2009, courtesy of low-cost nuclear and low-cost natural gas, there would be a system loss of about 20%. See note.

 

As a result, the price would become 5/0.8 = 6.25 c/kWh (delivered as AC to the grid), plus at least 14.7 c/kWh for amortizing the battery system, a total of 20.95 c/kWh, charged to the utility rate base.

 

This compares with a utility buying electricity from owners of existing gas-fired, combined cycle, gas turbine plants, for about 4 to 5 c/kWh, based on current gas prices.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

NOTE: The system loss is measured from grid AC voltage, through the battery, to grid AC voltage.

EAN Solar Build-Out to “Meet Paris”

 

The EAN solar build-out, to “meet Paris” would be from 438.84 MW dc, at end 2019 to at least 1000 MW dc, at end 2025

 

Cost Shifting to Ratepayers: Current cost shifting to ratepayers for solar production of 473,686 MWh, at end 2019, was about $64 million.

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

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

 

The increased solar would cause much larger, grid-disturbing, midday DUCK-curves.

See VELCO graph in URL

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

 

Managing DUCK-curves costs money. The costs, about 1.1 c/kWh, are charged to ratepayers

The costs would be much higher, 15 to 20 c/kWh, if battery systems, with about 15-y lives, were involved.

Batteries have a loss of 15 – 20% of any electricity passing through them, on a high-voltage to high-voltage basis.

 

Solar requires significant grid extension/augmentation. The costs, about 1.0 c/kWh, are charged to ratepayers

 

 

Views: 771

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 27, 2020 at 4:20pm

Eric Tuttle,

You should post this article on Facebook

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