World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to 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 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 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Trump rescinded the commitment.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 FOR THE WORLD AND US
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
SUMMARY OF "BIG-PICTURE" CAPEX 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...
NOTE: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that an average of $3.5 trillion per year will be needed just in energy investments between 2016 and 2050 to achieve the 1.5-degree target.
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-must-halve-emission...
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
Battery systems about 15 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...
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 their counteracting 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 10/Vermont & NE sources |
Paid to |
Subsidies |
Grid support |
GMP |
Added to |
Total |
Traditional |
Times |
owner |
to owner |
cost |
adder |
rate base |
cost |
cost |
||
c/kWh |
c/kWh |
c/kWh |
c/kWh |
c/kWh |
c/kWh |
c/kWh |
||
Solar, residential rooftop, net-metered, new |
17.4 |
5.2 |
2.1 |
3.5 |
20.9 |
28.2 |
7.60 |
3.7 |
Solar, residential rooftop, net-metered, legacy |
18.2 |
5.4 |
2.1 |
3.5 |
21.7 |
29.2 |
7.60 |
3.8 |
Solar, com’l/ind’l, standard offer, combo |
11.0 |
6.68 |
2.1 |
11.0 |
19.78 |
7.60 |
2.6 |
|
Solar, com’l/ind’l, standard offer, 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 |
* 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.
Comment
Eric Tuttle,
You should post this article on Facebook
U.S. Sen Angus King
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!
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/
© 2024 Created by Webmaster. Powered by
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