Comments - U of Maine: Fire not unusual for wind turbines - Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine2024-03-28T08:05:59Zhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=4401701%3ABlogPost%3A230397&xn_auth=noRegarding the IMPROPERLY SITE…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2021-12-08:4401701:Comment:2311232021-12-08T16:11:21.046ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p>Regarding the IMPROPERLY SITED wind turbine.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I would be VERY SURPRISED, if there were ANY reduction of CO2, because:</p>
<p></p>
<p>1) Various folks of UMPI, and other entities, have emitted a lot of CO2 trying to get the "neer-do-well" wind turbine to properly operate, over many years</p>
<p>2) The CO2 and toxic fumes of the fire</p>
<p></p>
<p>Always look at the A-to-Z picture.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I am surprised, UMPI is running its campus on batteries.</p>
<p>That would be…</p>
<p>Regarding the IMPROPERLY SITED wind turbine.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I would be VERY SURPRISED, if there were ANY reduction of CO2, because:</p>
<p></p>
<p>1) Various folks of UMPI, and other entities, have emitted a lot of CO2 trying to get the "neer-do-well" wind turbine to properly operate, over many years</p>
<p>2) The CO2 and toxic fumes of the fire</p>
<p></p>
<p>Always look at the A-to-Z picture.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I am surprised, UMPI is running its campus on batteries.</p>
<p>That would be SOOOOO much SEXIER!!!</p>
<p>That would pour even more money down the the blackhole drain.</p>
<p>Hell, it is not THEIR money, but the GOVERNMENT'S money, that was pilfered from the near-empty pockets of hard-working Mainers.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>WIND AND SOLAR TO PROVIDE 30 PERCENT OF NEW ENGLAND ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION BY 2050</strong></p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide-50-percent-of-future-new-england">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide...</a></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>Grid-scale Battery System Operating Cost in New England</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I found no usable information regarding real-world operating costs, after googling on the internet for many hours.</p>
<p>I decided the cost categories of operating a rental property are similar to a battery system.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) The owning and operating cost of a rental property usually involves a down payment, say 20%, and a mortgage for 80%. The annual owning and operating cost of the property includes: 1) the cost of the mortgage, and 2) other costs, such as heating, cooling, electricity, taxes, upkeep/repairs, etc. Both costs must be offset by the rental income to break even.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>2) The owning and operating cost of a battery system usually involves a down payment, say 50%, and a bank loan for 50%. The annual owning and operating cost of a battery system includes: 1) the cost of bank financing at, say 3.5%/y, and 2) the owner’s return on investment at, say 9%/y, and 3) other costs. The three costs must be offset by the income of the services performed by the battery system to break even.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Battery System Operating Modes</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>- Arbitrage mode</strong> relates to charging at night, when rates are low, and discharging during peak demand hours, when rates are high see table 4.</p>
<p><strong>- Midday solar surge mode</strong> relates to reducing the daily midday solar surge to avoid destabilizing the grid. See table 4</p>
<p><strong>- RNS and FCM Charge Reduction</strong> mode relates to reducing a utility’s peak demand to reduce ISO-NE transmission and forward capacity charges. See next section</p>
<p><strong>- Regulation mode</strong> relates to fine-tuning voltage and frequency of the grid (not considered in this analysis)</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>RNS and FCM Charge Reduction</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Regional network services, RNS, are based on the utility peak demand occurring during a month</p>
<p>Forward capacity market, FCM, are based on the utility peak demand occurring during a year.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If a utility would have an average peak demand of 800 MW, a 1 MW/4 MWh battery system could reduce the demand by 800 kW (battery discharging from 90% full to 10% full), and thus reduce the RNS and FCM charges imposed on utilities by ISO-NE. The potential savings from peak shaving are estimated below.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>RNS:</strong> 2020 RNS forecast = $129.26/kW-yr /12 = $10.77/kW-month. See page 7 of URL</p>
<p>If a utility could capture 800 kW during the peak hour of a month, the savings would be 800 x 10.77 x 12 = $103,408</p>
<p><a href="https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2021/07/a03_tc_2021_07_14_rns_rates_presentation.pdf">https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2021/07/a03_tc_2021_07_14_rns_rates_presentation.pdf</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>FCM:</strong> 2020 FCM forecast = $5.30/kW-month. See URL</p>
<p>If GMP could capture 800 kW during the yearly peak hour, the savings would be 800 kW x $5.30 x 12 = $50,880<br/>This value multiplied by the reserve margin of 1.2, yields $61,056</p>
<p><a href="https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/02/20200218_pr_fca14_final_results.pdf">https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/02/20200218_pr_fca14_final_results.pdf</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>RNS + FCM cost reduction = <strong>$164,464/y</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>NOTE:</strong> With more utilities dreaming of a pot of gold to be gotten with battery systems, the high value of the RNS and FCM reduction may be temporary. ISO-NE needs to raise a given quantity of funds with RNS and FCM fees. If ISO-NE does not collect enough money, it merely will increase these fees, or other fees.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Amortizing Turnkey Capital Cost</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>The turnkey capital cost of New England battery systems, in 2021, would be about $700/kWh, delivered as AC to a high voltage grid.</p>
<p>Capital cost = 4,000 kWh x $700 = $2.8 million</p>
<p>This cost does not include 1) disposal costs of the batteries, and 2) any owning and operating costs</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Amortizing based on 50% borrowed from a bank at 3.5%/y for 15 years, and 50% investor money at 9%/y for 15 years</p>
<p><strong>Cost of amortizing =</strong> <strong>$72,624/y</strong></p>
<p>See URL and Appendix</p>
<p><a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/07/f65/Storage%20Cost%20and%20Performance%20Characterization%20Report_Final.pdf">https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/07/f65/Storage%20Cost%20and%20Performance%20Characterization%20Report_Final.pdf</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Other Costs</strong> <strong>were assumed at</strong> <strong>$67,002/y</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>O&M costs are for: 1) power electronics, 2) thermal management, 3) HVAC of enclosures, 4) control and monitoring, 4) staffing, 5) miscellaneous items, such as site protection, lighting, insurance, taxes, upkeep/repairs, etc.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Assumptions</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>- A battery system able to deliver 1 MW of power for 4 hours, i.e., a rating of 1 MW/4 MWh</p>
<p>- Battery normal operation from 15% full to 80% full, to achieve a 15-y life.</p>
<p>- Battery<span> </span><strong>real-world</strong><span> </span>annual capacity factor at 50%</p>
<p>- Daily charging:</p>
<p>70% night-time from grid, at 3.5, wholesale + 1.6, ISO-NE charge = 5.1 c/kWh; the<span> </span><strong>all-in wholesale</strong> cost. See table 5</p>
<p>30% mid-day solar from grid, at 19.84 + 1.6 = 21.44 c/kWh; the<span> </span><strong>all-in</strong><span> </span>solar cost. See table 5</p>
<p>- Electric rate during peak demand is 7.5 + 1.6 = 9.1 c/kWh</p>
<p>- System efficiency 80%, A-to-Z basis. See Appendix </p>
<p>- No battery system aging. See Note</p>
<p>- No State and federal subsidies, such as 1) tax savings due to depreciation and loan interest deductions; 2) cash grants; 3) tax credits; 4) waving of various state and local taxes, fees and surcharges, etc., which politically shifts the cost of solar to other entities, to make solar electricity appear less costly, and to enable an owner to sell his solar production at a politically palatable cost of about 11.0 c/kWh, instead of an expensive-looking cost of about 17.74 c/kWh. See Note and table 5</p>
<p>- Battery amortizing cost is allocated to arbitrage and mid-day solar surge modes</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>NOTE</strong>: In the real world, the battery owning and operating cost/kWh would be reduced by at least 45%, due to various subsidies.</p>
<p>However, no cost ever disappears, per Economics 101</p>
<p>Costs are politically shifted from owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, and added to government debts</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems</a></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>NOTE</strong>: Battery system aging at about 1.5%/y (all components, not just the battery) would decrease the capacity of the battery system, and increase the cost/kWh by at least 1.5%, each year</p>
<p> </p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td><p><strong>Table 4</strong></p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>Grid</p>
</td>
<td><p>ISO-NE</p>
</td>
<td><p>Total</p>
</td>
<td><p>Total</p>
</td>
<td><p>Battery</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>cost</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>allocation</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p><strong>Arbitrage</strong></p>
</td>
<td><p>Fraction</p>
</td>
<td><p>kWh/d</p>
</td>
<td><p>c/kWh</p>
</td>
<td><p>c/kWh</p>
</td>
<td><p>$/d</p>
</td>
<td><p>$/y</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Charging cost</p>
</td>
<td><p>0.7</p>
</td>
<td><p>2500</p>
</td>
<td><p>3.5</p>
</td>
<td><p>1.6</p>
</td>
<td><p>89.25</p>
</td>
<td><p>32576</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Discharging revenue</p>
</td>
<td><p>0.7</p>
</td>
<td><p>2000</p>
</td>
<td><p>7.5</p>
</td>
<td><p>1.6</p>
</td>
<td><p>127.4</p>
</td>
<td><p>46501</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Gain</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>38.15</p>
</td>
<td><p><strong>13925</strong></p>
</td>
<td><p><strong>97738</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p><strong>Midday solar surge</strong></p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Charging cost</p>
</td>
<td><p>0.3</p>
</td>
<td><p>2500</p>
</td>
<td><p>19.84</p>
</td>
<td><p>1.6</p>
</td>
<td><p>160.8</p>
</td>
<td><p>58692</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Discharging revenue</p>
</td>
<td><p>0.3</p>
</td>
<td><p>2000</p>
</td>
<td><p>7.5</p>
</td>
<td><p>1.6</p>
</td>
<td><p>54.6</p>
</td>
<td><p>19929</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Loss</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>106.2</p>
</td>
<td><p><strong>38763</strong></p>
</td>
<td><p><strong>41888</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p><strong>RNS and FCM gain</strong></p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p><strong>164464</strong></p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Net gain</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>139626</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p><strong>Amortizing</strong></p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p><strong>72624</strong></p>
</td>
<td><p><strong> </strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Net gain</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>67002</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p><strong>Other costs</strong></p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p><strong>67002</strong></p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p>Net gain</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p>0</p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table> The 12 MW floating wind turbi…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2021-12-08:4401701:Comment:2310712021-12-08T16:08:16.638ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p>The 12 MW floating wind turbine project turnkey capital cost, including grid extension/augmentation from wind turbine to mainland grid would be at least $60 million</p>
<p></p>
<p>Assuming the owners earn 9%/y on their investment, and a 20 year life, the ANNUAL amortizing cost would be $6.478 million</p>
<p>The cost of electricity would be 12.317 c/kWh. This is only the amortizing cost</p>
<p>All other costs are IN ADDITION.</p>
<p></p>
<p>This compares with an average NE WHOLESALE price of…</p>
<p>The 12 MW floating wind turbine project turnkey capital cost, including grid extension/augmentation from wind turbine to mainland grid would be at least $60 million</p>
<p></p>
<p>Assuming the owners earn 9%/y on their investment, and a 20 year life, the ANNUAL amortizing cost would be $6.478 million</p>
<p>The cost of electricity would be 12.317 c/kWh. This is only the amortizing cost</p>
<p>All other costs are IN ADDITION.</p>
<p></p>
<p>This compares with an average NE WHOLESALE price of 5 c/kWh, which has been the same, starting in 2009 to the present, courtesy of low-cost, low-CO2, clean-burning, DOMESTIC gas plants, and low-cost, near-zero CO2, DOMESTIC nuclear plants, which produce electricity at less than 5 c/kWh</p>
<p></p>
<table width="399">
<tbody><tr><td width="243"><p><strong>Maine floating offshore</strong></p>
</td>
<td width="156"></td>
</tr>
<tr><td width="243"><p>Turnkey, $million</p>
</td>
<td width="156"><p>60</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td width="243"><p>Amortize, $million/y</p>
</td>
<td width="156"><p>6.478</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td width="243"><p>Turbine, MW</p>
</td>
<td width="156"><p>12</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td width="243"><p>h/y</p>
</td>
<td width="156"><p>8766</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td width="243"><p>Annual CF</p>
</td>
<td width="156"><p>0.5</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td width="243"><p>Electricity cost, c/kWh</p>
</td>
<td width="156"><p>12.317</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table> UMPI clammed up right away wh…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2021-12-04:4401701:Comment:2307812021-12-04T22:51:48.257ZPenny Grayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/PennyGray
<p>UMPI clammed up right away when the highly touted turbine failed to measure up to their projections, which is very unfortunate. Learning and progress cannot happen without transparency and open dialogue. Could this be why we're still fumbling about in the dark ages of energy production?</p>
<p>UMPI clammed up right away when the highly touted turbine failed to measure up to their projections, which is very unfortunate. Learning and progress cannot happen without transparency and open dialogue. Could this be why we're still fumbling about in the dark ages of energy production?</p> I believe the following pages…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2021-12-04:4401701:Comment:2310142021-12-04T22:37:10.348ZLong Islanderhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/LongIslander
<p>I believe the following pages are where one should find information on the UMPI wind turbine.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.umpi.edu/wind" target="_blank">www.umpi.edu/wind</a></p>
<p><span dir="ltr" style="left: 90.6157px; top: 1235.24px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(1.00468);"> </span><a href="https://www.umpi.edu/sustainability/" target="_blank">https://www.umpi.edu/sustainability/</a></p>
<p>When I just went there I got dead pages.</p>
<p>From…</p>
<p>I believe the following pages are where one should find information on the UMPI wind turbine.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.umpi.edu/wind" target="_blank">www.umpi.edu/wind</a></p>
<p><span style="left: 90.6157px; top: 1235.24px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(1.00468);" dir="ltr"> </span><a href="https://www.umpi.edu/sustainability/" target="_blank">https://www.umpi.edu/sustainability/</a></p>
<p>When I just went there I got dead pages.</p>
<p>From 2009:</p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/9879871696?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener">UMPI-2009.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/9879872075?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/9879872075?profile=RESIZE_710x" class="align-full"/></a>Note that the solar panels supposedly produce 460,000 kWh per year and avoid 326 tons of CO2 and the wind turbine set out to produce 1,000,000 kWh per year and avoid 572 tons of CO2. In other words, the solar produces only 46% of the wind turbine's electricity goal, but avoids 57% of the CO2. Did the CO2 output associated with the grid's electricity production somehow change?</p>
<p>UMPI promised to educate the PUBLIC on its learning from the wind turbine experience. Has the public ever seen that? I don't think so. Why not? Because it grossly underperformed all the going in goals and was nothing more than a monument to the consequences of not doing one's homework?</p> So UMPI gave up on industrial…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2021-12-04:4401701:Comment:2310082021-12-04T12:50:30.960ZPenny Grayhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/PennyGray
<p>So UMPI gave up on industrial wind and turned to equally unreliable and diffuse solar to save money and the planet? And this is a university? Every time I drive past Colby's "solar field" proudly located right next to I-95 in Waterville and it's cloudy, or it's night time, or it's winter and the panels are covered with snow which is never cleaned off, I wonder if we'll ever follow science based energy policies. </p>
<p>So UMPI gave up on industrial wind and turned to equally unreliable and diffuse solar to save money and the planet? And this is a university? Every time I drive past Colby's "solar field" proudly located right next to I-95 in Waterville and it's cloudy, or it's night time, or it's winter and the panels are covered with snow which is never cleaned off, I wonder if we'll ever follow science based energy policies. </p> WIND AND SOLAR TO PROVIDE 30…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2021-12-04:4401701:Comment:2309162021-12-04T11:09:56.281ZWillem Posthttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/WillemPost942
<p><strong>WIND AND SOLAR TO PROVIDE 30 PERCENT OF NEW ENGLAND ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION BY 2050</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide-50-percent-of-future-new-england">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide-50-percent-of-future-new-england</a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>“All-in” Electricity Cost of Wind and Solar in New England</strong></p>
<p><strong> …</strong></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>WIND AND SOLAR TO PROVIDE 30 PERCENT OF NEW ENGLAND ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION BY 2050</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide-50-percent-of-future-new-england">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide-50-percent-of-future-new-england</a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><strong>“All-in” Electricity Cost of Wind and Solar in New England</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar">http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Pro RE folks point to the “price paid to owner” as the cost of wind and solar, purposely ignoring the other cost categories. The all-in cost of wind and solar, c/kWh, includes:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) Above-market-price paid to Owners </p>
<p>2) Subsidies paid to Owners</p>
<p>3) Owner return on invested capital at about 9%/y</p>
<p>4) Grid extension/augmentation</p>
<p>5) Grid support services</p>
<p>6) Future battery systems</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Comments on table 4</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong> </p>
<p>- Vermont legacy Standard Offer solar systems had greater subsidies paid to owner, than newer systems</p>
<p> </p>
<p>- Wind prices paid to owner did not have the drastic reductions as solar prices.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>- Vermont utilities are paid about 3.5 c/kWh for various costs they incur regarding net-metered solar systems</p>
<p> </p>
<p>- "Added to rate base" is the cost wind and solar are added to the utility rate base, used to set electric rates.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>- “Total cost”, including subsidies to owner and grid support, is the cost at which wind/solar are added to the utility rate base</p>
<p> </p>
<p>- “NE utility cost” is the annual average cost of purchased electricity, about 6 c/kWh, plus NE grid operator charges, about 1.6 c/kWh</p>
<p>for a total of 7.6 c/kWh.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>- “Grid support costs” would increase with increased use of battery systems to counteract the variability and intermittency of increased build-outs of wind and solar systems.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>NOTES:</strong></p>
<p>1) NE wholesale grid price averaged about 5 c/kWh, starting in 2009, due to low-cost CCGT and nuclear plants providing at least 65% of all electricity loaded onto the NE grid, in 2019.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/">https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/</a></p>
<p><a href="https://nepool.com/uploads/NPC_20200305_Composite4.pdf">https://nepool.com/uploads/NPC_20200305_Composite4.pdf</a></p>
<p><br/>2) There are Owning costs, and Operating and Maintenance costs, of the NE grid</p>
<p>ISO-NE charges these costs to utilities at about 1.6 c/kWh. The ISO-NE charges include: </p>
<p> <br/>Regional network services, RNS, based on the utility peak demand occurring during a month</p>
<p>Forward capacity market, FCM, based on the utility peak demand occurring during a year.</p>
<p> </p>
<table>
<tbody><tr><td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"><strong>Table 4/VT & NE sources</strong></span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">Paid to</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">Subsidy</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">Grid</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">GMP</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"> Added</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">ISO-NE</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">Total</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">NE</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">Times</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"><strong> </strong></span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"> </span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">paid to</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">support</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"> </span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">to rate</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">RNS+</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"> </span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">utility</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"> </span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td></td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">owner</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">towner</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">cost</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">adder</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">base</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">FCM</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">cost</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">cost</span></p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td></td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">c/kWh</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">c/kWh</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">c/kWh</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">c/kWh</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">c/kWh</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">c/kWh</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">c/kWh</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">c/kWh</span></p>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">Solar, rooftop, net-metered, new</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">17.4</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">5.2</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">2.1</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">3.5</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">20.9</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">1.6</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">29.8</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">7.6</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">3.92</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">Solar, rooftop, net-metered, legacy</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">18.2</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">5.4</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">2.1</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">3.5</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">21.7</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">1.6</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">30.8</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">7.6</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">4.05</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"><strong>Solar, standard offer, combo</strong></span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"><strong>11.</strong><strong>0</strong></span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"><strong>6.74</strong></span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"><strong>2.1</strong></span></p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"><strong>11.</strong><strong>0</strong></span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"><strong>1.6</strong></span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"><strong>21.44</strong></span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"><strong>7.6</strong></span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"><strong>2.82</strong></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">Solar, standard offer, legacy</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">21.7</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">10.5</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">2.1</span></p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">21.7</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">1.6</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">35.9</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">7.6</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">4.72</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">Wind, ridge line, new</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">9.0</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">4.1</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">2.4</span></p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">9.0</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">1.6</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">17.1</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">7.6</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">2.25</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr><td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">Wind, offshore, new</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">12.1</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">5.4</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">2.8</span></p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">12.1</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">1.6</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">21.9</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">7.6</span></p>
</td>
<td><p><span style="font-size: 8pt;">2.88</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>Sample calculation; NE utility cost = Purchased, 6 + (RNS + FCM), 1.6 = 7.6 c/kWh</p>
<p>Sample calculation; added to utility base = 17.4 + 3.5 = 20.9 c/kWh</p>
<p>Sample calculation; total cost = 17.4 + 5.2 + 2.1 + 3.5 + 1.6 = 29.8 c/kWh</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Excludes costs for very expensive battery systems</p>
<p>Excludes costs for very expensive floating, offshore wind systems</p>
<p>Excludes cost for dealing with shortfalls during multi-day wind/solar lulls. See URL</p>
<p><a href="https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide-50-percent-of-future-new-england">https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide-50-percent-of-future-new-england</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>“Added to rate base” is for recent 20-y electricity supply contracts awarded by competitive bidding in NE.</p>
<p>“Added to rate base” would be much higher without subsidies and cost shifting.</p>
<p>Areas with better wind and solar conditions, and lower construction costs/MW have lower c/MWh, than NE</p>
<p> </p> The Trustees thought about al…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2021-12-04:4401701:Comment:2310042021-12-04T01:45:25.256ZArt Brigadeshttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/ArtBrigades
<p>The Trustees thought about all that. But Dr. Zillman was in the room to remind the that reason, math and science have no place in academia.</p>
<p>The Trustees thought about all that. But Dr. Zillman was in the room to remind the that reason, math and science have no place in academia.</p> The wind turbine cost $2 mill…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2021-12-04:4401701:Comment:2310022021-12-04T01:31:09.582ZThinklike A. Mountainhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/ThinklikeAMountain
<p>The wind turbine cost $2 million I think. And then there may have been additional big expenses. So why is the insurance funding something that costs "only" $1.2 million?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Also, the expected $42,000/year savings would seemingly represent an annual return on investment of 3.5%. The stock market over long periods of time historically would beat that return by double or triple. Am I missing something? If you figured a conservative annual return of 7%, the stock market would grow…</p>
<p>The wind turbine cost $2 million I think. And then there may have been additional big expenses. So why is the insurance funding something that costs "only" $1.2 million?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Also, the expected $42,000/year savings would seemingly represent an annual return on investment of 3.5%. The stock market over long periods of time historically would beat that return by double or triple. Am I missing something? If you figured a conservative annual return of 7%, the stock market would grow the $1.2 million into $8.5 million by the 30-year mark. Anyone want to guess how well this solar installation would be working in year 30? Did I hear someone say "decommissioning costs"?</p> Those Aroostook kids who used…tag:www.windtaskforce.org,2021-12-04:4401701:Comment:2307452021-12-04T00:42:31.584ZArt Brigadeshttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profile/ArtBrigades
<p>Those Aroostook kids who used to pay for college picking potatoes...</p>
<p>Now they can shovel off the panels.</p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/9877449099?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Presque%20Isle%20Weather.pdf</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>Those Aroostook kids who used to pay for college picking potatoes...</p>
<p>Now they can shovel off the panels.</p>
<p><a href="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/9877449099?profile=original" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Presque%20Isle%20Weather.pdf</a></p>
<p></p>