Comment

Comment by Willem Post on July 18, 2021 at 6:24am

Sanders is looking to make his socialistic mark on the US to cap his lifetime ambitions

He wants $3.5 TRILLION of ADDITIONAL federal government spending, mostly to implement social programs, while:

1) About 1.5 million, illiterate, unskilled, low-life illegals PER YEAR enter the US just by walking across an unguarded border, and are immediately added to various government programs “to help them get settled”. This idiocy will further harm US competitiveness in the world.
2) Inflation is at about 6%/y; gasoline is up 50%, housing and food prices are soaring
3) GWSA folks want to put a carbon tax on top of those increasing prices to finance new centralized-government “INITIATIVES”.
4) The federal government deficit is about $3 TRILLION in fiscal 2021
5) The US trade deficit is about $1 TRILLION per year.
6) The US is being divided, on purpose and with help of the Media, by BLM, and CRT, and Sex classification issues.
7) The US national debt will reach 30 TRILLION at end 2021, much larger than US GDP, and similar to Greece and Italy, two of the most dysfunctional/destitute countries in the EU
8) A united China is exerting increasing pressures on a divided US

Comment by Willem Post on July 6, 2021 at 8:38am

“Sen. Chris Bray, D-Addison, who chairs the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, said he wants to make sure homeowners have access to weatherization efforts, modifying buildings to reduce energy consumption and optimize energy efficiency. See VTDigger article.

https://vtdigger.org/2021/07/04/climate-council-has-until-december-...

Chris,

BUILDINGS

The standard “weatherizing”, at about $10,000 each, as practiced by Vermont, is totally inadequate for Vermont’s energy hog houses.
It is next to useless to make those houses suitable for heat pumps.

The only way to come anywhere near any CO2 goals, is to build EACH YEAR several thousand net-zero-energy houses and apartments, and energy-surplus houses and apartments.

All of them would need solar panels, batteries, and heat pumps, and large hot water storage tanks.

The energy surplus houses/apartments would have extra solar panels and extra batteries to power EVs.

GAS GUZZLER TAX

As you know, EAN has grossly overestimated the CO2 reduction of an EV, (about 4.5 metric ton/y/EV), because of incorrect assumptions.
The actual reduction is much less.

Vermont needs a gas-guzzler code to impose a fee on low-mileage vehicles.
The more below 40-mpg, the greater would be the fee.
Vehicles with greater than 40-mpg, such as the 54-mpg Toyota Prius, would be exempt.

EVs

RE folks would have everyone drive unaffordable EVs, that would not reduce much CO2 compared with EFFICIENT gasoline vehicles.

On a lifetime, A-to-Z basis, with travel at 105,600 miles over 10 years, the CO2 emissions, based on the present New England grid CO2/kWh, would be:

NISSAN Leaf S Plus, EV, compact SUV, no AWD, would emit 25.967 Mt, 246 g/mile; about a FIFTY PERCENT REDUCTION compared to the present VT LDV mix, which includes larger vehicles than the Nissan Leaf.

TOYOTA Prius L Eco, 62 mpg, compact car, no AWD, would emit 26.490 Mt, 251 g/mile
SUBARU Outback, 30 mpg, medium SUV, with AWD, would emit 43.015 Mt, 407 g/mile
VT LDV mix, 22.7 mpg, many with AWD or 4WD, would emit 56.315 Mt, 533 g/mile

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-l...

HEAT PUMPS

Heat Pumps are Money Losers in my Vermont House (as they are in almost all Vermont houses)

My annual electricity consumption increased about 50% (the various taxes, fees, and surcharges also increased), after I installed three Mitsubishi, 24,000 Btu/h heat pumps, each with 2 heads; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.
The heat pumps last about 15 years.

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

They are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, well-sealed/well-insulated house. It has 2” of blueboard (R-10 vs R-0.67 for 8” concrete) on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab which has saved me many thousands of heating dollars over the 35 years.

Before heat pumps, my space-heating propane was 1000 gal/y, after heat pumps, it was 830 gal/y, a reduction of 170 gal/y, or $310/y, at $2.399/gal. Additional electricity costs were $609/y. I am losing money
Domestic hot water, DHW, heating, requires about 200 gallon/y

My existing Viessmann propane system, 95%-efficient in condensing mode, is used on cold days, 15F or less, because heat pumps have low efficiencies, i.e., low Btu/kWh, at exactly the same time my house would need the most heat; a perverse situation, due to the laws of Physics 101!!

The heat pumps would be slightly more efficient than electric resistance heaters at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature. It would be extremely irrational to operate air source heat pumps, at such temperatures.

I have had no energy cost savings, because of high household electric rates, augmented with taxes, fees and surcharges. Vermont forcing, with subsidies, the addition of expensive RE electricity to the mix, would make matters worse!!

Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y; I am losing money.

There likely will be service calls and parts for the heat pumps, as the years go by, in addition to annual service calls and parts for the existing propane system; I am losing more money.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

NOTE:
If I had a highly sealed, highly insulated house, with the same efficient propane heating system, my house would use very little energy for heating.
If I would install heat pumps* and would operate the propane system on only the coldest days, I likely would have energy cost savings.
However, those annual energy cost savings would be overwhelmed by the annual amortizing cost, i.e., I would still be losing money, if amortizing were considered.

* I likely would need 3 units at 18,000 Btu/h, at a lesser turnkey capital cost. Their output, very-inefficiently produced, would be about 27,000 Btu/h at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature.

NOTE: VT-Department of Public Service found, after a survey of 77 heat pumps installed in Vermont houses (turnkey cost for a one-head HP system is about $4,500), the annual energy cost savings were, on average, $200, but the annual amortizing costs turned that gain into a loss of $200, i.e., on average, these houses were unsuitable for heat pumps, and the owners were losing money.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-savings-of-air-sou...

Comment by Willem Post on July 5, 2021 at 11:51am

Future Build-outs of Offshore Wind Turbine Systems

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

 

- MA, RI, and CT are planning to have 8460, 880, and 4160 MW, respectively, a total of 13,500 MW of offshore wind by 2035, much greater than the above 1600 MW.

- If the same simulation were made for 13,500 MW of wind turbines, the up/down spikes would be about 10,000 MW

- The existing CCGT plants would be inadequate to counteract them, i.e., output curtailments would be required.

- The 2035 date has a ring of urgency to it, but likely would be unattainable in the real world. See page 13 of NE-pool URL

 

It would take at least 20 years to build out 13,500 MW wind turbines off the coast of New England, plus large-scale solar systems to reduce the NE grid CO2/kWh by about 30%

 

With that much wind and solar, the NE grid would become very unstable. The NE grid would need:

 

1) Curtailments of wind output, kWh, on windy days

2) Curtailments of solar output bulges on sunny days

2) Major connections to the Canadian grid

3) Grid-scale batteries, with a capacity of 3 to 4 TWh; turnkey capital cost about $1.5 to $2 TRILLION, at $500/kWh, delivered as AC

 

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/02/2020_reo.pdf

https://nepool.com/uploads/NPC_20200305_Composite4.pdf

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/reality-check-regardin...

 

NOTE: Nearby countries import German overflow electricity, when it is windy and sunny, at low grid prices (because of a German surplus), and export to Germany, when it is not windy and not sunny, at high grid prices (because of a German shortage). 

The Netherlands is one of the major beneficiaries.

German households get to “enjoy” the highest electric rates in Europe, about 2.5 times as high as the US

Denmark, another wind country, is second!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/08/germanys-windexitold-wind-tu...

 

Maine Offshore Wind Turbine Systems are Dead

 

The ocean waters near Maine are deep. Almost all offshore wind turbines would need to be floating units, anchored at the seafloor with at least 3 long cables.

The 700-ft tall wind turbines would need to be located at least 25 miles from any inhabited islands, to reduce the visuals, especially with strobe lights, 24/7/365

The wind turbines would be far from major electricity demand centers, such as Montreal and Boston.

Transmission systems would be required to connect the wind turbines to demand centers

All that would make the cost of electricity produced by these wind turbines more expensive than those south of MVI.

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

 

Maine is Desperate to Stay in the Wind Turbine Business

 

Maine wind/solar bureaucrats likely are in active discussions with stakeholders to add 751 MW of onshore wind turbines.

Maine wind/solar bureaucrats are not in active discussions with stakeholders to add offshore wind turbines, as shown by the interconnection proposals on page 13 of URL

https://nepool.com/uploads/NPC_20200305_Composite4.pdf

Comment by Willem Post on July 5, 2021 at 9:29am

HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND

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

GREEN-NEW-DEAL folks have an irrational plant to build 30,000 of MW of wind turbines, off the US East Coast, at a cost of at least $150  BILLION, for wind turbines and grid extension/augmentation.

The wind turbines would produce 30,000 MW x 8,766 h/y x 0.45 = 118,341,000 MWh/y, or 118.3 billion kWh, about 118.3/4000 x 100 = 2.95% of annual US electricity production, a much greater percentage of annual US northeast production.

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

The output of these wind turbines would be VARIABLE AND INTERMITTENT.

It would be NEAR-ZERO during a major wind lull.

The electricity shortfall would need to be filled-in by dispatchable, reliable generators.

This would be a dream come true for FOREIGN, i.e., European and Chinese wind turbine companies.

1) Foreign companies would be supplying services and spare parts forever.

2) The US, with a 2021 budget deficit of about $3 TRILLION, and annual trade deficits of about $1 TRILLION,  and a huge, growing national debt of almost $30 TRILLION (way more than our Gross Domestic Product, GDP), would be saddled with much higher energy costs forever, making the US even less competitive in world trade.

Counteracting Wind and Solar Output Spikes

 

1) CCGT Plants

 

The stable operating range of CCGT plants is from about 50% to 100% of rated output. As counteracting plants, they typically would operate at 75% to be able to ramp up and down about 25%

 

CCGT plants, with a capacity of 6,400 MW, would be required to ramp down from 75% to 50%, to counteract a 1,600 MW up-spike, and then ramp up from 50% to 75%, to counteract a 1,600 MW down-spike. See table 2

 

Existing CCGT plants could perform the counteracting tasks 24/7/365, for 35 to 40 years. All they need is natural gas or fuel oil.

 

2) Canadian Hydro

 

Existing Canadian hydro plants could also perform that service, but that would require greatly enhanced grid extensions in Canada and NE, similar to the inter-connections of the grids of Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and Norway.

 

That approach would be the least costly, plus large quantities of hydro could be purchased at about 6 c/kWh, far less costly than from capricious onshore/offshore wind. See table 2

 

Scotland Experience: Scotland’s east and west coastal areas often have high wind speeds. Owners are required to curtail their outputs to a capacity factor of, say 60%, even if wind speeds were high enough to have a CF of 100%, i.e., maxed-out production, to reduce the range of up/down spikes.

 

The purpose of curtailments is to ease the counteracting burden on the CCGT plants. 
A lesser capacity, MW, of CCGT plants would be required.

The owners of the wind systems get paid for not producing what they could have produced.

In Scotland, such offset payments are several hundred million dollars per year; they are much greater in the UK

 

3) Battery Systems 

 

If 1600 MW down-spike over a 3-h period

Battery systems, capacity of about 2500 MW/7500 MWh DC, if 50% charged, i.e., in battery 3750 MWh DC

Down-spike energy =1600/2 MW x 3 h = 2400 MWh AC

Discharged from battery = 2400/0.9, charge loss = 2667 MWh DC, based on a 10% discharge loss

Remaining charge in battery = 3750 - 2667 = 1083 MWh, DC, or 14.4% charged.

 

If 1600 MW up-spike over a 3-h period

Up-spike energy =1600/2 MW x 3 h/ = 2400 MWh AC

Charged into battery = 1600/2 MW x 3 h x 0.9, charge loss = 2160 MWh DC, based on a 10% charge loss

Charge in battery = 1083, initial + 2160, added = 3243 MWh DC, or 43.2% charged. 

The battery would need about 563 MWh AC from the grid to add 507 MWh DC, to restore the battery charge to 3750 MWh DC. 

See table 2 and Note

See Appendix for battery system losses.

 

NOTE: If another 1600 MW up/down spike would occur shortly thereafter, the batteries would be unable to entirely counteract them, etc. Recharging the batteries immediately after each up/down spike is very important, to ensure full counteracting capability.

 

NOTE: ISO-NE, likely would implement wind output curtailments, during high wind speed periods, to minimize stress on the CCGT plants. Curtailments would be more frequent, and of longer duration, if additional wind systems would be implemented near the MVI area. 

 

Battery Turnkey Capital Cost: The battery would be operated from 20% charge to 80% charge, to achieve a 15-y life.

The battery power capacity would need to be 1600 MW/0.6 = 2667 MW.

The battery energy delivery capacity would need to be 6750 MWh to counteract one 1600 MW downward spike over 3 hours. See table 2.

 

The turnkey capital cost would be 6750 MWh x 1000 kWh/MWh x $600/kWh = $4.05 billion. They would last about 15 years, which is much shorter than the 35 to 40 years of CCGT plants. See Appendix

 

Transmission Systems

 

Major high voltage transmission system upgrades in southeastern New England would be needed to distribute the output of the MVI and other offshore wind turbines systems.

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2020/07/a2_b_brattle... 

 

Table 2/Counteracting spikes
CCGT capacity, MW	6400	6400	6400
Operating fraction	1.0	0.75	0.5
CCGT average output, MW	6400	4800	3200
Up/down range, MW		1600
Down-spike			Up-spike
Battery capacity, MWh, AC	6750		Remaining charge, MWh, DC	1083	14.0
Efficiency	0.9		Up-spike, MW	1600
Battery capacity, MWh, DC	7500	100.0	Duration, h	3
Charge fraction	0.5		Surplus, MWh, AC	2400
Available charge, MWh, DC	3750	50.0	Efficiency	0.9
Down-spike, MW	1600		Added charge, MWh, DC	2160	28.8
Duration, h	3		Total charge, MWh, DC	3243	43.2
Shortage, MWh, AC	2400		From grid, MWh, AC	563
Efficiency	0.9		Efficiency	0.9
From battery, MWh, DC	2667	35.6	Added charge, MWh, DC	507	6.8
Remaining charge, MWh, DC	1083	14.4	Total charge, MWh, DC	3750	50.0

 

Offshore Wind Turbine Systems

 

The below image shows an output simulation, MW vs calendar time, based on actual, high-wind-speed, weather data, if 1,600 MW of offshore wind turbines would be located south of Martha’s Vineyard Island, MVI.

 

The almost 1,600 MW downward spikes of output, in a few hours, are far from trivial. They would create major havoc, if fed into the existing Cape Cod grid. ISO-NE has made studies of the impacts on existing grids, and costs of grid upgrades/extensions.

The wind turbines would be about 850 ft tall, with highly visible flashing strobe lights, even at 25 miles south of MVI.

 

The flat lines at the top of the image are due to the automatic limiting of the wind turbine output by feathering the rotor blades, to avoid high-speed winds destroying the wind turbines.

 

As shown, all of a sudden, the wind dies, and wind output spikes down from almost 1,600 MW to near zero, then, the wind suddenly reappears, and wind output spikes up from near zero to almost 1,600 MW.

 

During weather with high wind speeds, wind output is extremely variable, as proven by the image! 
ISO-NE has to make sure such extremes would be manageable under various scenarios, i.e., no surprises!

 

Existing CCGT plants, several thousand MW, would have to be in good operating condition, staffed and fueled, i.e., ready and able, to rapidly adjust outputs to counteract such extreme spikes.

 

 

European Companies Building Offshore Wind Systems

 

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

 

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

 

The EU vs the US

 

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

 

Europe is interested to make sure the US has a high-cost electrical sector, with lots of high-priced wind and solar and batteries, to handicap the US, and to enhance its competitiveness vs the US. The UN is helping out by urging the US to expensively reduce its CO2 by 50% by 2030, which is not possible. See URL.

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

 

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

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