Tom Saviello, "How's This For Ruining Maine "

Comment

Comment by Dan McKay on June 28, 2021 at 8:34am

Emera's $2B Atlantic Link loses bid for Massachusetts clean energy ...

Comment by Penny Gray on June 28, 2021 at 8:01am

This is interesting.  I didn't know Tucker Carlson owned a home in Bryant Pond but if he'd oppose the Quebec hydro corridor, he might oppose all the wind projects as well.  They're far more destructive and far less useful.

https://bangordailynews.com/2021/04/29/politics/fox-news-tucker-car...

Comment by Dan McKay on June 28, 2021 at 7:55am

LD 1710  CANADIAN POWER TO MAINE, PAID BY MAINE RATEPAYERS

The plants below are approved for Maine Renewable Credits :

2017-00015 Approved 4/1/2017 St-Felicien Saint-Felicien Quebec H.Q. Energy Services (US) Inc. 21.4MW Biomass 

 2019-00140 Approved 1/1/2020 Kent Hills #3 Kents Hill New Brunswick New Brunswick Energy Marketing 17.25MW Wind 

2021-00083 Approved 4/27/2021 Caribou Wind Project Caribou New Brunswick New Brunswick Energy Marketing Corp 99MW Wind

Hoe many more will LD 1710 Add ?

Comment by Robert Feller on June 27, 2021 at 8:55pm

limate proponents cite solar power as the way forward to “save the climate”, but two reports released within weeks of each other document the unreliability problems the solar energy industry faces in 2021.

Released in late May, the 2021 Module Reliability Scorecard, an annual report from  PV Evolution Labs (PVEL), found 26 percent of eligible manufacturers participating in this year’s PV Module Product Qualification Program (PQP) had at least one failure with their bills of material (BOM). Failures were up from 20 percent in 2020.

“One in three manufacturers tested experienced junction box failures versus one in five last year,” the Scorecard states. “The majority of these failures occurred during initial characterizations….[These] high junction box failure rates in the PQP are particularly concerning because most failures occurred out-of-the-box before testing. This suggests junction box quality and construction are frequently overlooked during the manufacturing process.”

“For three successive Scorecards,” the report continues, “PVEL has highlighted junction box failures as an increasingly common, yet preventable issue.”

The second report, kWh Analytics’ third-annual Solar Risk Assessment, found that operational solar assets were degrading by roughly 1 percent annually, double the degradation the industry had assumed would take place based on data from a 2016 National Renewable Energy Laboratory study. Median annual degradation for residential solar systems was placed at 1.09 percent, while non-residential systems saw annual degradation at 0.8 percent.

“Project underperformance continues to worsen,” the report notes. “This year’s contributions identify multiple causes of underperformance, including higher-than-expected degradation, terrain mis-modeling, and bankrupt manufacturers.” Further, the report warns, “the combination of chronic project underperformance and increasing operating leverage is elevating default risk for newly issued loans….Allowing these risks to go unchecked harms investment returns and ultimately damages the industry’s collective credibility.”

These reports are bad news for the movement to turn the entire electricity grid over to “renewable” energy sources like solar and wind, the expense of doing so has been detailed in earlier studies.

For example, an October 2020 report from T² and Associates estimates the capital cost for delivering the current level of demand for electric power from an electric grid powered 100 percent from “renewable” sources like wind or solar power would be approximately $2.8 trillion.

A June 2019 analysis from Scottish consulting firm Wood Mackenzie estimates the cost of transitioning the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030 would cost at least $4.5 trillion over that time period. That means a $35,000 cost to each household, around $1,750 per year for 20 years. Meanwhile, the American Action Forum estimated the costs of moving the entire country to 100 percent renewable sources would be $5.7 trillion, or $42,000 per household.

We can already see the cost effects of turning more and more of the American electricity grid over to wind and solar in the form of renewable energy mandates (REMs), also known as renewable portfolio standards. These mandates force utility companies to produce a certain percentage of their electricity from “renewable” sources by a certain date.

A 2020 working paper from the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago showed REMs are dramatically increasing retail electricity prices. According to the study, seven years after REMs are enacted, renewables’ share of electricity generation increases by only 2.2 percent, and only 5 percent after 12 years, yet they raise retail electricity prices by 11 percent after seven years, producing roughly $30 billion annually in higher costs to consumers. After 12 years and a 5 percent increase in renewables’ share of generation, these prices rise by 17 percent.

Unsurprisingly, in states with REMs, energy rates are rising twice as fast as the national average and states with renewable mandates had electricity prices 29 percent higher than those without. The 30 states with renewable energy mandates (plus the District of Columbia) had average retail electricity prices of 12.31 cents per kilowatt hour (cents/kWh), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, nearly 17 percent higher than the U.S. average retail price of 10.54 cents/kWh. On the other hand, the 20 states without renewable mandates had average retail electricity prices of just 9.62 cents/kWh. Only one state without an REM, Alaska, had average retail electricity prices higher than the U.S. average.

Maybe it’s time legislators and energy commissioners rethink this unreliable and expensive technology.

Comment by Robert Powers on June 27, 2021 at 6:15pm

Major wind farms are actually planned from the St John Valley, just north of Fort Kent and then south AND across the border in Canada to partner with U.S.  There are major potato fields and adjoining ridges that have been evaluated to become part of a major wind power grid....all leading south.

Comment by Willem Post on June 27, 2021 at 5:54pm

Electric Grids

High voltage and distribution grids, in Vermont and elsewhere, have been, and still are, entirely adequate to provide Vermonters with electricity, 24/7/365. They are not grandpa grids, as some RE folks call them.

 

However, connecting wind and solar systems to the grids requires: 1) extensions to connect them to the grids and 2) upgrades to reinforce the grids, to deal with their weather/season-dependent variability and intermittency, 3) battery systems to deal with midday solar output bulges.

Wind and solar have a perverse tendency to produce when all of their outputs are not needed!!

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

 

Almost none of the extension/upgrade costs are charged to the owners of wind and solar systems, as otherwise NE wind and solar would become even more expensive to own and operate, which would “rain on the wind and solar parade”.

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

Three Ways of 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

Comment by Robert Feller on June 27, 2021 at 4:23pm

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on June 27, 2021 at 2:23pm

Save America, She's Worth It

STOP CHINA

House Intelligence Committee Republicans Find China’s Malign Influence in Corporate America

It has also found Chinese officials are giving guidance and direction to U.S. businesses to influence their business operations, investment strategy, and strategic directions to the benefit of China.

And it found China employs a wide range of initiatives to influence and shape events and public opinion to undermine U.S. national and economic security.

The GOP-led investigation found CCP members serving as board members and senior executives in U.S. firms are advancing China’s goals to acquire technology and penetrate U.S. markets, and are prompting U.S. business to alter initiatives and strategies due to concerns of Chinese opposition.

It found China is using investment in American financial services to achieve their goals as well, particularly using American investment managers and banks to gain opportunities for strategic investments in U.S. startups, innovative technologies, biosciences, and manufacturing.

China is also using their influence on U.S. businesses to shape perceptions of China and to influence U.S. government decisions at the local, state, and federal executive and legislative levels to benefit Beijing, the investigation found.

For example, China will threaten to cancel contracts with U.S. firms and block access to Chinese markets to suppress negative comments about China by employees or executives. China will similarly threaten media organizations and entertainment firms to shape portrayal of China, the investigation found.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/06/27/house-intelligence-co...

Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on June 27, 2021 at 2:09pm

LIAR, LIAR, the world's not on fire, but your pants are.

PANICKED Al Gore Attacks Arizona Audit as Officials Prepare to Release Preliminary Evaluation this Week (VIDEO)

Since when do innocent people put up such a fight to thwart an audit that “should” prove the election results in their favor?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/06/democrats-drag-clearly-pan...

Comment by Willem Post on June 27, 2021 at 11:44am

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

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

Cost Shifting from Owners to Ratepayers and Taxpayers

 

The owning and operating cost of wind, solar and battery systems, c/kWh, is reduced by about 45%, due to subsidies. However, because no cost ever disappears, per Economics 101, the subsidy costs are “socialized”, i.e., added, in one way or another, onto:

 

1) The rate bases of utilities, i.e., paid by ratepayers

2) Taxpayers, by means of extra taxes, fees and surcharges on electric bills and fuel bills

3) Government budgets

4) Government debt

5) Prices of goods and services other than electricity

 

If the subsidies had to be paid by owners of wind and solar systems, the contract prices paid to owners would need to be:

- At least 19.3 c/kWh, instead of 11 c/kWh, for large-scale solar

- At least 15.5 c/kWh, instead of 9 c/kWh, for ridge line wind. See table 1 and URL

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

 

Shifting Grid Costs

 

Many small-scale solar systems and/or a few large-scale solar systems on a distribution grid would excessively disturb the grid, especially at midday. Battery systems, with sufficient capacity could counteract the output variations of those solar systems.

 

Wind and solar systems could not be connected to the grid without the services of the CCGT plants, i.e., shutting down CCGT plants, and artificially diminishing/obstructing their domestically produced gas supply, advocated by pro RE folks, would not be an economic option for decades, if ever, because of the high costs of battery systems.

 

1) The cost of extension/augmentation of electric grids to connect widely distributed wind and solar systems (not paid by wind and solar system owners)

 

2) The cost of services rendered by other generators, mostly CCGT plants, which counteract the ups and downs of weather/season-dependent, variable, intermittent wind and solar outputs, 24/7/365 (not paid by wind and solar system owners).

 

3) The cost of battery systems to stabilize distribution grids, due to variations of the solar and wind system outputs (not paid by wind and solar system owners).

 

Shifting Owning and Operating Costs

 

The combined effect of cost shifting, determined behind closed doors, increases a project’s annual cash flow, i.e., “left-over-money”, to provide an ample profit for the RE system owner.

 

RE system owners are happy, having the “ears” of friendly politicians, saving the world from climate change, and claiming: “See, my project is profitable and competitive”, while everyone else gets hosed.

 

1) Grants from various sources, such as the VT Clean Energy Development Fund

2) 26% federal investment tax credits, plus state FITs. Tax credits reduce, dollar-for-dollar, the taxes GMP pays on profits

3) 100% depreciation over 5 years; the normal for utilities is 20 to 25 years. Write-offs reduce GMP taxable income

4) Deductions of interest on borrowed money. Interest deductions reduce GMP taxable income.

5) Various O&M payments are waved, such as sales tax, fees, property tax, school tax, municipal tax, etc.

6) RE system owners sell their output at two to four times NE wholesale market rates, which have averaged about 5 c/kWh starting in 2009, courtesy of:

 

- Low-cost, low-CO2, very-low-particulate, gas-fired CCGT plants

- Highly reliable, very-low-CO2, zero-particulate, nuclear plants

- Low-cost, very-low-CO2, zero-particulate, hydro plants Canada.

 

 All-in Cost of Wind and Solar

 

Pro RE folks always point to the “price paid to owner” as the cost of wind and solar, purposely ignoring the other cost categories. The all-in cost of wind and solar, c/kWh, includes:

 

1) Above-market-price paid to owners 

2) Subsidies paid to owners

3) Owner return on invested capital

4) Grid extension/augmentation (not paid by owners)

5) Grid support services (not paid by owners) 

6) Future battery systems (not paid by owners)

 

Comments on table 1

  

- The owners of legacy systems were paid much higher prices, than owners of newer systems.

 

- Vermont legacy “Standard Offer” solar systems had greater subsidies, up to 30 c/kWh paid to owner, than newer systems, about 11 c/kWh

 

- Wind prices paid to owner did not have such drastic reductions as solar prices.

 

- Vermont utilities are paid about 3.5 c/kWh for various costs they incur regarding net-metered solar systems

 

- "Added to the rate base" is the cost wind and solar are added to the utility rate base, which is used to set electric rates.

 

- “Traditional cost”, including subsidies to owner and grid support, is the cost at which traditional is added to the utility rate base

  

- “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.

 

NOTES:

1) The prices should be compared with the NE wholesale grid price, which has averaged about 4.2 c/kWh, starting in 2009, due to low-cost CCGT and nuclear plants, which provided at least 65% of all electricity loaded onto the NE grid in 2019.

 

- Wind, solar, landfill gas, and methane power plants provided about 4.8%, after 20 years of subsidies

- Pre-existing refuse and wood power plants provided about 4.6%

- Pre-existing hydro power plants provided about 7.4%

- The rest was mostly hydro imports from the very-low-CO2 Canada grid, and from the much-higher-CO2 New York State grid

 

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

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

2) There are O&M costs of the NE grid, in addition to wholesale prices.

ISO-NE pro-rates these costs to utilities, at about 1.6 c/kWh. Charges for: 

 
Regional network services, RNS, are based on the peak demand occurring during a month

Forward capacity market, FCM, are based on the peak demand occurring during a year.

 

3) Each local utility has its own O&M grid costs, in addition to item 2, some of which are detailed on electric bills.

 

4) Vermont utilities buy electricity from various sources; average cost about 6 c/kWh, plus ISO-NE charges of about 1.6 c/kWh, for a total of 7.6 c/kWh.

 

Table 1/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	6.74	2.1		11.0	19.84	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

 * Excludes future battery costs

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page