Censorship on Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine (Thank you John Droz, Jr.)

Politicians and politics have brought us the monstrous wind turbines and transmission that are proliferating in Maine at the expense of taxpayers, ratepayers and the state's natural beauty. It is not only the wind developers who have lied to us about the efficacy of wind turbines, but also politicians, regulators, environmental groups, academia and the media. Frankly, wind and the current Twilight Zone state of affairs in America today have much in common, starting with lying, propaganda, controlled media that spew narrative rather than report news, classification of opposing viewpoints as politically incorrect, corruption, legislators that do not represent the people, widespread fraud, etc. 

Coming to mind is the old typing class drill, "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country". I find self-censorship a step in the direction of national suicide. If someone as accomplished and committed to fighting wind as John Droz, Jr. can risk his hard fought reputation as a preeminent science-based wind opponent by straying beyond the wind topic in his revamped newsletter, I think it's fine for CTFWP to reject the idea of self censorship simply because something is not specifically about wind.

Speak up. Loudly.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

________________________________________________________________________________

Media Balance Newsletter - August 9, 2021 (John Droz, Jr.)

Welcome! We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections.


Note 1: Each issue now has a link, so it’s simple to share on social media.
We’re also hoping that the new Newsletter format makes it easier to read.


Note 2: Our ten election integrity reports are at: Election-Integrity.info.
Please pass Election-Integrity.info onto your social media contacts...


Note 3: For multiple reasons, we STRONGLY recommend
that you read this Newsletter on your computer, not your phone!

Wind Energy:
Bradford (PA) says no to wind turbines


The Big Battery Myth: Why Battery Storage Can’t Save Intermittent Wind & Solar


‘I can see our industry disappearing’: US fishermen sound alarm at offshore wind


Offshore Wind Fight Shifts to NY Bight as Scallop Industry Calls for Changes


Sorry, But Those Wind and Solar Numbers Just Don’t Add Up


The Block Island wind project has largely shut down


North Dakota regulators order removal of wind turbine too close to residence

https://election-integrity.info/Newsletter/2021/Media_Balance_Newsl...

Views: 189

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Robert Feller on August 21, 2021 at 9:24am

Danes Dissemble: Offshore Wind Farm Operator Covers Up Cause of Long-Term Shut Down

The wind industry was built on lies and myth and runs on subsidies.  So, if you’re looking for a straight answer, don’t bother quizzing a wind farm operator.

Sure, the usual corporate PR spin can be expected from any commercial outfit.  But, as David Collins is quickly learning, if you’re trying to elicit information from a wind farm operator, the level of dissembling and obfuscation is quite something else.

The Block Island wind farm has largely shut down
The Day
David Collins
7 August 2021

Folks on Block Island have become accustomed to seeing their five-turbine wind farm, which is visible from much of the small island, the giant blades usually tumbling around on the horizon.

And Ørsted, the Danish multinational utility that bought the farm from the wind company established by Rhode Island political insiders, likes to use it as a showpiece, one of America’s first functioning offshore wind farms.

And so I can understand why no one wants to talk about how four of the farm’s five turbines have, without any public notice, stopped running this summer. Islanders say the turbine blades stopped turning several weeks ago, even on windy days.

I spent the better part of a week trying to learn why and, after many not-returned phone calls and emails, I finally got a statement from a Rhode Island public relations firm that called the shutdown “ongoing routine summer maintenance” that is expected to continue for “the next few weeks.”

It was an unsatisfying explanation.

Any potential problems with the turbines could be a black eye for the model wind farm, which is already going to cost electric customers more money than originally estimated because the underground cable to the mainland wasn’t properly installed and has to be reburied.

For a while, warning flags were placed on the main swimming beaches on Block Island, where the cable was becoming exposed. Yikes.

More troubling, the reburying of the cable, which was supposed to happen in the spring, has been postponed because of engineering problems, and who knows what the final cost and solution might be.

The last estimate to rebury the cable was $30 million, to be passed on to electric customers, but that was released before the new problems were disclosed in the spring.

I can understand why Ørsted and the other wind company contenders jockeying for new development up and down the Eastern Seaboard might be worried about bad press for the Block Island system, given the growing opposition to wind farms from the fishing industry, consumer activists and coastal communities where cables are proposed to come ashore.

And that makes me surprised at the poor response I got from Ørsted when asking about Block Island.

No one wanted to talk about it, although everyone involved agreed it was Ørsted’s responsibility to explain what’s going on.

A spokesman for National Grid, which owns the cable from the island to the mainland, said the wind turbine shutdown isn’t impacting the power supply and referred all questions to Ørsted.

I couldn’t get anyone from the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources, despite days of messages left for the communications manager and others, to respond.

I had a nice chat with the president of the Block Island Power Company, who said he doesn’t know why the turbines are out of service and suggested Ørsted may not say because it considers the information proprietary.

The power supply on the island is not impacted, he said, because electricity now comes from the cable from the mainland.

Getting Ørsted to answer media questions is a real challenge. All the phone numbers on its page for media calls are European, in Denmark.

I thought Ørsted had promised to open an office in New London. It hasn’t. You would think the company could at least have easily available U.S. telephone numbers for its media staff.

I did finally get an email from Meaghan Wims of the public relations firm Duffy & Shanley of Providence, who identified herself as an Ørsted spokesperson.

Part of the work of the “routine” summer maintenance, she said in the email, is the repair of “stress lines” identified by GE. She said a risk assessment showed the turbines are structurally sound and the repairs should be finished in coming weeks.

That doesn’t sound routine.

I didn’t get any definitive answers when I wrote back to ask more about the shutdown and why more than a month of maintenance and repairs could be considered normal. She also wouldn’t say how much the repairs are costing.

My sense is that there is more trouble with the turbines run from Denmark than anyone wants us to know. But we may learn more about how long the shutdown will really last as the summer rolls on.

After all, there’s no hiding the fact from Block Islanders that those blades aren’t turning, and everyone there will know whether or when they do start up again.

This is the opinion of David Collins.
The Day

Comment by Willem Post on August 13, 2021 at 10:08am

A river of money to achieve next to NOTHING regarding GLOBAL WARMING?

The only thing it will achieve is more feel-good ECO-egoism of Dem/Prog RE folks, yearning for lucrative RE careers, and more and more CENTRALIZED command/control of the Vermont economy.

They will want more and more money, because their goals are EPHEMERAL, ELUSIVE FATA MORGANAs, akin to tilting at windmills, while wishing water would flow uphill.

The turnkey capital cost to implement the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP, would be in excess of $1.0 billion/y for at least 33 years (2017 – 2050), according to a 2015 Energy Action Network, EAN, annual report. If updated to 2021, the numbers would be about $1.25 billion/y for 29 years (2021 – 2050). See URLs.

http://eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/EAN-2015-Annual-Report-...
https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservices/Shared%20Documents/2016...
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

Spending on government energy programs, including Efficiency Vermont, has averaged about $210 million/y from 2000 to 2015, a total of at least $2.5 billion, but Vermont CO2 emissions increased from 9.64 million metric ton in 2000, to 9.54 MMt in 2015, a decrease of 1.0%.
See page 36 of URL
https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/document...

EVs

EAN, with help of VT-DPS, claimed, without providing any calculations, a CO2 reduction more than two times as great, i.e., 4.5 versus 2.180 Mt/y per EV; the reduction would be even less, if the A-to-Z CO2 and lifetime conditions had not been ignored

This excessive 4.5 Mt/y claim was made to deceive people, including legislators, and to hype the adoption of overly expensive, not-very-useful EVs.
See table 1 and 2 in URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governme...

HEAT PUMPS

EAN, with help of VT-DPS, claimed, without providing any calculations, 90,000 HPs would reduce CO2 by 0.370 million Mt/y, or 4.111 Mt/y per HP
See page 4 of URL
https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi...

Heat pumps displaced only 35% of my space heating propane in my well-insulated/well-sealed house.
This is better than the AVERAGE displacement of 27.6% by HPs in AVERAGE Vermont houses, per VT-DPS study. See URL
https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2017%20...

The CO2 reduction of my displaced propane was 300 gal x 12.7 lb CO2/gal = 1.728 Mt/y, and the CO2 of the additional electricity was 2332 x 317 g/kWh = 0.739 Mt/y, for a reduction of 0.989 Mt/y, based on the ISO-NE value of 317 g/kWh, using fuel consumption of all power plants connected to the NE grid.

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

I installed three Mitsubishi, 24,000 Btu/h HPs, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms. The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation. The HPs last about 15 years. Turnkey capital cost was $24,000

I do not operate my HPs at 10F or below, because HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing temperatures.
The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of my highly efficient propane furnace. See URL
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

The cost of displaced propane was 300 x $2.399/gal = $720/y
The cost of additional electricity for HPs was 2332 x 0.20 = $466/y
My energy cost savings due to the HPs were $253/y, on an investment of $24,000!!
If all my investments had been this great, I would be in a poorhouse, and on welfare.

Cost of CO2 Reduction was (2,059, amortizing – 253, energy cost saving + 200, parts and maintenance)/0.998 Mt/y, CO2 reduction, table 6 = $2028/Mt, which is similar to money-losing, very expensive, electric transit and school buses. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-l...

Weatherizing Vermont’s energy-hog houses at $10,000 each would NOT render these house suitable for HPs, BY A LONG SHOT, as was proven in MY house and by the VT-DPS study

Only high-efficiency houses that are HIGHLY SEALED AND HIGHLY INSULATED are suitable for HPs to replace 100% of fossil fuels.

Only about 1.5% of Vermont houses are suitable for HPs

All of the above has been well known to VT-DPS and VT-EAN, because I have kept them, and thousands of others, informed over the years.

Comment by Willem Post on August 13, 2021 at 9:55am

With lots of variable, intermittent wind and solar, a lot of battery capacity would be required to mitigate midday solar output surges, in case of sunshine in Vermont, and wind/solar lulls of up to 5 to 7 days, which occur, AT RANDOM, in Vermont and NE, throughout the year.

The grid-scale battery systems, spread throughout the state, would be site-specific, custom-designed, utility-grade systems which are about 5 times more expensive per kWh, delivered as AC to the grid, than mass-produced battery packs for TESLA EVs.

At present, such systems are about 500/kWh, delivered as AC to the grid.
Vermont would need about 25 million kWh of storage at a cost of $12.5 billion

Remember, any electricity passing from a high voltage line, through the battery, to the high voltage line, has an A-to-Z loss of at least 20%

Remember, the battery must not be discharged below 20%, and not be charged above 80%, if a 15-y life is to be achieved.

Remember, batteries age at least 1 to 1.5%/y

That means 25 million kWh of storage likely would be too low
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

That means, you’ll need to spend 12.5 billion every 15 years

You can bet, once you’ve adopted such a stupid energy policy, your economy (GDP) will start shrinking as business and people flee to places where the power stays on and costs are a fraction of Vermont's.

You can bet the cost of such “batteries” will escalate over time as the “rare Earth metals” needed for their manufacture become increasingly scarce, if the world could even build enough of them, after also:

1) Banning internal combustion engines, and
2) Having heat pumps everywhere

Oh, and wait! There’s more.

Those wind mills and solar panels will also be up for replacement about every 20 years for wind, and every 25 years for solar.

A $billion here, a $billion there, a bankrupt state, with a wasteland of dead birds, bats and migrating insects, and no economically viable future.

How long will it take for government buildings to be surrounded by crowds with burning torches?

Comment by Kenneth Capron on August 10, 2021 at 2:32pm

Arthur - does that mean you have the money to pay a lawyer to fight for your basic rights. Believing is one thing. Enforcing is another. And frankly many people are backed into a financial corner when trying to defend those rights.

Even here, if the government chose to shut down this site, who could defend that? How? As I have told my kids all the time, its one thing to have rights, Its another thing to enforce them.

Comment by Willem Post on August 10, 2021 at 10:47am

Here are some numbers that detail the scam of electric transit and school buses

EXCERPT FROM:

ELECTRIC TRANSIT AND SCHOOL BUS SYSTEMS NOT COST-EFFECTIVE IN NEW ENGLAND AND CANADA

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

ELECTRIC TRANSIT BUSES

 

Two Proterra Electric Buses in Burlington, Vermont

 

The turnkey capital cost of 2 buses was over $2 million, including infrastructure.

They were put in service March, 2020.

The buses have been in operation on various routes for more than a year, but no electricity consumption data, and other maintenance and operating costs, have been made public. See URL

The buses are parked, charged, and maintained in a Town garage. See URL

 

Batteries should not be discharged to less than 10%, as that would damage, shorten life, etc., of the battery

Batteries should not be charged above 90%, as that would damage, shorten life, etc., of the battery

Batteries should have a 15% reserve for operating flexibility, such as roads, traffic, weather, route length, etc.

Frequent high-speed charging would damage, shorten life, etc., of the battery

Battery capacity should be adjusted for aging by at least a 7%, at the 7-y mid-life, and 14%, at the 14-y end-life

This means the working range would be 65% x 324 = 210.6 kWh DC, based on a new battery, less as the battery ages

 

Regeneration would be about 25% of what was drawn from the battery for moving the bus; there are other draws while driving, such as lighting, various on-board systems, battery heating and cooling, cabin cooling, etc., which are not recoverable.

Total energy from battery, including recovery, would be 261.9 kWh DC

Vehicle consumption would be about 2.1 kWh DC/mile, per Proterra; varies with roads, traffic, weather, route length, etc.

The range, on average, would be about 261.9/2.1 = 124.7 miles, based on a new battery.

The range would become about 115.7 miles at age 7, and about 107.4 miles at age 14. See table 1A

 

See page 14 of URL

https://www.mjbradley.com/sites/default/files/EVIElectricBus101FINA...

 

See page 24 of URL for battery degradation and reserves

https://www.mjbradley.com/sites/default/files/MTSElectricBusFinalRe...

 

See page 7, 8, 9, 10 of URL for battery available energy

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/76932.pdf

 

The electricity cost per mile depends on 1) electric rates, 2) demand charges, and 3) taxes, fees and surcharges.

The maintenance costs likely would be similar to King County buses, i.e., 26 c/mile. See below

 

Table 1A/Battery Aging

New

Mid-life

Near End-life

Age

0

7

14

Rated capacity, kWh DC

324

324

324

Capacity aging factor, 1.0%/y

1.000

0.9327

0.8700

Aged capacity, kWh DC

324

302

282

Fraction of rated %

100

0.93

0.87

Unavailable, low end, %

10

10

10

Reserve, %

15

15

15

Unavailable, high end, %

10

10

10

Available, %

65

65

65

Aged available capacity, kWh DC

210.6

196.4

183.2

Fraction of rated, %

65.0

60.6

56.5

Discharge loss factor

0.995

0.990

0.985

To wheels, etc., kWh DC

209.5

194.5

180.5

Regen to wheels, etc., %

25

25

25

Regen to wheels, etc., kWh DC

52.4

48.6

45.1

Total to wheels, etc., kWh DC

261.9

243.1

225.6

Maximum route range, miles

124.7

115.7

107.4

Route consumption, kWh DC/mile

2.10

2.10

2.10

 

Energy Cost Reduction

 

Diesel bus energy cost: 30,000 miles/4.25 mpg x $2.00/gal, bulk price = $14,118/y, or $0.471/mile

Electric bus energy cost: 30,000 miles x 2.1 kWh DC/mile x 1/0.84, charging factor x $0.15/kWh, com’l rate = $11,250/y

Energy cost reduction would be $2868/y, on a $2 million-plus investment that lasts about 10 - 15 years.

 

CO2 Reduction

 

Diesel bus CO2: (30,000 miles/4.25 mpg) x 22.163 lb CO2/gal x 1 Mt/2204.62 lb = 71 Mt/y

Electric bus CO2: 30,000 miles x 2.1 kWh/mile x 317 g/kWh, per ISO-NE x 1 Mt/1 million g = 20 Mt/y

 

Avoided CO2 for two buses is 2 x (71 - 20) = 102 Mt/y  

Amortizing cost of $2 million at 3.5%/y and 15 years is $171,571/y, or 171571/102 =$1,682/Mt

There are many other ways to reduce CO2 at much less cost per metric ton.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

https://vermontbiz.com/news/2020/january/28/green-mountain-transit-...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governme...

https://www.efficiencyvermont.com/Media/Default/docs/white-papers/e...

 

Three Proterra Electric Buses in King County, Seattle, Washington

 

February 2016, King County Metro transit agency in Seattle, Washington (mild climate), began operation of three, 42.5-foot, fast-charge, electric transit buses, built by Proterra. The 2017 NREL report is based on one year of data from April 2016 through March 2017.

 

Electric bus: Travel 27,709 miles/y; availability 80.6%; electricity cost 20.35 c/kWh (from utility bills; the high cost is due to demand charges during battery charging); electricity 2.36 kWh AC/mile. See table 3.5

Overall operating cost = Electricity, 57 c/mile + Maintenance, 26 c/mile = 82 c/mile. See Note and table 3.10

 

Diesel bus: Travel 23,110 miles/y; availability 86.4%; diesel cost $1.60/gal, bulk price; mileage 5.3 miles/gallon

Overall operating cost = Fuel, 30 c/mile + Maintenance, 46 c/mile = 77 c/mile. See table 3.10

 

NOTE: The electricity cost per mile, based on utility electric bills, represents the “wall-outlet” cost per mile. It includes battery charging losses. The electricity cost per mile depends on: 1) electric rates, 2) demand charges, and 3) taxes, fees and surcharges.

 

Regeneration: Some of the discharge energy required to accelerate the bus is returned to the battery through regenerative braking when the bus slows down. The regeneration efficiency is about 65%. The returned energy is about 25% of what was discharged from the battery for moving the bus. See page 21 of URL

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-i...

 

Some Tesla Model S drivers have reported recapturing as much as 32% of their total energy use while driving up a hill, and then downhill. That experiment would not be applicable to a city bus on a route. 

https://www.tesla.com/blog/magic-tesla-roadster-regenerative-braking

https://electrek.co/2018/04/24/regenerative-braking-how-it-works/

Comment by Willem Post on August 10, 2021 at 10:44am

Here are some numbers that detail the scam of wind, solar and batteries.

EXCERPT FROM:

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

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

Warren Buffett Riding the Subsidy Gravy Train

 

Quote: "I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate, for example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." 

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nancy-pfotenhauer/2014/05/12/e...

 

Green Mountain Power, GMP, Riding the Subsidy Gravy Train

 

Vermont utilities buy about 1.4 million MWh/y of hydro power, at 5.7 c/kWh, under a 20-y contract, from Hydro Quebec. The HQ electricity is not variable, not intermittent and does not cause midday solar bulges

 

GMP, a Canadian company, refuses to buy more hydro electricity from HQ, because that electricity would just be a “pass-through”, on which GMP would make minimal profit. HQ has plenty of electricity and is eager to sell it. This approach requires no subsidies!!

 

GMP rakes in millions of our hard-earned money, by investing in: 1) utility-scale solar/battery combos, 2) leasing heat pumps and 3) wall-hung Tesla batteries for playing “catch the peak games”.

 

GMP rides the subsidy gravy train, a la Warren Buffett, and plays the “green, forward-looking utility” role.

 

Per standard Wall Street practice for tax-shelters, the cash value of the subsidies is about 45% of the project turnkey cost, which includes the costs of: 1) financing, 2) subsidies, 3) owner’s return on investment.

 

The subsidies are “front-loaded”, i.e., about 40% is recovered by GMP in the first 5 years, the other 5% in the remaining years, i.e., skimming the fat off the milk for GMP in the early years, and long-term increased costs for ratepayers and taxpayers.

 

https://solarplusllc.com/macrs-and-bonus-depreciation/

https://norwichsolar.com/vermont-commercial-and-industrial-solar-in...

https://vermontbiz.com/news/2019/october/22/owner-gmp-and-vermont-g...

 

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

Comment by arthur qwenk on August 9, 2021 at 3:27pm

How wise it was that The Founders of this great experiment called The United States of America formulated the Bill of Rights, without which the experiment would never have commenced. How straight forward it is that the First Amendment is supported by the Second, and the other basic rights of natural law.

There will be no censorship on this website, ever.

The wind scam is and always was a basic infringement  on basic rights of the citizenry.

It is therefore incongruous  to think that Wind Fascism can be disconnected  from its basis , which is the Marxist and Fascist movement well under way in this republic.

It has and never has been a single disconnected issue, and never will be. 

Wind is the  poster child for  the left wing  progressive movement in this republic and intrinsically connected to it.

It must be opposed on  a scientific basis ,a free market basis  and   with our basic  rights under our  Bill of Rights.

Comment by Kenneth Capron on August 9, 2021 at 2:16pm

The only problem with the 1st amendment is that it didn't include a method of enforcement. The average citizen has little or no voice - certainly without funding we have no way to enforce any of our rights. The courts are backed up. Lawyers run $500+ per hour just to grunt while they hear your concerns and then there's the legal maneuvering by all parties that does little more than provide billable hours.

Our Attorney Generals mostly protect the State's interests. Same for the DOJ. To whom does one turn to proclaim "I have these rights but no way to enforce them."

On this side of the ocean, John Droz fights the good fight. Across the pond, Benny Peiser and the GWPF fight that battle. All are starving for funding. 

Keep up the fight good sirs. 

 

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 on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service