By John McClaughry
On Oct. 14 Gov. Phil Scott and four other New England governors — not including New Hampshire’s — announced their support for major changes in the governance of the New England electricity market, which is conducted by the independent system operator ISO-New England.
Will decarbonization” of the electric system make electricity more affordable for New England?
In his statement Scott said, “I’ve long said our work to address climate change can and must also work to make energy more affordable for Vermonters, so I’m pleased to be a part of this regional approach to achieving both of these priorities. With a strategic, multi-state approach we can have a greater impact on both climate change mitigation and energy affordability.”
Whoever authored this statement has clearly put one over on our governor. He is now on record believing that the “deep economy-wide decarbonization” of the electric system that this statement insists upon will make electricity more affordable.
How will that come about? By replacing natural gas with “more clean, dynamic and distributed resources.” Will these resources cost less than what we’re paying now for fuel for the grid? Absolutely not!
The mission of ISO New England, the statement alleges, is “not responsive to States’ legal mandates and policy priorities.” Which is to say, ISO is leery of trying to keep the grid up and running if the politicians insist on powering it with wind and solar. That won’t work, and the signers need to be told hands off by electricity users and their representatives.
John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute. Reprinted with permission from the Ethan Allen Institute Blog.
WORLD AND US TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-consumption
Renewables Growth Rate for 1990 – 2018, and 2018 – 2050
There were 24.8 quads of RE in 1990, which became 62.4 quads in 2018, due to growing at 3.35%/y, compounded.
Based on EIA projecting 736 quads of total world energy in 2040, we assume it would be 800 quads in 2050.
If renewables would become 400 quads in 2050, 50% of total world energy, the compounded growth would have to be 6%/y from 2018 to 2050, 32 years.
Most of the world population of the world has, and likely would continue, to contribute very little to that growth rate, i.e., most of the burden would be on a small part of the population.
The burden was minimal in 1990, but grew to about $300 billion in 2018.
The old burden required increasing RE from 24.8 quads in 1990 to 62.4 quads in 2018, an increase of 37.6 quads over 28 years, or 1.34 quads/y.
The new burden would require increasing RE from 62.4 quads in 2018 to 400 quads in 2050, an increase of 337.5 quads over 32 years, or 10.55 quads/y.
The ratio of old burden/new burden is 7.87, which would require a much greater level of annual capital cost
In addition, capital cost is required to replace short-life systems
Also, adding quads becomes more difficult, and expensive, as more and more quads are added to prior levels.
NOTE: Presently there exists no standard way to verify the CO2 emissions and RE build-out claims of various countries!
Renewables
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-consumption
World total renewable energy consumption in 1990 was: hydro; wind/solar, other renewables, biomass, mostly wood, a total of 24.8 quads.
World total renewable energy consumption in 2018 was: hydro; wind/solar, other renewables, biomass, mostly wood, a total of 62.4 quads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
Renewables Growth Rate
24.8 quad of RE in 1990 was growing at 3.35%/y, compounded, to become 62.4 quad in 2018
If renewables would become 400 quads in 2050, 50% of total world energy, the compounded growth would have to be 6%/y from 2018 to 2050, 32 years.
Most of the population of the world has not, and likely would continue, to contribute very little to that growth rate, i.e., most of the burden would be on a small part of the population.
The burden was minimal in 1990, but grew to about $300 billion in 2018.
RE increased from 24.8 quads in 1990 to 62.4 quads in 2018, an increase of 37.6 quads over 28 years, or 1.34 quads/y.
The new burden would be increasing RE from 62.4 quads in 2018 to 400 quads in 2050, an increase of 337.5 quads over 32 years, or 10.55 quads/y.
Also, adding quads becomes more difficult, and expensive, as more and more quads are added to prior levels.
Real Costs of Wind in Vermont
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-consumption
Wind produces expensive, weather-dependent, variable, grid disturbing electricity.
Ridgeline wind electricity is charged to the utility rate base at about 9.5 c/kWh, fixed price for 20 years.
Wind requires significant grid extension/augmentation. The costs, about 1.5 c/kWh, are charged to ratepayers
Wind requires the traditional generators to vary their outputs to counteract the variations of wind, 24/7/365. The costs, about 1.5 c/kWh, is charged to ratepayers.
Build-outs of wind turbines, onshore and offshore, benefit mostly European companies.
NOTE: New England should focus on: 1) energy efficiency, 2) net-zero energy buildings and energy-surplus buildings, and 3) high mileage vehicles. That would greatly decrease costs and CO2 of households and businesses, and make the New England economy much more competitive.
Real Costs of Solar in Vermont
Vermont has three major categories of solar
1) NET-METERED solar is charged to the utility rate base at about 21 c/kWh
2)
SPECIAL OFFER solar (new, large-scale, field-mounted systems) are charged to the utility rate base at about 11 c/kWh.
SPECIAL OFFER solar (legacy systems) are charged to the utility rate base at about 20 c/kWh
3)
UTILITY solar (new, large-scale, field-mounted systems) are charged to utility rate base at about 11 c/kWh
UTILITY solar (legacy systems) are charged to the utility rate base at 11 to 20 c/kWh; what ever price is negotiated
Those costs do not include grid augmentation/expansion to connect the solar systems and dealing with the output variations of solar systems, such as daily DUCK-curves. Here is an example.
EAN Solar Build-out to “Meet Paris”: The EAN solar build-out, to “meet Paris” would be from 438.84 MW dc, at end 2019 to at least 1000 MW dc, at end 2025
The increased solar would cause much larger, grid-disturbing, midday DUCK-curves. See VELCO graph in URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-in-new-england
Managing DUCK-curves costs money. The costs, about 2 c/kWh, are charged to ratepayers
The costs would be much higher, if battery systems were involved.
Solar requires significant grid extension/augmentation. The costs, about 1.5 c/kWh, are charged to ratepayers
Solar Requires Large Land Areas: A 2.2 MW system requires about 10 acres
It would have an output of about 2.2 x 8766 x 0.145 = 2,796 MWh of weather-dependent, season-dependent, variable electricity, with daily DUCK-curves
Solar is the most expensive electricity on the Vermont grid.
It would not be smart policy to have more of it.
NOTE: A 500-MW, combined-cycle, 60%-efficient, gas plant would require on 10 acres
It would have an output of about 500 x 8766 x 0.80 = 3,506,400 MWh of steady electricity, 24/7/365, that is not weather-dependent, not season-dependent.
NOTE: NE grid wholesale prices have been about 5 c/kWh starting in 2009, courtesy of low-cost, clean-burning, low-CO2 gas, and near-CO2-free nuclear.
NOTE: GMP buys nuclear from Saybrook’s Nuclear plant to artificially/politically lower its CO2, on “paper”, without spending a dime to really reduce CO2.
The last time I checked with GMP, the cost of sustainable Hydro-Quebec power was 5.6 cents per KH.
Phil Scott is not an energy systems analyst.
He is getting some seriously uninformed/biased advice.
As a result, he parrots nonsense regarding renewable energy in New England.
Excerpt from my article (See other comment for URL):
NEW ENGLAND
Based on the above, it is beyond ludicrous for New England to have any carbon taxes, and wind turbines, and solar panels, because they produce expensive electricity, which would act as a brake on NE economic growth.
Wind and solar produce EXPENSIVE, GRID-DISTURBING electricity.
They benefit mostly CHINA (solar panels) and EUROPEAN COMPANIES (offshore and onshore wind turbines).
New England should focus on ENERGY EFFICIENCY, and NET ZERO ENERGY BUILDINGS, AND HIGH MILEAGE VEHICLES.
That would greatly decrease costs and CO2 of households and businesses, and make the NEW ENGLAND ECONOMY MUCH MORE COMPETITIVE.
WIND TURBINES DO NOT REDUCE SUFFICIENT CO2
Wind Energy in the Irish Power System
https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-energy-in-the-irish-power-system/
This article describes the influence of wind energy on the CO₂ output of the fossil-fired generation of electricity in Ireland. Where most available publications on this subject are based on models, the study makes use of real-time production data. It is shown that in absence of hydro energy, the CO₂ production of the conventional generators increases with wind energy penetration. The data show the reduction of CO₂ emissions is, at most, a few percent, if gas fired generation is used for balancing a 30% share of wind energy.
That study is quite revealing.
Regarding electricity, the wind proponents say, one kWh of wind displaces one kWh of traditional, which is true.
But regarding CO2, the story is quite different. In the Irish power system, the CO2 reduction due to wind, based on 15-minute, real-time grid operating data, showed:
12% wind decreased CO2/kWh by 4% for the ENTIRE IRISH SYSTEM
28% wind decreased CO2/kWh by 1%
30% wind decreased CO2/kWh by 3%
34% wind decreased CO2/kWh by 6%
The percentage depends on which gas plants are performing the filling-in, peaking and balancing; some are more efficient than others.
Since the date of the study, based on 2011 data, several similar studies, by prominent scientists in the Netherlands and Ireland, were presented to EirGrid and the EU in Brussels, Belgium.
Initially, the EirGrid and EU reactions (as part of a united front) was silence, then denial.
Eirgrid claimed the CO2 reduction was not that little.
Only after the Irish government gas import records showed gas consumption by the Irish power system had not sufficiently decreased with increased wind, and a government inquiry, did EirGrid finally admit the obvious.
As a “remedy”, Ireland has installed increased-capacity connections with the much larger UK grid and French grid, thanks to generous EU subsidies.
The wind disturbances would be buried in the noise of the three power systems.
That is similar to the mantra: Dilution is the solution for pollution.
NOTE: France, which has been providing the UK with electricity when winds in the UK are insufficient, just threatened the UK, no more electricity from France, unless the UK yields fishing rights. A French welcome to BREXIT.
More RE, such as wind and solar, in New England would INCREASE the cost of electricity.
NET-METERED solar is charged to the GMP rate base at 21 c/kWh
SPECIAL OFFER solar, NEW, large-scale, field mounted systems: Charged to the GMP rate base at 11 c/kWh.
SPECIAL OFFER solar, LEGACY SYSTEMS: Charged to the GMP rate base at about 20 c/kWh
UTILITY solar, NEW, large-scale, field mounted systems: Charged to GMP rate base at 11 c/kWh, or more
See URL for more details
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-consumption
The problem with the progressive/democrat perspective on renewable energy is its moronic simplicity. Windmills and terrestrial solar panels are, at best, limited ‘bridge technologies’ (i.e. temporary transitional power solutions). But even as a viable ‘bridge’ to the future of power production, wind and terrestrial solar panels are ill advised, even compared to our use of fossil fuels.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/74404-transitioning-away-from-prosperity-2020-10-26
Vermont should be using as much Hydro-Quebec power as possible as its ‘bridge’ to the future. It’s already available, it’s close-by, and inexpensive (1/3rd the cost of existing wind and solar), and we can use the savings to upgrade the grid over the short term. Even natural gas generation is more efficient than wind and solar.
Make no mistake: We will soon see amazing technology development and deployment, including universal wireless internet and communications systems (e.g. the orbiting Starlink system), to Compact Fusion, Hydrogen, and extra-terrestrial (i.e. orbiting) solar arrays using wireless electric transmission to the earth’s surface.
To continue listening to the so-called ‘green new deal’ folks is tantamount to going back to the horse and buggy. Let the markets and entrepreneurial innovation lead the way. Technology isn’t just advancing, it’s accelerating. Buckle your seat belts and make sure your seats and tray tables are in the upright position.
Scott must have attended The Al Gore School of Truth. Can we send Gore to Vermont? He would fit right in with the other looneys.
so we went to 99.99% renewable and now were just going to say screw it..
we went to plastic bags to save the trees.. then we went carry in bags and now they wont put groceries in the bags you bring in
how about we just stop changing stupid things on a whim
…greater impact on both climate change mitigation…” – If Scott thinks any “improvement” he proposes will affect the climate he belongs in a mental institution. His proposals will affect energy affordability, but not in the way energy users will appreciate. If a few states do eliminate the use of carbon based fuels it may lower their cost in states still depending on them. The U.S. achievement of energy independence has lowered global petroleum prices benefiting the people of energy importing countries, reduced the bargaining power (and profits) of exporting countries, e.g. Middle East and Russia. Our lowered energy costs attract industry, create employment, raise our standard of living and strengthen our global political standing. The Democrat issue about how favorably other countries view us is a lot of malarkey. That would mean we’re doing what benefits them, not us. Scott’s policies will hurt Vermont – and probably benefit a bunch of shysters like Solyndra. German researchers have arrived at the unpopular determination that, taking all production and battery manufacture, transition to electric cars will raise overall carbon emissions.
hey i invite you to look into the science of plasma cosmology and cosmic rays
its what the 99% of human cause was lumped in with and why they went really really quite about the stats the last few years
see suspicious Observer youtube
I can understand why he is so popular with democrats. I just don’t understand any true republican supporting him.
As a Vermonter who grew up In Lyndonville, VT but, has emigrated to Littleton, NH for the last 17 years, I applaud our Governor of NH for not allowing our state to be sucked into this deceptive alliance.