Roper: Climate council crack-up

By Rob Roper

In the spring of 2011, then Gov. Peter Shumlin signed into law a bill that was supposed to set Vermont off leading the nation to a single-payer health care system. The activists rejoiced, the politicians puffed their chests, the bean counters got to work. Then, in December 2014 the three-year adventure in denying reality came to an end. Shumlin was forced to admit the whole scheme was too expensive, too disruptive and simply wouldn’t work. So, never mind!

A similar scent of impending failure is beginning to seep out from the virtual chambers of the Vermont Climate Council.

Rob Roper is the president of the Ethan Allen Institute.

The Vermont Climate Council, created under the Global Warming Solutions Act, is charged with coming up with a plan by this December to lower Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions to 26% below 2005 levels by 2025, 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. In terms of costs and scope of impact, this task makes single-payer look minuscule by comparison. The climate plan will do nothing less than reshape our entire economy, radically alter the way we live and work, and micromanage our landscape. It will change how we travel, build and renovate our homes, and the list goes on. The taxes, fees, fines, and regulatory mandates necessary to make this happen will be staggering.

Speaking bluntly, council member June Tierney, commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service, said this about the proposals the council is preparing to unleash: “I don’t think Vermonters understand the Mack truck that’s coming at them when you start matching up resources to priorities this plan is going to embody. I just don’t think they understand how this is going to impact their lives and what it’s going to cost.”

When Vermonters find out they will not be pleased.

Ben Rose, a former two-term legislator from the late 1990s serving on the Rural Resilience and Adaptation subcommittee, also seems to understand the backlash sure to come. He said: “There are moments when there are things worth losing one’s seat over. … If what we come up with as our highest one or two priorities are things that legislators are told this is worth losing your seat over, that’s the most powerful work the Council can do.” Translation: this is a political suicide mission because this plan will not have popular support.

Kiah Morris, another former legislator no longer facing the voters, who is working for the council as an advisor, cheerily explained, “They [legislators] are going to get some nasty-grams from their constituency. And it will have much less to do with how many points did you bring down emissions, and a heck of a lot more with ‘what happened to these jobs?’”

“These jobs” indeed. The council admits that thousands of Vermonters directly employed by fossil fuel providers (gas stations, heating oil, propane and natural gas, suppliers, etc.), and indirectly employed in associated businesses such as mini-marts and automotive maintenance, will lose their jobs as a result of the GWSA. They do not account for job losses likely to occur due to the increased cost of doing business in Vermont compared to other states, causing businesses to close up shop or leave Vermont.

Some reality seemed to be settling in on Oct. 22 when representatives of the council presented their “Clean Heat Standard” portion of the plan to the House Energy & Technology Committee. Council member Richard Cowart described it as “one of the most important proposals” that will be offered by the council. Committee Chair Tim Briglin (D-Thetford) tepidly greeted the proposal with, “My first impression of this concept is that it’s a good one … [but] I’m looking around for a better one, frankly.” A better one is not likely to materialize in the mere weeks left before the plan is due.

Deliberations are further complicated by the fact that council efforts to reach out to the BIPOC community for buy-in through a “Just Transitions” subcommittee are falling flat. Subcommittee member Mona Tolba, who also sits on the Islamic Society of Vermont, was one of many who spoke out: “I have been attending six meetings now or more, and I did not see any outreach to our communities. I did not see one single translated document of any of your action plans. I don’t really know what your action plan is. … I’m trying to help my community understand, but I need to be able to understand myself first.”

What all Vermonters need to understand is that if we don’t slam the brakes on this “Mack truck” coming at us, we’re all going to end up as roadkill. So, as we did with single-payer, it’s time to say, that was an interesting exercise. Now, never mind!

Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute. He lives in Stowe.

Image courtesy of Public domain
Spread the love

21 thoughts on “Roper: Climate council crack-up

  1. HEAT PUMPS REDUCE VERY LITTLE CO2 IN MY VERMONT HOUSE, AS THEY DO IN ALMOST ALL NEW ENGLAND HOUSES
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/heat-pumps-are-money-losers-in-my-vermont-house-as-they-are-in

    I installed three heat pumps by Mitsubishi, rated 24,000 Btu/h at 47F, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads, each with remote control; 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
    http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-of-HPs-is-based-on-misrepresentations

    My Well-Sealed, Well-Insulated House

    The HPs are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, 3,600 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house, except the basement, which has a near-steady temperature throughout the year, because it has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab, which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over the 35 years.

    I do not operate my HPs at 15F or below, because HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing temperatures.
    The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of my efficient propane furnace. See table 3

    PART 2

    CO2 Reduction due to HPs is minimal

    Comparison of CO2 Reduction in my House versus EAN Estimate

    No HPs:
    CO2 of propane was 850 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, from combustion = 4.897 Mt/y

    With HPs:
    The CO2 reduction is calculated in two ways using the:

    1) EAN method, based on commercial contracts, aka power purchase agreements, PPAs (market based)
    2) ISO-NE method, based on fuels combusted by power plants connected to the NE grid (location based)
    See Appendix for details.

    Market Based: Per state mandates, utilities have PPAs with Owners of low-CO2 power sources, such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, biomass, in-state and out-of-state. Utilities crow about being “low-CO2” by signing papers, i.e., without spending a dime.

    CO2 of propane was 550 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, combustion only = 3.168 Mt/y
    CO2 of electricity was 2,489 kWh x 33.9 g/kWh = 0.084 Mt/y
    Total CO2 = 3.168 + 0.084 = 3.253 Mt/y
    CO2 reduction is 4.897 – 3.253 = 1.644 Mt/y, based on the 2018 VT-DPS “paper-based” value of 33.9 g CO2/kWh

    Location Based: CO2 of power sources connected to the NE grid

    CO2 of propane was 550 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, combustion only = 3.168 Mt/y
    CO2 of electricity was 2,489 kWh x 317 g/kWh = 0.789 Mt/y
    Total CO2 = 3.168 + 0.789 = 3.897 Mt/y
    CO2 reduction is 4.897 – 3.897 = 0.939 Mt/y, based on the 2018 realistic ISO-NE value of 317 g CO2/kWh

    Cost of CO2 Reduction is (2059/y, amortizing – 204/y, energy cost savings + 200/y, service, parts, labor)/0.939 Mt/y, CO2 reduction = $2,188/Mt, which is outrageously expensive.

    https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php
    https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

    EAN Excessive CO2 Reduction Claim

    EAN claims 90,000 HPs by 2025 would reduce 0.37 million Mt of CO2, in 2025, or 0.37 million/90,000 = 4.111 Mt/y, per HP.
    EAN claims 100% displacement of fuel, i.e., gas, propane, fuel oil.

    Those EAN claims are true, only for highly sealed and highly insulated houses, which represent about 1.5% of all Vermont houses.
    In addition, the average Vermont house would need 2 to 3 HPs to achieve 100% displacement.

    • HP Operating Cost Per Hour

      If HPs are operated at low temperatures, they have low COPs, which would result in a greater electricity cost per hour than using the displaced fuel.
      See table 3 and page 5 of URL
      https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-final.pdf

      At 27.6% Fuel Displacement: Vermont houses with HPs, operated down to about 28F, would require 2,085 kWh/y, to deliver 21,400,000 Btu, at an average COP of 3.34, to displace 27.6% of space heat, at an electricity cost of $417/y, per VT-DPS survey

      At 35% Fuel Displacement: My HPs, operated down to 15F, would require about 2,489 kWh/y, to deliver 20,220,000 Btu, at an average COP of 2.64, to displace 35% of my space heat, at an electricity cost of $498/y

      At 100% Fuel Displacement: My HPs, operated down to -10F, would require about 8,997 kWh/y, to deliver 57,290,000 Btu, at an average COP of 2.07, to displace 100% of my space heat, at an electricity cost of $1,799/y.

      This would displace 850 gal of propane, at a cost of 850 x $2.339/gal = $1,988/y.

      My energy cost savings would be 1,988 – 1,799 = $189/y, on an investment of $24,000!!!

      Comments on table 1

      – Vermont HP data was from VT-DPS survey. See Appendix and table 4
      – My HPs were operated down to 15F, which is less than the VT HPs, hence my average COP = 2.64
      – Most VT HPs are operated down to about 28F; the traditional space heating system is operated below 28F. See figure 14 of URL
      – I can operate down to 15F, because of better insulation and sealing than an average Vermont house.
      – If my HPs were operated down to -10F, i.e., 100% fuel displacement, my average COP would be 2.07
      https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2017%20Evaluation%20of%20Cold%20Climate%20Heat%20Pumps%20in%20Vermont.pdf

      BTW, all energy systems engineers, including at EAN, know this, because every engineering college teaches that subject to its students.

  2. The near absolute silence on the part of the Vermont media beyond TrueNorthReports regarding the practical and costly problems likely to come with the Climate Council plan is stunning…….Has anyone seen, heard or read anything about potential Climate Council problems? Given the magnitude of the task, one could reasonably expect plenty of media interest on what is to come……But only crickets from the news sources that have been the most vocal about the need for dramatic climate change mitigation.

    Last week I attempted to post a letter to the VTDigger editor on the likelihood that the Climate Council plan would produce no solutions……..Six days later that attempted letter remains unpublished……..Apparently no interest on the part of the VTD to publish the potential Climate Council plan debacle coming in only a matter of weeks.

    Here’s the letter to the VTD Editor I submitted:

    “The Climate Council will shortly present its global warming solutions plan…..The one thing the plan will absolutely not do is provide any global warming solutions. It will cost billions, ruin the state’s landscape by covering it with industrial wind and solar plus create costly hardships for Vermonters who will be forced to comply with a bunch of to be defined climate mitigation mandates.

    Why is this so?…………Its China and its overwhelming reliance on burning coal, which is now in the process of dramatically increasing.

    Read this to learn what’s happening in China at this time just as the Climate Council is about to release it plan to save the planet :

    https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2021/10/21/climate-change-china-launches-all-out-coal-production-campaign/

    The Vermont legislature with its Global Warming Solution Act has naively set up the citizens of this state for greatest economic and environmental boondoggle in its history and no global warming solutions will ever be achieved.

    The sad reality is that it has always been known that no effort by Vermont or the entire United States would be able to overcome China’s need to burn ever increasing amounts of coal……The Vermont legislature has regrettably ignored this fact.”

    • Let me add to my comment above:

      In a December 2020 exchange of e-mails, Rep. Scott Campbell (Member of Vermont legislative Committee dealing specifically with the GWSA) wrote to me stating :

      “Let me start by repeating that no one, least of all me, believes Vermont can stop climate change — or even affect climate change…….The degree to which Vermont’s emissions affect global levels is immaterial and truly beside the point”.

      Lets remember, Rep. Campbell was present for months on legislative testimony by all the experts and all the lobbyists pressing for climate action and he came away believing that nothing of consequence could be done.

      But Campbell is not alone in his thinking, President Biden’s Climate Czar John Kerry has stated that even if the United States were to reduce carbon emissions to zero, it would have no impact on climate. Think of it, John Kerry with all the resources of the federal government to support his thinking agrees with Rep. Campbell.

      The realization that nothing of real consequence can be done to mitigate climate change is closing in the Climate Council, the Vermont legislature, the renewable energy business interests and all the advocates……..So what’s next?

  3. The impracticality and inability to see the real world consequences for Vermont on this Climate Council legislative mandates provides a real opening to end the supermajority status currently enjoyed by the Democratic/Progressive majority in the legislature. All that is needed is to elect five more Republicans and then Governor Scott’s many vetoes could be sustained.
    The mere knowledge that they could not override his vetoes would change the whole dynamic of crafting legislation and lead to an end to such destructive to Vermont laws.

    Of course this would mean that people would have to be willing to put in the time and energy to get elected, something as seen by the defeat of former House Speaker Mitzi Johnson, is very doable.

    It would also mean that those who feel the Democrats and Progressives ideology too extreme might have to temper their own feelings and accept that candidates who are not totally in sinc with their individual beliefs. This include, for some Governor Scott, yet they are far better for our state than the alternatives. While each of us tends to feel we know what is best, the bottom line is that politics is about what is achievable. And, there looks like the opportunity to achieve, by turning just five seats in the House, a great deal.

    • Sound strategic thinking.

      It is based upon the thought that the two parties share different goals, to whic the majority in each party, the uniparty like thing just the way they are. They don’t want to change they only want to appear as if they want change.

      There is part of the problem.

      Down with the uniparty, kick out the NWO pimps.

  4. Meanwhile, Europe and China are running out of coal and rolling blackouts occuring as a result. I guess when these people can’t get the latest I-Phone or can’t get a battery for their EV or they are sitting in the dark with no heat – never mind, they are too ignorant to even fathom the Truth.

  5. EXCERPT from:

    ELECTRIC TRANSIT AND SCHOOL BUS SYSTEMS REDUCE LITTLE CO2, ARE NOT COST-EFFECTIVE
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-likely-not-cost-effective-in-vermont-at

    China has made electric buses and EVs a priority in urban areas to reduce excessive air pollution, due to: 1) coal-fired power plants, and 2) increased vehicle traffic.

    The US has much less of a pollution problem than China, except in its larger urban areas.
    The US uses much less coal, more domestic natural gas, and CO2-free nuclear is still around.

    New England has a pollution problem in its southern urban areas.
    Vermont has a minor pollution problem in Burlington and a few other urban areas.

    RE folks want to “Electrify Everything”; an easily uttered slogan

    It would require:

    – Additional power plants, such as nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, bio
    – Additional grid augmentation/expansion to connect wind and solar systems, and to carry the loads for EVs and heat pumps
    – Additional battery systems to store midday solar output surges for later use, i.e., DUCK-curve management.
    – Additional centralized, command/control/orchestrating (turning off/on appliances, heat pumps, EVs, etc.) by utilities to avoid overloading distribution and high voltage electric grids regarding:

    1) Charging times of EVs and operating times of heat pumps, and major appliances
    2) Demands of commercial/industrial businesses

    RE Folks Want More EVs and Buses Bought With “Free” Money

    RE folks drive the energy priorities of New England governments. RE folks want to use about $40 million of “free” federal COVID money and Volkswagen Settlement money to buy electric transit and school buses to deal with a minor pollution problem in a few urban areas in Vermont. RE folks urge Vermonters to buy:

    Mass Transit Buses
    Electric: $750,000 – $1,000,000 each, plus infrastructures, such as indoor parking, high-speed charging systems.
    Standard Diesel: $380,000 – $420,000; indoor parking and charging systems not required.

    School Buses
    Electric: $330,000 – $375,000, plus infrastructures
    Standard Diesel: about $100,000

    This article shows the 2 Proterra transit buses in Burlington, VT, would reduce CO2 at very high cost per metric ton, and the minor annual operating cost reduction would be overwhelmed by the cost of amortizing $million buses that last about 12 to 15 years.

    The $40 million of “free” money would be far better used to build zero-energy, and energy-surplus houses for suffering households; such housing would last at least 50 to 75 years.

    NOTE: Spending huge amounts of borrowed capital on various projects that 1) have very poor financials, and 2) yield minor reductions in CO2 at high cost, is a recipe for 1) low economic efficiency, and 2) low economic growth, on a state-wide and nation-wide scale, which would 1) adversely affect Vermont and US competitiveness in markets, and 2) adversely affect living standards and 3) inhibit unsubsidized/efficient/profitable job creation.

    Real Costs of Government RE Programs Likely Will Remain Hidden

    Vermont’s government engaging in electric bus demonstration programs, financed with “free” money, likely will prove to be expensive undertakings, requiring hidden subsidies, white-washing and obfuscation.

    Lifetime spreadsheets, with 1) turnkey capital costs, 2) annual cashflows, 3) annual energy cost savings, 4) annual CO2 reductions, and 5) cost of CO2 reduction/metric ton, with all assumptions clearly stated and explained, likely will never see the light of day.

    Including Amortizing Capital Cost for a Rational Approach to Projects

    RE folks do not want to include amortizing costs, because it makes the financial economics of their dubious RE projects appear dismal. This is certainly the case with expensive electric buses. If any private-enterprise business were to ignore amortizing costs, it would be out of business in a short time.

    Capital cost of electric school bus, plus charger, $327,500 + $25,000 = $352,500
    Battery system cost, $100,000, for a 100-mile range.
    Capital cost of diesel school bus, $100,000
    Additional capital cost “to go electric” 352500 – 100000 = $252,500

    Lifetime, A-to-Z Analysis Includes Combustion, Upstream, Embodied and Downstream CO2

    Most CO2 analyses, on an energy use basis, significantly understate CO2 emissions. Much more realistic CO2 analyses would be on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis. Such analyses have been performed for at least 75 years in business. Engineering colleges have standard project economics courses in their curricula. Lifetime, A-to-Z analyses regarding energy projects would include:

    1) Upstream CO2 of energy for extraction, processing and transport to a user
    2) Embodied CO2 of expensive batteries, from extraction of materials to installation in a bus
    3) Embodied CO2 of $352,500 electric buses vs $100,000 diesel buses
    4) Embodied CO2 of balance-of-system components
    5) Embodied CO2 of much more expensive electric bus parking facilities, with a Level 2 or high-speed charger for each bus, than for a diesel bus parking facility with a diesel pump.
    6) Downstream CO2 of disposal of batteries, etc.

    Any CO2 advantage of electric buses vs diesel buses would be less, on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis. The cost of CO2 reduction of electric buses would increase from about $1,700/metric ton (energy only basis) to about $2,000/Mt (lifetime, A-to-Z basis).

  6. EXCERPT from:

    CHEVY BOLT CATCHES FIRE WHILE CHARGING ON DRIVEWAY IN VERMONT

    THETFORD; July 2, 2021 — A fire destroyed a 2019 Chevy Bolt, 66 kWh battery, battery pack cost about $10,000, or 10000/66 = $152/kWh, EPA range 238 miles, owned by state Rep. Tim Briglin, D-Thetford, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Technology.

    He had been driving back and forth from Thetford, VT, to Montpelier, VT, with his EV, about 100 miles via I-89
    He had parked his 2019 Chevy Bolt on the driveway, throughout the winter, per GM recall of Chevy Bolts
    He had plugged his EV into a 240-volt charger.
    His battery was at about 10% charge at start of charging, at 8 PM, and he had charged it to 100% charge at 4 AM; 8 hours of charging.
    Charging over such a wide range is detrimental for the battery. However, it is required for “range-driving”, i.e., making long trips. See Note.
    NOTE: Range-driving is not recommended, except on rare occasions, as it would 1) pre-maturely age/damage the battery, 2) reduce range sooner, 3) increase charging loss, and 4) increase kWh/mile.
    Charging at 32F or less
    Li-ions would plate out on the anode each time when charging, especially when such charging occurred at battery temperatures of 32F or less.

    Here is an excellent explanation regarding charging at 32F or less.

    Fire in Driveway: Firefighters were called to Briglin’s house on Tucker Hill Road, around 9 AM Thursday.
    Investigators from the Vermont Department of Public Safety Fire and Explosion Investigation Unit determined:

    1) The fire started in a compartment in the back of the passenger’s side of the vehicle
    2) It was likely due to an “electrical failure”. See Note

    NOTE: Actually, it likely was one or more battery cells shorting out, which creates heat, which burns nearby items, which creates a fire that is very hard to extinguish. See Appendix

    GM Recall of Chevy Bolts: In 2020, GM issued a worldwide recall of 68,667 Chevy Bolts, all 2017, 2018 and 2019 models, plus, in 2021, a recall for another 73,000 Bolts, all 2020, 2021, and 2022 models.
    GM set aside $1.8 BILLION to replace battery modules, or 1.8 BILLION/(68,667 + 73,000) = $12,706/EV.

    Owners were advised not to charge them in a garage, and not to leave them unattended while charging, which may take up to 8 hours; what a nuisance!
    I wonder what could happen during rush hour traffic, or in a parking garage, or at a shopping mall, etc.
    Rep. Briglin heeded the GM recall by not charging in his garage. See URLs

    NOTE:
    – Cost of replacing the battery packs of 80,000 Hyundai Konas was estimated at $900 million, about $11,000 per vehicle
    – EV batteries should be charged from 20 to 80%, to achieve minimal degradation and long life, plus the charging loss is minimal in that range
    – Charging EVs from 0 to 20% charge, and from 80 to 100% charge:

    1) Uses more kWh AC from the wall outlet per kWh DC charged into the battery, and
    2) Is detrimental to the battery.
    3) Requires additional kWh for cooling the battery while charging.

    – EV batteries must never be charged, when the battery temperature is less than 32F; if charged anyway, the plating out of Li-ions on the anode would permanently damage the battery.

  7. EXCERPT from:

    HEAT PUMPS REDUCE VERY LITTLE CO2 IN MY VERMONT HOUSE, AS THEY DO IN ALMOST ALL NEW ENGLAND HOUSES
    https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/heat-pumps-reduce-very-little-co2-in-my-vermont-house-as-they-do

    PART 2

    Comparison of CO2 Reduction in my House versus EAN Estimate

    CO2 Reduction due to HPs is minimal

    No HPs:
    CO2 of propane was 850 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, from combustion = 4.897 Mt/y

    With HPs:
    The CO2 reduction is calculated in two ways using the:

    1) EAN method, based on commercial contracts, aka power purchase agreements, PPAs (market based)
    2) ISO-NE method, based on fuels combusted by power plants connected to the NE grid (location based)
    See Appendix for details.

    Market Based: Per state mandates, utilities have PPAs with Owners of low-CO2 power sources, such as wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, biomass, in-state and out-of-state. Utilities crow about being “low-CO2” by signing papers, i.e., without spending a dime.

    CO2 of propane was 550 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, combustion only = 3.168 Mt/y
    CO2 of electricity was 2,489 kWh x 33.9 g/kWh = 0.084 Mt/y
    Total CO2 = 3.168 + 0.084 = 3.253 Mt/y
    CO2 reduction is 4.897 – 3.253 = 1.644 Mt/y, based on the 2018 VT-DPS “paper-based” value of 33.9 g CO2/kWh

    Location Based: CO2 of power sources connected to the NE grid

    CO2 of propane was 550 gal/y x 12.7 lb CO2/gal, combustion only = 3.168 Mt/y
    CO2 of electricity was 2,489 kWh x 317 g/kWh = 0.789 Mt/y
    Total CO2 = 3.168 + 0.789 = 3.897 Mt/y
    CO2 reduction is 4.897 – 3.897 = 0.939 Mt/y, based on the 2018 realistic ISO-NE value of 317 g CO2/kWh

    Cost of CO2 Reduction is (2059/y, amortizing – 204/y, energy cost savings + 200/y, service, parts, labor)/0.939 Mt/y, CO2 reduction = $2,188/Mt, which is outrageously expensive.

    EAN Excessive CO2 Reduction Claim

    EAN claims 90,000 HPs by 2025 would reduce 0.37 million Mt of CO2, in 2025, or 0.37 million/90,000 = 4.111 Mt/y, per HP.
    EAN claims 100% displacement of fuel, i.e., gas, propane, fuel oil.

    Those EAN claims are true, only for highly sealed and highly insulated houses, which represent about 1.5% of all Vermont houses.
    In addition, the average Vermont house would need 2 to 3 HPs to achieve 100% displacement.

    HP Operating Cost Per Hour

    If HPs are operated at low temperatures, they have low COPs, which would result in a greater electricity cost per hour than using the displaced fuel.
    See table 3 and page 5 of URL
    https://www.eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/EAN-report-2020-fi

    At 27.6% Fuel Displacement: Vermont houses with HPs, operated down to about 28F, would require 2,085 kWh/y, to deliver 21,400,000 Btu, at an average COP of 3.34, to displace 27.6% of space heat, at an electricity cost of $417/y, per VT-DPS survey

    At 35% Fuel Displacement: My HPs, operated down to 15F, would require about 2,489 kWh/y, to deliver 20,220,000 Btu, at an average COP of 2.64, to displace 35% of my space heat, at an electricity cost of $498/y

    At 100% Fuel Displacement: My HPs, operated down to -10F, would require about 8,997 kWh/y, to deliver 57,290,000 Btu, at an average COP of 2.07, to displace 100% of my space heat, at an electricity cost of $1,799/y.

    This would displace 850 gal of propane, at a cost of 850 x $2.339/gal = $1,988/y.

    My energy cost savings would be 1,988 – 1,799 = $189/y, on an investment of $24,000!!!

  8. Since climate change is such a huge problem we must take immediate action to reduce carbon emissions. The most effective way will be to stop all road maintenance. Think about it. Winter is coming. By the end of the winter all carbon emissions from vehicles and home heating systems using fuel oil have stopped. The progressive’s have reached nirvana.

  9. The climate hoax is truly a scam of world wide proportions that has been outed by
    the shut down of world economies but the other scam ChynaCrud aka covid…

    During this shut down the co2 levels have continued to rise despite, Factories closing down, travel being substantially curtailed and fossil fuel use dramatically reduced to the point of what the Warm mongers want with EV.. If the nearly 2 year shut down didn’t effect reduction of green house gasses then spending all your money on it ain’t gonna help one iota…Just another leftist war they know they can’t win but maybe can control your life over if the fear is high enough…Ask them to prove their plan will reduce world wide co2… they can’t answer the unanswerable…

  10. Vermont’s Climate Council is a joke, show me the data, not the hype, Vermont with all it
    forest ” trees ” producing tons, and tons of oxygen and clean carbon dioxide every minute
    of every day……..Yes, mother nature is the real climate controller…….

    Has this climate council ever looked at what China, Russia, India, and a plethora of toxins
    they spew out every day…… Nah, these Climate Clowns turn a blind eye.

    It’s all you ” Hick Vermonter’s ” ruining the state and the world, that’s what these flatlanders
    are saying….. keep paying your taxes, so they can waste your money !!

  11. I hate to say it but seems like there are morons everywhere. Can no one think thru a problem from both sides of the coin?

  12. When they get all your money, suddenly there will be no problem.

    They will suddenly stop talking about climate change.

    Hey what about EB-5, the climate of corruption certainly isn’t changing!

  13. I Will Not Comply – not with any bit of it. Individuals can move faster than any government group to work around any edict. Who’s going to enforce it when there are no LE?

  14. The planned programs having the radical effect of motivation people to leave Vermont are the most effective way to lower Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions. Making energy and fuel unaffordable, while effective, is only a stopgap measure The plan is doomed to succeed. The elite (and their indispensable serfs) may remain, but their emissions are necessary and offset by their political contributions. And the resulting cleansed air will be carried daily by the westerlies to benefit of New Hampshire, then out over the Atlantic. In the fifties a pundit theorized that the planet Earth is the asylum to which some extraterrestrial civilization condemns its lunatics.

    • This pundit may be right. “In the fifties a pundit theorized that the planet Earth is the asylum to which some extraterrestrial civilization condemns its lunatics.”

Comments are closed.