By Rob Roper
At the Oct. 19 meeting of the Vermont Climate Council, Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service and council member June Tierney made a frightening, honest assessment of the proposals the council is preparing to unleash in December.
June Tierney, commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service
“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,” she said.
Indeed. The cost of this thing is going to be staggering in terms of direct taxes, such as the $20 million plus TCI carbon tax on gasoline and diesel, regulatory compliance costs, such as the mandates for all home and business owners to replace all of their fossil fuel systems for cooking, water and space heating and replace them with electric, the forced higher costs for renewable energy, the indirect higher costs of goods, services and housing that will result, and significant job losses across multiple industries that will occur directly and indirectly as a result of these policies.
Tierney’s statement came during a discussion about public outreach and feedback the council has received, which has mostly been orchestrated by activist groups such as 350 Vermont and VPIRG. Another council member worried that they were operating “inside a bubble,” and Annette Smith, a member of the public and president of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, commented that from her perspective the council was in a “feedback loop” that failed to ascertain a truly accurate picture of what Vermonters really think about all this.
To some extent the council can be forgiven, because they are just doing what Vermont’s far left legislature ordered them to do. As Tierney also said, “Just because the legislature writes a statute that assigns us an impossible task it doesn’t mean we’re going to get that impossible task done and do it well. … [But] that’s what the legislature has assigned to us, and that’s what we’re going to do.”
In case you’re wondering, this is who voted for the Global Warming Solutions Mack truck that’s speeding right at you:
Senate Overrides Gov. Scott’s Veto of the Global Warming Solutions Act, 22-8, 2020
House Overrides Gov. Scott’s Veto of the Global Warming Solutions Act, 103-47, 2020
Rob Roper is president of the Ethan Allen Institute. Reprinted with permission from the Ethan Allen Institute Blog.
HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN US NORTHEAST
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems
Wind Solar and Battery Projects are Tax Shelters for the Wealthy, whether Domestic or Foreign
Per standard Wall Street practice for tax-shelters of wind and solar projects:
– The cash value of the subsidies to Owners has to be about 45 to 50% of the turnkey cost of RE projects
– The subsidies are “front-loaded”, i.e., in the first 5 years, to enable Owners to shelter as much income as possible in the early years; aka harvesting subsidies.
– The entire project cost has to be written off in about 5 years, no matter the length of the project, per MACRS IRS rules. See URL.
– Owners or VT utilities receive 9%/y on their invested capital, per Vermont Standard Offer RE-Promotion Program.
– Owners or VT utilities may finance up to 50% of the project cost, currently at about 3.5%/y, per SO program
– Owners or VT utilities are paid about 11 c/kWh, solar, 9 c/kWh, wind, delivered as AC to the grid, per SO program; the NE grid electricity wholesale price has been about 5 c/kWh or less, starting in 2009.
This explains why Wall Street investment bankers, such as Bloomberg, Lazard, Morgan, etc., are in favor of more RE projects for their wealthy clients
https://solarplusllc.com/macrs-and-bonus-depreciation/
https://norwichsolar.com/vermont-commercial-and-industrial-solar-incentives/
https://vermontbiz.com/news/2019/october/22/owner-gmp-and-vermont-gas-will-get-new-ceo
Warren Buffett Riding the Subsidy/Rapid-depreciation 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/even-warren-buffet-admits-wind-energy-is-a-bad-investment
Green Mountain Power, GMP, Riding the Subsidy/Rapid-depreciation 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.
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 is eager to sell electricity. 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, and plays the “green, forward-looking utility” role.
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-Low-Res-Final.pdf
https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservices/Shared%20Documents/2016CEP_Final.pdf
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%.
https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/aqc/climate-change/documents/_Vermont_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_Inventory_Update_1990-2017_Final.pdf
That means, on average, these RE programs:
– Have been expensive underperformers for 15 years
– Led to higher energy prices, and higher other prices, than they would have been without those wasteful programs.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-is-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket-regarding-foolish-energy
Giving the same RE folks six times as much money per year, to implement the CEP, per mandate of the Global Warming “Solutions” Act, GWSA, would be very far beyond rational.
On this image, the CO2 of Vermont is about the size of a dot at the end of this sentence. See URL
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/16/eia-u-s-co2-emissions-declined-11-in-2020-no-change-in-rising-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
EXCERPT from:
HAVING FUN WATCHING WIND AND SOLAR FAILING TO STEP UP TO POWER THE WORLD ECONOMY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/having-fun-watching-wind-and-solar-failing-to-step-up-to-power
My two comments on Watt is up with That
1)
This is wonderful.
CCC, a bunch of RE idiots trying to pull the wool over the eyes of innocent, gullible lay people, got caught lying and obfuscating big-time.
CCC, which advises UK PM Johnson, aka, the UNRULY MOP, used 7 days of low wind in 2050, whereas the low-wind days were 65 in 2021, and 78 in 2016.
CCC wanted to make wind look extra, extra good.
More low-wind days means vastly greater CAPACITY, MW, of instantly available, reliable, low-cost, traditional power plants, which must be staffed, fueled, ready to operate, in good working order, as demanded by the UK grid operator, to fill in any wind (and solar) shortfalls; the UK has LOTS OF DAYS without sun, throughout the year.
Initially, CCC was obstructing the public release of its report to THE UNRULY MOP
CCC was ordered by the Court to release the report to the public.
Are you fri….g kidding me?
We are talking hundreds of millions of small folks spending $TRILLIONS EACH YEAR, to “save the world”, and CCC is blatantly lying about the feasibility and cost!
These CCC people should be drawn and quartered.
ALL OF THIS IS AWFUL NEWS FOR THE SCOTLAND CLIMATE MEETING
BTW, every wind turbine draws significant electricity from the grid, whether it is producing or not.
2)
Great graph. Open URL to see graph!!
It shows Wind Capacity Factor (0% to 100%), versus Temperature (-10C to 25C)
It clearly shows, the capacity’s factor of wind very often is less than 10%
The average CF is about 30%.
It is important to note wind power is the cube of wind speed
In addition, at very low CFs, say 3 to 4%, with winds at 4 mph and less, the wind turbine is producing about as much as it is consuming, i.e., no net feed to the grid. Yikes
The graph shows a lot of red at low CFs, meaning onshore winds are frequently very weak, and electricity production is minimal..
The RE clowns at CCC are of-the-charts fabricators of lies.
They should be drawn and quartered.
No matter how many facts you present to liberals they will completely ignore you because they believe they are smarter than the rest of us. Their myopic view will be their downfall, not ours.
Considering the number of volcanos and earthquakes – the CME’s blasting off the sun – I believe GOD has other plans for the Climate Council. The amount of particulate matter going around the globe as well as the gasses from the volcanos is where we are at now. Plan accordingly for a summer of no summer. The Climate Council is an appointed panel of puppets doing the bidding of the elites. Their fear mongering and money laundering schemes are part of a larger criminal syndicate coming for your wallets and your property.
CHEVY BOLT CATCHES FIRE WHILE CHARGING ON DRIVEWAY IN VERMONT
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/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
– 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.
HEAT PUMPS ARE MONEY LOSERS IN MY VERMONT HOUSE, AS THEY ARE 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
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
High Electricity Prices
Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would:
1) Increase already-high electric rates and
2) Worsen the already-poor economics of HPs (and of EVs)!!
Energy Cost Reduction is Minimal
– HP electricity consumption was from my electric bills
– Vermont electricity prices, including taxes, fees and surcharges, are about 20 c/kWh.
– My HPs provide space heat to 2,300 sq ft, about the same area as an average Vermont house
– Two small propane heaters (electricity not required) provide space heat to my 1,300 sq ft basement
– My average HP coefficient of performance, COP, was 2.64, which required, at 35% displacement of fuel, 2489 kWh; 100% displacement would require 8997 kWh
– The average Vermont house COP was 3.34, which required, at 27.6% displacement, 2085 kWh, per VT-DPS/CADMUS survey.
– I operate my HPs at temperatures of 15F and greater; less $/h than propane
– I operate my traditional propane system at temperatures of 15F and less; less $/h than HP
Before HPs: I used 100 gal for domestic hot water + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 850 gal for Viessmann furnace, for a total propane of 1,200 gal/y
After HPs: I used 100 gal for DHW + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 550 gal for Viessmann furnace + 2,489 kWh of electricity.
My propane cost reduction for space heating was 850 – 550 = 300 gallon/y, at a cost of 2.339/gal = $702/y
My displaced fuel was 100 x (1 – 550/850) = 35%, which is better than the Vermont average of 27.6%
My purchased electricity cost increase was 2,489 kWh x 20 c/kWh = $498/y
My energy cost savings due to the HPs were 702 – 498 = $204/y, on an investment of $24,000!!
Amortizing Heat Pumps
Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y.
This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.
Other Annual Costs
There likely would be service calls and parts for the HP system, as the years go by.
This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.
Energy Savings of Propane versus HPs
Site Energy Basis: RE folks claim there would be a major energy reduction, due to using HPs. They compare the thermal Btus of 300 gallon of propane x 84250 Btu/gal = 25,275,000 Btu vs the electrical Btus of 2489 kWh of electricity x 3412 Btu/kWh = 8,492,469 Btu.
However, that comparison would equate thermal Btus with electrical Btus, which all engineers know is an absolute no-no.
A-to-Z Energy Basis: A proper comparison would be thermal Btus in propane vs thermal Btus to power plants, i.e., 25,275,000 Btu vs 23,312,490 Btu, i.e., a minor energy reduction. See table 1A
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, combustion only = 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.
HEAT PUMPS ARE MONEY LOSERS IN MY VERMONT HOUSE, AS THEY ARE 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
High Electricity Prices
Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would:
1) Increase already-high electric rates and
2) Worsen the already-poor economics of HPs (and of EVs)!!
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems
Energy Cost Reduction is Minimal
– HP electricity consumption was from my electric bills
– Vermont electricity prices, including taxes, fees and surcharges, are about 20 c/kWh.
– My HPs provide space heat to 2,300 sq ft, about the same area as an average Vermont house
– Two small propane heaters (electricity not required) provide space heat to my 1,300 sq ft basement
– My average HP coefficient of performance, COP, was 2.64, which required, at 35% displacement of fuel, 2489 kWh; 100% displacement would require 8997 kWh
– The average Vermont house COP was 3.34, which required, at 27.6% displacement, 2085 kWh, per VT-DPS/CADMUS survey.
– I operate my HPs at temperatures of 15F and greater; less $/h than propane
– I operate my traditional propane system at temperatures of 15F and less; less $/h than HP
https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-019-0199-y
https://acrpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/HeatPumps-ACRPC-5_20.pdf
Before HPs: I used 100 gal for domestic hot water + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 850 gal for Viessmann furnace, for a total propane of 1,200 gal/y
After HPs: I used 100 gal for DHW + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 550 gal for Viessmann furnace + 2,489 kWh of electricity.
My propane cost reduction for space heating was 850 – 550 = 300 gallon/y, at a cost of 2.339/gal = $702/y
My displaced fuel was 100 x (1 – 550/850) = 35%, which is better than the Vermont average of 27.6%
My purchased electricity cost increase was 2,489 kWh x 20 c/kWh = $498/y
My energy cost savings due to the HPs were 702 – 498 = $204/y, on an investment of $24,000!!
Amortizing Heat Pumps
Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y.
This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.
https://www.myamortizationchart.com
Other Annual Costs
There likely would be service calls and parts for the HP system, as the years go by.
This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.
Energy Savings of Propane versus HPs
Site Energy Basis: RE folks claim there would be a major energy reduction, due to using HPs. They compare the thermal Btus of 300 gallon of propane x 84250 Btu/gal = 25,275,000 Btu vs the electrical Btus of 2489 kWh of electricity x 3412 Btu/kWh = 8,492,469 Btu.
However, that comparison would equate thermal Btus with electrical Btus, which all engineers know is an absolute no-no.
A-to-Z Energy Basis: A proper comparison would be thermal Btus in propane vs thermal Btus to power plants, i.e., 25,275,000 Btu vs 23,312,490 Btu, i.e., a minor energy reduction. See table 1A
Table 1A, Energy Savings
Heat in propane, Btu/y, HHV 25275000
Fuel to power plant, Btu/y 23312490
Fuel to power plant, kWh/y 6833
Conversion efficiency 0.4
Fed to grid, kWh 2733
Transmission loss adjustment, 2.4% 2667
Distribution loss adjustment, 6.7% 2489
Heat in propane, Btu/gal, HHV 84250
Purchased propane, gal/y 300
Purchased electricity, kWh/y 2489
Heat in propane Btu/gal, LHV 84250
Standby, kWh 91
Defrost, kWh 154
To compressor, kWh 2244
COP 2.64
Heat for space heat, kWh 5926
Btu/kWh 3412
Furnace efficiency 0.8
Btu/y for space heat 20220000 20220000
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, combustion only = 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
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.
http://www.truenorthreports.com/roper-vermont-climate-council-wants…
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 28 years (2022 – 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 housed and by the VT-DPS study
Only high-efficiency houses that are HIGHLY SEALED AND HIGHLY INSULATED are suitable for HPs.
All of the above has been well known to VT-DPS and EAN, because I have kept them, and thousands of others, informed over the years.
There is an old saying about “where the rubber meets the road” . In this case it is “where ideology meets reality”.
One cannot address national and international issues with stand alone state solutions. Governor Shumlin’s attempt at stand alone Vermont single payer which crashed and burned when the reality of the costs and impracticality of that venture became evident should have given a clue as to how this would play out.
There is a opening here for citizens with a pracitcal bend that realizes the limits of state government t to stand up and run for office in the legislature and steer Vermont back on course and this may well be the best issue to run on.
Time Magazine, 1977 “How To Survive The Coming Ice Age”. Time Magazine, 2006 “Be Worried, Be Very Worried? Remember one thing. There will be another ice age but the real question is, Do we spend piles of money to postpone the inevitable coming ice age by maybe one generation or do we spend piles of money to prepare to survive the inevitable coming ice age? I say prepare not postpone.
The coming Ice Age? The earth is still warming up from the last ice age, and has been for the last12,000 to 15,000 years! Oh, there will probably be another Ice Age, (there have been many) but not for many thousands of years to come. And none of this, zero, zilch, was or is caused by humans, or cows. Oh, by the way, pay attention Mr. Welch, Mr. Sanders, and Mr. Leahy, and the rest of you scientific fact challenged progressive-liberal-democrat climate warriors who have already lost your moral compass and want to rob us–the North and South poles are slowly changing places. This will mean that in the next few million years, the actual compasses with be FUBAR as well. This has been happening frequently in our planet’s four billion plus year history, and again, none of it has been or will be, caused by humans. Not even by dinosaurs, or by whatever species becomes predominant next…
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 disaster 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.
And Germany: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/10/23/germany-coal-climate-cop26/
Oh, its far more than just China and Germany alone burning coal…….Over the past decade China has built coal fired power plants in 152 countries around the world under its Belt and Roads Initiative.
https://theconversation.com/china-finances-most-coal-plants-built-today-its-a-climate-problem-and-why-us-china-talks-are-essential-161332
Since the above article was written in May 2021, China has dramatically upped its coal production making the situation more dire……..Yet in all the videos of Climate Council meetings made public, I have not heard one word about how China’s actions should impact Vermont’s climate strategy……One has to wonder if there are any strategic thinkers on the Climate Council.
The coming MACK TRUCK should roll over the state government and flatten it to a pancake.
Then, the sleepwalking, deluded Vermonters will finally wake up, and VOTE all these folks out of their cushy-career, political jobs.
Oh, but wait, Vermont Legislators cannot be voted out, because of universal mail-in of ballots, universal harvesting of ballots, and no ID whatsoever.
Vermont is the only state in Vermont to have such voting rule laxness, which leaves Vermont elections wide open for fraud, on purpose.
Enough is enough, regarding third-rate, biased, pigeon-minded folks running the show, and defining our lives.
They could not find their way out of a paper bag.
That MACK TRUCK would suck out of Vermonters about $1.25 BILLION PER YEAR FOR 28 YEARS to reach the 2050-fantasy goals, spouted by “aim-high-Klein” about 10 years ago.
And all that would accomplish exactly NOTHING regard climate change, AND ALL OF THEM KNOW IT.
This has nothing to do with GW, but only with feel-good grandstanding on a scale that will impoverish almost ever Vermonter, except the well-connected, highly subsidized, RE business folks.
All Scott has to do is wield his VETO pen regarding any and all tax increases, for whatever purpose.
The Vermont’s state government needs to SHRINK big time.
Dem/Progs MUST not have the VETO-proof majorities they have now, after the 2022 Election.
Dem/Progs MUST find savings in their OTHER wasteful, do-goodie programs to pay for any new ones.
Vermont’s state government is the main reason Vermonters have had such ANEMIC, REAL economic growth rates, and such high taxes for the past 20 years.
There are already too many Vermonters sucking on the government’s tits.
The mantra of those folks is “We need all we can get”.
NO WORK REQUIREMENTS
NO MEANS TESTING.
OPEN-ENDED ENTITLEMENTS FOR LIFE.
VERMONT’S GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT, A DISASTER IN THE MAKING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warming-solutions-act-a-disaster-in-the-making
Vermont has a Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP. The capital cost for implementing the CEP would be in excess of $1.0 billion PER YEAR, from 2017 to 2050, 33 years, as stated in the Energy Action Network annual report for 2015.
It would take $1.25 billion/y from 2022 to 2050, 28 years, and probable much more to overcome the Biden 5 to 6 percent inflation. See URL.
Excluded are financing and replacements of short-life systems, such as EVs (10y), heat pumps (15y), battery systems (15y), etc.
Vermont Gross Emissions
9.04 MMt in 2012
10.19 MMt in 2015
9.76 MMt in 2016
9.41 MMt in 2017, estimated
9.02 MMt in 2018, estimated
The decrease from 2015 is almost entirely due to the VT-DPS using an artificial/political basis, i.e., not a physical basis, for calculating the CO2 of the Vermont electrical sector.
That basis is MARKET BASED, i.e., based on “paper” power purchase agreements, PPAs, utilities have with owners of in-state and out-of-state electricity generating plants. It is explained in detail in this article.
US Gross Emissions were about 6,700 MMt in 2018
Vermont emissions are just a tiny fraction of US emissions.
IF THE CO2 OF ALL OF THE US WOULD INSTANTLY DISAPPEAR, THE CO2 OF OTHER COUNTRIES WOULD MORE THAN OFFSET THAT CO2 REDUCTION IN A FEW YEARS.
GWSA will result in major bloodsucking from average Vermonters, FOR DECADES!!
Almost all Vermonters have no idea the extent GWSA will impact their lives, while tiny Vermont is making NO IMPACT on global warming
GWSA is a gigantic subsidy con game for the RE companies of Vermont.
It is a bankrupt approach by the Dem/Prog-dominated legislature, instead of having proper/healthy industrial development/growth by the private sector.
VT-DPS, VT-PUC, VT-ANR, VELCO and the CAPTIVE VT Media have issued reports and articles to:
– Bamboozle legislators to get them to vote for GWSA (“all we need is this and that, and we will get these fabulous results”)
– Bamboozle/befuddle the rest of Vermonters, who will be suffering GWSA-induced headaches for decades to come, and who would see no discernible effect on the Vermont climate….
For some months already, comments are no longer allowed on VTDigger articles, because, regarding GWSA, they would be at least 10 to 1 against.
The comments likely would sway more legislators to vote no, and likely would sway a lot more voters to oust the RE-smitten legislators in November….
The Dem/Prog elites likely leaned on VTDigger to no longer allow any comments on VTDigger Articles and Commentaries
“Seven-Days”, likely was also leaned on. It also no longer allows any comments.
Vermont’s Media likely are being cowed into silence; “support us, or else no donor support/no “access””.
This article has a detailed engineering explanation of the impacts of GWSA on the VT economy.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-s-global-warming-solutions-act-a-disaster-in-the-making
Read the cited URLs to be more fully informed
COMMENTS ARE ALLOWED AND INVITED
They want to destroy life in Vermont. They know this, and continue anyway. I think the intention is to force people to leave the state, unless they are state/government employees or on welfare.
Let’s see if this Mack truck is allowed to run over and kill the deal Gov. Scott cut with Global Foundries that allows the company to serve as its own utility and save millions of dollars annually on electricity costs.
There is now a Mack truck being driven by Sen. Anthony Pollina looking to create the first giant business casualty to come out of the GWSA. Pollina writes today on the VTDigger that allowing Global Foundries to act as its own utility and save million is “a mistake and dangerous”…..Following the killing of Vermont Yankee by Shumlin and the Progressives ten or so years ago, Pollina is now using the GWSA as a Mack truck to run over Vermont’s largest manufacturer and employer of 2,200 in high paying jobs.
Pollina, like Bernie Sanders, would apparently like to see more Vermonters on the public dole getting free money from the government than in Vermont high paying jobs…….It is Pollina’s actions that are “a mistake and dangerous” not Global Foundries deal to save money and Vermont jobs.
Vermont’s extreme leftist legislature has a decades long track record of acting first based on liberal emotion, and then when reality sets in, everyone must suffer the consequences of their poor judgment. The best outcome of Vermont’s continuing trip down the green energy road to hell will be the example being set for the rest of the common sense States as to what NOT TO DO.
This is what happen when ALL environmentalists in Vermont have spent a decade or more telling Vermonters that climate change is the worse existential crisis Vermont communities face.
not all
Tierney saying the quiet part out loud probably was intentional. This is a game, well played by the legislature to circumvent blame for their agenda. We’ve seen this show before. 2022 is an election year and the Climate Council isn’t going to rock the boat too hard, upon instructions from Balint and
Krowinski. These people want their power positions. The painful part will start in 2023. As Vermont’s political demographics have changed over the last 30 years- The conservative Vermonter has died, moved or given up- leaving but a few to try undoing the damage that the GWSA will do. Perhaps, the current issue with finding employees to staff Vermont business will force the legislature to temper the forthcoming rules, for a while. But I did mention elections- and money will be flowing hard and fast from the ‘green’ groups and businesses to insure their share of profits from Vermont’s Green New Deal.