« Scientists Link Methane Formation by Bacteria in Shale Rock to Increases in Atmospheric Methane During Deglaciation; Production of the Gas Was Relatively Rapid | Main | DOE Issues $6M Solicitation for Vehicular Hydrogen Storage R&D »
US DOE and State of Hawaii Sign Agreement to Increase Renewable Energy Technologies in Hawaii; 72% Reduction in Current Oil Consumption by 2030
29 January 2008
The US Department of Energy (DOE) and the State of Hawaii signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) establishing the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI), a long-term partnership designed to transform Hawaii’s energy system to one that utilizes renewable energy and energy efficient technologies for a significant portion of its energy needs.
The partnership aims to put Hawaii on a path to supply 70% of its energy needs using clean energy by 2030, which could reduce 72% of Hawaii’s current crude oil consumption.
With an abundance of natural resources and environmental treasures, Hawaii is the ideal location to showcase the broad benefits of renewable energy at work on an unprecedented scale. Hawaii’s success will serve as an integrated model and demonstration test bed for the United States and other island communities globally, many of which are just beginning the transition to a clean energy economy.
—Alexander Karsner, DOE Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
The HCEI will start with seven joint working groups (four grouped as Energy Performance working groups, the other three as Cross-Cutting Issue working groups) that will tackle the topics of transportation, energy efficiency, power generation, power delivery, technology integration, sustained financing, and policy and regulatory mechanisms. That work will identify the financial, policy, and regulatory mechanisms that Hawaii will need to implement to meet its energy goals.
Energy Performance Working Groups will address:
Transportation, including the establishment of a long-term, sustainable strategy for the production, distribution, and use of alternative transportation fuels, thereby accelerating the adoption of advanced vehicle technologies such as plug-in hybrids, and promoting mass transit;
End-use efficiency, with the ultimate goal of achieving zero net-energy buildings and communities, and dramatic reductions in other significant end-use areas, including military bases and installations;
Electric generation, including expanding and optimizing the use of renewable energy at central and remote locations, improving generation efficiency at existing plants, and facilitating the installation of distributed renewable generation across the State; and
Energy delivery, including transmission and distribution improvements, grid management improvements, and energy storage to ensure that the existing and future infrastructure facilitates optimal use of renewable resources and readily adapts to and incorporates new developments in system planning and transmission technologies while maintaining system reliability.
Cross-Cutting Issue working groups will address:
Technology integration, including consideration of current clean energy technologies that have been demonstrated in Hawaii and elsewhere, state of the art technologies that have not yet been demonstrated on the commercial scale, integration of transportation and electricity energy systems, and solutions for technology reliability and economic viability;
Creating sustained sources of financing, with particular emphasis on developing innovative public and private financing vehicles for alternative energy sources and clean technologies at the state and county levels; and
Policy and regulatory mechanisms, including design and enactment of comprehensive regulatory mechanisms that provide appropriate incentives for all stakeholders in the energy supply chain to proactively transition to a renewable energy-based future.
The working groups will be co-chaired by the State and DOE, with the mandate to produce two-, five- and ten-year operational plans to transform the investment in and use of energy resources in each energy performance area. These plans will include date-specific goals for major actions and mechanisms for leveraging the expertise, creativity, and resources of the major stakeholders.
The planned timeline for producing and executing the strategic plans is as follows:
January 2008: Launch DOE-Hawaii Partnership and establish working groups in each of the working group areas outlined above.
March 2008: Issue draft strategic implementation plans in each of the working group areas.
June 2008: Issue final strategic implementation plans that include a set of initial actions needed to jump start activity in each of the energy performance areas, two-, five- and ten-year goals, and specific actions that will be taken to meet the transformational goals required in each of the major areas.
Resources
January 29, 2008 in Fuel Efficiency, Plug-ins, Policy, Power Generation | Permalink | Comments (51) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/25577630
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference US DOE and State of Hawaii Sign Agreement to Increase Renewable Energy Technologies in Hawaii; 72% Reduction in Current Oil Consumption by 2030:
Comments
One down. Forty-nine to go.
Posted by: drivin98 | Jan 29, 2008 4:28:37 AM
This makes a lot of sense - win-win-win for pretty much everyone except big oil......but they've been making tens of billions of dollars in profits recently & have Hugo Chavez on their side - so who cares about them.
Posted by: ejj | Jan 29, 2008 4:59:04 AM
@ ejj -
not so fast. While Exxon and other US oil companies are still focussed almost exclusively on extracting fossil oil & gas, others cannot afford that luxury because their proven reserves are much smaller.
For example, Shell is very active in the dirty tar sands of Alberta. However, they are also investigating algal oil production in Hawaii. Perhaps in a decade or so, Hawaii will be producing its own biofuels from algae grown in pools on the otherwise useless small island of Kaho'olawe, which is uninhabited, devoid of flora and fauna and also a former Navy bombing range (with some unexploded ordnance still in the ground).
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Jan 29, 2008 6:36:47 AM
Hawaii has one the highest costs of electricity in the US. Obviously no coal or other fuel deposits worth mentioning that I know of, especially with the recent volcanic origins of island. Fuel is shipped in.
It lies within the equatorial belt. Of all the US states, it probably receives on average some of the highest levels of solar energy. It lies in the trade winds. This is a no brainer. With renewables, the state should be able to be self sustainable in terms of energy easily. There should be plenty of waste biomass to produce ethanol or biodiesel to suppant the needs of the state.
Posted by: aym | Jan 29, 2008 6:38:09 AM
Why not geothermal? It's a volcano for crying out loud.
Posted by: rocknerd | Jan 29, 2008 6:54:01 AM
Not to mention lots of waves.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 29, 2008 7:09:50 AM
Go for renewables Hawaii. We'll see tho, how you integrate wind turbines, solar cell fields, tidal & wave machines with the concentrated beauty of your landscapes. Hope I can get used to all the wind turbines in every Hawaiian tourist photograph I see after 2020. ha ha ha
Posted by: litesong | Jan 29, 2008 7:13:59 AM
Hawaii used to grow large amounts of coffee, but most of the land has been idle for some time now, since they couldn't compete with cheap imports. Sugarcane grows well in Hawaii.
So why aren't they growing more sugarcane to fuel electricity and biofuel needs, ala Brazil? Put that idle land to use and idle poeple to work.
Posted by: darwin | Jan 29, 2008 7:29:30 AM
Darwin...Funny how business people call land & other people idle when business people come up with ways for other people to make money for business people.
Posted by: litesong | Jan 29, 2008 7:37:52 AM
If the Grand Hyatt in Dubai can produce 800-1000 KW of its own electricity and all of it's own hot water through solar, why not? Not only that, the payback is only 3 years.
Alternative doesn't neccessary mean in your face. A 10000 square mile solar installation in Nevada can supply all the US energy needs. That's only about 10% of the state. Who says you have to put it in large single use arrays? It can be integrated onto the surface of permanent structures.
How many people look at roof-tops. Besides which, when did air conditioning units beome sceanic?
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hotelmanagement-network.com/projects/hyatt/images/img1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.hotelmanagement-network.com/projects/hyatt/hyatt1.html&h=400&w=600&sz=45&tbnid=NDIP2BvhaRFIGM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgrand%2Bhyatt%2Bdubai%2Bpictures%26um%3D1&start=3&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=3
Posted by: aym | Jan 29, 2008 7:38:15 AM
Unfortunately this has nothing to do with competition from other companies. The Islands used to grow a large amount of the worlds sugarcane. However, a handful of activist complained that the 'black snow' irritated their asthma, and a billion dollar industry was shut down. The idle land and people that you speek of are the local people, mostly Hawaiians and Samoans and their farms. There are very specific laws, written when the Islands became a state, regarding 'local property' that override any form of Eminent Domain.
Think of the 'local property' as little reservations, the people also get a monthly stipend, it's meager, but it means they don't have to work if they don't want to.
We, in our brilliance PO'ed the only people in real control of the land. So they gathered up their toys and went home, that is why the land is IDLE.
Posted by: Joseph | Jan 29, 2008 8:22:49 AM
Its funny when these articles mention "renewable energy", and "clean energy" as interchangeable within an article. We all know this is not true.
But back on subject, yes Hawaii can be a model for the other 49 states, as well as other island nations to aspire to be like, if they handle this correctly. Mandate BEV and hybrid commuter cars, along with mass transportation. Perhaps the "Magnums" will have to trade their Ferrari's, for Volts and Prius's, when they drive their Interstates. (And whats up with an interstate highway in Hawaii??)
What this article fails to mention is how the majority of Hawaii's power currently generated? What percentage is currently clean. Perhaps 50% is already clean, with the other 50% renewable? I dont see them dotting their pristine horizons with windmill farms. Perhaps the next big generating idea is in unseen wave power. Or, perhaps an unobtrusive, state of the art nuclear power plant on one of the surrounding islands. Hawaii can be a leader here.
Posted by: Mark A | Jan 29, 2008 8:34:24 AM
Joseph, I direct you to Article VI of the Unites States Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
There is nothing about the property laws of Hawaii that overrides federal Eminent Domain. If the land is indeed idle, the Kelo decision makes it even easier to seize the land for constructive use.
Posted by: Mike | Jan 29, 2008 8:40:24 AM
There are windmills on the southern tip of the big island. When I saw the wind farm, probably 8 years ago, they where already in a state of disrepair, with only a hand-full in use. The state could definitely have a huge wind farm in the same area, it was very remote, sparsely populated and wind blows all the time. All of Hawaii is not a beautiful resort with stunning beaches.
Posted by: Bill W | Jan 29, 2008 9:02:51 AM
If there is anywhere where the ridiculously expensive and inefficient "renewable" energy sources can make an economic go of it, Hawaii is it.
I wish them well in their efforts. But I fear that this will be yet another one of the endless subsidies paid to a theology of "renewable" energy sources, that are neither clean nor truly renewable.
It seems that volcanic Hawaii is a natural site for geothermal energy exploitation. Geothermal is one of the few "renewable" energy sources that actually has a prayer of meeting other than tiny inconsequential demand because it is a concentrated energy source.
Yet has been somehow blessed by the theologians and prophets of the great god, Gaia. Theologians who have never had a single day of any kind of training in the physical Sciences, and so nothing of thermodynamics, engineering or economics, feel free to mouth fool's platitudes. They speak authoritatively, as if I they actually had a clue, but I no more trust them to build an energy source, than to perform brain surgery with a Swiss army knife... in the dark.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jan 29, 2008 9:10:08 AM
@Bill W,
Why do you think the windfarm was disused and in need of repair? Becaue the wind as a source of energy is uneconomic and discontinuous,even in energy costly Hawaii. Wind can only provide relatively meager amounts of energy for the capital investment required.
These disused windmills are but another example of the subsidies and religious sacrifices, demandeb by and offered to the Theologians and Prophets of Gaia. The priestly robed Knot-heads, who know nothing, except the art of human manipulation.
The religious sacrifices of the worshippers, in the form of tax subsidies, have expired; and the windmills could not afford the relatively tiny operating expense of simply being maintained.
So these monuments rot in the sun, representing a collossal waste of iron, steel, copper, concrete and money. But the great god Gaia, and more importantly, his prophets, must be be appeased with sacrifices.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jan 29, 2008 9:26:04 AM
"Total cane acres have continuously declined since 1968 when 242,000 acres were cultivated for cane production, to about 160,000 in 1990."
"In 1998, sugarcane was grown on 62,251 acres in the State of Hawaii on the Islands of Maui and Kauai, making Hawaii the third largest sugarcane producer in the U.S. after Louisiana and Florida."
You can see that sugarcane acreage declined 75% in only 30 year. Maybe ADM and high fructose corn sweetener had something to do with the sugar market as well.
Brazil had a shortage of ethanol in the early 90s, because farmers could make more money in sugar. It seems like Hawaii could revive some of this production as well as wind and solar.
Posted by: sjc | Jan 29, 2008 9:40:59 AM
Stan, have you ever heard of a place called Denmark? Or Texas, for that matter?
Posted by: Bob Bastard | Jan 29, 2008 9:41:33 AM
Mike, there was an Exception to Article VI made with land owners when Hawaii became a State. Look specifically at the area between Mililani and Waipahu, Wahiawa and Waialua and the Kaneohe side. That's just on Oahu. That land is worth millions per square yard and is 'protected'. The owners can not be forced to sell, even by Eminent Domain. Multi billion dollar corporations have be trying to get the land for 3 decades. The Dole Corporation tried to force the land owners to simply renew their leases and got slapped like a redheaded stepchild. It is some of the most fertile land on the planet and it is currently sitting empty.
Posted by: Joseph | Jan 29, 2008 9:53:48 AM
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/hawaii.html
Hawaii already gets some energy from geothermal power. Why they haven't developed it more aggressively, I can't figure out. They're sitting on the world's most active volcano, after all. It seems like it should be an ideal location for enhanced geothermal.
Also, as others have mentioned, it seems like a nearly perfect locale to introduce electric cars.
Posted by: Tony Belding | Jan 29, 2008 11:50:11 AM
@StanPeterson,
Why do you think the windfarm was disused and in need of repair? Becaue the wind as a source of energy is uneconomic and discontinuous,even in energy costly Hawaii. Wind can only provide relatively meager amounts of energy for the capital investment required.
Wrong Stan. Not surprising though. Who knows what caused the failure. You can point to any number of abandoned projects and things and say in retrospect it was caused by so or so. Look at any number of nuclear power reactors or their financial histories and see what some bad decisions can do.
As for the Kamaoa wind farm. It was a 20 year old project composed of 37 turbines supplying only 7.5 MW. It was shut down and replaced by the Pakini Nui project which consists of 14 turbines supplying 20.5 MW just 1.5 miles away in April 2007. My guess is they didn't want to spend the resources maintaining the old farm with the newer one on the way. This represents 6.5% of the Big Islands 300 MWe need (2006 figures). Wind power not viable? On the contrary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka_Lae
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2007/07/19/big-isle-wind-farm-generates-power-but-bills-about-the-same/
Wind power cost was estimated at $55.80 per MWh, coal at $53.10/MWh and natural gas at $52.50 for the continental US (2006). On Hawaii, the costs of NG and coal power are even higher. Residential energy cost is around 28-29 cents/KWh in Hawaii. This excludes the external costs we know from the use of fossil fuels.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/0484(2006).pdf
If anyone has a bias Stan, look in the mirror. You accuse others of worshipping some ideal mindlessly, well you are even worse. You let yourself be blinded by your own preconceptions. Alternative power is a viable exploitable technology which is underutilized and which people come to this site to get information on.
Posted by: aym | Jan 29, 2008 11:58:50 AM
Additional Info
Wind resource map
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/maps_template.asp?stateab=hi
Other Hawaiian alternative power projects.
http://www.shell.ca/home/content/us-en/news_and_library/press_releases/2006/swei_hawaii_063006.html
http://www.power-technology.com/projects/hawaii/
Posted by: aym | Jan 29, 2008 12:00:55 PM
Geothermal has been a source of great controversy in Hawaii both from ancient tradition (magma and volcanic activity is the body of the god Pele) and from opponents who dislike noise and potential effects on rain forest. At some point we need to bite a bullet and say lets make a commitment to Hawaii demonstrating the viability of renewable energy.
As Raphael points out there is interest by a major oiler in developing algal oil - where better than the warm waters of Hawaii? And lets remove the superstition of geothermal fears by enlisting local leaders in building a Hawaiian State leadership position in geothermal energy.
There is abundant sunshine in Hawaii, abundant rainfall, abundant wave and tidal energy, ability to grow feedstock (cane sugar) - all of which should be elevated into a comprehensive plan that demonstrates these resources as viable in the present economic environment.
Stan's point about wind should be considered also. There must be enough of a business plan and investment in place to support even the minimal maintenance costs of wind farms. They need to be combined with new energy storage systems, PV and perhaps geothermal to provide multidimensional systems that augment one another.
Hawaii is a near perfect test bed for all these new ideas. Lets support the HCEI and independent projects around it to make Hawaii a new world energy success.
Posted by: gr | Jan 29, 2008 12:24:57 PM
With regard to the "idle land and idle hands" commentary - most environmentally conscious people respect our idle, intelligent lifeforms like whales and dolphins, elephants and simians without expectation of achievement through "work." When was the last time you saw any but the human species on Earth engaging in the idle-less pastime called "work?" (Those restricted by classification need not consider)
Posted by: gr | Jan 29, 2008 12:35:46 PM
@Stan,
I feel bad for you that you have so much unresolved frustration that you feel the need to vent your anger on people simply trying to change the world in a positive way.
Denmark is 20% powered by wind farms, set to increase. Older wind turbines are significantly less efficient than today's. In analyzing the economics of new wind farms, the expected life is only 20 years, and the initial investment can be profitabe and competitive, depending on the situation. That is why older wind farms now sit there idle.
BTW, I am a mechanical engineer, as well as a forest ecologist. I suggest you spend more time discussing real physical facts, and less time trying to pigeon-hole anyone who has an opinion other that yours.
Posted by: MarkMC | Jan 29, 2008 1:01:17 PM
Hawaii has a lot of options. Wind, solar, and geothermal seem the best for producing clean local energy. But potential energy is not the entire story.
The state also has a unique combination of native rights, treaty rights, ethnicities, enviromentalists, etc. which make it difficult to change anything. And even more difficult to change anything involving the landscape or property rights.
Hawaii is a dollar magnet. Tourism and military installations bring it in. Agricultural products are exported. So Hawaii could choose to clean up while still importing energy. LNG from SE Asia might be a good choice for a decade or two.
LNG isn't carbon free. But it is a lot better than oil. Perfection is nice but improvement has merit too.
They don't seem to be wasting time. The direction reports in June 2008 will be interesting. It is easy to forget that energy independence, renewable energy, carbon free or neutral energy, and quality of life are not precisely the same.
Posted by: K | Jan 29, 2008 1:39:27 PM
Mike, re: Article VI - the Article speaks to two Constitutional foundations of citizen property.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..."
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
The Fifth Amendment guarantees: "Private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation."
One key consideration is what constitutes "public use." By any stretch of the imagination any "public use" would require transparent access by the "public." That is, any citizen so choosing such access.
Eminent Domain is only a lawful exercise if and when "just compensation" for public use is offered in exchange. Certainly property in Hawaii, exploitable for realty development or agriculture - is extremely valuable. Thus once the government has met the Constitutional requirements for public use and access, they then must compensate land owners to the full and just extent of the marketplace. Usually a multiple (future value) of current cash values.
Posted by: gr | Jan 29, 2008 2:29:36 PM
OTEC could make Hawaii a major source of anhydrous ammonia as well as providing base load electricity 24/7 and fresh water to the state. It is mostly a matter of capital investment.
Posted by: tom deplume | Jan 29, 2008 3:27:03 PM
Lots of folks with ideas to carve Hawaii into their own vision of the future with special neglect of tribal Hawaiian societies & worship...those idle loafers hide behind their God Pele & won't exploit their lands. Stories here are reflections of mainland Native Peoples' civilizations being destroyed by invading Europeans.
I've been told by Europeans, who think their land is now the mainland U.S., that they are not to be blamed for the unrighteous acts of their forefathers. But I see the spirit of the forefathers is alive today & little changed over the last 500+years.
Posted by: litesong | Jan 29, 2008 7:42:14 PM
Hawaii is the only place in US which generates bulk of it electricity from imported OIL. Hawaii has the second lowest per capita electricity consumption, after California.
For 2006, price of generation of electricity in continental US was 1 cent per KWh for hydro, 1.8 cents for nuclear, 3.5 cents for coal, and 7.5 cents for NG.
Posted by: Andrey | Jan 29, 2008 9:34:59 PM
Joseph:
If there is an exception, where is it codified in law? There is no mention of it in the Hawaii state constitution, and an "agreement with land owners" is no agreement at all. I understand that corporations have been trying to take the land, but they aren't the government. The land can certainly be seized by eminent domain, and it has been used in Hawaii before. Whether or not it would be used for this, I don't know, but there is no doubt that it could.
gr:
Transparent access by the public is definately not required for eminent domain to be exercised. If you disagree, feel free to find a military base that was expanded by eminent domain and hop the fence so you can exercise your "transparent access". Make sure you update your will first. The exercise of eminent domain only requires that a public good is served - in the case above, national defense. It does not require unfettered public use of the land. Actually, ever since Kelo vs. New London, land can be seized by the gov and given to private entities if they think it will serve the purpose of revitalization - at least that is how the law was interpreted.
You also stated that just compensation has to be given. That was never in dispute, and you are correct. In my experience, however, compensation is decided based on current market value, and TVM never enters into the process. The taking of private land to develop fuel used for energy independence would certainly fall under the definition of "public use".
Posted by: Mike | Jan 29, 2008 10:16:54 PM
Hawaii could be substantially energy independent by establishinng a sugarcane and algae based methane economy. The anerobic digestion of the cane to produce methane will take very little energy input because of the climate, and produce twice as much energy per acre as production of ethanol from cane will. Animal and municipal wastes can be added to the cane digestion pits. In addition, by using the sun, bio-wastes and CO2 from its powerplants to grow algae and then anerobically digest the algae to produce addtional methane, it could provide enough gas for its electricity generation, transportation, much of its other industrial and housing needs. This methane production could be localized on each island, limiting the need for the gas being transported.
Posted by: Bob Falco | Jan 29, 2008 10:41:47 PM
Mike,
unfortunately though your claim has found some legal purchase in judicial decisions - what is written and what was intended by the Founders in the Fifth Amendment is "property taken for public use" not "public good" for which there is a distinctly different interpretation.
It appears that you are suggesting that lands taken under eminent domain in Hawaii could be declared a public good for national security. In that case they would need to be both non-rivalrous and non-excludable. For both such criterion to be met the resource in question, land taken to produce fuel feedstock, would need to be owned, operated and managed exclusively by the U.S. military (purveyors of national defense. Are you suggesting the United States Military commandeer private lands in Hawaii and become cane sugar or palm oil farmers? Which unit of the military specializes in agrabusiness? And if they were to contract any private third parties such as ADM, they would violate the "public good" definition.
Article VI you cite and the Fifth Amendment is clear; property taken by government for public use must be justly compensated. That, has and will continue to be any public resource e.g. federal parkland, transparent and accessible by any U.S. citizen.
It is currently popular to make claim to all manner of predatory action by claim to "national security." Taking private land in Hawaii to grow sugar cane or palm oil - so stretches any wisp of credulity as to make one wonder if you might not still be a Crown loyalist in service of the King (whose army was summarily dismissed from this country in 1776.)
Posted by: gr | Jan 29, 2008 11:51:39 PM
gr:
The intentions of the founders are irrelevant - we ignore them all the time. I agree that it is unfortunate, but it is what it is.
I am not suggesting that the land be seized by the military - I was merely pointing out that transparency is not a requirement in eminent domain takings. That using the land to enhance energy independence is in the public interest is undeniable, and that is all the Government needs to prove.
Posted by: Mike | Jan 30, 2008 12:24:32 AM
"That using the land to enhance energy independence is in the public interest is undeniable, and that is all the Government needs to prove."
On the contrary, the government like any other law abiding body, must prove that the land will be used for a "public good." That requires the legal criterion previously pointed to: non-rivalrous and non-excludable use. Unless the United States government intends to grow feedstock crops in such a way as to not exclude nor rival any other group or party (the test of public good) - they will lose their case.
Ignorance of intent and fact serves only to undermine Constitutional foundations created to counter the excesses of dictator King George and his Redcoat armies. The oath taken by all public servants is clear: "To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States..."
That, is what it really is.
Posted by: gr | Jan 30, 2008 5:13:01 AM
Why does the land need to be "taken"?
From my visit to Hawaii, I was told that they threw grass seed on the land just to hold the dirt in place and are not using the land agriculturally any more, since they can't make money competing with cheap sugar and coffe imports into the US. Seems to me, they could have agreements to sell sugarcane crops to whoever wants to use it for fuel or electric feedstock. It could even be themselves or a cooperative that utilizes the crop. Wouldn't it be in the best interest for all Hawaiins to reduce use of imported oil and be energy self sufficient? This has nothing to do with "mainlanders" wanting to "exploit" their rich soils, this has benefit to Hawaii only.
My comment before was just to point out that this would create JOBS, and that's a GOOD thing. Do Hawaiins really think a vacation economy is sustainable?
Posted by: darwin | Jan 30, 2008 7:39:02 AM
@Andrey
For 2006, price of generation of electricity in continental US was 1 cent per KWh for hydro, 1.8 cents for nuclear, 3.5 cents for coal, and 7.5 cents for NG.
Although costs of production of electricity are important in the decision of utilities to decide what to put online on a daily, they ignore the capital costs associated with them.
LCOE (levelized cost of energy) figures are more indicative of the overall costs of energy since they include capital costs as well as ROI, taxes and etc. Oftentimes, the cost of production of electricity by conventional means is compared to the LCOE of alternative power, which doesn't make sense. Given the low maintenance and virtual free fuel costs of alternative power, the production costs of alternative is ridiculously low but the high capital costs must be amorterized over the lifetime of the installation. This is reflected in the LCOE and is the figure usually used when talking about alternative power costs (probably minus the taxes and ROI).
The LCOE for new production in 2004 dollars per MWhr is coal - 53.1, NG - 52.5, wind - 55.8, nuclear 59.3 from the eia link above. There are other tradoffs that can be measured and things that will affect the costs such as the plant capacity factor for the various fuels and in Hawaii's case, transportation of fuel.
For conventional plants, with cheap fuel, higher capacity factors drive down overall electricity costs. NG plants are used for peaking power and load following because of the higher fuel costs. Capacity factors don't make much sense in talking about wind turbines where larger generators are used to maximize cost savings of electricity production at the so-called expense of capacity factor.
As for the use of nuclear in Hawaii, I doubt it. The big island has at present an installed capacity of 300MW. To improve the economies of scale, new plant designs are over 1000 MW. Not only that but they are base units not really designed for varying power output. Even if you could (ie BWR & ABWR), it would kill the capacity factor and greatly inflate the cost of electricity. Overall, bad.
The small scale option, would be something like the Toshiba 4S reactor which would provide only 10MW of power has electricity operation costs in the 5-13 c/KWh range (not including capital costs estimated to be 20 million per reactor if mass produced). This is still not an economic solution since wind is cheaper.
Also would like to add that, I believe your coal costs are about a cent over what they should be. Check the graph from the NEI in the middle of the page (2005 figures).
http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
Posted by: aym | Jan 30, 2008 9:18:39 AM
It seems like the solar thermal electric plants like the parabolic troughs in the Mojave would do OK in Hawaii. They get rain, which would wash the mirrors off and enough sun to put out 300 mw easily. Maybe the amount of acreage is a concern. Desert land does not cost as much as Hawaiian real estate.
Posted by: sjc | Jan 30, 2008 9:40:10 AM
Darwin,
You ask a good question. Why do lands need to be "taken?" When government functionaries don't get what they want they manipulate the law to "take" anything they choose. It has long been a highly controversial practice - especially since the claim of "national security" has been used to cover up bureaucratic misdeeds.
In a democratic government unused lands could be readily leased to ventures wishing to help Hawaii achieve energy independence. In a failed democracy governments take and sequester whatever they want and claim it a "security" issue. Hawaiian sugar cane is hardly such an issue.
Posted by: gr | Jan 30, 2008 3:50:21 PM
One site said that back in the days when they were producing lots of sugarcane, they used to get 10% of their electricity by burning the stalks...guess not any more.
Posted by: sjc | Jan 30, 2008 6:07:36 PM
We have apparently reached the crux of issues. Do governments and the tiny proportion of manipulators that control them - have the right to dictate global perceptions? Or should the "people," all of us, be given the opportunity to consider the facts and figures and then choose action based upon the common good??
I for one am sick and tired of monolithic control of information. I think it should be 1776 again when the good people subjected to unlawful colonization said in loud voice: NO! We shall tolerate this no further!
The only thing you have to fear is... well, y'know.
Posted by: sulleny | Jan 30, 2008 9:27:09 PM
A 300 MW windfarm (offshore) is being built in in the north-sea (www.c-power.be), which will be operational in november. It will be provide by 60 turbines and will costs 800 million euro (once).
A big part of the cost is because of the off-shore engineering. I suppose they could install them on-shore, making it even cheaper.
Posted by: Alain | Jan 31, 2008 8:33:46 AM
With the installed generation capacity of only 300MW; The obvious and by far the CHEAPIST solution is to go with GEOTHERMAL steam generation. Not only is it totally nonpoluting, It is likely that some Hawaii's existing steam generation units might be retrofitted at even lower total costs. Geothermal specific (low pressure) steam turbine designs only require steam to be 600'F, & in Hawaii you would only need to drill a few hunderd feet down to find rock that hot, making the powerplant even cheaper to build & operate. The largest problem with Wind farms can be Maintenance! I know a man who is the 'operator' of a 76 unit X 1.5 mw per unit, wind farm and he has one maintenance crew of three techs and he has trouble keeping employees, yet with all the OT from mechanical failures they earn well ovre $50K The skill set to work on one of those units is very specific as there are all sorts of mechanical systems (a complicated tramsmission, alignment of several mechanical systems, & then all the electrical equipment, inculding invertors as wind power starts out DC. The other big issue for wind production is the requirement to be able to replace the power should the wind stop blowing or a connecting line trip out. So, the thermal plants must still be running, no way around it.
Posted by: Ken in Austin | Jan 31, 2008 12:21:21 PM
Ken: I agree that geothermal would seem to be the most obvious solution for Hawaii. WRT the problem of intermittent wind perhaps there is a way around it. You can store intermittent energy thermally, or load level using existing refrigeration facilities and/or PHEVs.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 31, 2008 3:15:33 PM
The Puna Geothermal Venture in the big island supplies 30% of the energy needs.
One of the wind venture projects is using a stored water pump system in parallel.
The wind isn't that intermittant. For one, it lies in the trade winds. Two its on the water. The winds over the water/land interface are really common. Take a look at the links above to check Hawaiian wind maps.
Lastly, I would like to add that best practices in utility operations prohibits any one source of energy becoming the only energy supply. Diversity in supply creates more resiliance in the system and better ability to withstand market/regulatory/environmental changes.
Ken, those guys with the jobs have it great. But in a conventional plant, my guess is that the maintenace budget for manpower is higher on a per KW basis than that wind farm.
Posted by: aym | Jan 31, 2008 4:23:09 PM
@aym:
"Lastly, I would like to add that best practices in utility operations prohibits any one source of energy becoming the only energy supply. Diversity in supply creates more resiliance in the system and better ability to withstand market/regulatory/environmental changes."
You are absolutely correct. The concept of resource diversity needs to become standard design procedure from here on out.
Posted by: gr | Jan 31, 2008 7:06:08 PM
If you work in 200 foot towers, you better get good pay! Altho if you get killed, you didn't get paid enough.
Posted by: litesong | Jan 31, 2008 7:25:34 PM
If you work in 200 foot towers, you better get good pay! Altho if you get killed, you didn't get paid enough.
Posted by: litesong | Jan 31, 2008 7:25:56 PM
Specific maintenance on wind towers may well be paid at a lower rate than desirable, Sound familiar? On the other hand the skilllset is desirable in any community. Not just maintenance, try manufacture and design. All sorts of new skills enhance society.
The alternative is more same thinking, or non involvement.
Appropriate technologies are empowering. Diverse and regionalised.
Posted by: arnold | Jan 31, 2008 10:48:10 PM
Here is some information on Hawaii, biodiesel and renewable energy. NRDC is working with the largest electric utility to find solutions.
http://www.nrdc.org//energy/oheco_cavanagh.asp
Posted by: sjc | Feb 3, 2008 8:53:19 PM
what are the roles of modern processing method in relation to collossal wastes?
Posted by: NIYI OLALEYE | Mar 3, 2008 10:40:46 PM
