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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.)

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.

"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.

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?

@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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

If you work in 200 foot towers, you better get good pay! Altho if you get killed, you didn't get paid enough.

If you work in 200 foot towers, you better get good pay! Altho if you get killed, you didn't get paid enough.

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.

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