Hawaii is that proverbial canary in the coal mine regarding Peak Oil and the economy. Our only hope is a global partnership to as quickly as possible help us attain a high level of energy independence. But why should Hawaii be singled out for this privilege?
The reasons are many, but the most compelling is that we are the ideal sustainability test tube: progressive leaders, abundance of renewable options, high cost of energy (an electricity bill 250% higher than the national average, so commercialization can more quickly be attained), relatively small size (less than one half of one percent the population of the Nation, so the investment will be affordable), singular political clout (the most powerful congressional member in Senator Daniel Inouye, and leader of the Free World, President Barack Obama, who was born in this state) and, soon, sheer desperation, and, therefore, motivation. Provided is a golden opportunity for the World to work together with us to create a symbol for sustainability.
Hawaii is blessed with the Sun, tradewinds, heat of the Earth, ocean resources and sufficient rain to grow biomass on irrigated lands recently vacated by the sugar industry. We pay the highest energy prices in the Nation. Ninety percent of the energy we use is petroleum, which is destined to skyrocket in price when Peak Oil occurs.
How are we doing on the development of renewable energy relative to other states? First of all, EIA 2007 data (2008 information will be released later this month) for the country shows hydroelectric power at 2.4%, wind and geothermal are both at 0.33% and solar at .04%. Wind, particularly, should be higher in 2010, but, still, non-hydro renewable energy remains at the noise level.
I selected a cross section of states (click on Planet Earth and Humanity for the full data) and found that when you deduct hydro, Hawaii is doing as well as California and Colorado, but better than all the others. Yet, we remain 94% fossil fueled.
For the future, Governor Linda Lingle proclaimed the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative, touting 70% renewable energy by 2030. This certainly confused me, for also stipulated was 40% of all electricity by 2030 when aviation fuel (about 30% of energy used) might well then still be close to zero and ground transport can only be a huge guess. Conservation is part of this strategy, as it should, but I doubt if we'll use much less energy in two decades.
Hawaii will elect a new governor this Fall, so, in advance, here are my recommendations for his (yes, all three are male) consideration:
1. Your deep sea electric cable project should include the Big Island because geothermal energy, a baseload power source, should be included in the future mix. A quarter century ago I assisted in the planning for a similar venture as there was potential for 500 MW of geothermal.
2. Be sure to determine potential ocean thermal energy conversion (also baseload) sites so the cable can be conveniently tapped at these locations.
3. This deep sea electrical cable will then cost from $2 billion to $3 billion. Can we afford this? Well, capital improvement projects get close to $2 billion annually, so spread over a decade, maybe. There, too, are bonds to float. However, the most sensible proposition is to have our congressional delegation (plus that of Texas and California) and the White House introduce the National Grid Act of 2011, using Hawaii as the first total system site, with Texas as the wind power demo and California for utility-scale solar. It is now becoming obvious that major wind/solar farms are being delayed because of the cost of an accessible smart grid system. We installed the national highway system in the '50's, and where would we be today without our interstate freeways? Now, a network to wheel electricity is clearly our next national need.
4. A larger problem will be ground transportation. Plug-in electric cars seem to be in vogue today, but a direct methanol fuel cell powered transport system makes more sense in the long run. Immediately delete ethanol and terrestrial biofuels (too slow growing, very inefficient and uses too much water). There, though, is something about microalgae, and research should be significantly expanded on this option.
5. Our most vulnerable lifeline is aviation. Tourism is about our only real industry, and when the price of petroleum jumps to $150/barrel, jet fuel will become so expensive that our tourism rate will drop by 50%. Our local economy will go into and stay in deep depression for many decades, for there are no substitutes on the commercial horizon. Do everything in your power to insure for both a substitute jet fuel and a next generation sustainable aircraft. The former will take more than a decade, and the latter, maybe a generation, and more. We might have time, though, as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange lists the price of crude oil at less than $90/barrel in December of 2018. But how often have we been surprised by sudden spikes? Very few saw $147/barrel oil coming until it happened. And, Peak Oil could well be just around the corner.
I can warn you that TIME should be your greatest concern. If Peak Oil never occurs, Hawaii and the rest of the World will only be thankful. So we guessed wrong. Yet, this embarrassment will mostly result in more locally produced clean energy, which will only help our economy in the future. What are the odds, though, for petroleum to remain under $100/barrel for the next quarter century?
Jane Brox: Light! Less Light! The Evolution Of Artificial Light
http://www.nuscalepower.com/index.php
Note: I am not an employee of NuScale Power. I have stayed in the occasional Holiday Inn Express while visiting various national labs though.
http://www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/
Note: I am not an employee of B&W nor am I a paid spokesperson for nuclear power.
Why waste time and treasure on way out their ultraexpensive schemes.
An attached synfuel plant would produce all the avgas, gasoline and diesel you would need.
Hawaii already has one of the world's largest concentration of nuclear power in the world. They just need to start using for civilian use. Be the cheapest power possible in that state.
They must have about 3 or 4 gigawatts of nukes running right now at Pearl along with what enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world twice or power it for five hundred years. And we get Greenies saying islanders don't support nukes!!!
Right not most people throw up their hands and say Hawaii can never grow enough to provide more than a tiny proportion of what's needed, but I am somewhat optimistic. Lots of fertile land is available that used to be used for sugar and pineapple. Rice can be grown, and some traditional crops have amazing yields - breadfruit, for one. The staples are the hardest part. Fruits like avocado and mango are already widely grown, often in people's yards. Local salad greens are easy to find already.
The food issue is the real heart of the matter when it comes to Hawaii surviving peak oil.
In this period of sheer desperation (but you're right, the people of Hawaii don't have a clue about this future, and our leaders seem to be focused on furloughs and budget reductions), our only real option is to maximize our political clout. I'm pleading with the world to come here to initiate the sustainable crusade because at least, being less than 0.02% of the world population, we are sort of affordable. Everyone wants to come to Hawaii, so thousands of key decision-makers can further justify a reason for visiting this state to review how well their money is being utilized, further improving our tourism rate.
Yes, some tongue in cheek and attempt at humor here, but the bottom line is that this is the best place in the world to undertake this global mission. We need these types of monumental showcases to further justify the Sustainable Expo of 2020:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-takahashi/the-sustainable-expo-for_b_468009.html
Oil is one way to crack the energy nut, but not the only one. 1,000 bicycles can also replace 1,000 cars and buses. Use natural gas to run the trucks, and Hawai'i could drop their oil imports to a fraction of what they are today. As a country, we're oil-dependent because we're vehicle-dependent.
For those that don't feel like giving themselves a coronary pedaling all over the place, there's also rechargeable electric bicycles. Where there's a will, there's a way.
However, you should know that surfers are mostly against wave power, as bird advocates don't love wind power. Anyway, this does not really matter for every wave device I've seen has in time self-destructed. I worry about that Scottish experiment in the Azores. When you try to protect the marine system, then cost becomes overriding. I think there is hope for ocean thermal energy conversion, but I don't hold much promise for wave power.
Now, regarding obese tourists, chances are that they don't flatulate much more than normal people like you. So let us capture all this energy. I would, though, like to review your gas capturing mechanism and business plan.
We do need to change, but currently, Honolulu's roads are too, too dangerous for bicycles. Makes sense for certain planned communities.
To be pushing natural gas, you must be a fan of T. Boone Pickens. First, we have none in Hawaii. Second, those who use gas in homes purchase synthetic natural gas, which is from two to five times the cost of what you pay. But we must get away from fossil fuels, period. It's true that we need to explore the full range of options, but many have significant limitations. In any case, maintain your creative thinking, and, yes, where there is a will there will be a way.
An attached synfuel plant would produce all the avgas, gasoline and diesel you would need.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-takahashi/renewable-electricity-is_b_162435.html
Let's say, though, you succeed in installing a nuclear system, what would be the feedstock for, say, jet fuel? Oil? Algae? Again, economics come into play. These are simple solutions. But as I say in my books, these can also be the most impossible.
And quoting Joe Rolm the notorious nuclear denier whose nonsense is so throughly debunked - what's with that?
Here's the current 2010 budget cost $4.5/Gw for SCANA's AP-1000's
http://www.scana.com/en/investor-relations/nuclear-financial-information/default.htm
With the current US operating cost of under 2 cents a kwh, public power company TVA could build and run those SCANA reactors for 5 cents a kwh.
High wage Japan is building America ABWR's for 1.7B/GW. Less than two cents a kwh when modern OM and fuel costs are considered.
Real cost of American nuclear power built by American engineers in five years or less overseas for public power companies instead of the attorney’s, corrupt private power companies and pet politicians, and greedy wall street financiers taking ten years at four times the cost to build the same nuclear plants in the US.
AP1000 build $1.2B/Gw 2007, 1.3 cents a kwh
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&refer=asia&sid=aJPyNB5Q_Fr0
Both AECL and Westinghouse are predicting less than $1B/Gw for their reactors when production levels get into the scores.
Nuclear produces hydrogen basically free off peak which when reacted with CO2 to produces synfuel.