Published: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:08 AM HST
After reading the article, "HELCO aims for renewable island energy" in the July 14 Tribune-Herald, I became more aware of the energy problem facing Big Island residents. Awareness is the first step in dealing with any problem. I am concerned about creating electrical energy by cutting and burning trees. This could jeopardize the air quality of the island. We have already experienced a drastic change in our air due to volcanic changes this past year.
There are cleaner resources producing energy for HELCO to purchase. It seems to me that HELCO's greatest resource is its customers. HELCO had the foresight to offer incentives to homeowners who use solar energy to produce hot water. Take it to the next step and offer customer incentives for solar electric installation, and buy back surplus energy. Pacific Gas & Electric in California does this and it is well supported by the people. HELCO could work toward a cleaner solution which would also benefit its customers -- a win/win solution.
The state of Hawaii has backed the use of solar energy with tax incentives. Let's use the clean resources we have -- sun, wind and water. They are here in abundance and they are clean.
*
Karen Kuester
Keaau
Jul 31, 2008
Jul 30, 2008
Coastal Zone Management
I spoke with Doug Tom, program director for the state's Coastal Zone Management Program. He says he's introducing legislation that would tighten SMA rules, because many abuses have been caused because of the broad definition of "development". However, he says that the counties are opposed to the state's "interfering" in their activities. He says that the proposed legislation is aimed at stopping speculation, for instance, where something has not been used continuously and becomes a vehicle for speculators.
He recommends we look into the Ocean Resources Plan and determine any inconsistencies with it and the power plant situation.
He recommends we look into the Ocean Resources Plan and determine any inconsistencies with it and the power plant situation.
Jul 29, 2008
Air Permit Status
Permit 0229-02-C is a Covered Source Permit, issued by the Clean Air Branch, State Dept of Health, transferred from Hilo Coast Power Company to Pacific Rim Energy Partners LLC on 7/19/2005; again transferred on 11/30/2007 to Ethanol Research Hawaii, LLC; and again transferred on 10/17/08 to Hu Honua LLC. The "covered source" is the Babcock & Wilcox steam boiler and diesel generator. The fuel covered is coal and diesel.
Any modification to the fuel type, including wood chips, requires a modification process with the Clean Air Branch. The process is a technical review against the federal and state emission guidelines. It is not a review of the merits of the project.
Process requires a 30 day public notice period for public comment. Notices are published in Honolulu and east and west Hawaii papers. There is no modification in process at this time. This information was given to me by Nolan Harrari, engineer supervisor on 7/29/08.
Obtaining a copy of the existing permit is underway.
Any modification to the fuel type, including wood chips, requires a modification process with the Clean Air Branch. The process is a technical review against the federal and state emission guidelines. It is not a review of the merits of the project.
Process requires a 30 day public notice period for public comment. Notices are published in Honolulu and east and west Hawaii papers. There is no modification in process at this time. This information was given to me by Nolan Harrari, engineer supervisor on 7/29/08.
Obtaining a copy of the existing permit is underway.
Jul 28, 2008
Why we never need to build another polluting power plant
Coal? Natural gas? Nuke? We can wipe them all off the drawing board by using current energy more efficiently. Are you listening, Washington?
By Joseph Romm
Jul. 28, 2008 | Suppose I paid you for every pound of pollution you generated and punished you for every pound you reduced. You would probably spend most of your time trying to figure out how to generate more pollution. And suppose that if you generated enough pollution, I had to pay you to build a new plant, no matter what the cost, and no matter how much cheaper it might be to not pollute in the first place.
Well, that's pretty much how we have run the U.S. electric grid for nearly a century. The more electricity a utility sells, the more money it makes. If it's able to boost electricity demand enough, the utility is allowed to build a new power plant with a guaranteed profit. The only way a typical utility can lose money is if demand drops. So the last thing most utilities want to do is seriously push strategies that save energy, strategies that do not pollute in the first place.
America is the Saudi Arabia of energy waste. A 2007 report from the international consulting firm McKinsey and Co. found that improving energy efficiency in buildings, appliances and factories could offset almost all of the projected demand for electricity in 2030 and largely negate the need for new coal-fired power plants. McKinsey estimates that one-third of the U.S. greenhouse gas reductions by 2030 could come from electricity efficiency and be achieved at negative marginal costs. In short, the cost of the efficient equipment would quickly pay for itself in energy savings.
While a few states have energy-efficiency strategies, none matches what California has done. In the past three decades, electricity consumption per capita grew 60 percent in the rest of the nation, while it stayed flat in high-tech, fast-growing California. If all Americans had the same per capita electricity demand as Californians currently do, we would cut electricity consumption 40 percent. If the entire nation had California's much cleaner electric grid, we would cut total U.S. global-warming pollution by more than a quarter without raising American electric bills. And if all of America adopted the same energy-efficiency policies that California is now putting in place, the country would never have to build another polluting power plant.
How did California do it? In part, a smart California Energy Commission has promoted strong building standards and the aggressive deployment of energy-efficient technologies and strategies -- and has done so with support of both Democratic and Republican leadership over three decades.
Many of the strategies are obvious: better insulation, energy-efficient lighting, heating and cooling. But some of the strategies were unexpected. The state found that the average residential air duct leaked 20 to 30 percent of the heated and cooled air it carried. It then required leakage rates below 6 percent, and every seventh new house is inspected. The state found that in outdoor lighting for parking lots and streets, about 15 percent of the light was directed up, illuminating nothing but the sky. The state required new outdoor lighting to cut that to below 6 percent. Flat roofs on commercial buildings must be white, which reflects the sunlight and keeps the buildings cooler, reducing air-conditioning energy demands. The state subsidized high-efficiency LED traffic lights for cities that lacked the money, ultimately converting the entire state.
Significantly, California adopted regulations so that utility company profits are not tied to how much electricity they sell. This is called "decoupling." It also allowed utilities to take a share of any energy savings they help consumers and businesses achieve. The bottom line is that California utilities can make money when their customers save money. That puts energy-efficiency investments on the same competitive playing field as generation from new power plants.
The cost of efficiency programs has averaged 2 to 3 cents per avoided kilowatt hour, which is about one-fifth the cost of electricity generated from new nuclear, coal and natural gas-fired plants. And, of course, energy efficiency does not require new power lines and does not generate greenhouse-gas emissions or long-lived radioactive waste. While California is far more efficient than the rest of the country, the state still thinks that with an even more aggressive effort, it can achieve as much additional electricity savings by 2020 as it has in the past three decades.
Serious energy efficiency is not a one-shot resource, where you pick the low-hanging fruit and you're done. In fact, the fruit grows back. The efficiency resource never gets exhausted because technology keeps improving and knowledge spreads to more people.
The best corporate example is Dow Chemical's Louisiana division, consisting of more than 20 plants. In 1982, the division's energy manager, Ken Nelson, began a yearly contest to identify and fund energy-saving projects. Some of the projects were simple, like more efficient compressors and motors, or better insulation for steam lines. Some involved more sophisticated thermodynamic "pinch" analysis, which allows engineers to figure out where to place heat exchangers to capture heat emitted in one part of a chemical process and transfer it to a different part of the process where heat is needed. His success was nothing short of astonishing.
The first year of the contest had 27 winners requiring a total capital investment of $1.7 million with an average annual return on investment of 173 percent. Many at Dow felt that there couldn't be others with such high returns. The skeptics were wrong. The 1983 contest had 32 winners requiring a total capital investment of $2.2 million and a 340 percent return -- a savings of $7.5 million in the first year and every year after that. Even as fuel prices declined in the mid-1980s, the savings kept growing. The average return to the 1989 contest was the highest ever, an astounding 470 percent in 1989 -- a payback of 11 weeks that saved the company $37 million a year.
You might think that after 10 years, and nearly 700 projects, the 2,000 Dow employees would be tapped out of ideas. Yet the contest in 1991, 1992 and 1993 each had in excess of 120 winners with an average return on investment of 300 percent. Total savings to Dow from just those projects exceeded $75 million a year.
When I worked at the Department of Energy in the mid-1990s, we hired Nelson, who had recently retired from Dow, to run a "return on investment" contest to reduce DOE's pollution. As they were at Dow, many DOE employees were skeptical such opportunities existed. Yet the first two contest rounds identified and funded 18 projects that cost $4.6 million and provided the department $10 million in savings every year, while avoiding more than 100 tons of low-level radioactive pollution and other kinds of waste. The DOE's regional operating officers ended up funding 260 projects costing $20 million that have been estimated to achieve annual savings of $90 million a year.
Economic models greatly overestimate the cost of carbon mitigation because economists simply don't believe that the economy has lots of high-return energy-efficiency opportunities. In their theory, the economy is always operating near efficiency. Reality is very different than economic models.
In my five years at DOE, working with companies to develop and deploy efficient and renewable technologies, and then in nearly a decade of consulting with companies in the private sector, I never saw a building or factory that couldn't cut electricity consumption or greenhouse-gas emissions 25 percent to 50 percent with rapid payback (under four years). My 1999 book, "Cool Companies," detailed some 100 case studies of companies that have done just that and made a great deal of money.
There are many reasons that most companies don't match what the best companies do. Until recently, saving energy has been a low priority for most of them. Most utilities, as noted, have little or no incentive to help companies save energy. Funding for government programs to help companies adopt energy-saving strategies has been cut under the Bush administration.
Government has a very important role in enabling energy savings. The office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy has lots of (underfunded) programs that deliver savings every day. Consider, for instance, Chrysler's St. Louis complex, which recently received a DOE Save Energy Now energy assessment. Using DOE software, Chrysler identified a variety of energy-saving measures and saved the company $627,000 a year in energy costs -- for an upfront implementation cost of only $125,000.
The key point for policymakers now is that we have more than two decades of experience with successful state and federal energy-efficiency programs. We know what works. As California energy commissioner Art Rosenfeld -- a former DOE colleague and the godfather of energy efficiency -- put it in a recent conversation, "A lot of technology and strategies that are tried and true in California are waiting to be adopted by the rest of country."
So how do we overcome barriers and tap our nearly limitless efficiency resource? Obviously, the first thing would be to get all the states to embrace smarter utility regulations, which is a core strategy of Barack Obama's plan to reduce greenhouse gases. But how does the federal government get all the states to embrace efficiency?
We should establish a federal matching program to co-fund state-based efficiency programs, with a special incentive to encourage states without an efficiency program to start one. This was a key recommendation of the End-Use Efficiency Working Group to the Energy Future Coalition, a bipartisan effort to develop consensus policies, in which I participated. The first year should offer $1 billion in federal matching funds, then $2 billion, $3 billion, $4 billion, and finally stabilizing at $5 billion. This will give every state time to change their regulations and establish a learning curve for energy efficiency.
This program would cost $15 billion in the first five years, but save several times that amount in lower energy bills and reduced pollution. Since the next president will put in place a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases, the revenues from auctioning the emissions permits can ultimately be used to pay for the program.
We should restore a federal focus on the energy-intensive industries, such as pulp and paper, steel, aluminum, petroleum refining and chemicals. They account for 80 percent of energy consumed by U.S. manufacturers and 90 percent of the hazardous waste. They represent the best chance for increasing efficiency while cutting pollution. Many are major emitters of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide. A 1993 analysis for the DOE found that a 10 to 20 percent reduction in waste by American industry would generate a cumulative increase of $2 trillion in the gross domestic product from 1996 to 2010. By 2010, the improvements would be generating 2 million new jobs.
For these reasons, in the 1990s, the Energy Department began forming partnerships with energy-intensive industries to develop clean technologies. We worked with scientists and engineers to identify areas of joint research into technologies that would simultaneously save energy, reduce pollution and increase productivity. The Bush administration slashed funding for this program by 50 percent -- and keeps trying to shut it down entirely.
Indeed, conservatives in general have cut the funding or shut down entirely almost all federal programs aimed at deploying energy-efficient technologies. Conservatives simply have a blind spot when it comes to energy efficiency and conservation, seeing them as inconsequential "Jimmy Carter programs."
I recently testified at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on nuclear power and spoke about how alternative technologies, particularly energy efficiency, were a much better bet for the country. Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio) said this was "poppycock," and then asked all the pro-nuclear witnesses to address the question, "If nuclear power is so uncompetitive, why are so many utilities building reactors?"
Voinovich apparently has forgotten about the massive subsidies he himself voted to give the nuclear industry in 2005. He seems to be unaware that states like Florida allow utilities to sharply raise electric rates years in advance of a nuclear plant delivering even a single electron to customers. If you could do that same forward-pricing with energy efficiency, we would never need to build another polluting plant.
Although he is a senior member of the Senate and a powerful voice on energy and climate issues, Voinovich doesn't seem to know the first thing about the electricity business; namely, that a great many utilities have a huge profit incentive to build even the most expensive power plants, since they can pass all costs on to consumers while retaining a guaranteed profit. But they have a strong disincentive from investing in much less costly efforts to reduce electricity demand, since that would eat into their profits.
The next president must challenge the public service commission in every state to allow utilities to receive the same return on energy efficiency as they are allowed to receive on generation. That single step could lead the country the furthest in solving our ever-worsening climate and energy problems.
-- By Joseph Romm
By Joseph Romm
Jul. 28, 2008 | Suppose I paid you for every pound of pollution you generated and punished you for every pound you reduced. You would probably spend most of your time trying to figure out how to generate more pollution. And suppose that if you generated enough pollution, I had to pay you to build a new plant, no matter what the cost, and no matter how much cheaper it might be to not pollute in the first place.
Well, that's pretty much how we have run the U.S. electric grid for nearly a century. The more electricity a utility sells, the more money it makes. If it's able to boost electricity demand enough, the utility is allowed to build a new power plant with a guaranteed profit. The only way a typical utility can lose money is if demand drops. So the last thing most utilities want to do is seriously push strategies that save energy, strategies that do not pollute in the first place.
America is the Saudi Arabia of energy waste. A 2007 report from the international consulting firm McKinsey and Co. found that improving energy efficiency in buildings, appliances and factories could offset almost all of the projected demand for electricity in 2030 and largely negate the need for new coal-fired power plants. McKinsey estimates that one-third of the U.S. greenhouse gas reductions by 2030 could come from electricity efficiency and be achieved at negative marginal costs. In short, the cost of the efficient equipment would quickly pay for itself in energy savings.
While a few states have energy-efficiency strategies, none matches what California has done. In the past three decades, electricity consumption per capita grew 60 percent in the rest of the nation, while it stayed flat in high-tech, fast-growing California. If all Americans had the same per capita electricity demand as Californians currently do, we would cut electricity consumption 40 percent. If the entire nation had California's much cleaner electric grid, we would cut total U.S. global-warming pollution by more than a quarter without raising American electric bills. And if all of America adopted the same energy-efficiency policies that California is now putting in place, the country would never have to build another polluting power plant.
How did California do it? In part, a smart California Energy Commission has promoted strong building standards and the aggressive deployment of energy-efficient technologies and strategies -- and has done so with support of both Democratic and Republican leadership over three decades.
Many of the strategies are obvious: better insulation, energy-efficient lighting, heating and cooling. But some of the strategies were unexpected. The state found that the average residential air duct leaked 20 to 30 percent of the heated and cooled air it carried. It then required leakage rates below 6 percent, and every seventh new house is inspected. The state found that in outdoor lighting for parking lots and streets, about 15 percent of the light was directed up, illuminating nothing but the sky. The state required new outdoor lighting to cut that to below 6 percent. Flat roofs on commercial buildings must be white, which reflects the sunlight and keeps the buildings cooler, reducing air-conditioning energy demands. The state subsidized high-efficiency LED traffic lights for cities that lacked the money, ultimately converting the entire state.
Significantly, California adopted regulations so that utility company profits are not tied to how much electricity they sell. This is called "decoupling." It also allowed utilities to take a share of any energy savings they help consumers and businesses achieve. The bottom line is that California utilities can make money when their customers save money. That puts energy-efficiency investments on the same competitive playing field as generation from new power plants.
The cost of efficiency programs has averaged 2 to 3 cents per avoided kilowatt hour, which is about one-fifth the cost of electricity generated from new nuclear, coal and natural gas-fired plants. And, of course, energy efficiency does not require new power lines and does not generate greenhouse-gas emissions or long-lived radioactive waste. While California is far more efficient than the rest of the country, the state still thinks that with an even more aggressive effort, it can achieve as much additional electricity savings by 2020 as it has in the past three decades.
Serious energy efficiency is not a one-shot resource, where you pick the low-hanging fruit and you're done. In fact, the fruit grows back. The efficiency resource never gets exhausted because technology keeps improving and knowledge spreads to more people.
The best corporate example is Dow Chemical's Louisiana division, consisting of more than 20 plants. In 1982, the division's energy manager, Ken Nelson, began a yearly contest to identify and fund energy-saving projects. Some of the projects were simple, like more efficient compressors and motors, or better insulation for steam lines. Some involved more sophisticated thermodynamic "pinch" analysis, which allows engineers to figure out where to place heat exchangers to capture heat emitted in one part of a chemical process and transfer it to a different part of the process where heat is needed. His success was nothing short of astonishing.
The first year of the contest had 27 winners requiring a total capital investment of $1.7 million with an average annual return on investment of 173 percent. Many at Dow felt that there couldn't be others with such high returns. The skeptics were wrong. The 1983 contest had 32 winners requiring a total capital investment of $2.2 million and a 340 percent return -- a savings of $7.5 million in the first year and every year after that. Even as fuel prices declined in the mid-1980s, the savings kept growing. The average return to the 1989 contest was the highest ever, an astounding 470 percent in 1989 -- a payback of 11 weeks that saved the company $37 million a year.
You might think that after 10 years, and nearly 700 projects, the 2,000 Dow employees would be tapped out of ideas. Yet the contest in 1991, 1992 and 1993 each had in excess of 120 winners with an average return on investment of 300 percent. Total savings to Dow from just those projects exceeded $75 million a year.
When I worked at the Department of Energy in the mid-1990s, we hired Nelson, who had recently retired from Dow, to run a "return on investment" contest to reduce DOE's pollution. As they were at Dow, many DOE employees were skeptical such opportunities existed. Yet the first two contest rounds identified and funded 18 projects that cost $4.6 million and provided the department $10 million in savings every year, while avoiding more than 100 tons of low-level radioactive pollution and other kinds of waste. The DOE's regional operating officers ended up funding 260 projects costing $20 million that have been estimated to achieve annual savings of $90 million a year.
Economic models greatly overestimate the cost of carbon mitigation because economists simply don't believe that the economy has lots of high-return energy-efficiency opportunities. In their theory, the economy is always operating near efficiency. Reality is very different than economic models.
In my five years at DOE, working with companies to develop and deploy efficient and renewable technologies, and then in nearly a decade of consulting with companies in the private sector, I never saw a building or factory that couldn't cut electricity consumption or greenhouse-gas emissions 25 percent to 50 percent with rapid payback (under four years). My 1999 book, "Cool Companies," detailed some 100 case studies of companies that have done just that and made a great deal of money.
There are many reasons that most companies don't match what the best companies do. Until recently, saving energy has been a low priority for most of them. Most utilities, as noted, have little or no incentive to help companies save energy. Funding for government programs to help companies adopt energy-saving strategies has been cut under the Bush administration.
Government has a very important role in enabling energy savings. The office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy has lots of (underfunded) programs that deliver savings every day. Consider, for instance, Chrysler's St. Louis complex, which recently received a DOE Save Energy Now energy assessment. Using DOE software, Chrysler identified a variety of energy-saving measures and saved the company $627,000 a year in energy costs -- for an upfront implementation cost of only $125,000.
The key point for policymakers now is that we have more than two decades of experience with successful state and federal energy-efficiency programs. We know what works. As California energy commissioner Art Rosenfeld -- a former DOE colleague and the godfather of energy efficiency -- put it in a recent conversation, "A lot of technology and strategies that are tried and true in California are waiting to be adopted by the rest of country."
So how do we overcome barriers and tap our nearly limitless efficiency resource? Obviously, the first thing would be to get all the states to embrace smarter utility regulations, which is a core strategy of Barack Obama's plan to reduce greenhouse gases. But how does the federal government get all the states to embrace efficiency?
We should establish a federal matching program to co-fund state-based efficiency programs, with a special incentive to encourage states without an efficiency program to start one. This was a key recommendation of the End-Use Efficiency Working Group to the Energy Future Coalition, a bipartisan effort to develop consensus policies, in which I participated. The first year should offer $1 billion in federal matching funds, then $2 billion, $3 billion, $4 billion, and finally stabilizing at $5 billion. This will give every state time to change their regulations and establish a learning curve for energy efficiency.
This program would cost $15 billion in the first five years, but save several times that amount in lower energy bills and reduced pollution. Since the next president will put in place a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases, the revenues from auctioning the emissions permits can ultimately be used to pay for the program.
We should restore a federal focus on the energy-intensive industries, such as pulp and paper, steel, aluminum, petroleum refining and chemicals. They account for 80 percent of energy consumed by U.S. manufacturers and 90 percent of the hazardous waste. They represent the best chance for increasing efficiency while cutting pollution. Many are major emitters of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide. A 1993 analysis for the DOE found that a 10 to 20 percent reduction in waste by American industry would generate a cumulative increase of $2 trillion in the gross domestic product from 1996 to 2010. By 2010, the improvements would be generating 2 million new jobs.
For these reasons, in the 1990s, the Energy Department began forming partnerships with energy-intensive industries to develop clean technologies. We worked with scientists and engineers to identify areas of joint research into technologies that would simultaneously save energy, reduce pollution and increase productivity. The Bush administration slashed funding for this program by 50 percent -- and keeps trying to shut it down entirely.
Indeed, conservatives in general have cut the funding or shut down entirely almost all federal programs aimed at deploying energy-efficient technologies. Conservatives simply have a blind spot when it comes to energy efficiency and conservation, seeing them as inconsequential "Jimmy Carter programs."
I recently testified at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on nuclear power and spoke about how alternative technologies, particularly energy efficiency, were a much better bet for the country. Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio) said this was "poppycock," and then asked all the pro-nuclear witnesses to address the question, "If nuclear power is so uncompetitive, why are so many utilities building reactors?"
Voinovich apparently has forgotten about the massive subsidies he himself voted to give the nuclear industry in 2005. He seems to be unaware that states like Florida allow utilities to sharply raise electric rates years in advance of a nuclear plant delivering even a single electron to customers. If you could do that same forward-pricing with energy efficiency, we would never need to build another polluting plant.
Although he is a senior member of the Senate and a powerful voice on energy and climate issues, Voinovich doesn't seem to know the first thing about the electricity business; namely, that a great many utilities have a huge profit incentive to build even the most expensive power plants, since they can pass all costs on to consumers while retaining a guaranteed profit. But they have a strong disincentive from investing in much less costly efforts to reduce electricity demand, since that would eat into their profits.
The next president must challenge the public service commission in every state to allow utilities to receive the same return on energy efficiency as they are allowed to receive on generation. That single step could lead the country the furthest in solving our ever-worsening climate and energy problems.
-- By Joseph Romm
Jul 26, 2008
Lawsuits filed against parent company of HuHonua
Numerous lawsuits have been filed in 2008 claiming that Municipal Mortgage & Equity LLC management intentionally misrepresented the value of the company's assets and its profits. As a result, the stock price was artificially inflated and subsequently declined sharply. Named in the lawsuit are most of the major corporate officers, including the audit committee.
Also known as MuniMae, the company was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange in February 2008, former trading symbol: MMAB. Shares can be purchased via the "pink sheets". Daily Record, The (Baltimore, MD), May 06, 2008
According to a press release dated January 31, 2008, the complaint charges that MMA and certain of its present and former officers, directors, and control persons violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements pertaining to MMA's business prospects, financial condition, and financial performance.
full story here
Lawsuits have the disadvantage of taking corporate officers' time away from running the business in order to defend themselves; they take corporate funds to defend them; they lower market confidence in the company and make it harder to obtain business credit and loans for operations; and they can result in the sale of corporate assets if penalized.
Also known as MuniMae, the company was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange in February 2008, former trading symbol: MMAB. Shares can be purchased via the "pink sheets". Daily Record, The (Baltimore, MD), May 06, 2008
According to a press release dated January 31, 2008, the complaint charges that MMA and certain of its present and former officers, directors, and control persons violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements pertaining to MMA's business prospects, financial condition, and financial performance.
full story here
Lawsuits have the disadvantage of taking corporate officers' time away from running the business in order to defend themselves; they take corporate funds to defend them; they lower market confidence in the company and make it harder to obtain business credit and loans for operations; and they can result in the sale of corporate assets if penalized.
Jul 23, 2008
Tradewinds blow ill
Published: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:44 AM HST
I'd like to respond to the article on HELCO and renewable energy in the July 14 Tribune-Herald.
First, Tradewinds Forest Products proposes to put their power plant not on the "outskirts of Ookala," as stated in the article, but right in the middle of our residential community, literally across the street from the majority of homes.
Next, when HELCO talks about "renewable energy," the public is led to believe the energy is "clean and green." But biomass energy is NOT clean and green, it's a smokestack industry with toxic emissions that fall under state and federal government regulation.
*
In the article, Mr. Bryan states that he "can't build without an air permit in hand," and that "it's on its way to us, and we expect to see something here shortly."
Tradewinds' draft permit is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency due to a request that I filed in February asking for an objection. My request is based on the expert analysis of several environmental and mechanical engineers that our community group, Protect Ookala, hired to review the draft permit. Without exception, every single expert found serious flaws in the emissions data. They also had concerns about the air control technology and weak monitoring system that Tradewinds has proposed to use.
The EPA does not rush its decisions, so regardless of what Mr. Bryan says, his air permit is a long way from resolution.
I'd also like to respond to Mr. Bryan's statements about the supply of fuel for the three proposed biomass plants. In the article, he states that the other two ventures "won't be competing for our fuel, because our fuel is under contract."
But the only contract Tradewinds currently has for fuel is a seven-year-old state lease license at Waiakea Timber Management Area, some 40 miles south of Ookala. That contract, which is nearing its end, states that the veneer and power plant construction must be completed by this July 1, 2008, with a drop-dead completion date of January 2009.
Given that Tradewinds doesn't even have its first permit, the Waiakea timber should be put out to bid again in 2009. So in reality, there is no secured fuel source for Tradewinds.
Mr. Bryan has continually given out misinformation about his project to the press, to our elected officials, and to the public, but our community will continue to hold him accountable. HELCO and the Public Utility Commission should do the same.
Scott Enright
Ookala
962-6071
I'd like to respond to the article on HELCO and renewable energy in the July 14 Tribune-Herald.
First, Tradewinds Forest Products proposes to put their power plant not on the "outskirts of Ookala," as stated in the article, but right in the middle of our residential community, literally across the street from the majority of homes.
Next, when HELCO talks about "renewable energy," the public is led to believe the energy is "clean and green." But biomass energy is NOT clean and green, it's a smokestack industry with toxic emissions that fall under state and federal government regulation.
*
In the article, Mr. Bryan states that he "can't build without an air permit in hand," and that "it's on its way to us, and we expect to see something here shortly."
Tradewinds' draft permit is currently being reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency due to a request that I filed in February asking for an objection. My request is based on the expert analysis of several environmental and mechanical engineers that our community group, Protect Ookala, hired to review the draft permit. Without exception, every single expert found serious flaws in the emissions data. They also had concerns about the air control technology and weak monitoring system that Tradewinds has proposed to use.
The EPA does not rush its decisions, so regardless of what Mr. Bryan says, his air permit is a long way from resolution.
I'd also like to respond to Mr. Bryan's statements about the supply of fuel for the three proposed biomass plants. In the article, he states that the other two ventures "won't be competing for our fuel, because our fuel is under contract."
But the only contract Tradewinds currently has for fuel is a seven-year-old state lease license at Waiakea Timber Management Area, some 40 miles south of Ookala. That contract, which is nearing its end, states that the veneer and power plant construction must be completed by this July 1, 2008, with a drop-dead completion date of January 2009.
Given that Tradewinds doesn't even have its first permit, the Waiakea timber should be put out to bid again in 2009. So in reality, there is no secured fuel source for Tradewinds.
Mr. Bryan has continually given out misinformation about his project to the press, to our elected officials, and to the public, but our community will continue to hold him accountable. HELCO and the Public Utility Commission should do the same.
Scott Enright
Ookala
962-6071
Jul 22, 2008
Community Noise Control
Title 11, Chapter 46, Hawaii Administrative Rules
Noise limits are set by the zoning classification, i.e., agricultural has a much higher decibel level limit than residential, which has a lower limit during nighttime.
Noise Control Branch of the state DOH has an inspector for the site who will come with equipment and take measurements from the property of the complaining party, and not from the plant premises.
Noise limits are set by the zoning classification, i.e., agricultural has a much higher decibel level limit than residential, which has a lower limit during nighttime.
Noise Control Branch of the state DOH has an inspector for the site who will come with equipment and take measurements from the property of the complaining party, and not from the plant premises.
Jul 20, 2008
Who are Dan KenKnight, Ethanol Research Hawaii, and Hu Honua?
Ethanol Research Hawaii LLC Corporation Filings History
Oahu Ethanol's state filings
Hu Honua Bioenergy LLC state filings
Political donations
More political donations
Far from being green, ethanol harms environment and wallets!
Realizing ethanol's energy potential takes effort
Dan Kenknight does not meet target
Ethanol's promise for self-reliance not quite there
Sugar-based ethanol is unprofitable in the long-run, and Abercrombie rejects
State's ethanol plans fall short
Construct ion notice of ethanol facilities
No guarantee that any ethanol sold in Hawaii is made in Hawaii
Ethanol tax breaks are a bonanza for some
Kauai ethanol plant is planned for 2008
Gay & Robinson says sugar conversion will save 230 jobs
STORY SUMMARY »
KAUMAKANI, Kauai » After years of delay, the county's first sugar-to-ethanol plant might be coming to Kauai after all.
art
As early as 1998, Gay & Robinson of Kauai began announcing plans to turn their sugar crop into ethanol. But delays in the permitting process and securing funding have kept the project from breaking ground.
The plant, which would be built in the heart of Gay & Robinson's sugar fields in Kaumakani, could open as early as next year, said Gay & Robinson Treasurer Clem Lum.
The plan would save 230 jobs in the sugar plantation and add dozens more in the next year, Lum added.
STAR-BULLETIN
FULL STORY »
By Tom Finnegan / tfinnegan@starbulletin.com
KAUMAKANI, Kauai » An investment of $80 million announced yesterday will likely turn Kauai's west side once again into the tassle-filled land of sugar it has been for more than 100 years.
This time, however, sugar plantation officials believe the same crop that their grandparents cultivated will provide a renewable energy source for their grandchildren.
Gay & Robinson announced yesterday that it has secured funding to build both a 12 million-gallon-per-year ethanol plant and a biomass boiler and turbine to produce energy for the plant and for the local electricity company.
ETHANOL POINTS
The project: Now in the permitting stage, it is set to open in mid- to late 2008.
Production: 12 million gallons of ethanol made from sugar juice and molasses
Secondary plans: A biomass boiler and turbine facility, both to power the ethanol plant and to sell to a local utility company
Partners: Pacific West and Gay & Robinson
The sugar-to-ethanol plant would be the first in the United States, producing more than a quarter of what is currently needed in Hawaii as a gasoline additive, officials with the company said yesterday.
Plans have been in the works to build the ethanol plant for nearly a decade, but delays with permitting and funding have pushed back the project.
With the announcement of the deal, however, the plant is once again scheduled to open next year, Gay & Robinson Treasurer Clem Lum said yesterday.
"Money has always been an issue," he said.
Not anymore.
The $39 million ethanol plant, to be built in Kaumakani, the heart of the Garden Isle's sugar fields, is expected to use sugar juice and molasses as raw material. It has already received a permit from the state for air pollution, and is in the permitting process at the county level.
It is scheduled to produce 12 million gallons of ethanol per year. Current state law requires that gasoline be blended with 10 percent ethanol so as to reduce the state's dependence on foreign oil. But the state has had to import ethanol without a local supplier.
The rest of the funding announced yesterday, Lum said, will go to cultivating more sugar cane lands, building the biomass plant and hiring more staff.
Future business plans call for additional stages of energy production, including biodiesel production, a methane recovery system, the processing of municipal solid waste, hydropower, the conversion of biomass into liquid fuels and solar energy production, company officials said yesterday.
"We're excited to partner with Pacific West Energy and begin transforming G&R from a commodity raw sugar producer to a provider of renewable and alternative energy for Kauai and Hawaii," said Alan Kennett, president of Gay & Robinson, in a news release.
Pacific West Energy LLC, a Vancouver, Wash.-based firm, worked to secure the funding for the project and will partner with Gay & Robinson to form Gay & Robinson Ag-Energy LLC. A management team with Pacific West with experience in developing renewable-energy projects worldwide will come to Kauai to help develop the project, officials with both companies said.
© Honolulu Star-Bulletin -- http://starbulletin.com
Oahu Ethanol's state filings
Hu Honua Bioenergy LLC state filings
Political donations
More political donations
Far from being green, ethanol harms environment and wallets!
Realizing ethanol's energy potential takes effort
Dan Kenknight does not meet target
Ethanol's promise for self-reliance not quite there
Sugar-based ethanol is unprofitable in the long-run, and Abercrombie rejects
State's ethanol plans fall short
Construct ion notice of ethanol facilities
No guarantee that any ethanol sold in Hawaii is made in Hawaii
Ethanol tax breaks are a bonanza for some
Kauai ethanol plant is planned for 2008
Gay & Robinson says sugar conversion will save 230 jobs
STORY SUMMARY »
KAUMAKANI, Kauai » After years of delay, the county's first sugar-to-ethanol plant might be coming to Kauai after all.
art
As early as 1998, Gay & Robinson of Kauai began announcing plans to turn their sugar crop into ethanol. But delays in the permitting process and securing funding have kept the project from breaking ground.
The plant, which would be built in the heart of Gay & Robinson's sugar fields in Kaumakani, could open as early as next year, said Gay & Robinson Treasurer Clem Lum.
The plan would save 230 jobs in the sugar plantation and add dozens more in the next year, Lum added.
STAR-BULLETIN
FULL STORY »
By Tom Finnegan / tfinnegan@starbulletin.com
KAUMAKANI, Kauai » An investment of $80 million announced yesterday will likely turn Kauai's west side once again into the tassle-filled land of sugar it has been for more than 100 years.
This time, however, sugar plantation officials believe the same crop that their grandparents cultivated will provide a renewable energy source for their grandchildren.
Gay & Robinson announced yesterday that it has secured funding to build both a 12 million-gallon-per-year ethanol plant and a biomass boiler and turbine to produce energy for the plant and for the local electricity company.
ETHANOL POINTS
The project: Now in the permitting stage, it is set to open in mid- to late 2008.
Production: 12 million gallons of ethanol made from sugar juice and molasses
Secondary plans: A biomass boiler and turbine facility, both to power the ethanol plant and to sell to a local utility company
Partners: Pacific West and Gay & Robinson
The sugar-to-ethanol plant would be the first in the United States, producing more than a quarter of what is currently needed in Hawaii as a gasoline additive, officials with the company said yesterday.
Plans have been in the works to build the ethanol plant for nearly a decade, but delays with permitting and funding have pushed back the project.
With the announcement of the deal, however, the plant is once again scheduled to open next year, Gay & Robinson Treasurer Clem Lum said yesterday.
"Money has always been an issue," he said.
Not anymore.
The $39 million ethanol plant, to be built in Kaumakani, the heart of the Garden Isle's sugar fields, is expected to use sugar juice and molasses as raw material. It has already received a permit from the state for air pollution, and is in the permitting process at the county level.
It is scheduled to produce 12 million gallons of ethanol per year. Current state law requires that gasoline be blended with 10 percent ethanol so as to reduce the state's dependence on foreign oil. But the state has had to import ethanol without a local supplier.
The rest of the funding announced yesterday, Lum said, will go to cultivating more sugar cane lands, building the biomass plant and hiring more staff.
Future business plans call for additional stages of energy production, including biodiesel production, a methane recovery system, the processing of municipal solid waste, hydropower, the conversion of biomass into liquid fuels and solar energy production, company officials said yesterday.
"We're excited to partner with Pacific West Energy and begin transforming G&R from a commodity raw sugar producer to a provider of renewable and alternative energy for Kauai and Hawaii," said Alan Kennett, president of Gay & Robinson, in a news release.
Pacific West Energy LLC, a Vancouver, Wash.-based firm, worked to secure the funding for the project and will partner with Gay & Robinson to form Gay & Robinson Ag-Energy LLC. A management team with Pacific West with experience in developing renewable-energy projects worldwide will come to Kauai to help develop the project, officials with both companies said.
© Honolulu Star-Bulletin -- http://starbulletin.com
Hawaii Tribune-Herald July 14, 2008
HELCO aims for renewable island energy
by Cameron Johnson
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer
Published: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:58 AM HST
Company wants to generate electricity from isle biomass
An Ookala biomass power plant and Hawaii Electric Light Co. have signed 20-year power purchasing agreement, and HELCO is talking with two other Hamakua groups planning to burn plant matter to produce electricity.
The Tradewinds Forest Products plant is expected to add 2 megawatts of electricity to the grid beginning in October 2010, said Curtis Beck, manager of the HELCO energy services department.
"We understand they may try to process their forest products earlier than that, and bring on their generating unit a little bit later," said Beck.
*
HELCO is also in talks with Hamakua Biomass Energy, which is looking to build a plant near Paauilo, and Hu Honua Bioenergy, which has started work to reconfigure the Pepeekeo sugar mill plant to burn biomass instead of coal and fuel oil, said Jay Ignacio, HELCO president.
The Pepeekeo plant will produce 24 megawatts, and the proposed Paauilo plant will produce 30 megawatts, according to the companies.
"At this point, any additional generation sources that we would add to the system, we would like it to be from a renewable source," Ignacio said. "Adding additional renewable generation sources at lower cost than fossil fuel is moving in the right direction. That's the direction we are going at HELCO."
When asked if the island can supply three biomass burning plants, Ignacio said: "So far, all the people who have proposed (it) to us say they can. The question is: are they competing for the same fuel supply? We don't know."
Each company must show it has a sustainable supply of biofuel, Ignacio said.
"They won't be competing for our fuel because our fuel is under contract," said Don Brian, CEO of Tradewinds.
Brian said Tradewinds plans to have its eucalyptus veneer plant working by mid-2009. Its power plant, which will burn tree waste, should be operational the following year. Tradewinds does not yet have a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency.
"You can't build without an air permit in hand," Brian said. "We think it's on its way to us, and we expect to see something here shortly."
The Tradewinds plant will be on the outskirts of Ookala, on the old sugar mill site.
HELCO has enough power generation to meet the Big Island's needs now, and doesn't foresee a need for new generation until 2022, Ignacio said. HELCO itself is considering using biofuels in its existing plants and is evaluating tests done by sister companies Maui Electric Co. and Hawaiian Electric Co.
"Basically, we're subject to state law and the renewable portfolio standards," said Curtis Beck, manager of HELCO's energy services department. The state has required HELCO have 20 percent renewable generation by 2020.
It turns out -- based on 2007 numbers, HELCO is already at 31 percent, and will be at 35 percent later this year, Beck said.
The Big Island has so much renewable energy production, said Beck, Maui and Oahu can use the Big Island's production to offset their lack of renewable energy. It's a complicated equation, he said, "but we're working to see how we can collectively reach that (20 percent mark)."
HELCO is not under any obligation to purchase electricity from these biomass power plants, Beck said, but "it's a policy that any further regeneration we build or purchase will be renewable, which is why we're interested in the Hu Honua project."
HELCO's power
HELCO's sources of renewable power and how much energy each creates:
- Puna Geothermal -Venture:
30 megawatts in Kapoho
- Wailuku River
Hydroelectric Power Co.:
11 megawatts plant in Hilo (though it is not
producing that now due to lack of rain)
- Two HELCO-owned hydroelectric plants:
Puueo produces 3.2 megawatts; and Waiau 1.1 megawatts
- Hawi Renewable
Development:
10-megawatt wind farm
- Apollo Wind Co.'s
Pakini Nui plant at South Point:
20 megawatts
- Coming online in 2010: Tradewinds Forest Products Ookala
biomass plant:
2 megawatts
by Cameron Johnson
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer
Published: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:58 AM HST
Company wants to generate electricity from isle biomass
An Ookala biomass power plant and Hawaii Electric Light Co. have signed 20-year power purchasing agreement, and HELCO is talking with two other Hamakua groups planning to burn plant matter to produce electricity.
The Tradewinds Forest Products plant is expected to add 2 megawatts of electricity to the grid beginning in October 2010, said Curtis Beck, manager of the HELCO energy services department.
"We understand they may try to process their forest products earlier than that, and bring on their generating unit a little bit later," said Beck.
*
HELCO is also in talks with Hamakua Biomass Energy, which is looking to build a plant near Paauilo, and Hu Honua Bioenergy, which has started work to reconfigure the Pepeekeo sugar mill plant to burn biomass instead of coal and fuel oil, said Jay Ignacio, HELCO president.
The Pepeekeo plant will produce 24 megawatts, and the proposed Paauilo plant will produce 30 megawatts, according to the companies.
"At this point, any additional generation sources that we would add to the system, we would like it to be from a renewable source," Ignacio said. "Adding additional renewable generation sources at lower cost than fossil fuel is moving in the right direction. That's the direction we are going at HELCO."
When asked if the island can supply three biomass burning plants, Ignacio said: "So far, all the people who have proposed (it) to us say they can. The question is: are they competing for the same fuel supply? We don't know."
Each company must show it has a sustainable supply of biofuel, Ignacio said.
"They won't be competing for our fuel because our fuel is under contract," said Don Brian, CEO of Tradewinds.
Brian said Tradewinds plans to have its eucalyptus veneer plant working by mid-2009. Its power plant, which will burn tree waste, should be operational the following year. Tradewinds does not yet have a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency.
"You can't build without an air permit in hand," Brian said. "We think it's on its way to us, and we expect to see something here shortly."
The Tradewinds plant will be on the outskirts of Ookala, on the old sugar mill site.
HELCO has enough power generation to meet the Big Island's needs now, and doesn't foresee a need for new generation until 2022, Ignacio said. HELCO itself is considering using biofuels in its existing plants and is evaluating tests done by sister companies Maui Electric Co. and Hawaiian Electric Co.
"Basically, we're subject to state law and the renewable portfolio standards," said Curtis Beck, manager of HELCO's energy services department. The state has required HELCO have 20 percent renewable generation by 2020.
It turns out -- based on 2007 numbers, HELCO is already at 31 percent, and will be at 35 percent later this year, Beck said.
The Big Island has so much renewable energy production, said Beck, Maui and Oahu can use the Big Island's production to offset their lack of renewable energy. It's a complicated equation, he said, "but we're working to see how we can collectively reach that (20 percent mark)."
HELCO is not under any obligation to purchase electricity from these biomass power plants, Beck said, but "it's a policy that any further regeneration we build or purchase will be renewable, which is why we're interested in the Hu Honua project."
HELCO's power
HELCO's sources of renewable power and how much energy each creates:
- Puna Geothermal -Venture:
30 megawatts in Kapoho
- Wailuku River
Hydroelectric Power Co.:
11 megawatts plant in Hilo (though it is not
producing that now due to lack of rain)
- Two HELCO-owned hydroelectric plants:
Puueo produces 3.2 megawatts; and Waiau 1.1 megawatts
- Hawi Renewable
Development:
10-megawatt wind farm
- Apollo Wind Co.'s
Pakini Nui plant at South Point:
20 megawatts
- Coming online in 2010: Tradewinds Forest Products Ookala
biomass plant:
2 megawatts
Hawaii Tribune-Herald July 20, 2008
Biomass is limited
Published: Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:35 AM HST
Regarding the July 12 article, Pepeekeo electricity plant aims to reopen, a question pops to mind: Just how sustainable does Hu Honua think biomass is?
Today, with high fuel and energy prices and a general move towards everything "green" and "renewable," some companies are using these labels as a marketing ploy to try to sell us products or technologies which are far from being "green" at all. Hu Honua seems to be telling us that their plant will be using "100 percent biomass," and that the goal is to "burn a clean, sustainable fuel." Burning wood, according to Hu Honua, puts out "10 to 20 times less particulate matter than a coal-burning plant," but that does not necessarily mean that it is a clean burning fuel. Burning wood generates CO2, ash, methane, CO (if the combustion is not 100 percent efficient), N2O and some other greenhouse gases.
Another issue is that numbers in the article don't seem to add up. They call for three trucks per hour of biomass (72 trucks per day, assuming a typical round-the-clock operating schedule). They claim that they will use unusable materials from the eucalyptus timber and other green waste. Is Hu Honua telling us that the eucalyptus forest can regenerate at the rate of three trucks per hour? Because if not, then it is not a sustainable fuel. Yes, they mention that 50,000 tons of green waste are going into the Hilo land fill every year. Sounds like a lot, right? But, even if they were able to capture 100 percent of those 50,000 tons, that translates to less than six tons per hour (not even one of the three trucks per hour they need) and that is only if (and that is a big if) they manage to collect 100 percent of the green waste, and if it is all usable.
*
One more question: What effect will this have on the average homeowner's electrical bill? Will the Pepeekeo plant lower our costs?
We should be investing in true renewable energy resources such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric. The government should give better incentives to homeowners for photovoltaic (PV) residential units (similar to the incentives for water heaters). Adding PV systems to homes would take off a significant load off the grid. We should be thinking progressively, and wood burning does not seem to be a step in the right direction.
It's time we start coming up with some creative ideas to help the Big Island residents ease off the current energy crunch. Burning fuel seems to be the least creative solution, perhaps the path of least resistance, but it does not seem to be a long-term truly sustainable solution.
Rodrigo F.V. Romo
Hilo
Published: Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:35 AM HST
Regarding the July 12 article, Pepeekeo electricity plant aims to reopen, a question pops to mind: Just how sustainable does Hu Honua think biomass is?
Today, with high fuel and energy prices and a general move towards everything "green" and "renewable," some companies are using these labels as a marketing ploy to try to sell us products or technologies which are far from being "green" at all. Hu Honua seems to be telling us that their plant will be using "100 percent biomass," and that the goal is to "burn a clean, sustainable fuel." Burning wood, according to Hu Honua, puts out "10 to 20 times less particulate matter than a coal-burning plant," but that does not necessarily mean that it is a clean burning fuel. Burning wood generates CO2, ash, methane, CO (if the combustion is not 100 percent efficient), N2O and some other greenhouse gases.
Another issue is that numbers in the article don't seem to add up. They call for three trucks per hour of biomass (72 trucks per day, assuming a typical round-the-clock operating schedule). They claim that they will use unusable materials from the eucalyptus timber and other green waste. Is Hu Honua telling us that the eucalyptus forest can regenerate at the rate of three trucks per hour? Because if not, then it is not a sustainable fuel. Yes, they mention that 50,000 tons of green waste are going into the Hilo land fill every year. Sounds like a lot, right? But, even if they were able to capture 100 percent of those 50,000 tons, that translates to less than six tons per hour (not even one of the three trucks per hour they need) and that is only if (and that is a big if) they manage to collect 100 percent of the green waste, and if it is all usable.
*
One more question: What effect will this have on the average homeowner's electrical bill? Will the Pepeekeo plant lower our costs?
We should be investing in true renewable energy resources such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric. The government should give better incentives to homeowners for photovoltaic (PV) residential units (similar to the incentives for water heaters). Adding PV systems to homes would take off a significant load off the grid. We should be thinking progressively, and wood burning does not seem to be a step in the right direction.
It's time we start coming up with some creative ideas to help the Big Island residents ease off the current energy crunch. Burning fuel seems to be the least creative solution, perhaps the path of least resistance, but it does not seem to be a long-term truly sustainable solution.
Rodrigo F.V. Romo
Hilo
Hawaii Tribune-Herald July 20, 2008
Biomass is limited
Published: Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:35 AM HST
Regarding the July 12 article, Pepeekeo electricity plant aims to reopen, a question pops to mind: Just how sustainable does Hu Honua think biomass is?
Today, with high fuel and energy prices and a general move towards everything "green" and "renewable," some companies are using these labels as a marketing ploy to try to sell us products or technologies which are far from being "green" at all. Hu Honua seems to be telling us that their plant will be using "100 percent biomass," and that the goal is to "burn a clean, sustainable fuel." Burning wood, according to Hu Honua, puts out "10 to 20 times less particulate matter than a coal-burning plant," but that does not necessarily mean that it is a clean burning fuel. Burning wood generates CO2, ash, methane, CO (if the combustion is not 100 percent efficient), N2O and some other greenhouse gases.
Another issue is that numbers in the article don't seem to add up. They call for three trucks per hour of biomass (72 trucks per day, assuming a typical round-the-clock operating schedule). They claim that they will use unusable materials from the eucalyptus timber and other green waste. Is Hu Honua telling us that the eucalyptus forest can regenerate at the rate of three trucks per hour? Because if not, then it is not a sustainable fuel. Yes, they mention that 50,000 tons of green waste are going into the Hilo land fill every year. Sounds like a lot, right? But, even if they were able to capture 100 percent of those 50,000 tons, that translates to less than six tons per hour (not even one of the three trucks per hour they need) and that is only if (and that is a big if) they manage to collect 100 percent of the green waste, and if it is all usable.
*
One more question: What effect will this have on the average homeowner's electrical bill? Will the Pepeekeo plant lower our costs?
We should be investing in true renewable energy resources such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric. The government should give better incentives to homeowners for photovoltaic (PV) residential units (similar to the incentives for water heaters). Adding PV systems to homes would take off a significant load off the grid. We should be thinking progressively, and wood burning does not seem to be a step in the right direction.
It's time we start coming up with some creative ideas to help the Big Island residents ease off the current energy crunch. Burning fuel seems to be the least creative solution, perhaps the path of least resistance, but it does not seem to be a long-term truly sustainable solution.
Rodrigo F.V. Romo
Hilo
Published: Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:35 AM HST
Regarding the July 12 article, Pepeekeo electricity plant aims to reopen, a question pops to mind: Just how sustainable does Hu Honua think biomass is?
Today, with high fuel and energy prices and a general move towards everything "green" and "renewable," some companies are using these labels as a marketing ploy to try to sell us products or technologies which are far from being "green" at all. Hu Honua seems to be telling us that their plant will be using "100 percent biomass," and that the goal is to "burn a clean, sustainable fuel." Burning wood, according to Hu Honua, puts out "10 to 20 times less particulate matter than a coal-burning plant," but that does not necessarily mean that it is a clean burning fuel. Burning wood generates CO2, ash, methane, CO (if the combustion is not 100 percent efficient), N2O and some other greenhouse gases.
Another issue is that numbers in the article don't seem to add up. They call for three trucks per hour of biomass (72 trucks per day, assuming a typical round-the-clock operating schedule). They claim that they will use unusable materials from the eucalyptus timber and other green waste. Is Hu Honua telling us that the eucalyptus forest can regenerate at the rate of three trucks per hour? Because if not, then it is not a sustainable fuel. Yes, they mention that 50,000 tons of green waste are going into the Hilo land fill every year. Sounds like a lot, right? But, even if they were able to capture 100 percent of those 50,000 tons, that translates to less than six tons per hour (not even one of the three trucks per hour they need) and that is only if (and that is a big if) they manage to collect 100 percent of the green waste, and if it is all usable.
*
One more question: What effect will this have on the average homeowner's electrical bill? Will the Pepeekeo plant lower our costs?
We should be investing in true renewable energy resources such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric. The government should give better incentives to homeowners for photovoltaic (PV) residential units (similar to the incentives for water heaters). Adding PV systems to homes would take off a significant load off the grid. We should be thinking progressively, and wood burning does not seem to be a step in the right direction.
It's time we start coming up with some creative ideas to help the Big Island residents ease off the current energy crunch. Burning fuel seems to be the least creative solution, perhaps the path of least resistance, but it does not seem to be a long-term truly sustainable solution.
Rodrigo F.V. Romo
Hilo
Why Choose the Cheapest Upgrade Method?
HuHonua says that they will spend $24 Million dollars to upgrade the existing plant equipment and create electricity from burning biomass via steam power. We know that this method is 20% efficient and that two other biomass plant methods are 2-3 TIMES more efficient (namely, cofiring and gasification). [see the blog post titled US Dept Energy on Biomass Power Systems.] Efficiency is very important because it means that less biomass is needed to produce greater amounts of electricity. Efficiency is also important because it means that less greenhouse gases are produced with higher levels of efficiency.
Does it make good sense to burn more Hamakua trees, burn more truck fuel in transporting those trees, just to create more greenhouse gases and only produce one third the power that could be made with better equipment and a bigger capital investment?
Does it make good sense to burn more Hamakua trees, burn more truck fuel in transporting those trees, just to create more greenhouse gases and only produce one third the power that could be made with better equipment and a bigger capital investment?
Fact or Fiction or More to the Story?
HECO's web site shows that they are buying 14 MW electricity from HC&S PUUNENE SUGAR MILL in Maui which they say saves 44,700 barrels per year.
Now, the Pepeekeo plant can generate 24 MW of electricity. HuHonua says they will save 225,000 bbl oil per year.
How reasonable is it for a 24 MW plant which is 71% larger than a 14 MW plant to save 403% more bbl oil???
Now, the Pepeekeo plant can generate 24 MW of electricity. HuHonua says they will save 225,000 bbl oil per year.
How reasonable is it for a 24 MW plant which is 71% larger than a 14 MW plant to save 403% more bbl oil???
Jul 18, 2008
Hawaii's Energy Policy
website
energy efficiency options
State Energy Coordinator: Theodore F. Liu, Director, Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism
contact information
energy efficiency options
State Energy Coordinator: Theodore F. Liu, Director, Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism
contact information
Farmers' Concerns from 7/9/2008 Meeting
Increased Number of Ag Pests, like stinging nettle caterpillar, will relocate to areas that do not have them already due to the proposed trucking activity. This will mean higher costs to control the new pests and damage to crops.
Increased Plant Diseases, or disease vectors like aphids and grasshoppers, will be shipped in with the biomass and can spread serious plant diseases that can destroy crops.
Less Composted Green Waste,which farmers rely on for farming activities, will result because it will be sent to the power plant to burn for electricity.
This means higher costs for farmers, less farming income, higher food costs for residents, less food grown, more pesticides used in food crops.
Increased Plant Diseases, or disease vectors like aphids and grasshoppers, will be shipped in with the biomass and can spread serious plant diseases that can destroy crops.
Less Composted Green Waste,which farmers rely on for farming activities, will result because it will be sent to the power plant to burn for electricity.
This means higher costs for farmers, less farming income, higher food costs for residents, less food grown, more pesticides used in food crops.
Jul 16, 2008
SMA Permit # 221
Permit restricts fuel to coal or its equivalent. So an amendment to the permit will be needed.
Jul 14, 2008
US Dept Energy on Biomass Power Systems
There are several ways to produce power with biomass fuels according to the US Department of Energy (see title's link for full report):
1. Burn 100% biomass to create steam: The efficiency of direct-fired biopower facilities is typically 20%-24%.
2. Burn coal plus biomass: The biomass used in a cofiring application is converted to electricity with 33%-37% efficiency. Cofiring involves substituting biomass for a portion of coal in a power plant furnace. It is the most economic option for the near future to introduce new biomass power generation. When low-cost biomass fuels are used, cofiring systems can result in payback periods as low as 2 years.
A cofiring plant requires sophisticated equipment costing from $100 - 200 Million dollars and should be not less than 100 MW in size. The technology is considered "experiemental" because it is not as controllable.
3. Burn 100% biomass to create a gas: The efficiency of gasification-based biopower systems can reach 60%. A gasification plant requires a capital investment of perhaps $1 Billion dollars in equipment and should generate not less than 200 MW in order to achieve good economies of scale and profit.
Gary Faagau Says:
The system used in Pepeekeo will be steam to electricity (number 1 on your list). This is set bythe equipment in place. It is the least efficient way to produce electricity but because the equipment is there, the cost is minor.
Being inefficient, it produces a lot of greenhouse gases, CO2, carbon dioxide.
Option 2 and 3 requires new plants.
1. Burn 100% biomass to create steam: The efficiency of direct-fired biopower facilities is typically 20%-24%.
2. Burn coal plus biomass: The biomass used in a cofiring application is converted to electricity with 33%-37% efficiency. Cofiring involves substituting biomass for a portion of coal in a power plant furnace. It is the most economic option for the near future to introduce new biomass power generation. When low-cost biomass fuels are used, cofiring systems can result in payback periods as low as 2 years.
A cofiring plant requires sophisticated equipment costing from $100 - 200 Million dollars and should be not less than 100 MW in size. The technology is considered "experiemental" because it is not as controllable.
3. Burn 100% biomass to create a gas: The efficiency of gasification-based biopower systems can reach 60%. A gasification plant requires a capital investment of perhaps $1 Billion dollars in equipment and should generate not less than 200 MW in order to achieve good economies of scale and profit.
Gary Faagau Says:
The system used in Pepeekeo will be steam to electricity (number 1 on your list). This is set bythe equipment in place. It is the least efficient way to produce electricity but because the equipment is there, the cost is minor.
Being inefficient, it produces a lot of greenhouse gases, CO2, carbon dioxide.
Option 2 and 3 requires new plants.
Water Permits- Clean Air Branch, Dept of Health
Joanna Seto, engineer at the Clean Water Branch, phone (808) 586-4309, says that the new plant operator must obtain two national pollution discharge permits (NPDES and ZOM) - see details on this title's link. Once HuHonua submits applications, the Clean Air Branch issues a draft permit and requires HuHonua to issue a public notice. The public can send comments to the Clean Air Branch during the notice period and all comments will be responded to before a final permit is issued.
Jul 12, 2008
Herald-Tribune July 12, 2008
Pepeekeo electricity plant aims to reopen
by Cameron Johnson
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer
Published: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:24 AM HST
Neighbors worry about pollution, noise and traffic
Clean-up and renovation of Pepeekeo's former sugar plantation power plant began Monday by a company planning to make electricity by burning wood and plant material.
Hu Honua Bioenergy wants to reconfigure and reopen the 24-megawatt plant by December 2010, a move some neighbors fear will decrease air quality and increase traffic.
It will take three trucks an hour coming from the Paauilo area to fuel the Pepeekeo plant with biomass.
*
"Because of the emissions, this is not just a Hamakua Coast issue -- the fallout goes to Hilo," said power plant neighbor Bobbye St. Ambrogio. "Hilo's going to be stuck between the vog and the power plant smoke."
Hu Honua made a presentation Wednesday night to members of the Pepeekeo Homeowner's Association. One woman asked them to consider the power plant's impact on generations to come.
"It's different now (in Pepeekeo)," the woman said. "It's not a compatible use. This is a quiet, wonderful little community."
Dan KenKnight, director of Hu Honua, said everyone who moved into the area should have known a power plant is located at the bottom of Sugar Mill Road.
"We're not bringing something back that was never anticipated," KenKnight said. "It stopped in 2004 and the facility has been there. It's not fair to say the community just grew up around it."
Hu Honua wants to burn nut shells, wood waste and invasive plant material as well as agricultural and landscaping waste, KenKnight said
All of which depends on whether Hu Honua can strike a deal to sell its electricity to Hawaiia Electric Light Co.
The last time smoke passed through the stack was 2004, before Hilo Coast Power Co. shut the plant down because Hawaii Electric Light Co. decided not to renew its power-purchasing contract.
In 2005, new owners Pacific Rim Energy Partners sought federal Environmental Protection Agency permits to burn biomass. That effort ended when Oahu-based Ethanol Research Hawaii purchased the plant, now co-owned by ERH and MMA Renewable Ventures, KenKnight said.
MMA Renewable Ventures, headquartered in Baltimore, is wholly owned by Municipal Mortgage and Equity LLC also of Baltimore.
Once operational, the Pepeekeo plant will power 18,000 homes and account for between 7 percent and 10 percent of the Big Island's power, said Mark Higgins, Hu Honua's vice president of finance.
By burning unusable materials from the eucalyptus timber industry and other green waste, Hu Honua claims it will save HELCO from burning 225,000 to 250,000 barrels of oil a year.
For the next 12 to 18 months specialists will inspect the equipment to see what needs to be replaced or updated, said engineer Tim Formaz.
Several Pepeekeo residents expressed concern that coal would be burned once the island's biofuel supply has been exhausted.
The goal is to burn 100 percent biomass, said Tim Lasocki, Hu Honua's vice president of bioenergy business development. Coal will be on-site in case of natural disasters. If the supply of biomass is disrupted for more than a few days, he said, the plant would burn coal.
"If we're burning coal, we're losing money," Lasocki said.
The biomass plant will put 10 to 20 times less particulate matter into the air than a coal-burning plant, KenKnight said. The goal, he said, is to burn a clean, sustainable fuel.
Hu Honua can't take advantage of federal tax credits if coal is the primary fuel, Higgins said.
The plant still has a permit, secured by Hilo Coast Power in 2004, allowing it to burn coal and fuel oil, said Nolan Hirai, supervisor of the engineering section of the Clean Air Branch of the state Department of Health.
"It's still valid," Hirai said. "If someone wanted to operate under the current permit without any changes, that would be legal."
To burn biomass, however, Hu Honua needs an amendment to the plant's EPA permit, Hirai said. That could take anywhere from "three months to a year, and sometimes longer, depending on how complete the application is."
The state will look at the air quality assessments, review the plant's operations and consider public comment, Hirai said. The emission limits will be assessed.
"It's hard to compare the different fuels (biomass and coal) until you know the combustion process and the air pollution controls you have," Hirai said.
Wednesday's meeting with Pepeekeo residents in the Kulaimano Community Center was the third Hu Honua representatives have had with residents.
"Every time we meet with them, they rework their presentation to meet our questions," St. Ambrogio said. (Hu Honua is) just using us. When they do go before HELCO, they will have carefully crafted their message and will have all the right answers. They are sucking out the information from the community."
Not all at the meeting were unhappy with Hu Honua's plan. One man asked representatives if they will be hiring past plant workers. KenKnight said the company will hire only area workers and area contractors.
Some asked what the company will do to compensate for the additional traffic and emissions. Some proposed that Hu Honua build a bike trail or a playground.
KenKnight said 50,000 tons of green waste are going into the Hilo landfill every year. Hu Honua is not looking for grasses to burn, but the "more woody stuff."
One banana farmer at the meeting had concerns with biomass being trucked to Pepeekeo because it could bring in invasive pests. Also, he was concerned with the dust that could end up in his catchment water.
One woman was concerned about the health risks of raising four children within sight of the stacks.
Burning wood represents an 80 percent decrease in the output of sulfur dioxides over coal, Lasocki said.
St. Ambrogio wondered if any Hu Honua representatives would like to live across the street from her.
"Would you build a million dollar house on the ocean right across from me and let your children breathe that air?" St. Ambrogio said.
E-mail Cameron Johnson at cjohnson@hawaiitribune--herald.com.
by Cameron Johnson
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer
Published: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:24 AM HST
Neighbors worry about pollution, noise and traffic
Clean-up and renovation of Pepeekeo's former sugar plantation power plant began Monday by a company planning to make electricity by burning wood and plant material.
Hu Honua Bioenergy wants to reconfigure and reopen the 24-megawatt plant by December 2010, a move some neighbors fear will decrease air quality and increase traffic.
It will take three trucks an hour coming from the Paauilo area to fuel the Pepeekeo plant with biomass.
*
"Because of the emissions, this is not just a Hamakua Coast issue -- the fallout goes to Hilo," said power plant neighbor Bobbye St. Ambrogio. "Hilo's going to be stuck between the vog and the power plant smoke."
Hu Honua made a presentation Wednesday night to members of the Pepeekeo Homeowner's Association. One woman asked them to consider the power plant's impact on generations to come.
"It's different now (in Pepeekeo)," the woman said. "It's not a compatible use. This is a quiet, wonderful little community."
Dan KenKnight, director of Hu Honua, said everyone who moved into the area should have known a power plant is located at the bottom of Sugar Mill Road.
"We're not bringing something back that was never anticipated," KenKnight said. "It stopped in 2004 and the facility has been there. It's not fair to say the community just grew up around it."
Hu Honua wants to burn nut shells, wood waste and invasive plant material as well as agricultural and landscaping waste, KenKnight said
All of which depends on whether Hu Honua can strike a deal to sell its electricity to Hawaiia Electric Light Co.
The last time smoke passed through the stack was 2004, before Hilo Coast Power Co. shut the plant down because Hawaii Electric Light Co. decided not to renew its power-purchasing contract.
In 2005, new owners Pacific Rim Energy Partners sought federal Environmental Protection Agency permits to burn biomass. That effort ended when Oahu-based Ethanol Research Hawaii purchased the plant, now co-owned by ERH and MMA Renewable Ventures, KenKnight said.
MMA Renewable Ventures, headquartered in Baltimore, is wholly owned by Municipal Mortgage and Equity LLC also of Baltimore.
Once operational, the Pepeekeo plant will power 18,000 homes and account for between 7 percent and 10 percent of the Big Island's power, said Mark Higgins, Hu Honua's vice president of finance.
By burning unusable materials from the eucalyptus timber industry and other green waste, Hu Honua claims it will save HELCO from burning 225,000 to 250,000 barrels of oil a year.
For the next 12 to 18 months specialists will inspect the equipment to see what needs to be replaced or updated, said engineer Tim Formaz.
Several Pepeekeo residents expressed concern that coal would be burned once the island's biofuel supply has been exhausted.
The goal is to burn 100 percent biomass, said Tim Lasocki, Hu Honua's vice president of bioenergy business development. Coal will be on-site in case of natural disasters. If the supply of biomass is disrupted for more than a few days, he said, the plant would burn coal.
"If we're burning coal, we're losing money," Lasocki said.
The biomass plant will put 10 to 20 times less particulate matter into the air than a coal-burning plant, KenKnight said. The goal, he said, is to burn a clean, sustainable fuel.
Hu Honua can't take advantage of federal tax credits if coal is the primary fuel, Higgins said.
The plant still has a permit, secured by Hilo Coast Power in 2004, allowing it to burn coal and fuel oil, said Nolan Hirai, supervisor of the engineering section of the Clean Air Branch of the state Department of Health.
"It's still valid," Hirai said. "If someone wanted to operate under the current permit without any changes, that would be legal."
To burn biomass, however, Hu Honua needs an amendment to the plant's EPA permit, Hirai said. That could take anywhere from "three months to a year, and sometimes longer, depending on how complete the application is."
The state will look at the air quality assessments, review the plant's operations and consider public comment, Hirai said. The emission limits will be assessed.
"It's hard to compare the different fuels (biomass and coal) until you know the combustion process and the air pollution controls you have," Hirai said.
Wednesday's meeting with Pepeekeo residents in the Kulaimano Community Center was the third Hu Honua representatives have had with residents.
"Every time we meet with them, they rework their presentation to meet our questions," St. Ambrogio said. (Hu Honua is) just using us. When they do go before HELCO, they will have carefully crafted their message and will have all the right answers. They are sucking out the information from the community."
Not all at the meeting were unhappy with Hu Honua's plan. One man asked representatives if they will be hiring past plant workers. KenKnight said the company will hire only area workers and area contractors.
Some asked what the company will do to compensate for the additional traffic and emissions. Some proposed that Hu Honua build a bike trail or a playground.
KenKnight said 50,000 tons of green waste are going into the Hilo landfill every year. Hu Honua is not looking for grasses to burn, but the "more woody stuff."
One banana farmer at the meeting had concerns with biomass being trucked to Pepeekeo because it could bring in invasive pests. Also, he was concerned with the dust that could end up in his catchment water.
One woman was concerned about the health risks of raising four children within sight of the stacks.
Burning wood represents an 80 percent decrease in the output of sulfur dioxides over coal, Lasocki said.
St. Ambrogio wondered if any Hu Honua representatives would like to live across the street from her.
"Would you build a million dollar house on the ocean right across from me and let your children breathe that air?" St. Ambrogio said.
E-mail Cameron Johnson at cjohnson@hawaiitribune--herald.com.
Jul 11, 2008
Background Information
The link above is the research done in 2004-5 when PREP tried to open the plant.
The Best Solution is Conservation!
We can save much more than 225,000 bbl oil if ONLY the Mayor and Helco made a major campaign to conserve. Compared to other states, we spend more for energy and get less because we waste what we have.
slideshow
Hawaii County Facts
1. According to a 2007 study done for the county, "Energy planners at Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELCO) believe the greatest single
residential end-use application of electricity to be water heating on the eastern side of the island
and air conditioning on the western side".
2. Hawaii currently has 300 MW of electrical generating capacity and plans to add 30 MW to 60 MW over the next 20 years.
Hawaii Energy Policy Forum's 10 Point Plan
2. Promote Conservation and Energy Efficiency
3. Reduce Green House Gas Emissions in Hawaii
4. Foster Civic Action and Participation
5. Enhance Regulatory Goals and Protections
6. Encourage Culturally Appropriate and Sustainable Energy Planning
7. Improve Energy Efficiencies and Options in Transportation
8. Support research and development of alternative energy sources (hydrogen, wave energy, etc.)
9. Support sustainable development and use of biofuels
10. Ensure the security and reliability of energy supply and distribution.
Hawaii Energy Policy Forum and County Research Reports
HELCO's Reputation with the State is Poor vis a vis New Facilities
The process of obtaining all necessary permits and approvals for a major energy facility is
formidably difficult. The response of state agencies to applications in Hawaii is not coordinated or
efficient.
An example is the recent process on the Island of Hawaii to select, permit and build HELCO’s
latest large power generation unit addition. HELCO was not able to build its own proposed
expansion at its Keahole plant site. DLNR and HELCO battled in court regarding Keahole
permitting issues. Several independent power producers (IPP’s) clamored for the opportunity to
force HELCO to negotiate a contract under the provisions of federal law. Each IPP filed a
complaint docket with the PUC. The utility was forced to simultaneously negotiate with several
IPP’s and appear before the PUC regarding the complaints as well as respond in a docket
investigating contingency options for delays in adding new generation. Even though it was clear
that only one power plant would eventually be built, the Hawaii Department of Health was forced to
process several simultaneous voluminous PSD air quality permit applications which severely
overtaxed its staff. Meanwhile, in lieu of timely addition of new generation, HELCO was forced to
build contingency generation units, utilize high-cost and polluting power sources and its electric
system reliability was reduced. This was not a model of regulatory efficiency.
Hawaii Energy Utility Regulation and Taxation Report
The Best Solution is Conservation!
We can save much more than 225,000 bbl oil if ONLY the Mayor and Helco made a major campaign to conserve. Compared to other states, we spend more for energy and get less because we waste what we have.
slideshow
Hawaii County Facts
1. According to a 2007 study done for the county, "Energy planners at Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELCO) believe the greatest single
residential end-use application of electricity to be water heating on the eastern side of the island
and air conditioning on the western side".
2. Hawaii currently has 300 MW of electrical generating capacity and plans to add 30 MW to 60 MW over the next 20 years.
Hawaii Energy Policy Forum's 10 Point Plan
“Smart energy solutions to sustain a
healthy, secure and prosperous
Hawaii”
1. Expand Renewable Energy Opportunitieshealthy, secure and prosperous
Hawaii”
2. Promote Conservation and Energy Efficiency
3. Reduce Green House Gas Emissions in Hawaii
4. Foster Civic Action and Participation
5. Enhance Regulatory Goals and Protections
6. Encourage Culturally Appropriate and Sustainable Energy Planning
7. Improve Energy Efficiencies and Options in Transportation
8. Support research and development of alternative energy sources (hydrogen, wave energy, etc.)
9. Support sustainable development and use of biofuels
10. Ensure the security and reliability of energy supply and distribution.
Hawaii Energy Policy Forum and County Research Reports
HELCO's Reputation with the State is Poor vis a vis New Facilities
The process of obtaining all necessary permits and approvals for a major energy facility is
formidably difficult. The response of state agencies to applications in Hawaii is not coordinated or
efficient.
An example is the recent process on the Island of Hawaii to select, permit and build HELCO’s
latest large power generation unit addition. HELCO was not able to build its own proposed
expansion at its Keahole plant site. DLNR and HELCO battled in court regarding Keahole
permitting issues. Several independent power producers (IPP’s) clamored for the opportunity to
force HELCO to negotiate a contract under the provisions of federal law. Each IPP filed a
complaint docket with the PUC. The utility was forced to simultaneously negotiate with several
IPP’s and appear before the PUC regarding the complaints as well as respond in a docket
investigating contingency options for delays in adding new generation. Even though it was clear
that only one power plant would eventually be built, the Hawaii Department of Health was forced to
process several simultaneous voluminous PSD air quality permit applications which severely
overtaxed its staff. Meanwhile, in lieu of timely addition of new generation, HELCO was forced to
build contingency generation units, utilize high-cost and polluting power sources and its electric
system reliability was reduced. This was not a model of regulatory efficiency.
Hawaii Energy Utility Regulation and Taxation Report
Traffic - Safety
Pedestrian safety when crossing the highway? Pedestrian safety when walking along Sugarmill Road? Safe speed for higher volume of traffic?
Traffic - Pollution Levels from Idling Trucks
What's the impact of pollution from trucks idling at the plant site?
Traffic - Number of Trucks Daily
SUMMARY:
1. HuHonua is under-estimating the traffic they will generate.
2. The resulting truck weight on our bridges poses a dangerous situation.
At the 7-9-08 Pepeekeo community meeting, HuHonua stated that 225,000 bbl of oil will be replaced annually with their operation (this is a 24 MW plant). They say that 1 bbl oil equals 1 ton of biomass. They will bring trucks 5 days/week, 260 workddays per year. So in order to save 865 bbl oil per day, they must burn 865 tons of biomass per day (225,000 tons divided by 260 workdays).
They say 2-3 trucks per HOUR will be needed to haul this biomass to meet their target, that's 16-24 trucks per day. So, in order to save 865 bbl oil per day, 16-24 trucks need to carry 865 tons of biomass per day. Then each truck needs to haul 36-54 tons of biomass on each trip.
The federal highway weight limits the overall gross weight of a loaded tandem axle truck trailer to 34 tons on bridges. So, the number of trucks must be 3 or more per hour and not less than 3 per hour, otherwise the federal highway weight limit will be exceeded.
However, the county of Hawaii says our bridges either "accommodate regulation size vehicles included most truck-trailers" or "accommodates all regulation size vehicles up to 6 tons". HuHonua has provided any certification that their trucks will follow the legal limits.
Hawaii County Bridges, part 1
County Bridges, part 2
Federal Bridge Weight Limits
federal truck weights on highways and bridges
national bridge database
1. HuHonua is under-estimating the traffic they will generate.
2. The resulting truck weight on our bridges poses a dangerous situation.
At the 7-9-08 Pepeekeo community meeting, HuHonua stated that 225,000 bbl of oil will be replaced annually with their operation (this is a 24 MW plant). They say that 1 bbl oil equals 1 ton of biomass. They will bring trucks 5 days/week, 260 workddays per year. So in order to save 865 bbl oil per day, they must burn 865 tons of biomass per day (225,000 tons divided by 260 workdays).
They say 2-3 trucks per HOUR will be needed to haul this biomass to meet their target, that's 16-24 trucks per day. So, in order to save 865 bbl oil per day, 16-24 trucks need to carry 865 tons of biomass per day. Then each truck needs to haul 36-54 tons of biomass on each trip.
The federal highway weight limits the overall gross weight of a loaded tandem axle truck trailer to 34 tons on bridges. So, the number of trucks must be 3 or more per hour and not less than 3 per hour, otherwise the federal highway weight limit will be exceeded.
However, the county of Hawaii says our bridges either "accommodate regulation size vehicles included most truck-trailers" or "accommodates all regulation size vehicles up to 6 tons". HuHonua has provided any certification that their trucks will follow the legal limits.
Hawaii County Bridges, part 1
County Bridges, part 2
Federal Bridge Weight Limits
federal truck weights on highways and bridges
national bridge database
Air Permit
Please post your research here. Can we get a copy of the existing air permit? What are the standards it enumerates? What about children's tolerance for these chemicals? Details of who talked to whom, when, discussed?
Solid Waste Permit
Please post your research here. We need to know if a solid waste permit is needed if a plant burns biomass. Please document who talked to whom, when, and what was discussed.
