Federal Government granted this community $500,000 to monitor the odors from this biomass plant!
full story
Showing posts with label Newspaper Articles and Letters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newspaper Articles and Letters. Show all posts
Aug 12, 2008
Hawaii Tribune-Herald, August 8, 2008
Power facility: No coal
by Jason Armstrong
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer
Published: Friday, August 8, 2008 11:11 AM HST
Casual survey finds most support Hu Honua proposal
Plans to reopen the Pepeekeo power plant no longer include using coal as a backup fuel to wood and other biomass, Hu Honua Bioenergy LLC officials said Wednesday.
The company is responding to area residents' opposition to coal burning, said Tim Lasocki, Hu Honua executive vice president.
Other temporary substitutes for biomass will be explored, he said, adding that garbage incineration won't occur at the plant.
Hilo Coast Power Co. had been using coal before the facility closed at the end of 2004, when its contract with Hawaii Electric Light Co. expired. Before coal, bagasse from crushed sugar cane stock fueled the plant.
"We're trying to do with the plant what was historically done," Lasocki said. "That's basically our mission: Return the plant to its original use using wood chips."
Hu Honua, a partnership of MMA Renewable Ventures LLC and Ethanol Research Hawaii, bought the plant and obtained a 35-year lease-purchase option on 26 acres surrounding it, company Director Dan KenKnight said.
Company officials are in discussions with HELCO, and hope to achieve a price that's "significantly below" HELCO's cost to produce power by burning oil, said Rick McQuain, Ho Honua's vice president of power sales.
"This is our first biomass investment," said Lasocki, who serves as MMA's vice president of business development.
MMA, which would finance, operate and serve as majority owner of the power plant, was the nation's No. 1 installer of photovoltaic plants last year, he said.
The company built and runs a $100-plus million, 14-megawatt solar-photovoltaic plant that powers a U.S. Air Force base in Nevada, Lasocki said, adding that is the largest such system in North America.
In the years since the Pepeekeo plant was closed, the surrounding farm land has sprouted luxury homes. This land-use change has attracted new residents not accustomed to having a smokestack as a neighbor.
As a "good-faith gesture" to win community approval, Hu Honua is seeking to amend its operating permit to prohibit the use of coal, Lasocki said.
That change, if granted by government regulators, will make it difficult for any future operator of the Pepeekeo plant to ever burn coal again, he said.
Other efforts to win over the community include reducing plant noise and ending emissions that fouled water catchment tanks and caused other damage, KenKnight said.
"We can say unequivocally that will not happen," he said of previous emission-related damage.
He also offered to provide safe shoreline access to popular Pepeekeo fishing spots.
"We're just going to do what the community wants," KenKnight said.
Those efforts, combined with meetings the company has held with the community, have gained a measure of approval, according to results of an informal survey.
Some 387 Pepeekeo residents out of 392 approached have signed a petition in support of resurrecting the power plant, said Richard Baker, Hawaii Island director of the ILWU labor union, which conducted the unscientific survey finished Tuesday.
Baker said he and other union officials found only two individuals who said they are "not interested" in signing the petition and three others opposed to the project.
The ILWU is backing the project in hopes of creating jobs for its members, some of whom have never fully recovered from the demise of the sugar cane industry nearly 15 years ago.
According to Hu Honua officials, refurbishing the plant would generate 130 to 140 temporary engineering and construction jobs.
Another 25 people would be hired to run the facility, while 110 more jobs would be created in related industries needed to produce and deliver biomass to the plant.
The fuel source would be wood chips expected to come from the island's emerging forestry industry, along with vegetation cleared from forested lots, trees removed to thin forests, and invasive species from eradication efforts, Lasocki said.
"This is untreated wood that we're talking about," he said.
The material is not what Hawaii County uses to make mulch, KenKnight said.
"The stuff we don't want is a lot better for mulch. We want the real hard, woody stuff," he said, adding the biomass plant could "peacefully coexist" with mulch-making efforts.
The plant would require 200,000 tons of "green" biomass annually, which would be delivered on two or three trucks arriving every hour during daylight hours only, Lasocki said.
"Our plan is to run (the plant) full-time, 24-7," he said.
That level of operation, he said, is expected to net 22 megawatts of electricity that Hu Honua would sell to HELCO.
Hilo Coast was supplying that same amount of power to HELCO before it ceased operations.
According to HELCO, one megawatt of electricity is enough to power about 500 Big Island homes.
Ho Honua's operation is expected to cost between $25 million and $40 million. The money would come from long-term loans typically used to finance power plants, Lasocki said.
Its plan is to open the plant by December 2010. "That is our target," Lasocki said.
Is he confident of meeting that goal?
"We wouldn't be sitting here today if we weren't optimistic," Lasocki said Wednesday. "We feel we're offering something of benefit to Hawaii, which makes us optimistic."
E-mail Jason Armstrong at jarmstrong@hawaiitribune--herald.com.
by Jason Armstrong
Tribune-Herald Staff Writer
Published: Friday, August 8, 2008 11:11 AM HST
Casual survey finds most support Hu Honua proposal
Plans to reopen the Pepeekeo power plant no longer include using coal as a backup fuel to wood and other biomass, Hu Honua Bioenergy LLC officials said Wednesday.
The company is responding to area residents' opposition to coal burning, said Tim Lasocki, Hu Honua executive vice president.
Other temporary substitutes for biomass will be explored, he said, adding that garbage incineration won't occur at the plant.
Hilo Coast Power Co. had been using coal before the facility closed at the end of 2004, when its contract with Hawaii Electric Light Co. expired. Before coal, bagasse from crushed sugar cane stock fueled the plant.
"We're trying to do with the plant what was historically done," Lasocki said. "That's basically our mission: Return the plant to its original use using wood chips."
Hu Honua, a partnership of MMA Renewable Ventures LLC and Ethanol Research Hawaii, bought the plant and obtained a 35-year lease-purchase option on 26 acres surrounding it, company Director Dan KenKnight said.
Company officials are in discussions with HELCO, and hope to achieve a price that's "significantly below" HELCO's cost to produce power by burning oil, said Rick McQuain, Ho Honua's vice president of power sales.
"This is our first biomass investment," said Lasocki, who serves as MMA's vice president of business development.
MMA, which would finance, operate and serve as majority owner of the power plant, was the nation's No. 1 installer of photovoltaic plants last year, he said.
The company built and runs a $100-plus million, 14-megawatt solar-photovoltaic plant that powers a U.S. Air Force base in Nevada, Lasocki said, adding that is the largest such system in North America.
In the years since the Pepeekeo plant was closed, the surrounding farm land has sprouted luxury homes. This land-use change has attracted new residents not accustomed to having a smokestack as a neighbor.
As a "good-faith gesture" to win community approval, Hu Honua is seeking to amend its operating permit to prohibit the use of coal, Lasocki said.
That change, if granted by government regulators, will make it difficult for any future operator of the Pepeekeo plant to ever burn coal again, he said.
Other efforts to win over the community include reducing plant noise and ending emissions that fouled water catchment tanks and caused other damage, KenKnight said.
"We can say unequivocally that will not happen," he said of previous emission-related damage.
He also offered to provide safe shoreline access to popular Pepeekeo fishing spots.
"We're just going to do what the community wants," KenKnight said.
Those efforts, combined with meetings the company has held with the community, have gained a measure of approval, according to results of an informal survey.
Some 387 Pepeekeo residents out of 392 approached have signed a petition in support of resurrecting the power plant, said Richard Baker, Hawaii Island director of the ILWU labor union, which conducted the unscientific survey finished Tuesday.
Baker said he and other union officials found only two individuals who said they are "not interested" in signing the petition and three others opposed to the project.
The ILWU is backing the project in hopes of creating jobs for its members, some of whom have never fully recovered from the demise of the sugar cane industry nearly 15 years ago.
According to Hu Honua officials, refurbishing the plant would generate 130 to 140 temporary engineering and construction jobs.
Another 25 people would be hired to run the facility, while 110 more jobs would be created in related industries needed to produce and deliver biomass to the plant.
The fuel source would be wood chips expected to come from the island's emerging forestry industry, along with vegetation cleared from forested lots, trees removed to thin forests, and invasive species from eradication efforts, Lasocki said.
"This is untreated wood that we're talking about," he said.
The material is not what Hawaii County uses to make mulch, KenKnight said.
"The stuff we don't want is a lot better for mulch. We want the real hard, woody stuff," he said, adding the biomass plant could "peacefully coexist" with mulch-making efforts.
The plant would require 200,000 tons of "green" biomass annually, which would be delivered on two or three trucks arriving every hour during daylight hours only, Lasocki said.
"Our plan is to run (the plant) full-time, 24-7," he said.
That level of operation, he said, is expected to net 22 megawatts of electricity that Hu Honua would sell to HELCO.
Hilo Coast was supplying that same amount of power to HELCO before it ceased operations.
According to HELCO, one megawatt of electricity is enough to power about 500 Big Island homes.
Ho Honua's operation is expected to cost between $25 million and $40 million. The money would come from long-term loans typically used to finance power plants, Lasocki said.
Its plan is to open the plant by December 2010. "That is our target," Lasocki said.
Is he confident of meeting that goal?
"We wouldn't be sitting here today if we weren't optimistic," Lasocki said Wednesday. "We feel we're offering something of benefit to Hawaii, which makes us optimistic."
E-mail Jason Armstrong at jarmstrong@hawaiitribune--herald.com.
Jul 31, 2008
Use what we have
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
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 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 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
