On July 31, 2008 the meeting was attended by Bridget Rapoza, Virginia Alderson, and Elaine Munro. Richard Ha had to cancel at the last moment but told us he was in agreement with our petition.
Chris Yuen explained that he met with a consultant from HuHonua several weeks ago and stated to him that HuHonua must complete an EIS and a new application for the SMA use. Further, the information about their meeting was forwarded to Councilman Dominic Yagong's office.
Both the mayor and planning director assured us that a public hearing would be the process that the planning commission would follow in evaluating the group's plans to re-open the plant.
Showing posts with label Issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Issues. Show all posts
Jul 20, 2008
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
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 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.
Jul 11, 2008
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
