Ken Stokes' green economics perspective, research synthesis, client reports and essays. In search of a better way to think about island living and a better understanding of what sustainability means. SUBSCRIBE to this knowledge base for daily updates.
is Hawaii tourism sustainable? here come airline cutbacks
A cute graphic got prominent play last month, showing that Hawaii is expected to lose more airline seats this Fall than anywhere else in the US (via USAtoday).
Based on an analysis of domestic airline schedule data from the Official Airline Guide for October 2008, the data reflects the ongoing reductions in flying capacity that airlines are making in response to high fuel prices and a slow economy.
Overall, Hawaii is expected to lose 28% of airline seats vis-a-vis last year, with Honolulu losing 25%. Of course, most of Hawaii’s decline is attributable to the demise of Aloha and ATA this past Spring.
Our Lihue airport is expected to drop 27% (the least of the neighbor islands), while Maui drops 33%, and Kona drops 30%.
The outlook for non-stop flights this Summer, also based on the OAG, shows Lihue will actually be up 28%, while Maui will be down 15%, and Kona will be down 3%.
Overall, Hawaii this Summer will be down 11%, and Honolulu will be down 12%.
Now, the press is full of prescriptions for holding on to Hawaii’s tourist trade. This editorial suggests putting relaxation back into the equation. Wot a concept!
And, State Tourism Liaison Marsha Weinert suggested a message that traveling relieves the stress people face when dealing with daily financial worries. Yeah, that spin will work!
In the past, some folks have even tried to define Hawaii sustainability in terms of our ability to maintain high levels of tourism. Hope we’ve gotten over that one!
Either way, ’tis a good bet air travel ain’t coming back, as oil prices skyrocket and folks focus more on footprints.
How sustainable is that?
Published by Ken on July 2nd, 2008 tagged HI-specific, Island Vulnerabilities | 1 Comment » |
have water, will store energy: a win-win for Kauai
Wanna good example of how we need to solve all our problems together? Try KIUC’s need for energy storage, Kauai landowners need for a solution to reservoir liability issues, and the Kauai Water Board’s need for water pumps.
Turns out, our island water supply uses over $2 million annually on electricity for pumping water, or nearly 1/4 of operating expenses. Meanwhile, the kinetic energy potential of this ‘pumped storage’ remains untapped. Oh, and, most of our reservoirs now stand empty.
Good buddy David Ward spoke with the Water Board earlier this year, and here’s some of wot he told ‘em.
“Hydrokinetic (in-stream) power generation offers the opportunity to utilize generating resources without the need to construct dams or other impoundments,” says Ward.
As Ward motes, “this is emission and by-product free, sustainable, predictable, and indigenously sourced energy.” And, “new turbine technologies are enabling effective energy recovery from the natural flow of streams and rivers.”
Turns out, if we could capture the energy potential of the water flowing into our pipes, it could generate a minimum of 17 MW per month, based on our current consumption of 10.6 million gallons per minute. That’s figured at 1.6 kWh per month for every gallon per minute of flow, as calculated with this handy micro hydro power tool.
Ward continues:
“Pumped storage hydro systems are comprised of two adjacent reservoirs of water, one at a significantly higher elevation than the other. Water from the lower reservoir is pumped up to the upper reservoir during off peak periods when generation costs are lower and there may be unused non-curtailed generation available. During peak periods or whenever the extra generation is needed, water is released from the upper reservoir and passes through a generator on the way down to the lower reservoir, producing electricity. Pumped storage hydro systems are fairly efficient, with roughly 70% to 85% of electricity used to pump water regained in generation.
Two or more existing reservoirs or lakes could be connected with new pipeline and penstocks for water pumping and power generation. This type of development could increase operating flexiblility and peaking capacity without the need to construct new reservoirs.”
Ward notes this caveat: “the low energy density of pumped storage hydro systems requires either a large body of water or a large elevation gradient to function efficiently. Using only treated water storage tanks makes large elevation gradients a paramount consideration.”
Still, as Ward points out, “pumped storage hydro systems can help regulate system frequency by quickly adjusting generation or curtailment in response to changing electricity demand and supply. These adjustments in output can occur in a matter of seconds.”
‘Course, the thang I like about pumped storage, is we can use all the various small-scale green energy generators (intermittent as they may be) to do the pumping…As in, pump when you’ve got the energy, and store it ’til ya need it.
Either way, it seems we may wanna get more than just the KIUC Board talking about this challenge…
Published by Ken on July 1st, 2008 tagged Energy, HI-specific | 1 Comment » |
trimming Kauai’s energy bill: starting at the bottom
Had some fascinating discussions the other eve at a northshore potluck with numerous Kauai notables about our island’s energy future.
Social occasion, it may have been, yet lots of folks wanted to button-hole me about KIUC. So it goes.
One theme that kept coming up was the inequity in our energy situation, where Kauai’s poorest households are being terribly squeezed by rising oil costs.
Question: wot could be done to lighten the load of those at the bottom of the pyramid?
Right off the top, I suggested forming a buying club to help install energy savings solutions for homes in our poorest towns.
From Kekaha to Anahola, there could be as many as 10,000 household for whom immediate energy savings are urgently needed.
Got an ‘amen, bruddah’ all around.
Question is: Could we bulk purchase solar hot water panels in order to get the unit price down low enough so that it would save lots of money immediately for any home?
I’m pretty sure the answer is yes. Add-in the various incentives and tax breaks, and provide a coordinated, local installation and financing package, and we’re prolly looking at a win-win.
Can’t ya just see that installation crew working its way up your street? First thing ya know, they’ll be knocking on your door.
Oh, and, don’t stop with solar hot water. The buying could also bulk purchase CFLs, Energy Star appliances, wind and solar generators…and white roof coatings.
Didn’t think of the roof, eh? Turns out, if your home has a black asphalt shingle roof, you can cut the inside heat by 60% with reflective roof coatings. That way, you’ll spend less energy on the A/C or ceiling fans.
This could be a ‘social enterprise‘ for the bottom-of-the-pyramid. Cooperative borrowing and local job creation could be an integral part of the package.
Oh, and, Kauai philanthropists could help finance the startup and subsidize the initial operation.
Guess wot? Got an ‘amen’ on that, too!
…Uh…guess ya don’t have to be on the KIUC Board to do this, tho…
Published by Ken on July 1st, 2008 tagged Energy, Community Initiatives | Comment now » |
Q&A: does renewable energy threaten KIUC’s reliability?
When KIUC Board chair Dennis Esaki sparred with Governor Linda Lingle last week on energy security versus reliability, there was much more not said than said.
Wot Esaki didn’t say is that renewable energy is viewed as “unreliable.”
Wot Esaki also didn’t say is that “unreliability” is only a problem in the old paradigm of centralized power generation.
Nor did Esaki say that the definition of “reliable” is changing as we speak.
Let’s hope Esaki and the rest of the KIUC board can be relied on to think about this challenge in new ways and tweak its strategy and practices.
…as they said they would do in the Strategic Plan…
Wouldn’t want our member-owned utility (stuck as it is with 20th century tech) to get in the way of utilizing our wealth of renewable energy assets into the 21st century, now would we!
The simple fact is that KIUC’s business model must change. As I posted back in February:
“I am concerned that, in the business-as-usual model, the prospect of members switching to renewables may be viewed as a competitive threat. I envision a hybrid business model that engages and serves all residential and commercial customers in the transition to a distributed, renewable energy system.”
The current business model is a fairly simple centralized engineering solution, where KIUC keeps large fossil-fuel generators constantly available to add power as energy demand fluctuates throughout the day. Oh, and, you would hopefully only “spin-up” just the power your need at the moment (and KIUC does a great job of generating only wot they can sell).
Still, in essence, this ensures that much of our generating capacity sits idle most of the time. And, we pay heavily for this excess capacity. Yet, that’s just the way it is in the old model.
In practice, KIUC relies most on its newest generators, both in Kapaia and at Pt. Allen. BTW, this is good news, since these generators are both ‘cleaner’ and more efficient.
Still, in this business model, all our “intermittent” energy sources add nothing to this on-demand generation strategy. Some folks even argue that we’d need more fossil-fuel ‘backup’ if we had large solar generators on-line.
A new business model, on the other hand, would prolly focus on a fairly decentralized systems design, where the challenge to “keep the lights on” is met through a wide variety of generating sources and storage technologies. You would “back-up” your power peaks and spikes through storage, rather than through standby power generation.
In simple terms, this new business model would invest as much or more in energy storage as in energy generation.
Conceivably, the net investment required would go down as we dispose of aging fossil-fuel generators. These are dirty and expensive to maintain (just in case we might need them).
Conceivably, if we’re smart about how all our resources interrelate, Kauai could create an energy storage system that is not only cheaper, but also helps solve all of our problems together.
For example, one of the most promising energy storage solutions is hydro pumped storage. Now, we suddenly have lots of underutilized water storage infrastructure, and lots of homes and businesses with intermittent energy to spare.
Wot if we used this excess energy whenever it was available to pump water into our reservoirs. Then, using small-scale hydro turbine tech, we could draw on this energy storage whenever it was needed.
Actually, wot we most need the KIUC Board to do now is start asking different questions about energy reliability. Instead of asking how to fit intermittent sources into their on-the-fly generating system, they might start asking how to begin shifting our centralized system toward a decentralized smart grid.
Never mind that KIUC follows NERC guidance in defining reliability in terms of backup generating capacity.
Lingle is rightwhen she says:
“If you can’t get the oil, reliable becomes a meaningless word.”
I’ll post subsequently on new research and initiatives in the smart grid area that we can learn from.
For now, we might all start thinking some simple new tho’ts…such as:
Just because the sun doesn’t shine at 7PM, when KIUC is fully fired-up to meet our daily peak demand, doesn’t mean we can’t use the power from the noonday sun to cook our meals at sunset.
From my vantage point, the one thing we can rely on is Kauai sun. All we gotta do is figure out how to use it…together with all the local wind, wave, OTEC, hydro, biomass and other energy sources.
Then, we can kiss the oil barges goodbye!
Now that’s reliability!
BTW, didja know KIUC has a single-source annual contract for 100% of its oil supply, with prices adjusted monthly? (Check it out yourself, in KIUC’s unsearchable audited financial statement.)
How reliable is that?
Published by Ken on June 29th, 2008 tagged Energy, HI-specific | Comment now » |
energy and sustainability on Kauai council agenda
Last Summer, Councilmember JoAnn Yukimura asked for help with an energy sustainability plan, and now it’s on the Council agenda. Yeah!
Never mind that this resolution is just now popping up. Nor is it clear wot might be done with the $200,000 the Council has set aside for these planning purposes. Let’s hope that’s not intended for some outside consultants. (Note that the Hawaii Island plan, on which this is modeled, required less than $100,000, in part because much of the work was done by Yale grad students.)
Still, it’s vitally important that our island’s energy unsustainability gets addressed…like yesterday.
Both Yukimura and co-sponsor Jay Furfaro are calling for a “template” that might be ready as early as August.
Fact is, we already have the data on Kauai’s energy consumption patterns, and KIUC recently completed an energy efficiency study and a renewable energy study which carefully document how much energy could be saved and generated by these initiatives. (Click the chart above for a picture of energy flows on Hawaii Island.)
Wot we don’t yet have is the suite of related County policies, such as Hawaii Island’s Model Energy Code that exempts energy efficient construction of new residential homes.
Surely we don’t need consultants to tell us we’re gonna need these new policies. After all, the Hawaii Island situation is fairly similar to our own. If we’re gonna copy them, we might just as well copy their recommendations…and get on with it.
Oh, and, the one previously acknowledged weakness in this Reso is that it does not explicitly invoke the ‘Peak Oil’ challenge. Mebbe this is something to be added by amendment.
Wot do you think? If you care about our energy future, get on down to the Council chambers this Wednesday for the hearing on this resolution.
Published by Ken on June 29th, 2008 tagged Energy, HI-specific | Comment now » |
Q&A: RU ready to spend 20% of income on $7 gas?
Thirty five years ago, during the first OPEC embargo, I watched Americans switch 10% of their food budget into their driving budget…and decided I didn’t want to play that game. I have not owned a car since.
Soon thereafter, as an elected official (in New Haven), I advocated a sharp increase in parking rates to explicitly discourage driving into downtown, and I have long hoped for a significant jump in gas prices to goad Americans into smarter transport choices.
Finally, I’m getting my wish, and it will be interesting to see how Americans…and Kauaians…adjust, following decades of heavy investment in auto-dependence.
Sadly, unlike other developed countries, only half of American households have a public transit option, and most of them live in big cities. And, like most of rural America, public transport works for only about 25% of Kauaians.
At least these 6,000 households are likely to get much more bus-friendly in the months ahead.
Especially our low-income households will prolly stop driving or scrap their second vehicle.
Why? At current driving rates, gas will jump from 7% to 20% of their available income.
These and other fascinating factoids emerge from the first comprehensive forecast of adjustments in American driving habits that can be expected when gas goes to $7.
That’s the basic forecast for 2010 prepared by Jeff Rubin and Benjamin Tal (at CIBC).
Here’s wot Rubin and Tal foresee:
- US highways are about to get less congested as vehicle miles driven falls 15% by 2010. The number of vehicle registrations in the United States will not grow over the next four years. SUV and other light truck sales, which until 2006 accounted for almost 60% of total motor vehicles, will plummet to less than half that level, reversing the last fifteen years growth in market share.
- By 2012, there should be roughly 10 million fewer vehicles on the road in America than there are today. No less than 80% of low income Americans (or roughly 24 million households) with less than $25,000 annual income own a car. With gasoline bills surging to record highs, they will be the first to come off the road. About half of the these vehicles will be from low income households who have access to public transit.
- Despite falling per capita gas consumption, gasoline will take over grocery store spending as the largest item in households’ non-vehicle retail spending by late next year. One in five of those low income Americans, or roughly five million households, will probably stop driving or give up the second vehicle by 2010. At their current driving habits, filling up the tank will have risen from about 7% of their income to 20%, an increase that will see many start taking the bus.
Perhaps it’s not surprising we’re learning this from Canadians. Certainly no upstanding American forecasters would wanna spew such heresy (heh).
Published by Ken on June 28th, 2008 tagged HI-specific, Island Vulnerabilities | 1 Comment » |
Q&A: where are gas prices headed? wudja believe $7?
You might think a reliable prediction of future gas prices would be mandatory for policy wonks now trying to figure out the economic costs of ‘peak oil’.
Try telling that to the feds’ Energy Information Administration (EIA), whose predictions are simply laffable, prolly ‘cause they’re still trying to debunk the oil shortage thang..
So says Eric de Place, who’s been tracking this stuff (via sightline).
Wudja believe we won’t see $4 gas until sometime around 2030? Yup, that’s EIA’s official forecast…just released here.
Uh, with gas now averaging $4.13, de Place notes that we can only come to one of two conclusions…
“Either a) the poor researchers at the Department of Energy actually do live under a rock; or b) the EIA is doing what can only be described as ‘a heckuva job’.”
Here’s the quote from EIA’s updated “Annual Energy Outlook” for 2008:
“In the high price case, with the price of imported crude oil rising to $119 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2030, the average price of U.S. motor gasoline increases rapidly, to $3.06 per gallon in 2016 and $3.52 per gallon in 2030.”
Even the EIA’s “Short Term Energy Outlook” expects gas prices to average $3.78 this year and $3.92 in 2009.
Yeah, that’s gonna happen.
These things matter, as an Aussie politician recently pointed out, saying that any forecast “must be held to account for its failure to model any scenario under which peak oil is a reality.”
de Place notes the silver lining here: higher than expected gas prices should mean that consumption of fuel-based carbon will fall faster than expected. Hold that tho’t!
Meanwhile, who’s got the better forecast? Wot can we reliably expect to pay for gas this time next year? Or 3-5 years from now?
Over at the Wall Street Journal, they’re reporting a forecast of $7 gas by 2010, citing CIBS (a Canadian broker).
Plus (with nods to James Howard Kunstler fans), WSJ is already worrying about the impact of high gas prices on suburbia.
In terms of long-term forecasts, I’d prolly go with this guy, who is alone among forecasters in anticipating $100/bbl oil prices (which he did back in Jan. ‘06), and sees gas prices rising exponentially from here on out.
Of course, none of these forecasts take into account the dramatic increase in gas taxes that the US must still implement (just as the EU and others do) in order to fund the improvements in non-car-dependent transportation and infrastructure.
That is, either we’re gonna have to pay for these transport alternatives…or we’re surely toast.
So, if you’re worried that gas prices will continue spiraling up…get over it. Get an ebike!
Published by Ken on June 27th, 2008 tagged Energy, Island Vulnerabilities | Comment now » |
how does KIUC define ‘prior year’? on missing fuel mix data
Don’t go looking for the 2007 data on KIUC’s fuel mix, ’cause it’s not yet been disclosed, despite a clear mandate to provide this info to members by June 1st.
Instead, members received a “Fuel Mix” insert last month that purported to comply with the disclosure law, yet provided data only through 2006.
Having politely inquired of KIUC by email, I was assured this info was available on the website, yet when I responded that it was not, I got no reply.
Why should this matter? Aside from its legal defects, this lag in reporting hinders our ability to make smart energy decisions.
Howzat? For one thang, we need to know what share of KIUC power is generated by solar cells, in part because this is a key measure of progress toward KIUC’s ostensible goal of 50% renewable sources by 2023.
More important, we need to know these numbers because KIUC limits its “feed-in” from solar sources to no more than 1% of its peak power generation.
It would have been nice to know they were approaching this limit, rather than suddenly learning about it in a press story.
After all, that’s a ridiculously tight leash, yet it’s also a ridiculously low number.
On the one hand, the necessity of strict limits on any solar energy feed-in is debatable.
On the other hand, who knew KIUC members were lining up to sell their excess solar energy…to the point that we already reached the limit. (Note that the 2006 data KIUC does provide shows that we were at only 0.1% solar.)
You can imagine the surprise of those members who are now installing solar systems, and discovering they are locked out of the net metering system.
Oh, and, you’d prolly have to be a data freak to experience the pure joy in seeing hard data on each green energy source. Believe it or not, these numbers have been exceedingly hard to come by in Hawai`i until now.
So, why, one wonders, was the 2007 data not disclosed, as required?
The legal eagles among us noted the language of the law, which mandates that KIUC report its fuel mix “for the prior calendar year” by June 1 each year. Uh…this is June ‘08, so the “prior year” would be ‘07, right?
Hmmm… Does KIUC think its members don’t care about the finer points of disclosure and compliance? Dat’s wot I wanna know.
Then, again, mebbe timely access to these solar power data wouldn’t have helped us anticipate the approaching limit. KIUC’s Steve Rymsha now claims the net metering limit sorta shuck up on ‘em, saying “we didn’t think it would happen this early.”
Amazing, no!?
Hey, at least the Governor is pushing to remove these net metering limits statewide, since Kauai is just the first of the islands to reach the limit.
Mebbe that’s wot prompted Boad Chair Esaki’s concerns about the reliability of our power generation…
Either way, I’m having a heck of a time getting KIUC’s info services to work for me, and this ‘fuel mix’ data is just one example.
Try this: As one test of user-friendliness on KIUC’s website, go see if you can find info on how to take advantage of the net metering program…should it ever open up again. Good luck!
One might have tho’t that exhorting members to help generate green energy would be a major theme of the website, given KIUC’s new strategic plan goals for ‘going green’. Nope. Nada.
As another example, didja ever try to search the KIUC website for specific information from, say, a Board meeting or financial report?
Turns out, many of these documents are contained in pdf files that have been scanned, which means ya can’t search them or copy text from them. (You can get the 2007 audited financial statement here…then try search it…)
Nor do their contents show up in a keyword search of the KIUC website. So how are members to find the info we’re looking for?
Now you know why I didn’t know about the demise of the Cleaves deal on biomass energy…it was buried in Board minutes that weren’t searchable. ‘Aue (alas)!
Published by Ken on June 27th, 2008 tagged Energy, HI-specific | Comment now » |
Q&A on sustainability: wot are we supposed to do now?
One consequence of our country being so far behind the curve on sustainability is the slow awakening to the magnitude of our task at hand amid lots of flailing about this or that do-list for ‘saving the planet‘.
Sadly, yet gratefully, we can look to other countries for advice and strategic guidance on sustainability matters, since many nations are by now way on down the road.
I’ve previously blogged about New Zealand, Britain, and other places (like Townsville, Australia) with leading edge sustainability strategies and policies.
By looking over their shoulders, we Americans might just leapfrog some of this learning curve.
For example, Britain is far enough along in its ecological footprinting and strategizing about ‘green building’, for example that each local government there now has an integrated policy and guidance system for both new and retrofit housing…
all designed to dramatically trim Britain’s footprint.
So, if ya wanna know the why and what of green building, this is one place to look for guidance.
Oh, and, Britain is also learning fast about how to “frame” sustainability in a way that actually induces behavioral change and creates a “new normal” for thinking about sustainability matters.
The Brits have been learning a thang or two about choosing ‘warm words‘.
And I just saw another pace-setting British study on how to use ‘social marketing‘ arts for sustainability campaigns.
We can learn important lessons here, since how we handle the ‘talk’ part of sustainability…especially here in Hawaii…will determine how fast we islanders can get to the ‘walk’ part.
We don’t wanna get ourselves all overwhelmed by the enormity of the sustainability challenge or our climate change prospects, nor do we wanna devolve into trivial pursuits.
In my sustainability seminar for Kauaian leaders, we have been searching for a way to invoke the mythical self-reliant islander, adapting to whatever comes our way, as a more effective means for galvanizing the lifestyle changes that all of us must now make.
An added virtue of borrowing the work of other countries is that they are less likely to have plunged blindly through ’solutions’ that create more problems, as America did with corn ethanol.
Perhaps by humbling ourselves to learn from others, we can shed the distinctly American hubris that has gotten us into this mess.
Indeed, we might learn from some of the planet’s best minds who argue that ignorance is a virtue, and not pretend (as Americans seem born to do) that we can ‘figure this out’ and ‘fix it’.
I can’t help thinking we’d be better off if we started by assuming we know nothing. After all, so much of wot we’ve been taught is wrong. And sometimes it seems that the only way to truly understand our world is to pull a 180 on everything we thought we knew.
All the more reason, as America languishes in political and economic diversions of all kinds (including Hawaii’s ‘sustainability plan‘), we might just as well leap on over to those other countries where sustainability is more than something we’re pretty sure we want…even if we’re not quite sure wot it is.
Published by Ken on June 26th, 2008 tagged HI-specific, Community Initiatives | Comment now » |
Carlin left the planet on a bad Kauai day for dying
Dontcha hate it when two famous people die on the same day…especially one ya can’t ignore and one ya can’t live without.
George Carlin would be in the latter category, and news of his death Monday has pretty much wrecked my whole week. Never mind that our island lost its Mayor the same day (via planetkauai).
I wanna mourn Carlin, who seemed (and looked, some say) like my older brother, and who got me through lots of years with guaranteed ROTFL at his pokes and prods.
Yikes! First Vonnegut, now Carlin…how the bleep are we gonna slice and dice this crazy America!
I especially liked his recent bit about humans inventing plastic, and regarding our human prospects for achieving sustainability, this Carlin line haunts us:
“How we gonna save the planet when we haven’t learned how to care for each other yet.”
I’m particularly pleased that Carlin recently got the Twain Prize, which will now be awarded posthumously (this November) at the Kennedy Center.
As the prize producers wrote on Monday, “Of this sad day he might have said that the only truly ‘dirty word’ is death.”
Still, if ya wanna reprise some of his lines about death, check out this recent video…where Carlin is definitely looking more like casket material.
In this bit, Carlin notes that “there are things we say when someone dies that no one questions. Like, gosh I just saw him yesterday.” After a quizzical pause, Carlins says: “Yeah? He still died.”
All week on Kauai, I’ve listened to stories of folks’ recent encounters with our Mayor, and all the talk about bypass surgery risks and the weight factor. Sadly, he still died.
Now, like Carlin, I’m “going through my address book and crossing out the dead people”…and I’ve been doing too much of that lately.
Like Twain, Carlin was smart enough to show simple courtesy to zealots (like Ann Coulter) who don’t respond well to nuanced arguments.
Last summer he was on The Tonight Show together with Ann Coulter (via lotusblog). When Carlin moved to the next seat so Coulter could sit down he said:
“I never thought I’d be moving to Ann Coulter’s right.”
Otherwise, Carlin chose not to engage in any Coulteresque screeching.
I truly hope Carlin’s passing is not the death of laffs in nuance…
Published by Ken on June 26th, 2008 tagged HI-specific, Systems Thinking | Comment now » |
Hawaii energy security trumps reliability: does KIUC disagree?
Governor Linda Lingle recently told Kauai business leaders that oil-burning systems can no longer be considered the most dependable form of generation (via kauaiworld).
KIUC Board Chair, Dennis Esaki, replied that Hawaii’s reliance on oil is better than coal and reliability remains the top concern.
Reporter Blake Jones got in some editorializing, noting that “the KIUC board of directors has consistently responded that it has an obligation to keep the lights on, which it couldn’t guarantee if it hastily invested in new technologies that have not been thoroughly vetted.”
Did they say that? Does Esaki disagree that security is the dominant threat?
Jones also reports that the board feels “KIUC is too small to research and pioneer each renewable idea that comes along.”
Did they say that, too?
These reporter’s impressions may accurately reflect the attitudes of the current board majority. If so, we may need to have broader discussion of these issues before we elect three new KIUC board members next March.
Jones also says “runaway oil prices have heightened the sense of urgency among some renewable advocates and consumers for faster implementation.” That’s true!
Jones concludes that “virtually undisputed, however, is a need to change the system that’s worked for so long.” That’s also true!
Oh, and, Jones is also right that KIUC’s commitment to 50 percent renewable energy generation by 2023 was the most ambitious in Hawai‘i seven months ago, yet has since been surpassed by state and national targets. So it goes.
Still, when Jones reports that Esaki “didn’t agree with Lingle that reliability should take a back seat or with her description of oil dependence in Hawai‘i,” ya gotta wonder if that’s wot he said.
Jones’ only Esaki quote is this: ““Reliability has to take into account everything to keep the power on.” That’s pretty much true by definition.
At least Esaki can sleep easier, knowing he hasn’t pushed “hasty” investments in green energy tech.
And Kauai households can sleep easier, knowing the lights will stay on…as long as the oil lasts (heh).
Added:
Now, in a rare appearance as a letter-writing green advocate, the state’s director of DBEDT, Ted Liu, scolds KIUC with this comment:
“Reliability has been a mantra to hide behind and avoid making necessary changes and taking calculated risks. As a result, ever since Hawai‘i first felt the adverse impact of our over-dependence on foreign oil more than 30 years ago, very little has changed.”
“Hawai‘i needs the utilities to help lead us into the future. Reliability cannot be a reason to stick with a foreign oil future. KIUC has taken a great step forward in setting an aggressive goal and we hope it continues to explore and execute reliable but strategic electricity solutions.”
‘K den, guess the ball’s in Esaki’s court to explain why so little has changed at KIUC…
Published by Ken on June 25th, 2008 tagged Energy, HI-specific | 2 Comments » |
ecological footprint depends on location and income
New results of an ecological footprint calculation for Canadians shows the obvious link between spending and emissions. Sure enough, the richest Canadians spew 2/3 more carbon than the average household (via CBC).
Especially in transport, the footprint of top Canadian earners is almost nine times the lowest-income households, given the richer households’ heavier reliance more on bigger carsd and more air travel.
Similar results for Hawaii from the CoolClimate calculator show that island households emit 20% less carbon than the US average, given our paucity of industry and lighter reliance on electricity to heat or cool our homes.
CoolClimate results for the average US household also show striking differences depending on income and household size. For example, the richest 4-person households (with incomes over $120,000) emit 78 tons of CO2 equivalents versus 41 tons for those with income between $20,000 and $30,000.
This works out to 19.5 tons per person in the richest households, and the footprint jumps to 54 tons for a rich household with only one person.
As Clark Williams-Derry points out (via sightline), wealthier households are better able to ‘fix’ their footprints, since spending less is far easier than making more.
Bear in mind that the world average, or global share, is 8 tons per capita.
So, either way, in Hawai`i or elsewhere, with a lot or a little income, Americans still have a long way to go to achieve “one planet” living.
Published by Ken on June 24th, 2008 tagged Ecological Footprint, HI-specific | Comment now » |
is Hawaii sustainable? ‘peak oil’ actuary has major doubts
When Gail Tverberg writes about sustainability in Hawaii, folks listen…and not just because she’s the “actuary” over on The Oil Drum.
Tverberg, who does risk assessments for the insurance industry and recently visited Hawaii to participate in a Kohala Center energy forum on the Big Island, couldn’t help reflecting on our vulnerabilities. Not surprisingly, she’s not sanguine.
Says Tverberg, “If Hawaii’s problems become clear before those of the rest of the US, it is possible that quite a few people currently living in Hawaii will move to the mainland,” adding “it seems likely to me that Hawaii’s tourist industry will largely disappear in the next few years, as oil prices rise.”
“If Hawaii loses its ‘exports’ like tourism and military bases,” wonders Tverberg, “where does it get the funding to continue buying imported food, gasoline, televisions, and asphalt?”
On the hopeful side, Tverberg says “certainly we could make tools from abandoned cars and trucks for a very long time, to supplement the natural resources.”
And, almost as an afterthought, Tverberg says “locally generated electricity might be added as well.”
Still, Tverberg acknowledges that we could go back to the self-reliant ahupuaa system, though she notes “going back this far would require huge changes in belief systems, and probably changes in land ownership rules. I am not sure how one would even contemplate such a major change.”
Oh, and, Tverberg shared the stage with my hero Maurice Kaya, who raised the specter of $200-per-barrel oil and $6-a-gallon gasoline by the end of the year in the nation’s most oil-dependent state.
Says Kaya, “the crisis is here and it’s going to be a long one. It’s about time we started doing something about it.”
Wot they said…
Published by Ken on June 24th, 2008 tagged Sustainability Science, HI-specific | Comment now » |
Q&A: wot’s that beautiful tree with the wide flat top?
Albizia keeps coming up, as when good buddy Ben Discoe popped by the treehouse while visiting from Hawaii to participate in Waipa’s Ho’oulu ‘Aina and asked about those “beautiful” trees coming through Kalihiwai.
Naturally, Discoe wrinkled his nose when I answered: Albizia. We all know this tree is a wicked invasive that, perhaps more than any other single tree, poses a threat to our remaining rainforest.
Also, in response to my earlier Albizia posts, Melissa Fischer (a participant in my sustainability seminar) wanted to know how we might balance the Albizia negatives against the biomass positives. So, here’s some further thots.
Adding to the Albizia concerns, Fischer noted that this tree “allows the rain to drop directly to the ground because it has upward angled branches and smooth bark. During periods of heavy rain fall the water does not have time to soak into the ground and watershed which causes run off and therefore, erosion.
Adds Fischer, “this excess water flows into our streams and ultimately into our oceans. Areas with high concentrations of Albizia have been tested and have shown significantly higher levels of nitrates in the water, sometimes four times higher than normal.”
Moreover, says Fischer, “if more of these trees are planted (for biomass purposes), the seeds will spread more rapidly than if the trees had not been farmed. The biomass facility also might cause an increase in the invasion due to others planting tree farms of Albizia to make money. This could result in trees going to seed before harvest and the seeds spreading on the island. More trees, more seeds, more industry on the island.”
Good points! Wonders Fischer, “Where do you find the balancing point?”
Published by Ken on June 24th, 2008 tagged HI-specific, Island Ecosystems | Comment now » |
Q&A: wot does cheap fuel mean?
Wanna go green at low prices? Get yerself some of that famed Brazilian biofuel.
Yet, dig deeper into how this fuel can be so cheap and you run smack up against the reason we gotta think about all three spheres together.
Howzat? A large part of the reason this fuel is cheap has to do with labor conditions on the Brazilian plantations, that’s how.
Says Patrick McDonnell, “Biofuels may help reduce humanity’s carbon footprint, but the social footprint is substantial” (via latimes).
“A lot of the competitive edge for biofuels is due to worker exploitation — from slave work to underpayment”.
That’s McDonnell quoting Leonardo Sakamoto, a political scientist who runs a nonprofit labor watchdog group in Sao Paulo, saying, sure “Brazil has a great climate, great land and technology, but…”
Still think cheaper is better?
Oh, and while you’re at it, consider how it is that US gas prices are so much cheaper than, say, in the EU. Does the word SUBSIDY do anything for ya?
Wudja believe billions in tax relief and outright grants of taxpayer money to fossil fuel producers already reaping record profits?
And never mind the eco-costs of fossil fuels that we’re not paying.
Bottom line: “cheap” fuel is a trap that locks us into unsustainability.
Published by Ken on June 17th, 2008 tagged Energy, Systems Thinking | Comment now » |
Q&A: wot should Obama do in the first 100 days?
Say Obama wins amid myriad signs of a coming climate catastrophe. Wot’s the first move to get the US in the game?
Sure, Kim Stanley Robinson covered this scenario in his latest book in the capitol trilogy. And his new president Phil Chase came to office as a darkhorse in troubling times.
Still, Chase didn’t have a war to contend with, and this is Obama’s avowed first priority, with universal health care a close second.
So, where’s global warming in Obama’s plan and wot might he do in the first 100 days? Start with turning science into policy, says here…says Robinson.
We already have the science and technology to drastically reduce our emissions, as the folks at RMI keep reminding us. And we have the science apparatus to focus our best minds on implementable solutions, as Robinson’s Diane Chang showed in shifting from head of his National Science Foundation to presidential science advisor.
So, like Robinson’s Chang, we might hope Obama elevates the fed’s science apparatus into a focusing mechanism for selecting tech that can be pushed in a Manhattanesque Project.
Oh, and, it wouldn’t hurt to have a kickbutt DefSec who could turn DOD into a force for the energy transition, as Robinson suggests.
Perhaps Robinson’s most important suggestion is this: Chase’s first act as President is to start a blog (called ‘cut to the Chase’). His first post, which focuses on the attitudes we Americans need to adopt to help get our country back out in front of the climate wars, gets 6 million comments.
Why not a new president who talks directly to us and lets us see wot he’s thinking (as Obama did in “The Audacity of Hope“)? Wot a concept!
It’s worth remembering that FDR’s New Deal, started in the first 100 days, took his full 12-year term to get implemented. Mebbe Obama could study that historical period to see wot he might do differently.
Why? ‘Cause we don’t have 12 years to turn this puppy around…nor does Obama.
Published by Ken on June 14th, 2008 tagged Systems Thinking, Climate Change | Comment now » |
wanna know econ impacts of climate change? so do we
Chief economist Paul Brewbaker at BOH regularly tracks Hawaii’s forecasts versus actual growth for key economic indicators.
Good thang, too, ’cause more folks now wanna know how good these forecasting models are.
Peter Dorman, who’s involved with economic analysis for the Western Climate Initiative, asks “is there any evidence that such models add value—that their predictions are any better than those derived from…even a random walk?” (via EconoSpeak).
Says Dorfman, ” I think these models are so dubious theoretically and unreliable in practice that there is no case for using them.” Let’s have a look at the Hawaii models, shall we?
Turns out, Brewbaker also tracks the results of forecasts prepared by UH and state government.
Looking back over the past 5 years, we compiled this graph of the models’ average forecast error for jobs, visitors and income.
The 3 Hawaii models didn’t fare well with job forecasts, getting the sign of change wrong in 2002, then seriously overestimating 2003, before consistently underestimating the 2004-2006 growth years.
The visitor forecasts fared slightly better, hitting within +/-10% in 3 of 5 years. But, forget the income forecasts, which were way low in 3 years, and way high the other 2 years.
The point is: these forecasts may not be much better than throwing darts at the chart.
Sadly, we have no reliable forecasting tools that can help us anticipate the economic impacts of our adjustments to climate change.
So it goes.
Still, why do we then allow economists to get away with their forecast models showing economic ruin if we stop belching CO2? Even, if their models showed the opposite, we should take these results with a grain of salt.
Published by Ken on June 9th, 2008 tagged HI-specific, Systems Thinking | 1 Comment » |
this just in: my institute gets business coverage
With the headline “Kauaian Institute paints green picture“, today’s Pacific Business News carries a great little piece penned by Jon Letman.
“Ken Stokes helps businesses figure out what green looks like”, says Letman.
“Whether it’s surveying the impact of vacation rental units on Kauai, Maui and Oahu or urging the Legislature to revisit laws governing environmental impact statements, he sees a need for an entirely new way of assessing how Hawaii residents affect their environment.”
Letman mentions my slogan from the KIUC campaign: “Greener, sooner, cheaper,” and notes that I’m motivated by “the dramatic strategic shifts…Hawaii will see in energy, transportation and food production as climate change and the urgent need to increase energy independence become more pronounced.”
He goes on to mention my leadership seminars on sustainability, and some of the findings from my previous research on greenhouse gas emissions, vacation rentals, and island demographics.
“Stokes sees both urgency and optimism in his work”, say Letman. “Our vulnerabilities are second to none,” he said. “Our potential also is second to none.”
Mahalo, Jon!
Published by Ken on June 6th, 2008 tagged HI-specific, Community Initiatives | Comment now » |
America’s monster footprint: seeking an 80% reduction
No need for technical jargon here: our American ecological footprint is twice that of the EU and Japan, and six times our global share.
Sustainability in America means cutting our footprint by 80%, and we know where these cuts must come, thanks to the Cool Climate Calculator (via bie).
Energy tops the list with 30% of our footprint, since average household energy emits 11.7 tons of CO2, and this must go down to 2.3 tons.
Transport and food are second and third, with 25% and 20% footprint share, respectively, or 9.8 tons and 7.8 tons, going down to 2.0 and 1.6 tons. So, 75% of our footprint comes from these 3 sectors.
Housing is the fourth largest with a 15% footprint share, or 5.9 tons, and this must go down to 1.2 tons.
All other goods and services comprise a 10% share, or 3.9 tons, going down to 0.8 tons.
That’s a total of 39 tons of CO2 per American household, whereas our global share is only 7.9 tons.
Global share is determined by dividing the planet’s productive biocapacity by population.
Any household taking up more than its share is effectively denying a fair share of these resources to others, either in terms of today’s consumption or in capacity for growth.
There’s only so much to go around.
Any questions?
Published by Ken on June 5th, 2008 tagged Ecological Footprint, Climate Change | Comment now » |
obstacles to collective action: why Obama’s voice matters
Disturbing results from a ‘climate game’ created by Germany’s Manfred Milinski raise serious questions about our human capacity for taking collective action in time to avert catastrophic climate change.
Milinski’s ‘collective action’ experiment found that “people do not act rationally, even to protect their own interest” (via ipsnews).
Despite advance knowledge that all lose if the collective “climate account” does not grow fast enough, players in half the groups kept too much in their private accounts. Seeing others greed, some players stopped contributing to the collective account.
So, we’ll need help rising above personal interests…and that’s where Obama comes in.
If people are to “become engaged and carried along, not in spite of themselves, but beyond themselves”, as Bud McClure puts it, we’re gonna need a ‘transcendent’ voice (via commondreams).
McClure says he heard such a voice Tuesday nite in St. Paul, where Barack Obama spoke as he became the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.
“Obama is one of the most congruent speakers I have ever heard”, says McClure, a psychologist, for whom this was “a deeply felt, transpersonal experience, in which we are transported beyond our own small, isolated sense of self. There are feelings of wholeness, unity, and a connection with something greater than oneself.”
“In the coming years”, says McClure, “we will need a leader who can engage us in this meaningful way and ask that we make sacrifices for the common good.”
“Obama gave each of us a glimpse into our higher nature and a sense that when all of us come together anything is possible”, says McClure.
Dare we hope?
…posted in honor of my wife, Susan Dixon, who has totally switched back on to the democratic process, thanks to Obama.
Published by Ken on June 5th, 2008 tagged Climate Change, Community Initiatives | Comment now » |
how green are biofuels? only footprinters know for sure
By now, we know enough about this new kind of sustainability thinking to look beyond the emissions reduction claims of biofuels in considering their full environmental impacts.
Two recent studies show how dramatically the assessment of biofuels can change when all impacts are considered.
A Swiss research team found that U.S. corn ethanol, Brazilian sugarcane ethanol and soy diesel, and Malaysian palm-oil diesel have far greater aggregate environmental costs than do fossil fuels (via presidiomba).
Good buddy Jørgen Vos (now at Natural Logic) also found that corn ethanol is much worse than gasoline, and even Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is slightly worse.
According to Vos, the ecological footprint of corn ethanol is 2.33 times that of gasoline, while Brazilian cane ethanol is only 1.09 times worse.
In the chart shown here, Vos found both corn and soy biofuels worse than gasoline, while switchgrass is marginally worse than diesel, and palm oil is marginally better.
The Swiss study found that neither Brazilian sugarcane nor sugar beets is advantageous when emissions and environmental impacts are considered.
According to this study, the biofuels that fare best are those produced from residual products, such as biowaste or recycled cooking oil, as well as ethanol from grass or wood. The findings highlight the enormous differences in costs and benefits among different biofuels.
Oh, and, to help you put these differences in perspective, says Vos, pay attention to our global fair share of the planet’s bioproductive capacity, which is 1.78 hectares per person.
By this measure, Vos finds that any of these fuels constitute 60% or more of our carbon budget if driven at the US average of 12,500 miles annually. Even a Prius takes 47% of our carbon budget, according to Vos’ calculations.
So, this might be a good time to recall that we need to reduce the footprint of our transport by 80% or more, and to note that battery electric vehicles are the only solution that comes close.
As I like to say these days, don’t switch fuel, switch engines!
Published by Ken on June 4th, 2008 tagged Energy, Ecological Footprint | Comment now » |
bioenergy from algae in Hawaii? Cole says maybe
Since last we commented, the outlook for biofuels has darkened as more robust assessments are made of its net impacts.
Thus, I was delighted to note that Hawaii BioEnergy (HBE) is turning more toward algae, instead of sugarcane, according to David Cole at last week’s Bioenergy Summit on Oahu.
Despite HBE’s claims that sugarcane can be advantageous, two recent footprint studies fail to bear this out.
Says Cole, “HBE is a member of two teams that have advanced to the award consideration phase with DARPA to develop bio-jet fuel from algae in Hawai`i, fed by CO2 emissions from our power plants.”
Cole notes that “the two years of study that HBE has undertaken have validated the enormous potential that exists in Hawai`i, but also highlighted the serious limitations in our existing policy framework.”
One key obstacles is the ethanol production credit, whose cap is “far below the minimum efficient scale for an ethanol plant”, says Cole.
For their part, the HBE partners are all about “careful land management, to ensure that both food and fuel can be produced on our islands, requires new, highly efficient feedstock and processing technologies.”
Cole cites algae, yet he notes that “there are an abundance of pathways.”
That’s reassuring.
Published by Ken on June 4th, 2008 tagged Energy, HI-specific | Comment now » |
Honolulu not greenest city: false hope from flawed study
When some survey ranks you as the greenest city in America, ya gotta feel a greater sense of urgency about reducing yer emissions, right?
Wrong! And that’s what’s tragic about the Brookings Institution study released Thursday: False satisfaction (via HNLadvertiser).
Why false? Because this study’s methodology was almost designed to make Honolulu look good. I mean, take the dirty thing we do the least– like heat and cool our homes– and make that the biggest factor. Of course, we’ll score well.
Sadly, the study data covers only a small fraction of our total emissions, yet the headlines scream ‘greenest’. Ready for a reality check?
See, this study used the only data available for major cities, which happens to measure only home energy and vehicle miles traveled. Good buddy JanT caught this, too (via raising islands).
Lucky for us, the EPA just released 2005 data for all emissions in Hawaii, so we can get a better sense of where we actually are.
- Turns out, our emissions are up 18% since 2000, which is the fastest growth rate of any state. Not something to be proud of, fer sure.
- Oh, and, Hawaii is one of only 18 states whose emissions are still rising.
- Fact is, we’re the 20th worst state in emissions per capita, with a total of 18.1 tons of CO2 per year for every islander.
- Every other western state except Alaska is lower.
- Wanna better comparison? Hawaii’s per capita emissions are 2/3 higher than California.
Still feel like braggin’?
How ’bout urgency? Does urgency work for you?