11 total posts
It seems logical and basically practical that Hawaii be the one. Afterall, not that many miles to putt around in though a "recycle station" should be close by and it seems be found in urban areas once parked for going to work or shopping. To say, no cost to Hawaii, seems out of touch with all govt. practices as that will surely change. Since, everything is already expensive in Hawaii, anyone buying into a new elect. car and getting into the 0 carbon footprint practice would be held victim if Hawaii doesn't complete all stations in a timely period. As for 0 carbon footprint, you think that isn't befuddled by the volcanoes spewing out this and that plus added demand to the elect. grid. I hope the alternative power sources get used well. -----Willy
I got to wondering...
I got to wondering just how much of the company's power is produced by renewable resources, to get an idea of how far they would have to go to achieve their new goal. The company is called HEI or sometimes referred to as HEICO (stock ticker HE).
Going to their web site and looking on at their "how we're doing" I found the statement:
"In 2007, the Hawaiian Electric companies achieved a consolidated Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) of 16.1 percent, an increase from the 13.8 percent level achieved in 2006 and 11 percent achieved in 2005. This means that 16 percent of Hawaiian Electric, Maui Electric and Hawaii Electric Light companies? sales came from renewable energy (including solar water heating) and quantifiable energy efficiency. This increase is primarily the result of two new wind farms, Hawi Renewable Development on Hawaii Island and Kaheawa Wind Power on Maui, and additional demand-side management projects implemented in 2006 and 2007."
I think that means that as of 2007, 16.1 percent of their power is produced by renewable means. If that is right, it would seem to mean that they've got a long way to go.
Yep, to produce any quanity of electricity
you've got to burn something...or someone has to. I suppose they could canopy their beaches with solar panels or maybe drop a long heavy gauge extension cord to the mainland.
Seen and heard about those
Monstrous to build and full of potential maintenance problems. I believe one very real concern is that stealing from ocean currents interrupts the distribution of vital nutrients to sea life in the area of these installations. Whether or not we'd see or feel the effects....who knows. There's no running out of things to worry about.
Each of the proposals has local problems.
There are many waterfalls on the "scenic" islands, but they have little of the population, and any turbine plant would be an eyesore.
The wind is less reliable than elsewhere because the land isn't flat, like Texas et al.
The "thermal" is mainly volcanic- how do they bell the cat? (Yellowstone and California thermals are easier to tap.)
Sunshine is a good bet, but even there the percent of clear days is less than NM, for instance, so the amortization would be longer.
Anything is better than nothing, though.
Speaking of Hawaii: Sunday is the anniversary of my marriage to my Japanese-Hawaiian wife. That's Sunday ... December 7th ... a date which will live ...
Did you pick the date of the wedding
thinking ahead, that you would have lots of reminders of the date?
a date which will live.......in infamy? (for 2 different reasons?)
Nope. It just worked for my weird work schedule.
I went from the wedding to work, in fact.
Would need a big surfboard to pull the cord.
Where's Duke Kahanamoku when we need him?
Volcanoes are beneficial- in the long run, and
earthwide. NOT so good for homeowners downstream from Kilauea, though.