by Planning Engineer
· Countering the presumption that renewables are always the environmentally preferable alternative, this column suggests that serious consideration should be given to examining if for the short term, fossil fuel might be the “environmentally correct” near term alternative for Kauai.
I recently spent two weeks on Kauai, the oldest and arguably the most beautiful of the major Hawaiian Islands. Despite the wonderful distractions of scenery, food, drink, hiking, snorkeling, kayaking, biking, bird watching and a wedding, I couldn’t help thinking about power supply. Kauai is notable for having electric rates that are among the highest in the United States. Considering supply issues, this should not be seen as necessarily problematic or become a source for criticism. Costs are higher for very good reasons. The population is under 70,000. The island is too distant to take advantage of grid interconnections and large economies of scale. The ratio of customers per mile of line is low. Fuel and resource options are limited.
Clearly people tend to be better off with lower energy rates and are disadvantaged by higher rates, but in Kauai those effects are muted such that the high energy costs are not as challenging for Kauai as they might be in other areas. As most jobs are related to tourism, high energy costs do not depress the job market significantly. With moderate weather, consumers are not as adversely impacted by high rates as areas where cooling and/or heating needs can be severe. Looking at electric bills, versus electric rates – Kauai is not so much an outlier.
Kauai is served by an electric cooperative, Kauai Island Electric Cooperative (KIUC). As a cooperative they are member owned and member driven. In considering energy, economics, politics and the desires of their electric consumers, KIUC is doing an excellent job. Based upon current inputs KIUC is appropriately planning for the future. However this essay will raise a controversial question for consideration: Based upon a full evaluation of energy, economics and environmental considerations (and ignoring politics) might Kauai be better served by more centralized power sources rather than the current plan to significantly increase renewable generation?
Kauai was formed just over five million years ago by volcanic activity and emerged from the sea a barren, lifeless rocky expanse. Even without any specialized impacts from “climate change”, the natural erosion from the pounding of the ocean and heavy precipitation will submerge the island into the Pacific within the next 25 million years. From very slow beginnings, supported by erosion and bird guano, life began to take hold on the desolate island. Life has power and today the island has as incredibly diverse and amazing eco-system. Kauai is a special place with an incredible thriving mix of native and introduces species. Its population will continue to face many challenges in balancing human needs and limiting human impacts upon the natural environment.
Determining an “acceptable” level of environmental impacts from human energy needs is highly subjective. Some may be argue that humans should have no conceivable “adverse” impacts on the environment and at the other extreme some may believe that the local environment does not matter at all. I find both these extremes untenable. A balance is needed.
What is the “natural state” of Kauai and how “important” is it? Depending on the time frame for reference, the “importance” of Kauai’s “natural state” varies greatly. Left to nature Kauai will perish having been in existence only well under 1% of earth’s geologic time to that date. The existence of Kauai should be approximately 1/5 the time of the age of dinosaurs. In terms of mankind however, Kauai preceded us and may outlast us as well. In terms of mankind Kauai should take on a value of high “importance”. In terms of mankind and our timeframe, Kauai is a precious resource that should be preserved.
Is it wrong to look at Kauai from our perspective? I struggle with arguments centered on nature but divorced from mankind. Nature is very powerful in the long run. Outside “our” time frame, nature is incredibly robust and resilient. Outside of our time frames our impacts are limited.
The earth has seen five major mass extinction events, the most recent being the K-T extinction approximately 66 million years ago. How such “tragic” events should be viewed outside or our perspective from a “planetary” or “natural” perspective? Triggered by asteroids, comets, volcanic activity, sea level change, climate or some combination of those factors, the K-T event was a catastrophic disaster for all living things. Almost all large vertebrates suddenly became extinct. The earth also lost most plankton and many tropical invertebrates. Roughly three-fourths of the plant and animal species were lost. In terms of life and loss of diversity it’s beyond what most of us can imagine.
In terms of the geological record this catastrophic event shows up only in a thin layer of sediment. While the entire discussion is subjective, on the grand scale of geological time it can be argued the K-T tragedy was a net positive. Sadly the long living ammonites became extinct as did the non-avian dinosaurs. But, the air and water cleared while other life forms flourished and the earth once again developed a diverse, balanced eco-system. Diversification from surviving species has and will continue to develop “endless forms most beautiful”. Mammals were able to eventually thrive due to the end of the age of dinosaurs. I know of no arguments that “nature” might have been grander without the precedents that lead to the K-T extinction.
Similarly, long run, I expect that nature will continue to generally maintain Kauai as a natural paradise until its natural decline deposits it in the Pacific. Long term I am not that worried about Kauai. However, from our time perspective, the environment of Kauai is very important and our carelessness and disregard can lead to severe consequences from a human time perspective. For us, it would be a tragedy should Kauai’s environment be adversely impacted for just a generation let alone multiple generations. I would give the environment of Kauai a high priority. The state of Hawaii contributes less than 1 percent to the U.S. landmass, but the islands contain 44 percent of its endangered and threatened plant species. My subjective take is that we should make significant and perhaps near extreme efforts to protect that diversity for future generations.
Electric energy goes hand in hand with human betterment and can work to better support the environment. Affordable, clean electric energy enables a society to have sufficient resources such that concern can be shown for the local environment. While it should be expected to cost more to power Kauai than many other areas, the value of that energy is significant and can be justified for full considerations balancing economics with environmental needs.
Global versus Local Environmental Considerations
Generation resources differ in their impacts on the local versus regional and global environment. The amount of land need for solar or wind generation tend to be more than an order of magnitude greater than what is needed for natural gas generation. Locally in terms or aesthetics and considering flora and fauna it may be better to locate a fossil fuel generator within a more confined area that to cover a broad expanse with solar panels. However at the regional and global level, the solar panels may be judged the “greener” alternative.
As large scale “environmental” projects are developed and implemented you often find local environmental issues rising to prominence. On Kauai the issue is wind power versus endangered birds. In the Midwest the issue is cleaner ethanol versus nitrogen pollution. Offshore wind may threaten local marine life. In Georgia there are challenges to gopher tortoises from solar facilities
Examining Kauai helps illustrate that currently no available technology is environmentally superior for all environments and highlights differences between local and global environmental goals.
Power supply on the island has been supported primarily by imported fuel oil, as coal and natural gas have not been options. Traditionally KIUC served the island with 121 MW of fossil fuel generation and 1.3 MW of hydro capacity. The cost of fossil fuel resulted in the historically high volatile rates. KIUC is hopeful that moving away from fossil fuel towards renewables can help stabilize rates and reduce volatility. Except for global/generic concerns I cannot find any specific local environmental concerns associated with fossil fuel generation. In terms of the impact upon just the local environment – fossil fuel appears relatively benign compared to other available options.
KIUC is perming a 6 MW hydroelectric plant which will be the first new hydroelectric plant to come online in 80 years. Five old hydroelectric plants were built to serve sugar plantations still provide a total of 8.8 MW to the island. KIUC is developing a 25 MW pumped storage facility as well.
With abundant rain and high cliffs Kauai has a theoretical potential for much higher use of hydro. Further hydro development will be limited by environmental, cultural, agricultural, and recreational and tourism interests so it likely will remain a small component of the power supply. Fully exploiting potential hydro resources, particularly if storage capacity is maximized, would have severe consequences impacting archeological, agricultural, natural and developable land as well as fish migration and scenic impacts.
Reportedly Kauai has superb wind conditions but no wind generation of significance. My understanding is that wind is not viable due to concerns for endangered species. I doubt that absent the concerns around killing birds, wind would be embraced anyway. The structures would greatly detect from the aesthetic beauty and if applied with any significant density would raise additional environmental concerns. I suspect the wind industry is wise not to push the issue of wind on Kauai because it would be a stage where its shortcomings became highly observable.
The island has a 7 MW biomass plant that will burn invasive species, fuel from damaged woodlands and locally grown trees as well. Providing a continuing supply of fuel for biomass has and will continue to provide controversy and challenges.
Solar (with storage) is seen as Kauai’s best hope for a high renewable future. While conditions are good for solar, the irradiance is not as high there as in the southwestern US. The intermittent nature of solar is complicated by the small size of the island and inability for energy exchanges to increase diversity. Furthermore the demand in Kauai peaks after sunset. Proven storage technologies will be required before solar can play a major role. Because of the shortcoming of other renewable technologies achieving high renewables in Kauai will be dependent on deploying considerable solar. The proliferation of solar panels on Kauai will bring problems and benefits. Some say they provide shelter for the endangered State bird of Hawaii the Nene geese. At the same as penetrations increase the panels will compete with local flora as well.
What’s best for Kauai?
As noted earlier Hawaii contains a disproportionate share of endangered species. The local environment is incredibly diverse and beautiful. From our human time scale, strong considerations should be given to protecting that area as much as possible and as long as possible. One potential approach to maximizing benefits for the island would be to employ imported high density fuel resources. They will have the minimal footprint and impact upon the island. At the present the most viable candidates are fossil fuel based, however small modular nuclear could become an attractive option in the future.
An energy dense strategy would not be compatible with existing efforts to increase renewables. Biomass and solar both can take up significant space so as to limit natural flora and fauna. Wind as previously noted, appears incompatible with protection of local species.
This suggestion is at odds with conventional thinking today. The suggestion may in fact prove to be wrongheaded, but such considerations should at least be on the table to counteract blind allegiance to renewables. Consider for example, that if modular nuclear is the energy source of the near term future, Kauai may fair far better by investing in fossil fuels for the short term. These plants take minimal resources and space and can be easily retired and removed. Considerable environmental benefits would accrue from avoiding the infrastructure needed to support extensive renewables in the meantime.
Generic calls to obtain 50% renewables by 2023 or 100% by 2045 are suspect because grouping wind, solar, biomass and hydro together ignores the individual capabilities and limitations of each of these resources versus other competing alternatives. In order to balance economics and environmental considerations each alternative must be compared against every other alternative not just among renewable options. Blanket targets might be good for general guidance and goal setting, but long term we need careful refined numbers relying on something beyond what sounds good.
What about Kauai’s global responsibility?
It can be argued that since Kauai might be more vulnerable to climate change, rising sea levels and the impacts of increased CO2 on coral reefs that Kauai has a special obligation to address CO2 emissions. A corollary of such an argument would be that an area insulated from (or benefiting from) the impacts of high CO2 emissions should have a lesser obligation. I don’t find either argument particularly persuasive.
In a global economy markets should work to maximize local benefits and minimize local burdens whenever possible. To the extent that Kauai has limited land space and could more greatly benefit from dense energy resources and that another area has considerable land area and is better able to use less dense renewable approaches, those two areas should be involved in exchanges. Solar panels in the desert will have less of an impact than solar panels places in lush growing areas. Some areas have easier access to geothermal while other areas may need to be more dependent on dense imported fuels. Some areas will by the blessing of nature have more resources than needed in some instances perhaps should over-produce to support other less advantaged areas. For other resources that relationship may be reversed. If any area is to burn fossil fuels, perhaps it is Kauai?
Kauai is served by a coop and they are expected to be responsive to their member’s desires. In light of that objective KIUC is taking appropriate steps to modify their power supply. Increasing renewable generation appears highly desirable to many consumers on Kauai. Many believe with no doubt that renewables will prove to be more economic and better for both the global and local environment. With emerging technology it’s easy to see the promise and appeal while not fully accounting for the drawbacks. An important question is “have the members on Kauai been exposed to the full dialogue of ideas needed to arrive at the best decisions for their environment?”
Because of the special local environmental considerations, perhaps Kauai should be at the tail of the renewable revolution instead of its head. I recognize this is a radical idea. But, in terms of wind, this decision may have already been made. The conflict between global and local environmental concerns may become more apparent as Kauai struggles to achieve higher solar penetration levels.
JC note: As with all guest posts, please keep your comments civil and relevant.