+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Hawaii Decarbonization Settlement 2045 (/showthread.php?tid=23367)
RE: Hawaii Decarbonization Settlement 2045 - randomq - 06-29-2024
I know we are in "rainy Puna", but after oversizing my solar I *never* have to run a generator anymore. Even on rainy weeks in the wet season. If you have some cash to spare I highly recommend throwing up extra panels, even to the point of over-paneling your MPPT controller.
Hawaii should become a medical specialty and retirement community. Entice world class doctors and specialists with tax incentives and public medical facilities. Get medical tourism going, where people fly in from around the world for specialty care. Create resort retirement homes with beautiful views, swimming pools, bars, and golf courses next to those medical facilities.
The key would be keeping as much of it public or locally owned to keep profits on-island and in-state. Then we have money coming into our state, good medical facilities that also serve locals, and an economic base for the island that runs rain or shine, regardless of the economy. Nevermind schools can teach skills actually valued and valuable here.
RE: Hawaii Decarbonization Settlement 2045 - ironyak - 06-29-2024
Punatang - https://uhero.hawaii.edu/liquefied-natural-gas-a-cleaner-fossil-fuel-thats-cheaper-than-oil-and-pairs-well-with-renewable-energy/
That only compares methane to oil and is from 2014 and doesn't take into account that large-scale renewables that have dropped ~90% in cost over the last decade, nor does it account for the total costs of producing methane including the hundreds-of-billions of dollars of taxpayer money to handle abandoned oil & gas wells, or the impact on human health for communities near oil and gas facilities like those in Louisiana's "Cancer Alley".
Why would you choose an energy source that costs more per-watt, requires taxpayers to handle extensive environmental damages, and is causing disease and death particularly for poor folks?
https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/06/state-expects-upcoming-energy-study-to-answer-cost-and-carbon-questions-for-hawaii/
The comments on that article are a wild ride, including some people still advocating for "clean coal". Someone needs to come up with a term for these fossil-fuel zombies regurgitating decades-old fossil-fuel company propaganda.
HiloJulie - Maybe you can’t grasp what having dear friends means to you. Maybe it’s a lack of having any friends on your part, or you only just care about yourself and to hell with the rest.
I see - I don't have enough friends that I care enough about to justify creating tons of pollution to hang out with? I'll give you credit for one of the more unique ad hominem attacks I've seen.
When the massive Australia wildfires were underway in 2020, it was truly astounding the number of comments people left on news articles about how they loved Australia and flew down from the US or Europe every year, apparently without ever making the connection that their mode of showing affection was directly contributing to the destruction of those locations. If you pointed this out, they would defend their choices with economic justifications, that these locations were depend on income from tourists. If you suggested they donate their vacation money to those impacted communities instead, hence providing all the economic benefits without any of the environmental costs, some would scoff as what they were getting out of it? This probably is another one of those "Amused to Death" situations pointed out earlier, or as some have said - we're converting barrels of oil into tons of pollution, that lasts hundreds of years, for momentary micro-liters of dopamine. The suggestion is to find other sources of dopamine without making all the the long-lived pollution in the process. It might be seen as understanding the big picture and more fully caring for everyone impacted.
HiloJulie - And yes, I extolled the virtues of the new 787 ... I was required to fly to LAX from Kona to sign a dozen documents, which I did, never setting foot outside of LAX only to return to Kona hours later.
Might I suggest that you've had more than your fair share of a finite and highly-polluting resource? As Americans, we already use more fossil fuels per person than any other country, and given your history you would be far above average even within this extravagant population.
HiloJulie - I did not set the rules, nor would my refusal of doing what I did have changed anything in the end.
I'll avoid the "just following orders" retort, and point out that there isn't some fixed number of planes flying around regardless of ticket sales. Customer demand drives corporate choices and not buying a plane flight does mean that you did not participate in, or promote the expansion of, that activity.
HiloJulie - The issue that I have is you seem to expect that the burning of fossil fuels will change immediately overnight and life will go on as normal.
Oh, not at all. Normal is massively polluting the planet, destroying its capacity to support life, and endangering the health and lives of billions of people. That's what understanding and believing in climate change entails. I have no interest in perpetuating this normal and so when decision points come up like picking LNG as some oxymoronic way of ending fossil-fuel dependence, I advocate for better options, and keep living a simple life, even if it's not "normal".
HiloJulie - (By the way, the link provided about “methane slip” is about burning LNG in 4 cycle marine engines and not that of steam boilers used for power generation) And yes, there is a certain amount of methane slip when used for power generation...
Yeah, I thought the graphs might help people visualize the contributions from direct combustion, production, and leaks. If you want to look more at power plants and the wider methane supply chain, the article from RMI and one of the linked studies is worth reading.
HiloJulie - And keeping the fingers crossed that there are no major spills or other disasters while transporting that bunker oil to the shores of Hawaii.
While worrying about those potential spills makes sense, methane is already leaking during its extraction, transport, and combustion. Perhaps both are bad and should be avoided?
HiloJulie - I’d also point out that you are very well versed in imbedding [sic] links into your post which is nice and helpful. But that does show that you spend significant amounts of time on the internet.
I'm able to provide links as I've already done my homework on this topic and am willing to share. I don't find it difficult to add them as I've been contributing to PW on-and-off for 15 years (the little chain(+) icon on the toolbar adds a link in case anyone missed it). This is just a morning tea-time amusement before heading outside for the day to get some work done.
HiloJulie - Are YOU on solar?
I've answered this repeatedly - it's hard to hold a conversation if you're not paying attention.
HiloJulie - you don’t state if you have a car or what kind of car you have if you have one. If you have an old pre 21st century vehicle, even if you use it once a month to go to town , you’re spewing more carbon into the air than I would if I drove my hybrid car to town 4 times a day for a month.
We do have a car, a decade-old little 35+ mpg sedan. While EVs (recharged on solar) are great, they still require a lot of energy to manufacture, and we do so little driving, so the math isn't quite there yet for replacement. Energy-returned-on-energy-invested (EROEI) or embodied energy considerations are key to getting at total physical costs beyond just monetary or operation costs. (P.S. I'm sure your Ford Escape and husband’s F150 are museum artifacts that are never driven ;)
HiloJulie - I also find your attempted dig on cognitive dissonance to be quite humorous. Maybe you should study “Psychological Projection”
Wasn't really a dig, just a question about how you reconcile your beliefs with your actions. As for projection, yes, I experience cognitive dissonance when considering activities that burn fossil fuels in light of understanding of the long term impacts involved, but when I project this notion out, I find most people have avoided this dissonance not by changing their actions, but by adopting beliefs that provide comfort and justification. These beliefs range from climate change denial, to "climate indulgences" (I drive an EV my the emissions from air travel and steaks are ok), to false comparisons (at least I'm not flying private like Musk, Swift, etc), to doomerism (nothing can be changed so why bother doing anything), examples of how humans are rationalizing not rational. All these are just ways of justifying one's desired choices and work to serve big oil's 'discourse of delay' intended to divert attention away from the crisis.
HiloJulie - Imagine if we converted to LNG 15 years ago...
Well, imagine if people listened to NASA scientist James Hansen in the 1980s that climate change was real and the affects were beginning to be felt. Imagine 40+ years of taking action to reduce fossil fuel use in all human activities, instead of choosing lifestyles based on mass energy consumption to fuel cheap conveniences. But that's not what we choose, so now the cuts needs to be even steeper. Anything other than "rapid, deep, and immediate" reductions is insufficient and just making the problem worse no matter the self-deluding stories people tell themselves.[/i]
RE: Hawaii Decarbonization Settlement 2045 - HiloJulie - 06-29-2024
Congratulations ironyak!
As most trolls eventually succumb to their sheer and blind ignorance, they inevitably pull out the “Hitler/Nazi” reference just as your predictable “just following orders” link shows.
Also your dissertation on ad hominem attacks is priceless considering that your last post is chocked full of them.
At any event, I wonder what America would become if everybody just said NO to following any and all rules!
RE: Hawaii Decarbonization Settlement 2045 - HiloJulie - 06-29-2024
While each person doing what they can do to lessen their carbon footprint is important and should be encouraged, if we really wanted to quickly solve climate change, we need a whole new paradigm of thinking.
One paradigm shift for example, I previously made a tongue and cheek remark about how in 2 states, the placement of the bible and a poster of the 10 commandments would solve and create competency education of our children.
But the paradigm change needed has to squelch these types of issues from even being discussed, most importantly, by elected officials.
All these 2 states have done by this mandate of religious propaganda in our public schools is to first toss the slabs of red meat to their base supporters and turn the ones who support the constitution into raging flames.
But, more importantly, what will happen is a few hundred lawyers will get involved. And what these lawyers will do is hop into big carbon belching jets, sitting in any row less than 6, getting off that jet in whatever city they flew into, get into a Cadillac Escalade/Lincoln Navigator rental car/Uber and go to an office or courthouse and speak their spiel, get back into their Cadillac Escalade/Lincoln Navigator rental car/Uber, head to Ruth Chris’/Morton’s Steak House, consuming more food in 3 hours that a person in dozens of impoverished nations around the world would not see in a whole year, then get back into their Cadillac Escalade/Lincoln Navigator rental car/Uber and head to their 38th floor suite at the 38 story luxury hotel and then the next morning get back into their Cadillac Escalade/Lincoln Navigator rental car/Uber and head to the airport and get back into their carbon belching jet and fly back home.
Wash, rinse and repeat a few times a month for the next 5 to 7 years to finally exhaust all options to be told that bibles and 10 commandment posters are not allowed as per Article I of the constitution.
As has been done so many times before.
But hey, in the meantime as this charade plays out in court, those politicians got re-elected again and again! And then, if you ask the politicians about climate change, some will say “god will fix it!”
RE: Hawaii Decarbonization Settlement 2045 - MyManao - 06-29-2024
(06-29-2024, 07:58 PM)HiloJulie Wrote: we need a whole new paradigm of thinking..
Yep, we need to recognize that life, in all its forms, is sacred. And live accordingly.
RE: Hawaii Decarbonization Settlement 2045 - kalianna - 06-29-2024
Where is the EVIDENCE to support this ??!!!
:-)
RE: Hawaii Decarbonization Settlement 2045 - HiloJulie - 06-29-2024
(06-29-2024, 08:21 PM)MyManao Wrote:(06-29-2024, 07:58 PM)HiloJulie Wrote: we need a whole new paradigm of thinking..
Yep, we need to recognize that life, in all its forms, is sacred. And live accordingly.
Another paradigm shift needed is understanding that when something is termed sacred, reasonable becomes impossible.
RE: Hawaii Decarbonization Settlement 2045 - Punatang - 06-30-2024
[attachment=263]Global energy use reached a new record in 2023. Less than 19% of the energy consumed on planet earth was from renewables. https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
RE: Hawaii Decarbonization Settlement 2045 - terracore - 06-30-2024
"Other renewables" is a pretty broad category. What does it mean exactly? Clear-cutting forests or slaughtering whales for their oil is "renewable energy" but not one with an excellent carbon or environmental footprint.
Before everybody jumps on me consider that maybe there is embedded humor here somewhere (think about renewable energy sources in the 1880s, for example). And if we don't change our ways, maybe the 2080s!
RE: Hawaii Decarbonization Settlement 2045 - HereOnThePrimalEdge - 06-30-2024
And if we don't change our ways, maybe the 2080s!
That’s right! As Charlton Heston tried to warn the good citizens of the future, “Soylent Green is (spoiler alert)!”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UPDUpjkHg0
Soylent Green is certainly renewable, and what we’ll get for breakfast, lunch, and dinner if we use up the more preferable resources now.