Hawaii Decarbonization Settlement 2045

[kalianna]

Time to go to the bickering thread.

[TomK]

Time to go to the bickering thread.

Maybe it is, but can you point to anything I asked that isn't relevant? We have someone's opinion vs. a song. I think that's something worth pointing out. If you have a different opinion, please post it here or on the other thread where we can bicker about it.

[Durian Fiend]

Projections for the magnitude of inevitable future warming will be subject to change depending upon the vagaries of yearly co2 emissions.  I believe the current analysis shows the world is past peak co2 production, finally heading DOWN.

Unfortunately, humanity cannot afford to rely on what YOU believe the current analysis of CO2 production is and further unfortunate, for whatever OTHER planet you think CO2 levels are "finally heading DOWN" is - show me a verifiable source that states that.

A graph from one of terracore's links that is similar to the graph MyMano posted, but a little more definitive in information.

Not ME, as in my own analysis for chrissakes. Hannah Ritchie. I read it here!  Oops, she says it's down per capita.  That's a big difference.  

https://window.wwu.edu/how-we-know-energ...ition-here

Bill Gates says her book is "eye opening and essential".  (Not the End of the World)

[Wao nahele wahine]

Quick reply to HiloJulie:

Great story.

I inspect steam generator, condenser, and heat exchanger tubing for integrity. I report any tubing flaws or anomalies, and track any historically reported flaws for growth and any additional testing.

__________
Tom,
My post about nuclear plant safety was to add a bit of my own experience since HiloJulie mentioned safety.

Sorry for the brief derailment, folks.

[randomq]

Aren't the newer nuclear designs Fail-Safe, avoiding the risks of the rods-based systems most common across the US? I would support those kind of plants in Hawaii. Can they be ramped up and down to complement mostly-solar generation?

[ironyak]

TomK - Let me get this right. You two are arguing about things said in an online article written by a non-expert and someone singing a song?

Um, yeah, some non-expert wrote an article noting the trend towards Normalcy Bias, which leads people to disbelieve or minimize threat warnings, and how both climate change denial and belief in some future technology solution (aka techno-hopium) both serve the same purpose - avoiding making the immediate & tangible changes required by the situation at hand. And your retort is not to tackle the content of that observation, but just to note that the person(s) are non-experts, in what exactly, describing observed events? Yes Tom, "non-experts" also have thoughts about the world they live in, well spotted...

While the Hawaii Decarbonization Settlement is definitely ground breaking in that the state government choose to actually acknowledge the reality and adopt an enforceable agreement to take steps to address it over the next 20 years (unlike the Feds or in Florida), it unfortunately will not address out-of-state air travel. As Civil Beat noted in 2019, this travel is the largest contributor to Hawaii's carbon emissions.

Hawaii County's Climate Action Plan (PDF) has the same shortfall, noting that "Airline transportation emissions are the dominant source of transportation emissions, accounting for 54 percent of total annual emissions." and "Increasing population and commercial activity augment the need for flights and imported goods, so airline emissions are expected to increase." The plan thereafter leaves the largest contributor off the table for any discussion about reduction, as "the line must go up".

While kalakoa's cynicism maybe be deeply hypocritical, it's not inaccurate. The dominate way of life in Hawaii is entirely unsustainable and is going to require massive changes in the coming years beyond even the Decarbonization Settlement, which can be done in advance through planning for mitigation and adaptation or as part of the clean-up after reality repeatedly crashes through the self-deluding narratives.

[Sam Son]

To get a grasp of the airline transportation problem go to www.flightradar24.com and put Hawaii and the West Coast in the same frame. And that goes on 24 hours a day every day.

[SSGSurf]

Agreed that recycling is still very, very new, and methods and automation will need to grow exponentially, and it will.  The problem that I project is that the need for those raw materials will not be as valuable when alternative energy and storage sources are so readily available, and the megatons of waste we create are less profitable or feasible to recycle, and they become mountains in the desert Let's face it: Nuclear can easily replace all domestic power needs today if we choose to do it. For vehicles, hydrogen is about less than 10 years out of the mainstream. If we are being honest with ourselves, the only reason it isn't further along is due to the massive worldwide oil cabal.

I would say that extolling the virtues on nuclear power as replacing all the power needs today is a bit disingenuous as well.

First, and while not specifically for Hawaii, but construction of a nuclear power plant takes an average of 10 to 20 years. The last 2 nuclear units just recently brought on line - Unit 4 in April of this year – at Plant Vogtle in Georgia, cost 34 BILLION. Construction started in 2013, so it took 11 years to build it. But then there was VC Summer – the plant in South Carolina started in 2010 that was problem after problem from day one – with Westinghouse (the reactor maker) even going bankrupt stopping the construction then restarting the construction back up and having billions in cost overruns on top of the billions already spent, finally was just stopped altogether.

Let’s also remember, that back when nuclear power first gained traction and as units started being built and going on line back in 1965, no one knew what they would be doing with the eventual stockpile of contaminated waste and while being protected of course, more or less sat on the power plants land for several decades as everyone scratched their heads as to what to do with this stuff.

Then, the amount of labor, education, training and so on needed to run a nuke does not come cheap. Or at least it shouldn’t. In as much as a 19 year old high school dropout might easily get – and deserve that job at either an oil, coal, gas or now solar or wind – and even possibly geothermal, I don’t think they should be near a nuke under any circumstance.

And then, of course there is safety. And while, for the most part, the US has been pretty safe with regards to nuclear power accidents, the possibility of one “oh, shit” moment exists – that at a minimum and upside could cost billions, but even worse yet, an explosion and meltdown that would make Chernobyl look like someone just lit a candle.

And of course, there is always the potential of the terrorist threat.

And yes, there is promise in hydrogen fueled vehicles, but again, the biggest obstacle to that as I can see, is the distribution of hydrogen o be able to fill your tank. Which is a good 10 plus years away from fruition.

In the short term then, I’d say that EV and solar is worth investment in right now, as the window for alternatives to burn baby burn is slowly closing and I’m pretty sure there is no “god” going to open a door once that window is closed!

Aloha Julie, I am not saying that we could logistically do it today, but the technology, safety, and disposal have been effective and efficient for over 20+ years, and we sure as heck could have had it done by today.

That is why we need a hybrid approach and a reasonable plan, unlike the plan that Hawaii has adopted. People are slow to change, the energy barons need to make their money, and politics moves at the pace of lobbyists and activists, who all feed from the same bowl. 

As far as nuclear goes, while larger plants will be the backbone, I think the future lies in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), highly safe, low cost, modular, easy to deploy, scalable as needed by local power demands.

As for hydrogen, we are in agreement.  I stated we are likely 10 years out.

[HiloJulie]

Not ME, as in my own analysis for chrissakes. Hannah Ritchie. I read it here!  Oops, she says it's down per capita.  That's a big difference. 

https://window.wwu.edu/how-we-know-energ...ition-here

Bill Gates says her book is "eye opening and essential".  (Not the End of the World)

I’ve always agreed that the “end of the world” is just not happening right now. That being said, doing nothing but the status quo more or less eventually insures the end of the world.

And yes, we are making progress on many fronts. A few points as stated from the link you posted:

““In 2020, around one in 25 cars sold worldwide were electric; just a few years later, in 2023, it was one in five,” wrote Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency…””

““It’s now cheaper to build onshore wind and solar power projects than new fossil fuel plants almost everywhere worldwide,” Birol wrote…””

“”For example, wind produced more electricity than natural gas in the European Union last year.””

““The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, although still largely unknown among the American public, has numerous tax credits for electric cars, heat pumps and other purchases poised to help consumers fund their own clean energy transitions.””

I remember seeing the author’s TED talk pop up on my YouTube feed, but forgot to watch it. And I’m going to get her book to read as well! Thanks for that link and info!

Quick reply to HiloJulie:

I inspect steam generator, condenser, and heat exchanger tubing for integrity.  I report any tubing flaws or anomalies, and track any historically reported flaws for growth and any additional testing. 

Sounds like an interesting job. But I take it you’re never in the “hot” part of any power plant?

To get a grasp of the airline transportation problem go to www.flightradar24.com and put Hawaii and the West Coast in the same frame.  And that goes on 24 hours a day every day.

So what would be your answer to that? Cut air travel 25% - 50% - 75%?

That is not a feasible answer. However, alternative jet fuels and improvement in jet engine technologies as is already being developed and tested, could curtail the CO2 emissions of air travel significantly, which it already has. At least as of today, most of those jets are much newer and much more efficient than that their 1960/1970 counterparts with the typical black plume of smoke pouring out of each engine as the planes take off.

I wonder then too, how many inbound/outbound jets to any of the islands in Hawaii are “private” carrying one, two, heck even 12 people? That could be solved very quickly by assessing massive landing fees. But then, I’m quite sure that might make Zuk, Oprah, Jeff, and the guy donating massive land and hospital expansions a little irked!

Aloha Julie, I am not saying that we could logistically do it today, but the technology, safety, and disposal have been effective and efficient for over 20+ years, and we sure as heck could have had it done by today.

That is why we need a hybrid approach and a reasonable plan, unlike the plan that Hawaii has adopted. People are slow to change, the energy barons need to make their money, and politics moves at the pace of lobbyists and activists, who all feed from the same bowl. 

As far as nuclear goes, while larger plants will be the backbone, I think the future lies in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), highly safe, low cost, modular, easy to deploy, scalable as needed by local power demands.

As for hydrogen, we are in agreement.  I stated we are likely 10 years out.

I think a better alternative to Hawaii’s energy needs is based in Geothermal. Which could be developed and expanded significantly and done so very economically and environmentally sound. Unfortunately, with the Hawaii laws that allow HECO to charge for electricity based upon fossil fuel costs regardless of source as well as the protest everything crowd, I don’t see it as a reality anytime soon.

And while as you say the SMR’s are an option and could work rather well, I’d say it’s probably too big of a cost, but that cost could be significantly reduced if implemented at a huge scale nationwide.

But in the end, I just think nuclear power has too much of a “boogie man” connotation to it that it just would not be practical.

And to the discussion as a whole here, I personally think spraying plumes of colored corn dust at golfing tournaments, or at Stonehenge, or throwing cans of tomato soup at the Mona Lisa in protest are just as equally ignorant as the ones denying climate change and climate science altogether, as well as the political garbage of negotiating and joining world emission reduction accords to only have the next administration walk away, ridiculing them and to then have the next administration after that having to come on bended knee and sign back up. It does nothing to solve anything and further, just cheapens the entire debate altogether.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

My son is working in some capacity on an upcoming tech & environmental summit in Uganda.  All the big corporations will be there.  The promise of AI artificial saviors will likely be heralded.  The main purpose for participants presenting their wares is to sell stuff to the attendees, but when talking privately they agree the best path forward is to reduce use and waste.  

One example he mentioned is that often it’s more environmentally sustainable to drive an older car that is already built, properly maintained, even if it runs on gas, than it is to junk that car and build, sell, and buy the most efficient new vehicle on the market, EV or otherwise.

The devil is in the details of course.  For instance a pickup I drove behind going up Highway 11 outside of Mountain View last week belched out a 1950’s Pittsburgh steel mill cloud of black smoke every time the driver stepped on the accelerator. Junk that carbon crapinator.

Good to hear from you ironyak.  Don’t be a stranger!