04-14-2012, 07:12 AM
Aloha Richard,
Thank you for the citations. That helps.
No one engaged in this discussion questions the need to get away from petroleum. Personally, I have been convinced of that need since the 1973 oil crisis.
To move forward, what is needed is a sound and credible basis on which to establish policy; something that does not yet exist.
Generic estimates, undocumented assertions, and experience from other places will not suffice.
The requirement is for an assessment in the context of the specific site at which any project is proposed. Puna is different from Kona is different from Waimanalo is different from Maui...
Such an assessment would mean a full, fair, and transparent side-by-side comparison of all energy sources that are reasonably likely to be available.
Specifically:
1. Quantification of direct and indirect, private and social, environmental and financial costs and benefits.
2. Equity in distribution of costs and benefits, for example to determine if one community or island would benefit at the expense of another.
3. An assessment of the technical, financial, and environmental risks associated with each energy source, including the risk of reliance on any single source versus diversification.
The basis we operate on must be a credible, site-specific assessment of net benefit, equity, and risk.
Thank you for the citations. That helps.
No one engaged in this discussion questions the need to get away from petroleum. Personally, I have been convinced of that need since the 1973 oil crisis.
To move forward, what is needed is a sound and credible basis on which to establish policy; something that does not yet exist.
Generic estimates, undocumented assertions, and experience from other places will not suffice.
The requirement is for an assessment in the context of the specific site at which any project is proposed. Puna is different from Kona is different from Waimanalo is different from Maui...
Such an assessment would mean a full, fair, and transparent side-by-side comparison of all energy sources that are reasonably likely to be available.
Specifically:
1. Quantification of direct and indirect, private and social, environmental and financial costs and benefits.
2. Equity in distribution of costs and benefits, for example to determine if one community or island would benefit at the expense of another.
3. An assessment of the technical, financial, and environmental risks associated with each energy source, including the risk of reliance on any single source versus diversification.
The basis we operate on must be a credible, site-specific assessment of net benefit, equity, and risk.