Hawaii's Geothermal Resources: A Reassessment

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomK

Incidentally - just a bugbear of mine: science deals with probabilities, not facts.

Tom
http://apacificview.blogspot.com/

---

That's true to an extent. It is what it is that becomes the source of and what you use as "FACTS" that make the difference.

[ericlp]

Hey wow man! Now that you mention it... I think I'm starting to hear that low frequency too!!! OR that could be just my fridge...Wait...wait... yeah it's my refer! nevermind...

[TomK]

Ken wrote:

quote:

---

That's true to an extent. It is what it is that becomes the source of and what you use as "FACTS" that make the difference.

---

I don't know what you mean by "to an extent". Science deals with probabilities and even some scientists don't understand that which is a shame. Even with your use of upper-case I can't figure out what you mean by your second sentence. It's gibberish.

Tom
http://apacificview.blogspot.com/

[Guest]

Well, what I mean is that, science can produce "FACTS" that can be acceptable. And yet, later on, those “FACTS” could change based upon more scientific data. But in the interim, science can and does produce “FACTS” that become acceptable.

As written in The National Academy of Sciences “The Role of Theory in Advancing 21st Century Biology:”

•Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a FACT today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

•Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

•Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

•Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate FACTS, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

An example is that we have a scientific “FACT” that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. And yet, we have some who claim that in “FACT” that world is less than 10,000 years old.

Those who think the world is less than 10,000 years old are the ones generating the “gibberish” as you state.

There is also Philosophy versus Science. A good example of that is that Philosophy proved as “FACT” that the world was flat and in the center of the universe. Science changed that “FACT.”

It is the source of those “FACTS” that become and make the difference.

And then it is the decisions that are made based upon which set of “FACTS” that are used.

As for the “gibberish” with respect to GEO here in Puna, we have some claiming that GEO is “raping” Madame Pele on one hand, and on the other hand we have others claiming that GEO is Madame Pele’s “mothers milk” to share with all her children.

Madame Pele is not a “FACT.”

Under any measure.

Science produces the “FACTS” that allowed the creation of GEO in the first place.

It is what human intellect does with those “FACTS” that will determine the final outcome.

[peteadams]

It is not a "fact" that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It is simply a higher probability estimate than other estimates that have previously been made. Philosophy did not "prove" that the earth was flat. That was simply an inference made from the visual cues that people had at the time. Not that the concept of a spherical earth was nonexistent even then. The Socratic era Greeks used their geometrical concepts to demonstrate a spherical shape. But, even so, I'm misspeaking. Actually, the earth is not spherical, only approximately so.

TomK is right: science is based on probabilities and statistical evidence. A "fact" is simply something much more agreed upon (by folks who rigorously study the evidence) than not. You see this in discussions of Newton's "laws" of motion, which, while providing stunningly accurate predictions of low velocity objects, are also simply approximations.

[Richard Ha]

Here are some facts and observations.
Geothermal generated electricity costs somewhere around 10 cents per kilowatt hour and this cost is stable. Oil generated electricity costs around 21 cents per kilowatt hour and this cost will likely keep on rising. Eighty nine percent of the students in the Pahoa School complex participate in the free/reduced lunch program. This is the highest in the state. Families are suffering. The Big Island electricity cost has been 25% higher than Oahu for as long as anyone can remember. The cost of electricity reduces the amount that can be budgeted for teaching the students. Rockne Freitas former Chancellor of Hawaii Community College, told me that the best predictor of family income is education.
We need lower cost electricity for the Big Island and geothermal generated electricity can lower our cost. Instead of saying NO CAN. We should be working together to figure out how CAN. For the sake of the children and future generation we must do this.

[Richard Ha]

The new geothermal contracts are cost plus. You know that. If the costs were passed on to the consumer so families can get some relief, would you support geothermal?

[ericlp]

How about costco?

I kind of assume they are building that big transmission cable not just for wind but maybe also Geothermal as well. We are just the test bed. Once it becomes reliable and profit that power will probably be sent to Oahu for a bigger tax write off. JMO tho.

[Richard Ha]

Da Kine, its better that you just say how you feel up front like you just did, instead of attacking someone personally. That's your opinion and it's fine. What about geothermal away from populated areas? A couple of days ago, I asked a fertilizer salesman how farmers were doing.He said, the sweet potato and ginger farmers were doing well--they export. The veg crop farmers were on the verge of quitting. Papaya farmers too were having a tough time. I trace it back to the price of energy having quadrupled in the last 10 years and farmers prices not keeping up. It's all related to rising oil price. Road repairs, sewage bills, water rates, bus fares, food costs, etc. I've been a farmer for many years and I've said it over and over, food security involves farmers farming. If farmers make money farmers will farm. Lots of folks want to farm. But, it is very difficult to make any money. That is one of the main reasons I try to see if there is a way we can work with each other to accomplish low cost electricity.

[opihikao]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ericlp

How about costco?

I kind of assume they are building that big transmission cable not just for wind but maybe also Geothermal as well. We are just the test bed. Once it becomes reliable and profit that power will probably be sent to Oahu for a bigger tax write off. JMO tho.

---

The cable has been part of the plan for decades. The State of Hawaii has spent millions studying the potential. With all of the new technology, the cable is not as obtuse nor expensive today. Twenty years from now, even moreso.

If we have to provide the State of Hawaii energy via a cable, as long as the host community reaps a direct benefit, including lower electric rates, and a myriad of other agricultural benefits, why not? I want a better future for my mo'opuna, and the status quo is not working. We need to manage our own resource, and gain the benefit.

As a kanaka maoli for over seven generations from the Puna area, whose family line is of Tutu Pele, I stand firm in my belief it would be her "breath" (not breast) that would provide for her people. Tutu Pele needs no defending either; Pele is Akua. JMO