Posts: 1,406
Threads: 25
Joined: Jun 2013
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you Geo, but I have a problem with your suggestion that my modest investment here is folly; while a multimillion dollar geothermal plant that the island will depend on is safe bet.
And yes Opihikao, I consider this place magical. Although not blessed with Hawaiian blood, I do have a deep respect for Hawaiian culture; and the hybrid culture that has emerged since contact with westerners.
The hybrid culture that has given Kanaka Maoli a voice; the same voice as mine. Neither one of us speaks for anyone but ourselves, and I personally speak against the industrialization of Puna for corporate interests elsewhere.
I respect your opinion, but please don't try and tell me that mine doesn't carry as much weight as another.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
quote:
Originally posted by snorkle
I respect your opinion, but please don't try and tell me that mine doesn't carry as much weight as another.
No argument here, but I'd suggest you get used to this little phenomenon if you plan to live on this island it won't be the last time you run into this attitude.
Posts: 4,533
Threads: 241
Joined: Jan 2006
quote:
Originally posted by opihikao...
Geothermal has been a part of our culture since the days of King Kalakaua. In 1881, King David Kalakaua of Hawaii and several of his closest advisors paid a visit to New York. During this visit, Kalakaua sought the counsel of Thomas Edison regarding an extraordinary vision – the possibility to harness the myriad natural resources that Hawaii possesses to create power. As a result, Honolulu became one of the first Western cities to have electric streetlights, powered by a nearby hydroelectric plant....
I love reading your posts and finding out new information about the past. I could picture a group of children at your Tutu's knee listening to the stories likening it to listening to my Abuela's stories of Southern California. It was her people's land before...
Please keep posting. This is powerful.
Posts: 1,406
Threads: 25
Joined: Jun 2013
It's interesting that you (Opihikao)suggest that hawaiians never built "modular". One of the great tributes to Hawaiian design and construction was their development of modular construction. Canoes, Homes, sleds, and other sophisticated things were built of components and lashed together to make beautiful and functional objects that could be taken apart and reconstructed.
As far as the lava "going around you" I don't doubt this, but I also know plenty of righteous Hawaiians that moved from Kalapana to rebuild elsewhere. Chants, legends, and old sayings are valuable metaphor; but like the bible, have been translated into English over the years and maybe should be taken in that context.
The Lava may have gone around some; but I think some sensible Hawaiians of old may have unlashed their well built Hale and moved them to a new location. I know some sensible Hawaiians of present that have done this and are still in kalapana.
No disrespect; just my humble (and individual) opinion.
Posts: 3,188
Threads: 216
Joined: Sep 2007
When thinking about the first hawaiians and the ecological balance of the island - the sandal wood trade comes to mind:
http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm?f...on=ig.page&PageID=274
a good example as we start to set the boundaries (or does all the power reside off island) .... it would be good to remember how it went down last time......
http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm?f...on=ig.page&PageID=274
Posts: 785
Threads: 6
Joined: Apr 2012
quote:
Originally posted by snorkle
Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you Geo, but I have a problem with your suggestion that my modest investment here is folly; while a multimillion dollar geothermal plant that the island will depend on is safe bet.
I don't believe that I said that it was a safe bet; it's a matter of risks and exposures and what you can afford to lose. Your "modest investment" is probably a bit more than you would wager in a card game or at a craps table: every day you live there before a lava flow takes it is a win; the day the lava takes it, you lose a significant portion of your net worth. If I had $100,000 (somewhere in the neighborhood of the property values in Leilani Estates - plus or minus a factor of 2 or 3) invested in utility stocks, most knowledgeable investors would consider me a fool to be invested in a single utility - much less a single plant, if that were possible - and a prime fool if that were a significant fraction of my net worth. Maybe you have a higher tolerance for risk than most - certainly more than I do.
The same is true for the utility. Is their risk greater if they continue to rely on fossil fuels (and this is disregarding the environmental degradation that accompanies the use of fossil fuels) - or work to support the development of viable alternatives? They will have to share some exposure to risk if they purchase additional power from Puna - I expect that they will consider that in making a decision on additional production in Puna and, if they don't, I think it's a good bet that the PUC will.
Every course of action carries some risk - even doing nothing - and sometimes that's the riskiest course of all.
Posts: 1,406
Threads: 25
Joined: Jun 2013
Thank you for your insights, Geo.
The problems I have with your arguments are;
1. It's not just the Utility that is assuming the risk, but also the tens of thousands of customers that rely on it for power.
and
2. There are a multitude of alternatives available to Oil that don't rely on a centralized and vulnerable grid transmission system.
Posts: 785
Threads: 6
Joined: Apr 2012
quote:
Originally posted by snorkle
Thank you for your insights, Geo.
The problems I have with your arguments are;
1. It's not just the Utility that is assuming the risk, but also the tens of thousands of customers that rely on it for power.
and
2. There are a multitude of alternatives available to Oil that don't rely on a centralized and vulnerable grid transmission system.
1) And those tens of thousands of customers are paying four times the national average for power. Again, a matter of risk - is the aggregate risk associated with economic disadvantage resulting from that high power cost greater or less than the aggregate risk of possibly losing some fraction of the generation capacity on the island to lava flows. I think it's considerably greater. You obviously have a vested interest in there being no further intrusion into your piece of paradise and maybe aren't the best person to offer an unbiased analysis of that risk.
2) That multitude of alternatives to the grid are real alternatives only to those with the net worth to take advantage of the tax credits (a government sponsored ponzi scheme if ever there was one) that cover the majority of the system costs and have the knowledge, or can afford to hire someone, to maintain the stand alone systems. I guess the poor and uneducated can go light candles and hope their house doesn't burn down.
Posts: 1,406
Threads: 25
Joined: Jun 2013
We seem to be cross posting on two similar threads.
I'm certainly a layman, and as unbiased as you.
BUT; I would think the "aggregate risk" associated with high power cost, along with the "aggregate risk" associated with possibly losing some fraction a huge portion of the generation capacity on the island to lava flows makes alternatives attractive.
Posts: 14,122
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Interesting discussion; while the "risks" have commonality, it's important to note the disparities:
1. Price of power (especially "temporary rate") is a "direct economic risk" for those customers who can least afford it (minimum wage, social security).
2. Price of power is a problem for the local economy in general; like the GET, it has a "multiplier effect" because the cost of (expensive) electricity is passed through to every other transaction.
3. Stability of the grid infrastructure is a bit different: there are economic repercussions but the primary risk is more of a "security problem".
On a different note:
4. Most of the "high net worth" that is "required" to cash in on the "tax incentives" to pay for grid "alternatives" does not actually buy any electricity whatsoever: PV is "expensive" due to a litany of permit requirements and lack of a meaningful feed-in tariff.
Maybe if we're lucky, the eventual grid failure will drive Walmart out of business -- two birds with one stone and all that.
