Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Geothermal
#41
PGB is a NR baseload generation plant, so they are not ramping power. PGV site:
http://www.punageothermalventure.com/sea...lectricity

Interim Geothermal report:
http://www.energyfuturehawaii.org/files/...m-Rept.pdf

Add Kohala Centers Energy Report:
http://www.kohalacenter.org/pdf/analysis...ations.pdf

pg 9 #2
"Non-regulating baseload generation always produces electricity since
output cannot be curtailed or expanded quickly. The function of this
type of baseload generation is otherwise identical to regulating baseload
units, which meet the minimum load requirements. The current Puna
Geothermal Venture plant is the major non-regulating baseload unit on
the Island."

And the HELCO report for 8MW dispatchable energy from geothermal:
http://www.helcohi.com/vcmcontent/HELCO/...FINAL2.pdf
Reply
#42
The discussion has been very good. Thank you to all who have contributed.

In reading and reviewing the multiple posts in response to this topic, a few patterns emerge. Key examples of these patterns are sorted into five (5) groups below.

1. Statements made with which I can agree, and which point up a central position of mine: a transparent side-by-side comparison is needed for conservation and for all so-called ‘clean’ sources of energy. This is would include all financial, social, and environmental costs for the life cycle of the proposed infrastructure, from extraction to final consumption for: geothermal, solar, wind, ocean thermal, methane, hydroelectric, and biofuel.

“…every electric generation system …there are a number of environmental costs, some close to the consumer of the electricity, some at the point of production…”

“Conservation may be a more effective solution than upping production.”

2. Assertions regarding philosophy on which I agree, in general.

“Of course, geothermal should be done properly. If mistakes were made in the past then they should of course not be repeated. It's not a reason to say no to geothermal forever. “

“…the onus is on geothermal developers to reach out to the community … and convince them that they are genuinely concerned about safety. It would also help if folks could see tangible benefits to them for putting up with all the noise, blowouts, etc.”

“…the root cause of the community resistance is NOT about the technology: it's about a developer that after all these years still hasn't made things pono with the community around them. It seems to me that before assuring folks that technology will save the day moving forward, it would be more effective (certainly from a PR standpoint) to fix what's wrong with the current arrangement between PGV and the community.”

“…locating new geothermal plants as far away from heavily populated areas as possible.”

“…how soon this translates into lower rates will depend on what the utility does. “

“…not just about the technology, it is about including the community in the discussion. This needs to be bottom up rather than top down.”

“use what we have available here”
NOTE: Although it was not pointed out in the post, this comment also applies just as much to sun, wind, waves, ocean thermal, and flowing streams as it does to geothermal.

3. Assertions made without citing any reputable source, and which should not be accepted as an article of faith.

“If we switched over to geothermal we'd go from the highest payers to the lowest payers in the nation.”

“…will for sure translate into stable rates and then into lower rates.”

“…Iceland... is totally powered by Geothermal and is without any major issues.”

“…HELCO is decoupled from most non-fossil fuel production…”

“Geothermal energy production on or close to Kilauea's rift zones is not a reliable resource.”

4. Assertions made as to what would happen, without citing a reputable source. For the information to be relevant it would need to be specific as it relates to geothermal on Hawaii Island.

“Technology has moved light years forward…”

“…estimated cost of geothermal production is less than 10 cents kWh according to a recent study.”

“A Wall Street article quoted geothermal as costing the equivalent of $57 per barrel.”

“Safety and environmental issues can and have been addressed.”

5. Other statements requiring clarification

“…none of this island’s fuel is from locally produced residual oil…”
NOTE: The data cited are statewide data because the state is looking at Hawaii Island geothermal-generated electricity being used beyond this island.

“…SF bay area have utilized geothermal produced electricity since 1921, from the Geysers.”
NOTE: That geothermal is not derived from an active volcano and not comparable to the situation on Hawaii Island.
Reply
#43
3. Assertions made without citing any reputable source, and which should not be accepted as an article of faith.

“…HELCO is decoupled from most non-fossil fuel production…”
RESPONSE:
By de-coupled I meant separated from, as 0MW of HELCOs ~292MW firm generation power is from HELCO run non-fossil fuel production & up to ~ 6.7MW of the non-firm generation power is from HELCO non-fossil fuel production...
HELCO Link:
http://www.heco.com/vcmcontent/StaticFil...6-2010.pdf


5. Other statements requiring clarification

“…none of this island’s fuel is from locally produced residual oil…”
RESPONSE:
There are no refineries on island, so the residual oil used must be shipped from the refineries on Oahu to this island, with added transport cost & potential of environmental costs of spills (heavy vs light oils) I do believe that residual oil should be used as long as it is being produced, but as close to point of production as possible. (ETA: also do realize that we are importing this asd we do have some power generates that are "heavy oil" generators...esp. our older stock of generators...& realize that there are environmental tradeoffs when looking at updating these generators...plus side is that getting them out out the production stock would up the EPA C.A. rating ;~)

“…SF bay area have utilized geothermal produced electricity since 1921, from the Geysers.”
RESPONSE
I never stated anything about the volcanic nature of the Geysers, and did include the link. This was just to illuminate the fact that geothermal energy production was not a novel concept.

Reply
#44
quote:
Originally posted by james weatherford...
NOTE: That geothermal is not derived from an active volcano and not comparable to the situation on Hawaii Island.



I would think it is somewhat comparable given that they sit on a rift zone or in equatable terms, a fault zone.

okay continue on. Good debate everyone....

note for Pam: Think whale going through giant spinning grinder.... not so good. But in theory, it had merit. [:p]
Reply
#45
And think of the maintainance and repairs
Reply
#46
Thanks for that Carey and 'Cat.

I see what you mean, Carey, about the 'firm' power.
The point I make is: 'residual fuel oil' produces more than half of the state's electricity. Ninety-nine percent of that 'residual fuel oil' is in the state because the state's transportation system uses more than half of all petroleum (btw: 25% is jet fuel). So, there is some, but not a majority, opportunity for geothermal to reduce the state's dependence on imported petroleum for years to come. Many claims by the 'staunchest supporters' of geothermal cite the state's dependence on petroleum and then go straight to geothermal as THE way to resolve that dependence -- this is misleading. These same claims ignore all other sources of clean, Hawaii-based energy (solar, wind, hydro, ocean thermal, wave) as being able to also contribute to reduce the state's dependence on imported fuel.

Re California's geothermal: according to what I was told when visiting the PGV plant, the difference between Hawaii and California geothermal is relevant. In Hawaii geothermal derives heat directly from an active volcano, whereas in California (and Nevada and other places) the heat is derived from friction at tectonic plates. That makes a big difference.
Reply
#47
quote:
Originally posted by DanielP

And think of the maintainance and repairs


Right.
That is included in the "costs for the life cycle of the proposed infrastructure, from extraction to final consumption for: geothermal, solar, wind, ocean thermal, methane, hydroelectric, and biofuel."
Reply
#48
quote:
Originally posted by james weatherford

Re California's geothermal: according to what I was told when visiting the PGV plant, the difference between Hawaii and California geothermal is relevant. In Hawaii geothermal derives heat directly from an active volcano, whereas in California (and Nevada and other places) the heat is derived from friction at tectonic plates. That makes a big difference.



http://geology.utah.gov/utahgeo/geo/volc...o_type.htm
Reply
#49
quote:
Originally posted by dakine

quote:
Originally posted by james weatherford

Re California's geothermal: according to what I was told when visiting the PGV plant, the difference between Hawaii and California geothermal is relevant. In Hawaii geothermal derives heat directly from an active volcano, whereas in California (and Nevada and other places) the heat is derived from friction at tectonic plates. That makes a big difference.



This is not the case as I know it.. this link does a little to explain the resource at Geysersville

http://www.geysers.com/geothermal.htm

Which is located in an old volcanic region just north of Sonoma. The source of the magma may be different in it's nature than here in Hawaii, but still it is a magma body, and not one associated with tectonics directly. In fact the region has several basalt deposits.


Good. Thanks for that.
It helps.
Reply
#50
LOL! as I type this the price of oil is being discussed on 60 Minutes and power rates are so cheap in my brothers home, he frequently leaves his back door open with nothing but a light screened door between him and the Texas heat. Guess it isn't much of a concern with the thermo on 69* and $120.00 electric bills. And they say I live in paradise![:0]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)