A dream, or a nightmare? A visionary solution to Hawai`i\u2019s growing problems of rubbish and oil dependency? Or a pie-in-the-sky proposal, completely untethered from reality?<\/p>\n
\tThose were among the conflicting views of a proposal that recently came before the board of directors of the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawai`i Authority. The board was being asked to give the green light to the plan of BioEnergy Hawai`i, LLC, to build on 25 acres of state land at Keahole a $70 million, 6 megawatt waste-to-energy plant, desalination facility, wastewater treatment plant, rooftop photo-voltaic installation, and algae farm. The algae, to be grown in bioreactors that will receive the sequestered carbon dioxide produced by the waste processing, would be refined off-site (at an as-yet unspecified location) into 8 million gallons a year of biodiesel that would power the fleet of Pacific Waste, the Big Island\u2019s largest trash hauling company and sole member of BioEnergy Hawai`i.<\/p>\n
\tBoard member Richard Hess put the skeptics\u2019 position bluntly: \u201cEverybody blows a lot of smoke,\u201d he said, but NELHA needs \u201ca partner that\u2019s going to tell us the truth, that\u2019ll be frank with us.\u201d Some of the statements of BioEnergy Hawai`i, which its principals acknowledged might be a bit overoptimistic, \u201cgive us a bad feeling,\u201d Hess said.<\/p>\n
\tOn the side of the cheerleaders was Ted Liu, head of the state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. The details of the development might have to be worked out, he said, \u201cbut it\u2019ll be worthwhile to work them out. A new energy climate is going to drive breakthroughs in technology\u2026 The race is on to tap algae for its fuel properties.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tAt the end of a long and often heated discussion, the board ended up approving in concept the request of BioEnergy Hawai`i (BEH) to become NELHA\u2019s latest tenant. Now the NELHA staff must work out with BEH final details, including: land rents, a power-purchase agreement between NELHA and BEH, a specific site for the plant (what BEH has proposed is just makai of the Gateway Center on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway), a firm commitment to carbon-dioxide sequestration and development of biofuels from algae, litter abatement, and the duration of the lease. Although BEH assured the board that no environmental assessment or impact statement would be required, the board also included as a condition that the company would prepare an EIS if it turns out that one is needed.<\/p>\n
Baked, not Burned<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
The principals of BioEnergy Hawai`i \u2013 Guy Kaniho of managing member Pacific Waste, Inc., and Larry Capellas, former solid waste chief for the County of Hawai`i \u2013 don\u2019t like to hear the plant that is at the heart of their proposal called an incinerator. They describe it instead as a waste-reduction facility. And although the process they plan to use involves putting rubbish into a chamber where it is subjected to high temperatures (around 600 degrees Celsius, or more than 1100 degrees Fahrenheit), it does not involve incineration, Kaniho said. \u201cIt\u2019s more like baking than burning,\u201d he told the NELHA board at its May 27 meeting.<\/p>\n
\tExactly how much would be \u201cbaked\u201d was the subject of some discussion at the May NELHA meeting. According to the statements made in the BEH proposal, Pacific Waste at present \u201ccollects and disposes of nearly 200 tons of municipal solid waste everyday, at the Pu`uanulu [sic] landfill.\u201d All of that \u2013 and then some \u2013 would evidently be diverted to the NELHA facility; according to BEH\u2019s proposal, the waste-to-energy plant would receive some 300 tons per day of trash.<\/p>\n
\tDon Thomas, a University of Hawai`i professor of engineering and head of NELHA\u2019s scientific advisory committee, raised the issue of traffic impacts. To deliver the waste, he noted, there would have to be a truck coming in every eight minutes, \u201cand if eight trucks come in per hour, that means eight go out \u2013 a truck going by every four minutes.\u201d In comments on the proposal at last December\u2019s NELHA meeting, Thomas had also noted that of the reported 300 tons coming into the facility, \u201cfully 90 tons\/day (69 tons of \u2018tramp\u2019 and 21 tons of recyclables) will have to be trucked back out \u2013 either to the landfill or to recycling centers.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tKaniho, manager for Pacific Waste, replied. \u201cThe expectations were high for us to acquire more feedstock, more municipal solid waste. Currently Pacific Waste takes about 35 loads into the landfill per day. That\u2019s substantially different from the number at your rate, 90 trucks per day.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tThomas: \u201cThat\u2019s the number in your proposal.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tKaniho: \u201cWe may have misstated ourselves. Currently we\u2019re at one third of that.\u201d The higher figure was just a projection, Kaniho added, of what Pacific Waste\u2019s collection volume would be in four or five years. Kaniho\u2019s statement was an admission that the 200-tons-per-day figure given as the current haul of Pacific Waste might have been an exaggeration as well.<\/p>\n
\tHonolulu\u2019s HPOWER plant burns up to 2,160 tons of waste per day, with generating capacity of 57 megawatts. If BioEnergy Hawai`i\u2019s efficiency were on a par with HPOWER\u2019s, it would need to \u201cbake\u201d some 341 tons a day to generate 6 MW.\t \tAccording to a short video shown to the NELHA board, BioEnergy will remove inorganic materials and recyclables from the waste before processing it. The process itself involves injecting the waste (some of it pelletized) into a \u201cfluidized bed gasifier,\u201d which will produce a synthetic gas (syngas) and an inert fly ash from the stack. \u201cWhile the technology of gasification is fairly new,\u201d the narrator of the video states, \u201cthere are examples of successful implementation around the world.\u201d One such plant, in Asahi, Japan, the narrator says, was built in an existing residential neighborhood next door to an elementary school.<\/p>\n
\tThe syngas will be burned in the facility\u2019s electric power plant. Fly ash from the 100-foot-high stack will be \u201cmixed with concrete and used in construction,\u201d according to the video. Similar claims have been made for the residual ash from HPOWER, but the ash has yet to be incorporated into any large-scale application.<\/p>\n
\tAs a bonus, BEH is proposing to sell the power it produces directly to NELHA and its tenants as well as the nearby Kona airport at a price 10 percent below what they pay for power delivered by the island utility, HELCO. Yet Thomas pointed out that this would not involve any sacrifice on BEH\u2019s part: \u201cYou offer constant power \u2026 at 10 percent below commercial rates. That\u2019s a modest reduction, but at the same time, all of us on the board have to recognize that having NELHA as a captive customer gives you a 60 percent premium over what you would get if you sold your power to HELCO.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tFrancis Jung, attorney for BEH, replied that while the proposed electricity sale was \u201ca benefit for us, that\u2019s true, but it\u2019s symbiotic,\u201d helping all parties involved.<\/p>\n
\tThomas was unmoved: \u201cThis proposal is not attached to reality,\u201d he commented, \u201cand I\u2019m disturbed by that.\u201d<\/p>\n
A Green Cherry?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
A staff report on the BioEnergy Hawai`i project raised concerns that the algae farm, which would occupy 16 of the 25 leased acres, involved an as-yet unproven technology. \u201cThe algae portion of the project is a pilot project first,\u201d said board member Laurence Sombardier, summarizing staff comments. \u201cThe proposal says that if it\u2019s not feasible, they may jettison that part.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tHess echoed the concerns: \u201cThe important thing is doing something with garbage,\u201d he said of the project. \u201cThe algae is a throwaway\u2026. They\u2019re not even close to a final answer.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tBEH had paid to fly in from Canada two \u201calgae people,\u201d as Kaniho described them \u2013 Scott Leslie, with the private firm Menova, which produces solar concentrating devices, and Stephen O\u2019Leary, an algae researcher employed by the National Research Council of Canada, a government agency similar to the National Research Foundation in the United States. They attempted to address the board\u2019s concerns that the algae part of the proposal might be no more than an effort to paint the project green by adding a fictitious carbon-sequestration and biodiesel production component.<\/p>\n
\tMenova, said Leslie, had developed large-scale (40 feet by 40 feet) solar concentrators that \u201csqueeze down\u201d sunlight and \u201cpipe it down a fiber optic cable to photo bioreactors,\u201d where the algae is grown. \u201cIn Canada, things tend to freeze in winter, so the open pond idea doesn\u2019t work in Canada. That\u2019s why we came up with the idea of a closed photo bioreactor, and taking light to it.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tIn working with BioEnergy Hawai`i, Leslie said, \u201cwe want to emphasize that it\u2019s our intention to use indigenous species to Hawai`i and have them approved by the Department of Agriculture.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tO\u2019Leary said that at present, in enclosed photo bioreactors, \u201cwe can grow algae at high densities.\u201d His agency\u2019s interest in the project \u201cis in screening microalgal strains for maximum growth strains and biofuel production,\u201d he said. \u201cThere\u2019s still a lot of R&D to be done.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tDeputy attorney general to NELHA Bryan Yee asked what assurance there was \u201cthat some good-faith effort would be made to determine the actual economic viability\u201d of the algae farm. On Menova\u2019s part, Leslie said, \u201cwe would certainly be keen to partake in this\u2026 Menova is very interested in moving forward at a rapid rate to do this.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tDBEDT\u2019s Liu explained that for him, the algae portion of the project was critical. \u201cAre the principals suggesting that we proceed with a gasification project if there was not either a carbon dioxide sequestration component and an algae-based component that also leads to biofuels?\u201d he asked. \u201cWe don\u2019t want just another gasification project here. It needs to come with the CO2 sequestration and, ultimately, what\u2019s the holy grail to me, using the sequestration to produce biofuels\u2026. The algae isn\u2019t just the cherry on top, it\u2019s a major part of the project.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tHess again expressed his skepticism: \u201cWhat these guys are talking about is a small part of the project that makes the project look and smell good. The bigger picture \u2013 trucks, litter by the side of the road, the smell\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
\u2018A Disconnect\u2019<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
Thomas reported on his own research into the state of today\u2019s technology with respect to algae production and algae-based biodiesel: \u201cThe numbers I came up with suggest that your production rate is a factor of 20 higher than what is considered the so-called industry standard,\u201d he told BEH representatives. To produce eight million gallons of biodiesel a year on 16 acres, he said, you\u2019d need to wildly exceed the top yields reported so far, of 55 pounds per square meter per year.<\/p>\n
\t\u201cThe problem that I have with this whole proposal,\u201d he continued, \u201cis similar to this issue. The proposal makes statements in absolute terms that this will happen, but when I research what\u2019s behind how this is going to happen, I find that there is a disconnect. The proposal says you\u2019ll reclaim 100 percent of the carbon dioxide generated by the facility. Yet in looking at design drawings, I don\u2019t see any infrastructure for extracting 100 percent of this CO2. There\u2019s no reference to that in the design. When I look at the development and production of algae from waste gases, from flue gases, I\u2019m seeing numbers that range between 5 and 40 percent of CO2 recovery.<\/p>\n
\t\u201cSo, do these people really know what they\u2019re talking about, or are they just putting the best face on it that they possibly can? I\u2019m not seeing a clear picture that what they\u2019re promising can be delivered.\u201d<\/p>\n
\t\u201cI agree completely,\u201d replied O\u2019Leary, the algae expert from Canada. \u201cThe numbers are about 20 times what is currently available. I was not involved in the proposal that was put forward, and that caught my eye as well when I looked at the proposal.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tThe projection of being able to produce 8 million gallons of biodiesel a year, O\u2019Leary said, \u201cwas based on being able to sequester the entirety of CO2. That\u2019s a goal to aim for, but as a scientist, I\u2019d never put my neck out so far.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tIn a telephone interview, O\u2019Leary said that he understood how the numbers in the BEH proposal were generated. \u201cYou multiply the amount of CO2 produced per day and come up with the amount of algae that would be generated by that amount of CO2 if it were all converted to biodiesel. But there\u2019s a high expectation of what can be accomplished on 16 acres.\u201d If you had 200 acres on which to grow the algae, O\u2019Leary said, it might be possible.<\/p>\n
\tRealistically, he said, you could probably achieve a yield in bioreactors of five to ten times the amount of algae that could be grown in an open pond, \u201cbut the numbers in the NELHA proposal \u2026 were about 26 times\u201d the growth rates seen in an open pond setting. \u201cBy my calculations, I don\u2019t see a production of 8 million gallons a year of biodiesel on 16 acres,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\tAnd if the volume of waste treated fell short of the amount on which their algae production figures was calculated, the yields would be even less. \u201cIf you\u2019re only producing half of the CO2, then you\u2019ll only get half the yield of biodiesel. Carbon dioxide is the building block of producing algae,\u201d O\u2019Leary said.<\/p>\n
A Pass on an EIS?<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
When the question arose as to whether an environmental impact statement would be required before the plant could be built, Kaniho responded. \u201cSome time ago,\u201d he said, \u201cwe learned that NELHA already had an EIS and SMA [Special Management Area permit] in place. We inquired with the County of Hawai`i to see if that EIS and SMA applied to our project. Chris Yuen [county planning director] gave us a letter of determination saying that those permits cover our project.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tThat letter, included in BEH\u2019s proposal, was dated March 10, 2008. After a brief recap of the history of SMA permitting for the NELHA site, it concluded that, since \u201calternate energy research and development\u201d was among the activities proposed when NELHA obtained an SMA permit in 1994, the BEH facility required no additional environmental impact statement or SMA permit.<\/p>\n
\tYuen clarified to Environment Hawai`i<\/i> that the letter from his agency had a narrower reach than Kaniho gave to it. \u201cWhose decision is it to require a supplemental EIS or not? In this case, it\u2019s not really a permitting matter. It\u2019s NELHA\u2019s decision. The agency leasing the state land, NELHA, has to do the 343 analysis,\u201d Yuen said, referring to Chapter 343 of Hawai`i Revised Statutes, the Hawai`i Environmental Policy Act. \u201cOnce we don\u2019t have a permit issue, we\u2019re out of the picture,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\tAs the board discussed the proposal, it became evident that several board members were not buying the argument that BEH was going to get by without having to prepare an EIS. Liu asked Kaniho whether he would be willing to prepare such a document: \u201cGiven what\u2019s at stake here, it behooves you to consider a supplemental EIS,\u201d Liu said. Kaniho consented to that being added as a condition of approval.<\/p>\n
Prohibited Uses<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
One of the points mentioned in NELHA staff comments on the BEH proposal was the fact that the proposed facility seems to run smack into a list of prohibited uses that the NELHA board has developed. Application guidelines tell prospective tenants that among the activities that \u201cshall not be permitted on any lot at NELHA properties\u201d are:<\/p>\n
\u2022\t\u201cJunk yards or recycling facilities\u201d (unless carried out in conjunction with a primary permitted use or as part of waste management practices); and the<\/p>\n
\u2022\t\u201cDumping, disposal, incineration or reduction of garbage or other forms of refuse.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tThe board seemed unconcerned about dealing with these apparent prohibitions. Deputy attorney general Yee noted that, \u201cProhibited uses are passed by the board, so if the board doesn\u2019t want to follow the list, the board can decide that.\u201d However, Yee continued, \u201cthe bigger question is, why did the board put that [restrictions on waste facilities] into the list in the beginning? And if the [BEH proposal] is not disposition or disposal, why is it not at least considered reduction? I think it is reduction \u2013 but the board can change that.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tWhen board chairman John DeLong asked whether the current Keahole tenants were supportive of the proposal, a representative of the tenants\u2019 association assured him they were, citing the prospect of reduced electric rates promised by BEH.<\/p>\n
\tBefore the final vote, Hess again voiced his concerns about the suitability of the project for NELHA. \u201cThe thing that sticks in my mind is, you can tell a garbage dump from 10 miles away from the stuff hanging on the trees.\u201d He asked DeLong, \u201cIs there anything in your motion that addresses how the stuff gets here?\u201d<\/p>\n
\tDeLong admitted there was not. A representative of BEH suggested that this issue could be taken up as a condition of the eventual contract. \u201cIn the normal permitting process, you have to design mitigation circumstances. You have to provide litter abatement, not only at the facility, but also in all traffic patterns. In a well-run facility, litter and odor don\u2019t exist.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tDeLong then amended his motion to include litter abatement. When the vote was called, Thomas was the sole dissenter.<\/p>\n
— Patricia Tummons<\/p>\n
Volume 19, Number 1 July 2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A dream, or a nightmare? A visionary solution to Hawai`i’s growing problems of rubbish and oil dependency? Or a pie-in-the-sky proposal, completely untethered from reality? Those were among the conflicting views of a proposal that recently came before the board … Continued<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[167],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1266","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-july-2008"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1266","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1266"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1266\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1266"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1266"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1266"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}