\u201cHECO plant switch to biofuels a good move.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tThat headline appeared over an editorial in the <iHonolulu Advertiser<\/i> on December 15, a few days after Hawaiian Electric, the utility serving O`ahu, came to an agreement with the state consumer advocate calling for a new 110-megawatt plant to be fired exclusively with biofuels. The Advertiser\u2019s editorial writers greeted the news with unalloyed joy.<\/p>\n
\tThe Honolulu Star-Bulletin\u2019s<\/i> editorial reception of the news was favorable, but tempered. The development, it said, \u201cshould serve to blunt some criticism of its proposal [for a rate increase], but \u2026 ethanol is not a panacea. Problems like water allocations needed to grow feed stock, agricultural chemicals, use of fossil fuels to make ethanol and the efficiency of the fuel could shrink ethanol\u2019s advantages.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tTad Patzek was having none of it. Even before Hawaiian Electric (HECO) struck the agreement with the consumer advocate calling for exclusive use of biofuels in the new plant, Patzek, a professor of engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, ridiculed the notion. \u201cIf biomass is the answer, it makes more sense to burn it directly,\u201d Patzek said in testimony before the state Public Utilities Commission, whose approval Hawaiian Electric needs before it can build the plant. \u201cTo convert biomass to a finished liquid transportation fuel at an incredibly high fossil energy cost and damage to the environment and then burn this fuel in a stationary power plant is the most nonsensical proposition I have heard in many years. This proposition is utterly indefensible on scientific and common sense grounds.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tPatzek appeared before the PUC as a witness on behalf of Life of the Land, a community organization that was admitted as an intervener in the PUC docket that will decide the fate of HECO\u2019s proposed plant.<\/p>\n
\t(The PUC\u2019s decision is still months away. After the evidentiary hearing in December, preparation of a transcript was expected to take several weeks. Once the transcript is delivered to the parties, they will have three weeks to prepare post-hearing briefs. Each party then is given two weeks to reply to other parties\u2019 briefs. Following that, the members of the PUC begin their deliberations, with no set time by which their decision must be made.)<\/p>\n
Uncertain Source<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
The formal agreement, in the form of a stipulation signed by the consumer advocate and HECO, states that the consumer advocate has no objections to HECO\u2019s plans for the new plant and ancillary facilities (a transmission line, substation upgrades, and the like), \u201cprovided that the Proposed Project uses one hundred percent (100%) biofuels.\u201d HECO\u2019s original position was that it would use up to 100 percent biofuels \u201conly after a trial period of up to five years using a fifty percent (50% by volume) ethanol-naphtha blend.\u201d Under the stipulation, though, it agrees to use biofuels from the first day of operation.<\/p>\n
\tIn an attachment setting forth details of the agreement, Hawaiian Electric commits to \u201cselection of a biofuel provider and completion of a contract by the end of 2007.\u201d Among other things, the contractor must demonstrate to HECO \u201cthat a vibrant, multi-sourced national and international market supply exists in such fuels.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tIn what seems a tacit admission of the lower energy content (and potentially higher costs) of ethanol over more conventional fuels, HECO says it will seek PUC approval \u201cfor the negotiated contract with the selected biofuel supplier, and recovery of all reasonably incurred costs associated with the design modifications and use of the various biofuels, including the significantly lowered CT [combustion turbine] Unit output (about 15%) that is currently expected to result if the selected biofuel is 100% ethanol.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tHenry Curtis, executive director of Life of the Land, told Environment Hawai`i that when HECO seeks approval for the fuel contract, it can expect, as before, to face Life of the Land as an intervener.<\/p>\n
Articles of Faith<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
Robbie Alm, HECO\u2019s senior vice president for public affairs, insisted that the decision to go with biofuels for the new plant is environmentally sound. \u201cWe\u2019ve looked at the literature that suggests that both biodiesel and sugar-based ethanol, certainly, are fairly positive,\u201d he said in an interview with Environment Hawai`i<\/i>. \u201cWe\u2019re aware of the literature that suggests corn-based ethanol is not as positive.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tAware of it, perhaps, but, according to Curtis, HECO\u2019s sworn testimony before the PUC was that the company had done no analysis of the risks or benefits of biofuels over petroleum-based fuels, or of the net atmospheric carbon output resulting from the use of biofuels as opposed to fossil fuels. Curtis noted that much of the source of biodiesel today is Indonesia and Malaysia, where rainforests are being clear-cut to make way for oil-palm plantations, which provide much of the raw material for biodiesel.<\/p>\n
\tHECO\u2019s request for proposals from biofuel vendors does not discriminate between fuels generated from sustainably grown crops and other types. Alm said: \u201cWe\u2019re putting out an all-comers RFP for biofuels. In the best of all worlds, biodiesel is a better product for us. From our point of view, biodiesel has far fewer negatives, and that\u2019s what we hope to be able to use. The question for us is, will biodiesel be available to us in sufficient quantities by 2009, in time for the [new] unit?\u201d<\/p>\n
\tBecause of the uncertain availability of biodiesel, Alm said, the initial contract for biofuel suppliers is relatively short. If ethanol is to be used at all in the plant, he said, it would probably be just for the first few years, as a \u201ctransitional fuel\u201d until biodiesel supplies are adequate. \u201cThen we\u2019ll see what biofuel we get at the end of that contract, how many options we have available, and where they\u2019re from,\u201d Alm said. \u201cWe\u2019ve also stated that we\u2019d vastly prefer to get our product locally.\u201d Alm added that he had no particular knowledge of whether Hawai`i could generate sufficient biodiesel \u2013 between 7 million and 15 million gallons a year \u2013 to fuel the new peaking facility (to be used only when needed to meet peak power demands).<\/p>\n
\tAlm dismissed critics of HECO\u2019s biofuels proposal as heretics \u2013 or worse. \u201cWe were fascinated when Henry\u2019s expert [Patzek] was asked, would you prefer fossil fuels to biofuels \u2013 and he said he\u2019d prefer fossil fuels. We\u2019re not there yet. We believe biofuels are better than fossil fuels\u2026 If we\u2019re going to have a fuel running a combustion turbine, we\u2019re saying our preference is to have biofuels. I say biofuels are better than fossil fuels. Some people say they don\u2019t think they\u2019re a great idea, but they\u2019re a minority.\u201d<\/p>\n
A Contrary View<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
Life of the Land has had a long and distinguished history of protecting Hawai`i\u2019s environment. Under Henry Curtis\u2019 leadership, it has put itself at the forefront of energy conservation issues as well. If Curtis and the other leaders of Life of the Land are harshly critical of HECO\u2019s proposed use of biofuels, does that mean they\u2019ve turned their back on some of the most critical environmental issues of the day, such as global warming and climate change, generally seen as the result of burning fossil fuels?<\/p>\n
\tFar from it, Curtis says. \u201cThere are several types of biofuels, with the most common being ethanol and biodiesel,\u201d he said. \u201cWhen we asked about other types of biofuels, they expressed total ignorance. So when they talk about biofuel, the really mean only ethanol and biodiesel.<\/p>\n
\t\u201cIt\u2019s our understanding that biodiesel is worse than naphtha. Look at the destruction of rainforests in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brazil. Rainforests are being cleared to grow palm for palm oil. To claim that biodiesel is carbon-neutral is out and out wrong. If they\u2019re going to buy biodiesel from Indonesia after rainforests have been decimated, that is not remotely environmental.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tIn a phone interview from Berkeley, Patzek made much the same point: \u201cIf you want to burn biofuels, especially biodiesel, you\u2019ll end up burning soybean or oil-palm-based biodiesel, which will be produced in Malaysia and Indonesia. The carbon costs of these fuels is remarkably high. In order to clear the land for plantations, they are actually burning and removing virgin forests. Those forests, especially in Indonesia, often stand on very thick layers of peat. The peat dries up and oxidizes, usually through burning, releasing vast quantities of carbon into the atmosphere. If you look at a single burning event \u2013 say, in fall 1997, which I\u2019ve documented \u2013 emissions from that event equal half of all emissions from the entire global population.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tAs to his comment that it would be better to burn biomass directly in the HECO plant instead of biofuels, Patzek said, \u201cI do not think that biomass is the answer to insane energy consumption. It could be the answer if we use one-tenth of the energy we use today. If we do that, then I\u2019ll talk about biomass.<\/p>\n
\t\u201cBut if we\u2019re going to be insane, we\u2019re somewhat less insane if we convert biomass directly instead of going through the long route of using fossil fuel and other resources to arrive at a fuel that we then burn. That\u2019s actually insanity squared.\u201d<\/p>\n
— Patricia Tummons<\/p>\n
Volume 17, Number 8 February 2007<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
“HECO plant switch to biofuels a good move.” That headline appeared over an editorial in the <iHonolulu Advertiser on December 15, a few days after Hawaiian Electric, the utility serving O`ahu, came to an agreement with the state consumer advocate … 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":[155],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1343","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-february-2007"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1343","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=1343"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1343\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1343"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1343"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/environment-hawaii.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1343"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}