The HW article [Aug. 3: “Interisland Dilemma”] states: “Big Wind seems to be an answer to all our environmental problems. But at what cost?”
The Big Wind project is based on unsubstantiated allegations, outright lies, misinformation and spin. Take for example 70 percent. What does that mean?
It does not mean seven of 10! The numerator is not a subset of the denominator in this case. The numerator is energy efficiency and renewable energy and heat from on-site generation. The denominator is utility electricity sold.
Suppose two coal plants were built on Kahoolawe. Each produced 3 MWh (2 units of heat and 1 unit of electricity). One was located in a DHHL building, and one was owned by MECO and its output sold to DHHL. Suppose DHHL consumed all 6 units of energy.
The renewable energy penetration level for Kahoolawe would be (2 units on-site heat produced) divided by (1 unit of utility electricity sold) = 2, i.e. 200 percent renewable.
Not clean, not green, not environmental, not common sense, but legal under state law.
HECO says Big Wind is green. A few years ago they tried to buy tropical biofuels grown on plantations where the landlords were required to be working toward “no child labor” and toward “free and prior informed concent of native people.”
HECO should not be the one who defines what is green.
Henry Curtis via [HonoluluWeekly.com]
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding