The State’s bioenergy master plan was released for comment last week, and final comments are being accepted until October 2nd.

Why the rush?

Before it is released, the plan is already obsolete for the Big Island. Biofuels will not result in lower costs for ratepayers.

Here on the Big Island, though, we have an option that will – geothermal.

From the master plan:

“The primary objective of the bioenergy master plan shall [be to] develop a Hawaii renewable biofuels program to manage the State’s transition to energy self-sufficiency based in part on biofuels for power generation and transportation.”

Geothermal has a better chance of achieving the above objectives of self-sufficiency in power generation as well as transportation.  It does not utilize any fossil fuels in its production, does not produce any greenhouse gases to speak of and does not compete with food production. It is proven. It can even help HELCO manage the grid.

Furthermore, it is a resource benefiting native Hawaiians – through royalties and possibly rents.

Biofuels have a very poor Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI), below 2 to 1. This is below the minimum EROI a sustainable society requires, which is considered to be 3 to 1.

By contrast, geothermal has an EROI of approximately 10 to 1, and that is not expected to change in the next few centuries.

We owe it to future generations to do the right thing.

Read the plan (see the link above) and submit comments by emailing them here no later than October 2, 2009.

Here is the comment I submitted:

Aloha:

I am Richard Ha. We farm 600 fee simple acres of various fruits and vegetables in Pepe‘ekeo. In addition, I am treasurer of the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation.

I have several comments regarding this master plan.

If oil is $200 per barrel, one pound of that oil is worth 70 cents. Farmers estimate that it might take four pounds of stuff to make one pound of liquid. As a rough estimate, farmers know that the most they can get for the stuff they grow when the price of oil is real high is approximately 18 cents per pound. At today’s oil price, they would only get 6 cents per pound. Better to grow cucumber.

It does not matter what the stuff is.  The costs, to maintain, harvest, pre-process and transport the stuff, are related to oil prices. So as oil price rise, the cost of growing the stuff also rises. It is kind of like chasing the mechanical rabbit at the greyhound racetrack. The dogs never can catch the rabbit. So small farmers will not likely become a major supplier of biofuels.

Because of the commodity characteristics of biofuel, the producers are likely to be larger industrial type agriculture participants. There are only a few places that lend itself to that kind of farming. It is reasonable to assume that food and fuel will be competing for the same land. There should be an analysis done to evaluate this.

There should be an Energy Return on Investment (EROI) analysis of the various types of biofuels so it can be compared against other energy alternatives. It is estimated that the EROI for oil was 100 to 1 in the 1930s – i.e., it took one barrel of oil to get a hundred. This declined to 30 to 1 in the 1970s, and recently it has been hovering around 10-15 to 1. But as it becomes more and more difficult to get oil, that ratio is steadily declining.

It has been estimated that an EROI ratio of 3 to 1 is the minimum necessary to maintain a sustainable society. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/1/25/pdf.
Biofuels are estimated to be less than 2 to 1.

This study should not exist in a vacuum. We know that electric vehicles are around the corner.  What is the advantage of pursuing a product that has an EROI of 2 to 1, versus one like geothermal that has an EROI of approximately 10 to 1 that will not decline for the foreseeable future?

It is my opinion that pursuing biofuels is the wrong solution to our energy problem.

Richard Ha
President,
Hamakua Springs Country Farms