Category Archives: Peak Oil

Big Island, Geothermal, History, Mauna Kea, Peak Oil, Renewable Energy Sources, Sustainability

Guest Post: We Underestimate The Old Hawaiians

March 10, 2013 Richard Ha 2 Comments

By guest blogger Rodrigo Romo:

With every question that seems to stir up controversy (geothermal, the Thirty Meter Telescope [TMT], etc.), the way I see it is to ask: "What would Kamehameha (or the old Hawaiians) do?"

The old Hawaiians lived in harmony with what the land/sea provided them, making sure they took care of their resources and making sure they were not depleted.

Would the old Hawaiians bring oil from distant lands to meet their energy needs? Or would they take advantage of what the land and the gods provided them (geothermal, solar, wind, hydroelectric)?

The old Hawaiians were famous for their star-based navigational skills. If they had the chance to further understand the universe from the top of Mauna Kea, would they pass on that opportunity? Or would they take advantage of the privileged location they were given by the land/gods to learn more about the universe?

I think part of the problem is that people underestimate what the old Hawaiians would do in today's technologically advanced world, and many think that they would still live like they did prior to the arrival of Cook.

I don't think that is the case. They were incredible wise people from an environmental point of view. They understood that by living on an island their resources were extremely limited and that their environment was very delicate.

Because of modern-day technology, we tend to forget that. It's easy for us to go to the grocery store and buy tomatoes from California, peaches from Chile and Atlantic salmon. We turn on the switch and expect the light to come on, because we know that there will be a ship/plane coming over to deliver our goods; goods that were not produced here from the land.

People see geothermal or wind as an intrusion to the environment, but have no problem with burning fossil fuels that are brought in from thousands of miles away.

They worry about the impact that a geothermal well may have on the air quality, but never think about the consequences that an oil spill from a tanker would have on our corals and the life around them.

People see the TMT as an intrusion into sacred land (regardless of the telescopes already present) but fail to see the wonderful opportunities it will provide to local young future Hawaiian scientists to be in the lead of space exploration.

We can learn a lot from the ways of the past: An understanding of the real value of our local resources, and how delicate our environment is. Combining that understanding with advances in technology will lead the path to achieving, or at least to moving closer to becoming a sustainable community/culture.

Aloha.

Rodrigo Romo was a member of the second Biosphere 2 crew. He is currently VP of Engineering for Zeta Corporation, where he is involved in water conservation projects. He lives in Hilo with his family.

Geothermal, Peak Oil, Renewable Energy Sources

Can Geothermal Exist In Harmony With the Hawaiian World View?

March 9, 2013 Richard Ha

Richard Ha writes:

On Thursday, Kalei Nu‘uhiwa and I spoke on a geothermal panel at the UH Manoa’s Richardson School of Law.

Kalei talked about Papakū Makawalu, a Hawaiian deconstruction of the universe into its basic component parts. Here is an interesting talk she gave on this topic about a year ago. (It’s about 13 minutes; well worth a watch.)

From the Edith Kanaka‘ole Foundation:

Papakū Makawalu is the ability of our kupuna to categorize and organize our natural world and all systems of existence within the universe. Papakū Makawalu is the foundation to understanding, knowing, acknowledging, becoming involved with, but most importantly, becoming the experts of the systems of this natural world.

At our panel discussion, the essential question was: “Can geothermal exist in harmony with the Hawaiian world view?”

Kalei’s answer, as I understood it, was, “Yes – If we have a full discussion ahead of time to assure that all concerns are adequately addressed. We need to understand and be comfortable in knowing what its effect on the Hawaiiian environment would be.”

I agree with this point of view. When we were asked what would we do if one of the geothermal developers did not agree to abide by this I said, “Then they need to get out of here!”

Hawaiians in pre-contact time were very successful. Here in Hawai‘i today, we are less successful.

This is why I really like Charles Hall’s EROI concept, which measures net energy. It provides empirical data that compares use of energy from ancient times to the present. It’s a way of comparing apples and apples across time.

Education, Geothermal, Peak Oil, Renewable Energy Sources

Blessing or Curse? Native Hawaiians & Geothermal Energy

March 6, 2013 Richard Ha

Tomorrow (Thursday, March 7, 2013) Richard will be sitting on a panel called Native Hawaiians and Geothermal Energy: Blessing or Curse? It's at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa's Richardson School of Law.

Kalei Nu‘uhiwa is also on the panel, which takes place from 11:45 a.m. to 1 p.m. Free and open to the public. We invite you to come and learn more about this subject!

– Leslie Lang

Biofuel, Geothermal, Peak Oil, Renewable Energy Sources, Sustainability

Very Simple Explanation of ‘Energy Return on Investment’

March 4, 2013 Richard Ha 1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

Every organism, organization and even civilization needs surplus energy or it goes extinct.

When a mama cheetah catches an antelope, for instance, she needs to get enough energy from consuming that antelope to take care of her kids.

Let’s say all the antelopes are very skinny, and the energy she gets from eating a skinny antelope only gives her enough energy to make one more sprint, and that’s all.

That would be described as an "energy return on investment," an EROI, ratio of 1-1. She has no excess energy available to do anything but catch her next meal. That would be a very scary existence: She would have to catch an antelope on every single sprint, or her species would go extinct.

But if the antelopes got fatter, and the cheetah could make two sprints from eating one antelopes, we would call this an EROI of 2-1.

When the cheetah could make five runs from eating one antelope, things would be starting to look better (EROI 5-1). She would have energy left over to do more than just survive. She could spend time washing and playing with the kids.

At an EROI of 10 to 1, she could send the kids to grad school; things would be wonderful.

At an EROI of 30 to 1, the cheetah population would start to grow. The cheetahs would move into condominiums and take vacations in Hawai‘i.

So what does this mean in real life? Here’s some history.

In the 1930s, we could extract 100 barrels of oil from the ground by using the energy we got from one barrel of oil. That’s an EROI of 100-1.

By 1970, we were only getting 30 barrels of oil from the use of one barrel (an EROI of 30-1).

And in 2013, it’s around 10 barrels of oil (EROI 10-1).

Tar sands is around 5-1.

And biofuels are less than 3-1. Some biofuels (for example, alcohol from corn) are barely more than 1-1. You can see why putting our money and efforts into biofuels hardly makes sense.

Especially when you realize that geothermal, as we have in Hawai‘i, appears to have an EROI ratio of 11-1. It’s also significant to note that this rate won’t change anytime soon. The Big Island will be over the “hot spot,” which creates our geothermal conditions, for 500,000 to 1 million years.

Here is an article about the minimum EROI a sustainable society must have, by Charles A.S. Hall, Stephen Balogh and David J. R. Murphy.

What don’t we understand about this?

Biofuel, Peak Oil

We Need More People With Cutting-Edge Energy Knowledge!

February 25, 2013 Richard Ha 1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

Hawai‘i should be sending more people to the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) conference. The folks at ASPO are on the leading edge of energy data interpretation. We need more people with cutting -edge energy knowledge.

For example, for several years now ASPO folks have been utilizing Energy Return on Investment (EROI) as a tool to evaluate energy
options.

If HECO had understood the concept and its parameters, it
may not have committed to Aina Koa Pono’s biofuel project so wholeheartedly.

Biofuels, in general, have very low EROI ratios (net energy). It takes a ratioof 3 to 1 just to maintain society’s petroleum infrastructure. Biofuels, except for cane ethanol, are lower than 2 to 1.

If we can’t make money in Hawai‘i now with cane ethanol, what makes us think we can do cellulosic biofuels, which are more costly and more difficult?

Despite spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, there are zero commercial competitive cellulosic biofuels in production
today. Zero. We wish AKP well, but it should use its own money, not that of the rate payers.

The shale oil and shale gas story is probably only be an interim solution. Aubrey McClendon, the fracking cheerleader of Chesapeake Energy, has been removed as its Chairman and will soon resign as CEO. The ASPO folks have known for several years that shale oil and gas is a bunch of financial smoke and mirrors.

When HECO responded to Consumer Advocate questions about how it justified its pricing, the utility used the Energy Information Agency (EIA) 2012 AEO report’s high-case scenario for its long-term forecast.

But the EIA’s short-term forecast, just a couple of weeks ago, estimates the 2014 price of oil at $101/barrel – while HECO estimates that oil will cost $180/barrel in 2015. The rate payer wouldn’t care about this if they didn’t have to subsidize the biofuels at $200/barrel.

Putting a secret $200/barrel biofuel surcharge on rate payers, and then telling them, “Trust us, this won’t hurt much” – while raising the pay of top executives – stands in sharp contrast to the CEO of Japan Airlines, who insists on being treated exactly like his workers. Watch that short (2:20) video for a very different approach than we are used to. Really interesting.

Geothermal, Peak Oil

Are Shale Gas & Shale Oil Hope or Hype?

February 22, 2013 Richard Ha

Richard Ha writes:

This video is well worth watching.

It’s called “Shale Promises or Shale Spin? The Economics
Behind Hydrofracking. A Conversation with Deborah Rogers.” If you are following this subject at all, you should watch it.

Deborah Rogers began her financial career in London working
in Corporate Finance, specifically venture capital.

Upon her return to the U.S., she worked as a financial consultant for nearly a decade for several major Wall Street firms, including Merrill Lynch and Smith Barney.

She has also served on the Advisory Council for the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and on a task force for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

She currently serves on a regional steering committee for the Oil and Gas Accountability Project (OGAP) and has the responsibility of addressing economic questions.

An entrepreneur herself, she founded Deborah’s Farmstead, an
artisanal cheese-making operation, now one of the premier artisanal cheese dairies in the U.S.

She was featured in a lengthy NY Times article by Ian Urbina on June 26, 2011 entitled Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush.

Shale gas and shale oil: Are they hype, or hope? We farmers want to know.

Nitrogen fertilizers, chemicals, plastics and other farm supplies are made from natural gas as long as it is cheap. Do we really have a hundred years’ worth of supply, and will it be cheap?

At the 2009 Association for the Study of Peak Oil conference in Denver, the petroleum geologist and consultant Art Berman described his analysis of 4,000 wells in the Barnett Shale. He showed that the average gas well produces 70 percent of its total production in the first year.

Also on the panel, though, was an oil/gas company executive, who said their calculations show that gas wells will produce for 22 years.

Now, three years later, we see that there are wells generating $120/day and they are still in production. What does that mean in
the whole scheme of things? Who is right?

There is more data now, and it still, consistently, shows that shale gas – and, by the way, shale oil – depletes really quickly, like 90 plus percent in the first five years.

And it costs $4 million or so to drill each well. Now that there is so much more data, the math on this is easy.

Farmers do not care who is right. Farmers only care about what is right. So while we do appreciate the low, below-break-even costs of nitrogen fertilizer, chemicals, plastics and other farm supplies today, we are also calculating what our costs might be if the price of natural gas rises to $5, $6, $8/mcf (thousand cubic feet).

If we cannot control the price of oil or natural gas, what do we do?

We must pivot to what is cheap and stable and actually works.

The petroleum age is barely 150 years old and already we are worrying that it will not last another 50 years; it might last even fewer years than that.

On the other hand, the Big Island will be over the geothermal hot spot for 500,000 to a million years.

The rubbah slippah folks get it. This not rocket science!

Geothermal, Peak Oil, Renewable Energy Sources

Shale Gas & Shale Oil, Only a Short-Term Bubble

February 20, 2013 Richard Ha 1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

From ShaleBubble.org:

THEY TELL US

WE’RE ON THE CUSP OF AN OIL & GAS REVOLUTION.

But what if it’s all just a short-term bubble?

The Reality is that the so-called shale revolution is nothing more than a bubble, driven by record levels of drilling, speculative lease & flip practices on the part of shale energy companies, fee-driven promotion by the same investment banks that fomented the housing bubble, and by unsustainably low natural gas prices. Geological and economic constraints – not to mention the very serious environmental and health impacts of drilling – mean that shale gas and shale oil (tight oil) are far from the solution to our energy woes.

This makes total sense to me.

In 2009, at the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) conference in Denver, I attended a panel discussion on natural gas production.

Arthur Berman, a petroleum geologist and energy consultant, talked about analyzing 4,000 Barnett Shale wells. He found that an average well produces 70 percent of its production in the first year. This made sense to me: It’s a gas.

An industry person on the panel said that life span of the wells is calculated to be 22 years. Obviously, they must produce at a very low rate later in their life span, compared to their first year’s production. One has to keep drilling more just to stay in one place.

In this landmark report “Drill Baby Drill,” J. David Hughes of Post Carbon Institute takes a far-ranging and painstakingly researched look at the prospects for various unconventional fuels to provide energy abundance for the United States in the 21st Century. While the report examines a range of energy sources, the centerpiece of “Drill, Baby, Drill” is a critical analysis of shale gas and shale oil (tight oil) and the potential of a shale “revolution.”

From the Executive Summary of “Drill Baby Drill:“

World energy consumption has more than doubled since the energy crises of the 1970s, and more than 80 percent of this is provided by fossil fuels. In the next 24 years world consumption is forecast to grow by a further 44 percent—and U.S. consumption a further seven percent—with fossil fuels continuing to provide around 80 percent of total demand.

Where will these fossil fuels come from? There has been great enthusiasm recently for a renaissance in the production of oil and natural gas, particularly for the United States. Starting with calls in the 2008 presidential election to “drill, baby, drill!,” politicians and industry leaders alike now hail “one hundred years of gas” and anticipate the U.S. regaining its crown as the world’s foremost oil producer. Much of this optimism is based on the application of technologies like hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and horizontal drilling to previously inaccessible shale reservoirs, and the development of unconventional sources such as tar sands and oil shale. Globally there is great hope for vast increases in oil production from underdeveloped regions such as Iraq.

However, the real challenges—and costs—of 21st century fossil fuel production suggest that such vastly increased supplies will not be easily achieved or even possible. The geological and environmental realities of trying to fulfill these exuberant proclamations deserve a closer look.

Click here to see a report about the role of Wall Street investment banks in the recent shale gas drilling frenzy and related drop in natural gas prices, written by Deborah Rogers from Energy Policy Forum.

The petroleum age is not even 150 years old, and already we are worrying about supply. In contrast, consider that the Big Island will be over the “hot spot” for 500,000 to a million years.

We don’t need $200/barrel Aina Koa Pono biofuel, which will make us less competitive. What makes sense is the $57/barrel oil equivalent that is geothermal.

We in Hawai‘i need to prepare for worse case scenarios.

So how much time do we have and how do we take care of all of us?

We need to be practical: What works, works.

This is about competition. Low cost trumps high cost.

It’s about net energy. The energy left over from what’s expended in getting the energy is what we have left to use.

And it’s about common sense. When kids picking guava or waiawi in a pasture hear hoof beats, they run first. Then they look to see if it’s a horse or the wild bull.

Big Island, Geothermal, Government, Iceland, Lowering Electric Rates, Peak Oil, Philippines, Renewable Energy Sources

Amending HB 106: ‘Let’s Fix It”

February 14, 2013 Richard Ha

Richard Ha writes:

I sent in testimony, on behalf of the Big Island Community Coalition, regarding HB 106, draft 1. This bill contemplates repealing Act 97 (geothermal subzones, etc.).

We should keep the good parts of this bill and add parts that make it better. We need balance as we take care of everyone’s needs. This is about all of us, not just a few of us.

Here’s my testimony:

To the Water & Land committee

Aloha Chair Evans and Vice Chair Lowen,

The BICC is very strongly in favor of amending this bill.

There are good things in this bill; let’s leverage that. We are strongly against repealing it in its entirety.

No question: home rule should be addressed. This was an unfortunate oversight the last time around. Let’s fix it.

The heart of the bill that must be kept is the part that allows geothermal exploration and development in various land use designations. The geothermal resource exists where it exists, not where we want it to exist. So we need a larger area to explore, not less. By having more choices we can get further away from populated areas. And we can increase our chances of success. The permitting process gives the necessary checks and balances to protect the people.

The essential problem we must solve is how to protect the people from rising oil prices. Repealing Act 97 in its entirety will raise our electricity prices.

The petroleum era is less than 150 years old. Oil is a finite resource and we are observing increasing oil prices. Oil price has quadrupled in the last 10 years. In contrast, the Big Island will be over the “hot spot” for 500,000 to a million years.

Geothermal-generated electricity is less than half the cost of oil-generated electricity. And it will be stable for 500,000 years.

The Big Island’s electricity costs have been 25 percent higher than O‘ahu’s for as long as anyone can remember. The Big Island Community Coalition is a grass roots organization that was formed to drive the cost of electricity on the Big Island down.

One of the BICC members did a cost analysis of a local school district’s 12 month electricity bills – generally 2012. Their costs (total of all schools involved) averaged $115,900/month.

At O‘ahu’s rates, those costs would be $115,900/1.25 = $92,700. That’s a savings of $23,200/month or $278,400/year.

If we figure $70,000/year pay for a teacher, the difference is four teachers for the district.

Because of these kinds of things, the BICC said enough was enough. People turned out at the PUC hearings, and consequently the governor issued a press release saying that HECO/HELCO had withdrawn its proposed 4.2 percent rate hike.

No one has ever told us: “We disagree with you; we want higher electricity rates.”

The members of the BICC are Dave DeLuz, Jr., John E.K. Dill, Rockne Freitas, Michelle Galimba, Richard Ha, Wallace Ishibashi, Ku‘ulei Kealoha Cooper, D. Noelani Kalipi, Ka‘iu Kimura, Robert Lindsey, H.M. “Monty” Richards, Marcia Sakai, Kumu Lehua Veincent and William Walter.

Rising electricity rates act like a regressive tax, but worse. As electricity prices rise, folks who can afford to get off the grid will do so. Those who cannot leave, the rubbah slippah folks, will be left to pay for the grid.

If we can achieve low-cost, stable electricity, trickle-up economics can result. If the rubbah slippah folks have money to spend, they will spend. Then businesses will be able to hire, and then we won’t have to send our children away to find jobs.

There is a lot at stake here.

Good luck.

Aloha,

Richard Ha
Cell 960-1057

I’ve been to five Association for the Study of Peak Oil conferences. I was co-chair of the Geothermal Working Group authorized by SCR99, and sit on the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative (HCEI) steering committee and the State Board of Agriculture. I’ve been to Iceland to see geothermal in operation, and I was part of the Big Island delegation that toured geothermal resources in the Philippines.

At Hamakua Springs we farm 600 fee simple acres of diversified crops. I do an Ag and energy blog at hahaha.hamakuasprings.com.

Education, Lowering Electric Rates, Peak Oil

Let’s Fight Rising Electric Rates, Not Teachers

February 4, 2013 Richard Ha

Richard Ha writes:

Today we find ourselves fighting against our teachers. But it’s rising electricity costs that is putting the pressure on school budgets.

We should be fighting against rising electricity rates, not our teachers.

The main problem with the proposed HECO/Aina Koa Pono (AKP) biofuel project is that its $200/barrel cost would raise Big Islanders’ electricity rates.

It proposes to supply liquid fuel for the Keahole plant, which represents 60 percent of base electrical power on the Big Island. Most of the increase to our Big Island electricity bills would be due to liquid fuel pass through. So AKP’s $200/barrel biofuel cost would have a significant, negative impact on Big Islanders’ electricity bills.

Hawai‘i’s poor already have the highest tax burden in the nation, according to a front page headline in Thursday’s Hawaii Tribune-Herald.

Let’s not increase the burden; let’s lessen it.

We can. Check out the Big Island Community Coalition, which is working toward lowest cost electricity for the Big Island.

Instead of the Aina Koa Pono project, we should support HELCO’s 22MW Hu Honua biomass/firewood project, as well as the 50MW geothermal project. If we include the present 38MW geothermal project, of which the old 25 MW contract is being renegotiated right now, it will result in 110MWs of stable, affordable electricity. More than 60 percent of our electricity would come from stable, affordable sources.

This is what will protect us from rising world oil prices. And as the price of oil rises, which it will, Big Island electricity rates would stay stable. Our electricity rates would actually become the lowest in the state.

Can you even imagine the changes that will happen when the Big Island has the lowest electricity rates in the state? We have become so accustomed to electricity bills that are 25 percent higher that we have a hard time imagining anything different.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

There will be a paradigm shift when our electricity costs are the lowest in the state. We will be able to protect some of the most defenseless among us, without having to raise the tax rates.

When people have spending money, they spend that money. They
boost economic activity. Farmers can make money and even manufacture food products for the O‘ahu market. This would increase our food security.

Our County government will be able to maintain services without having to raise taxes.

Let’s all support each other as we work toward lowest cost electricity for all Big Islanders. Not, no can. CAN!

Geothermal, Government, Peak Oil

My Testimony Against Resolution 42-18

January 23, 2013 Richard Ha 2 Comments

Richard Ha writes:

I testified before the County Council against Resolution 42-18. That’s the resolution that asks the Legislature to repeal Act 97, which allows geothermal resource zones in certain land classifications.

This was my testimony:

I think we can make things work to everyone’s satisfaction by amending Act 97, instead of repealing it.

I am testifying as a farmer who has attended five Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) conferences. Most of the time, I was the only person there from Hawai‘i.

The world has been using two to three times the amount of oil as it had been finding, for 30 years. Oil is a finite resource and there will be consequences. It’s not a matter of if. It is just a matter of when.

More Information can be found at the ASPO website.

A report done by an economic research team of the IMF was presented at the last ASPO conference.

They modeled five declining oil scenarios. They found that under declining oil scenarios of between one and four percent – when oil price exceeds $200 per barrel of oil – it could not be modeled. That would be uncharted waters.

The report said when two of three of the following conditions occur, then all bets are off.

If the minimum amount of oil necessary to maintain infrastructure is not met
If a minimum amount of oil necessary to maintain essential technology is not met
Or if the relationship of supply to demand exceeds 1-1, and the oil price rises faster than supply

If two or more of these issues occur simultaneously, the results could be dramatic or even downright implausible. These words in an economic report are very worrisome, especially for us living out here on an island.

We on the Big Island could be in jeopardy from outside forces. Robert Rapier, an International energy expert, lives right here on the Big Island. I highly recommend that the County Council ask him to give a presentation.

I also recommend that we start to focus on solutions. Just saying no is not enough.