New energy plant is not right for Kaua’i

studied and consulted on renewable energy and other sustainability issues for

many years. I am deeply concerned about the health, welfare and long-term

sustainability of this garden island and its people, and I strongly believe

that the installation of a power plant of this type (Lihu’e Energy Service

Center) in a suburban neighborhood (I believe about one mile from many houses)

at this time on the island, is not acceptable for many reasons.

Included

in The Garden Island newspaper article Nov. 13 was a quote which stated “that

the incense-burning to cleanse the land during the blessing ceremony (for the

power plant) was creating more emissions than the power unit will.” I think

that this quote is likely to be very far from true and could potentially

mislead the public into believing that the proposed plant is harmless.

Firstly, I think that the term “emissions” is likely to be misunderstood

by the public. The word “emissions” actually means “air pollution” or

“air-borne toxins.” And the quoted 20 to 30 percent reduction in emissions is

commendable yet means little if we do not know what that specifically means in

terms of potential pollution.

I would submit that with renewable energy

technologies so commercially viable, close to 100 percent reduction in

emissions is attainable and desirable right now. If you need any help with

ideas of where and how to look at renewable technologies, please let me know.

Given that we have clean alternative power production technologies readily

available, I contend that any level of emissions are inappropriate for this

island, its inhabitants and for the planet at-large. Experience shows us that

any levels of toxic pollution will definitely cause some health problems for

some people, some animals and some plants. It is just a question of how severe

the “some” problems will be.

In the past, statistically minimizing the

casualties of industrial pollution has often been the only reasonable course of

action. Now that we have viable, clean alternatives, we can eliminate the

casualties of air-borne toxins rather than endeavoring to minimize them to a

scientifically and politically acceptable level.

Another issue with the

proposed plant is the reliance on the trade winds to blow pollution away from

people, toward the mountains. As you are aware, we do not always have trade

winds. Between calm, still days and winds from the opposite direction, there

will be many opportunities for unfortunate residents and plant employees to be

downwind and exposed to the emissions. Even when the trades blow as hoped for,

what of our longer-term sustainability when we knowingly pollute the air over

our central mountains and jungle (and the planet at large)? The air-borne

toxins will have unbeneficial health effects on all the animals and birds and

plants exposed.

Additionally, I believe that we are dragging Kaua’i and

Hawai’i back into the 20th century by planning to use fossil-fueled technology

for our future needs, in several ways. We are located in a group of extremely

isolated islands, relying heavily on very expensive, imported fossil fuel. This

fuel supply will only get more scarce and more expensive as world reserves

disappear. We will also be always at the far end of the supply chain and

subsequently will always feel the global fuel supply tightening first.

In

Hawai’i we are blessed with abundant, natural, reliable, energy-producing

resources, including sun, rain, rivers, wind, oceans, warmth, etc., and yet are

occasionally subject to challenging and catastrophic weather such as

hurricanes. It makes sense to do anything and everything within our power to

minimize our reliance on global fuel supplies, transport (and their unknown

future costs) and to optimize use of our local resources, as quickly as

possible.

Because of the population density of Kaua’i and the potential

for occasional catastrophe, there is a strong argument to not only go to 100

percent renewable energy, but to also move to small-scale, decentralized energy

supply, but that is another large topic too complex to explore in detail here.

Let us also consider the cost of this proposed project. The current

estimate is $30 million for 26.4 million watts of electricity production.

Experience tells us that this number will likely go up significantly as the

project proceeds. Ignoring probable price escalation for a moment, this

estimate comes out to a little over $1 per watt. If we add in Kaua’i Electric’s

overhead, loan costs, distribution costs, perhaps profit, unknown future fuel

prices and availability, it seems to me that we have an expensive, vulnerable,

polluting and non-sustainable power plant on our hands.

There are many

commercially viable technologies currently available, both on a large

centralized scale and on a smaller decentralized scale, which fit into the same

scale of economics ($1 to $1.50 per watt) as the proposed plant. There is not

even a good economic reason to go ahead with the proposal!

The TGI article

included a quote from Denny Polosky, vice president for Kaua’i Electric: “When

the new plant is operating, the community and customers will thank KE and all

those who worked on the project.” I suspect that this quote will come back to

seriously haunt and hurt Kaua’i, as we watch our island communities move to

sustainable energy sources.

I submit that if we go ahead with this

proposal, we will be binding ourselves deeper into the global, fossil-fuel

technology and supply system, which is a dying dinosaur, and we give up yet

another opportunity to move toward healthy Hawaiian sovereignty.

Panther Wilde, a Lihu’e resident, wrote this to the state Department

of Health as his public comment on an air-quality permit granted to the Lihu’e

Energy Service Center project.