backtop


Print 69 comment(s) - last by YashBudini.. on Mar 22 at 6:03 PM


  (Source: ecoinstitution.com)
If the Interisland Wind Project brought 400 megawatts of wind power from Lanai and Molokai to Oahu as planned, this would bring the island's total wind power to 500 megawatts, meeting increasing energy needs

A new study has found that an additional 400 megawatts of wind power, coupled with existing wind farms and solar energy, could provide 25 percent of Oahu's projected electricity demand. 

The study, which is the Oahu Wind Integration Study, was conducted by the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, the Hawaiian Electric Company and General Electric Company. The study found that the energy needs of Oahu are increasing. Currently, low sulfur fuel oil (LSFO) and coal are burned annually to meet energy needs on the island.

But if the Interisland Wind Project brought 400 megawatts of wind power from Lanai and Molokai to Oahu as planned, this would bring the island's total wind power to 500 megawatts. This, along with 100 megawatts of solar power found on Oahu, could eliminate the need to burn 2.8 million barrels of LSFO and 132,000 tons of coal annually.

"The findings of this study show it is feasible to integrate large-scale wind and solar projects on Oahu but also have value beyond Hawaii," said Dr. Rick Rocheleau, Director of the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute. "Both large mainland utilities and relatively small and/or isolated grids that wish to integrate significant amounts of renewable energy while maintaining reliability for their customers can learn from this study." 

The study also provided recommendations that should be combined with the additional wind power, which include increasing power reserves in order to help manage wind variability, providing cutting edge wind power forecasting, increasing ramp rates of Hawaiian Electric's thermal generating units, reducing minimum stable operating power of baseload generating units, providing severe weather monitoring and evaluating other resources that can contribute reserve. 

"To reach our renewable energy goals, we need to use all the resources available to us," said Robbie Alm, Hawaiian Electric executive vice president. "For Oahu, this includes the utility-scale solar, roof-top solar, waste-to-energy and on-island wind that we are pursuing. But on-island resources are not enough to meet Oahu's power needs." 

Alm added that the study shows the benefits of alternative energy technology, but presents financial and environmental challenges that must be overcome before it is implemented. However, he sees the study as being an "essential first step for the Interisland Wind Project."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Or
By Omega215D on 3/18/2011 3:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately the crisis in Japan is cementing nuclear's grave here in the US. People are beginning to protest nuclear power and officials who want it. Apparently we'd be happier staying with coal and natural gas (according to MSNBC).


RE: Or
By FITCamaro on 3/18/2011 3:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't give a crap what MSLSD says.

And no I don't think it will spell the end of nuclear power.


RE: Or
By Omega215D on 3/18/2011 4:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's constantly in the NY newspapers as well considering we have a couple of nuclear plants here. In fact politicians and activists want them taken offline and demolished.

It pisses me off that this fear of nuclear is spreading at the speed of stupidity.


RE: Or
By Spuke on 3/18/2011 6:52:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It pisses me off that this fear of nuclear is spreading at the speed of stupidity.
Odd, no protests out here in Peoples Retarded of California yet. Most everyone seems to be ok about it. There was a rush on iodine pills down in LA somewhere.


RE: Or
By Omega215D on 3/19/2011 5:42:45 AM , Rating: 2
If you can try to get a copy of NY Daily News with the cover "PANIC" written on it. Not sure what day it was but I recall it being in the beginning of this week. I threw it out due to frustration but not before I wrote some scathing words to the editor.

I am surprised that there are no protests or politicians calling against nuclear power in California. Jim Kramer on Mad Money also noted how nuclear is no longer viable and that coal and natural gas is now and that we should invest in those... all on MSNBC.


RE: Or
By Solandri on 3/19/2011 8:01:34 PM , Rating: 2
You mean this NY Daily News?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/03/17/2...

I've seen some outrageous things in the media about nuclear power and radiation. But I don't think the extra coverage is unwarranted. The quake and tsunami are over and done with, all that's left is the cleanup. It's a static story, interesting from a human interest perspective, but has no staying power. The nuclear plant story OTOH is still developing - nobody knows how it'll end. That creates tension and drama, which is what sells papers and gets viewers.

quote:
Jim Kramer on Mad Money also noted how nuclear is no longer viable and that coal and natural gas is now and that we should invest in those... all on MSNBC.

I really wish people advocating those technologies could somehow be held accountable for all the deaths they cause. Those power sources kill way more people than nuclear. It's like saying because if we walk the nuclear road we might fall off and get muddy, so we should instead walk in the mud.

Obama and Steven Chu seem to be keeping a level head about this at least.


RE: Or
By IntelUser2000 on 3/20/2011 5:43:25 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It pisses me off that this fear of nuclear is spreading at the speed of stupidity.


What do you do about the radioactive waste that occurs with the spent fuel rods? That's never discussed. Oh so harmless.

You just have to bury them in ground in far away neverland for 10,000 years, no problem.


RE: Or
By Solandri on 3/20/2011 4:13:14 PM , Rating: 2
Ideally, you reprocess it, making 10x more fuel, and leaving the final waste products only "hot" for a few hundred years.

Or I suppose you could make reprocessing illegal, then spread all sorts of FUD about how nuclear is soooo dangerous because its waste products are "hot" for tens of thousands of years.


RE: Or
By IntelUser2000 on 3/21/2011 6:54:25 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, that changes it a lot. Few hundred years is as long as the industrial revolution. I'm sure you'd like to worry about radiation poisoning over "lack of power" or "funding".

Increased waste disposal taking up precious land due to rapid population increase and development all over the world, rendering it unusable for hundred years just to make up for short term 20-30 years is NOT a solution.

But of course you'd disagree, just like everyone who only cares about short-term.

You can argue the positives about Nuclear Power. But one of them is definitely not about being green(you'll LOOK green with enough radiation though).


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki