Powering Oahu from Lanai

Maui Built some wind towers in the West Maui Mountains mauka of
Maalaea.
The tourists skoff that they make Maui look bad.
But this is an island and we need alternatives to diesel generators
(MECO)
But the more tourists that come over, the more power we need to
generate.

Windpower is NOT a viable source of electrical energy.
The total cost of all the machinery, the maintencce etc.
far exceeds the electrical power produced bt the system.
The citizens MUST place electrical energy consumption
reduction as the primary goal.

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Niu-boy wrote:

> On Jun 16, 11:35 pm, "Lawrence Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@>
> wrote:

>> Still dodges the key issue of which island all the
>> spent nuclear waste will be stored on. Regardless
>> of what you think or don't think, this is an issue
>> that island folks need to confront if in fact
>> nuclear energy is to be viable there. It's kinda
>> like if you decide upon a chicken farm, you need to
>> decide upfront what to do with all that chicken
>> manure. Or do you as a prospective chicken farmer
>> really think that chicken manure disposal is not a
>> primary issue to be considered?
>
> My suggestion is that waste storage be provided at or
> near the reactor site to minimize handling and
> transport of the waste. So, whatever island the
> reactor is on is the island the waste will be stored
> on. My suggestion is to drill bore holes deep into
> crustal rock. In the case of Hawaii, this could occur
> offshore. Then, properly containerized waste would
> be lowered into the bores and permanently sealed into
> them. Buried down that far the waste would not be
> near aquifers or any living thing. Also, barring our
> tectonic plate turning over like a flapjack, the
> waste could be expected to be safely entombed for a
> time period measurable in geologic time.

Yes. This makes a lot of sense, because a ship
containing radioactive waste could be go down in bad
weather. This would endanger everyone because of the
possible early release of the waste. In my opinion it
makes more sense to store the waste on site with a lot
of security. The security would be there to check that
the containers are still secure in storage. There could
be unforseen changes in the wate containmnet and annual
checks might detect microscopic leaks for example
through cracks that might develop in the containers.
The security could also be there for defense from
crooks or terrorists who want to steal the waste.

In about 50 years we may have developed very efficient
alternative energy sources and could go ahead and
decommision the nuclear reactors and permanently seal
them with concrete so that security would be no longer
needed. Even a nuclear bomb might not break the seal,
and if it did, then there might be no island or people
left on the earth anyway.

"Maren at google" <m.purves@jach.hawaii.edu> wrote in message
news:1182400804-sch@news.lava.net...
>

/big snip/

> Quite honestly, I see water as more of a problem than electric
> energy right here right now. - we may have more of an electric
> energy transmission challenge, which also holds true for water
> on the Big Island than most of you on the smaller islands see,
> but we probably also still have a lower population density and
> larger aquifers. We also have a lot more people relying on water
> from roof catchments. -
>
> After going through a month or so of drought we got an inch or so
> of rain (OK, so maybe more like 3 inches). Right now I'm more
> concerned about water (and about the hundreds of earthquakes
> on Kilauea - the next 1868 isn't an if, it's a when) than about
> how to e.g. generate the power to provide air conditioning to people
> who live in buildings that haven't been built right to begin
> with.

A couple of comments on water.

You know, Haleakala, Mauna Kea, and Mauna Loa get a fair amount of
snow each
winter. I've often wondered why the island folks don't construct
reservoirs
and ditches/canals to direct the melt into those reservoirs. I
understand
the porous nature of much of the land, but it should be economically
feasible I would think to construct a non-porous layer of some kind
(clay?
plastic membrane? concrete? ) to keep the water from slipping/leaking
away.
Such an approach, I would think, would be better than pumping those
aquifiers dry. And if such reservoirs were to be built at or just
below the
lowest snow line, they would be high enough such that distribution to
most
places on Maui or Hawaii would be gravity driven with suitable pipe
placement.

When you fly between the islands, you often see rain squalls
scurrying about
beneath you. All that rain is lost into the sea. One idea is to
construct
open vessels - perhaps wind driven - to stay beneath those rain
squalls and
capture all that rain water, then transport the captured rain to the
islands. My guess would be that once positioned beneath such a rain
squall,
it would not be too difficult to keep up with it...after all, its
movement
is wind driven!

I frequently promote sustainable development
and conservation. Here in Ottawa Canada we have initiated
a conservation program to conserve electrical energy.
Home owners are encouraged to reduce energy consumption by
10 % and if they achieve that goal the Hydro Company will
provide an additional 10% discount from the hydro electric
bill.
Hawaiians may wish to implement a similar conservation
program. Everyone will be a winner.

"Niu-boy" <kenbank@> wrote in message
news:1182637200-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Jun 23, 11:00 am, a...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John W. Bienko) wrote:
>> I frequently promote sustainable development
>> and conservation. Here in Ottawa Canada we have initiated
>> a conservation program to conserve electrical energy.
>> Home owners are encouraged to reduce energy consumption by
>> 10 % and if they achieve that goal the Hydro Company will
>> provide an additional 10% discount from the hydro electric
>> bill.
>> Hawaiians may wish to implement a similar conservation
>> program. Everyone will be a winner.
>
> That would be a wonderful program for Hawaii. Unfortunately, we don't
> have the opportunity for hydro power in the islands. All power must
> be generated in traditional power plants or by other means, e.g. solar
> or wind. Conservation is always a good thing, however it isn't the
> real underlying issue. What's really terrible is that we are consuming
> a precious non-renewable resource to generate electricity when we
> should be using clean, safe and cheap nuclear power to do that. The
> fervor of the opponents of nuclear power is akin to religious
> fanaticism. And like religious fanatics, their rhetoric is not based
> in scientific fact, but in feelings and emotions. It's because of
> this pervasive and, in my opinion, erroneous mindset among many
> Americans, especially those in power within government, that we are
> not moving forward with nuclear energy in this country. The rest of
> the world is way ahead of us on this. They are building nuclear plants
> right now. We need to wake up, before it is too late and start
> building nuclear power plants all across this country. The
> alternative that is being foisted on us today, coal fired power
> plants, is a totally unacceptable solution because they are literally
> poisoning the atmosphere with pollutants and are destroying the
> planetary ecosystem as they add hundreds of thousands of tons of
> carbon dioxide to the atmosphere on a daily basis. The win-win for us
> all will be nuclear energy.

sooo...once again. Given you have this nuclear plant in the islands, on
which island do you propose storing that nuclear waste? All this talk about
nuclear plant, all this ducking answering this storage site question.....
And allow me to point out that you don't need to worry about all Americans
vis a vis your island of choice - all you need to do is to convince those
islanders on that particular island that theirs is the ideal/best island on
which to store that waste. I sincerely doubt that the average American
outside of Hawaii would be as concerned over which island is to be the
storage site. You still going to duck/evade/ignore answering this waste
storage site question?

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Maren at google wrote:

> On Jun 21, 6:55 am, "Lawrence Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@>
> wrote:
>
> [snipped what I wrote]

>> I've often wondered why the island folks don't
>> construct reservoirs and ditches/canals to direct
>> the melt into those reservoirs. I understand the
>> porous nature of much of the land, but it should be
>> economically feasible I would think to construct a
>> non-porous layer of some kind (clay? plastic
>> membrane? concrete? ) to keep the water from
>> slipping/leaking away.
>
> It goes into the aquifer, and the aquifer 'floats' on
> salt water.

Yes, that's in our recent stuff that was mailed out by
the Board of Water Supply. And tapping the aquifer is
the same as building a dam. That's the source of the
water dispute on the windward side. The IIRC Koolau
ditch which took water in the Koolau Mountain range
aquifer and supplied agriculture on central Oahu had
dried up the streams on the windward side and limited
the amount of taro that could be grown. It's now
partially sealed so that the taro farmers now have
enough water for their needs.

Most streams are only wet in the winter when the rains
come. Most of the time, the stream is low or dry. But
there are some rivers that could be tapped-- such as
was the case of the Kaloko Dam which was breached on
Kauai. Trouble is that the state does not inspect these
enough to insure public safety. Why encourage the
building of more dams? I don't understand a similar
problem in California where the state is not able to
stop land development behind the levees of the
Sacramento River. Why build more levees to increase the
development of the land (because they now think that it
is safer) and expose more homes to the risk of
flooding? IIRC Hawaii has not even been successful in
stopping development below the 50 year flood line.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Niu-boy wrote:

> Okay... I apologize if I haven't been clear. Please
> allow me to restate: THE WASTE WILL BE STORED AT THE
> REACTOR SITE(S). There, did you understand that? In
> a recent post, where you said I was dodging the "what
> island" question, I said that for purposes of
> argument I would pick Kaho'olawe. Let's assume,
> since that is what it is, an assumption, that the
> reactor is sited on little Kaho'olawe. What then?
> Last time I checked there is no permanent settlement
> on that island thus no neighbors to scream NIMBY.
> You seem to think that waste is a big problem.
> Waste must be disposed of properly and safely, but
> it's not as big a problem as you may think. Do you
> have any idea just how much waste is generated by an
> efficient, modern nuclear plant? I am happy to share
> this information with you. If spent fuel rods are
> reprocessed and recycled, the amount of un-
> recyclable nuclear waste generated by the average
> family of four over a period of 20 years will fit in
> a shoebox. The entire stockpile of spent fuel rods
> now in existence in this country would fit into a
> school gymnasium. We're not talking about a mountain
> here, but the anti-nuke activists would like us to
> think that it is one. Once again, let me restate my
> original point. I proposed that nuclear waste, the
> relatively small amount generated by each individual
> power plant, be permanently sealed into solid crustal
> rock at the bottom of bores, thousands of feet deep.
> In the case of Hawaii, these bores could be offshore.
> Drilling technology capable of doing this already
> exists in the petroleum industry. Nuclear power is
> our last hope of continuing to satisfy our current
> consumption rates without poisoning our world with
> the emissions of dirty coal fired plants. All this

IIRC not only the waste itself needs to be stored.
Other materials which come in contact with the pile
itself must be storeed as waste. For example, everytime
you drain and replace the secondary collant water,
you'll need to dispose of it by mixing a concrete with
the water and embedding material like bunny suits,
gloves etc which are used in working with the
radioactive material. If there is an overhaul every ten
years, then all the fixtures need to be also disposed
of as waste. The neutrons in the pile tend to activate
radioactivity in metals and even contaminants in the
secondary cooling. Over the lifetime of the plant tons
of the stuff will be produced. It's not true that
nuclear is the only alternative. There are many other
froms of energy. We just need to develop the technology
to use them.

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:

> 2. His affirmation that Kaho'olawe is indeed a
> realistic, do-able site for storing spent nuclear
> waste - despite the various laws in place protecting
> Kaho'lowe and prescribing its use.
>
> A number of days have elapsed since 6/27 without
> response from "Niu- boy". This post is simply to ask
> whether or not such clarification is forthcoming. If
> it is, well and good...I for one await that
> clarification. If it is not, then perhaps "Niu-boy"
> will have the graciousness to say as much - in which
> case this particular aspect of this thread can be
> laid to rest.
>
> The bottom line conclusion - should indeed there be
> no response - is that much as nuclear energy is
> desirable in the islands, there is no realistic,
> do-able island site/location to be readily
> recommended for storing spent nuclear waste in
> whatever quantity. Kinda like the guy who really
> wants to establish a chicken farm in the islands but
> has absolutely no idea what to do with all that
> chicken manure.

Larry, I think it is pretty clear what Niu-Boy has
written. And the thrust of his idea is reasonable but
may not be cost-effective. It's your problem if you
believe that he has said something else. You should not
be criticizing him for something that he has not
written. I suspect that he doesn't want to waste his
time on any further response to you.

WHY do so many businesses in Hawaii run air-conditioning inside open-air
locations?

It's throwing away electrical energy like there's no tomorrow....