Comment by toomuchtodo
3 years ago
> They say they'll eventually get enough intermittent online, but that is many years away.
> This is a poorly thought out, haphazardly executed plan.
The facts don’t support these assertions. The higher oil consumption is temporary until delayed utility scale solar and geothermal projects come online [1] (supply chain issues). A recent battery project with Tesla Megapacks [2] replaced AES’ coal plant for grid services.
The price of oil pushes renewables adoption velocity in this situation, as clean energy options are cheaper than burning oil for electricity. Before this closure, Oahu had roughly equal coal vs solar generation capacity (~200MW). It’s obviously cheaper to replace that coal generation with batteries that can charge from renewables.
> “It is really unfortunate that we are having to rely on oil for a short period of time to transition from coal to the solar and battery projects,” Glenn said. “[But] it underscores the whole reason we need to make this change. Because oil is incredibly volatile. And we have to pay for it in a way that you don’t have to with solar battery.”
> He said the state is expected to close some of its oil power plants in the coming years, including part of the Waiau power plant on Oahu.
> Sandra Larsen, market business leader for AES in Hawaii, said the company supports the shuttering of its coal power plant and is now working on six renewable energy projects across the state’s four island counties. One of its projects, Kuihelani, is expected to generate power for about 27,000 homes on Maui.
> “The coal plant was needed to help stabilize Oahu’s electricity rates and the economy … 30 years later, it’s time to move on,” she said.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/31/hawaii-close...
> The higher oil consumption is temporary until delayed utility scale solar and geothermal projects come online
Then why not keep the plant online until solar is running. Increasing energy costs will affect the poorest and most vulnerable. There’s no pressing need to shut down the plant sooner than its replacement is ready.
Because coal plant retirements (and the coal deliveries those plants require) are planned quite a bit in advance. Average electric bill will go up $15/month (~4%) in the interim (not trivial, but also not catastrophic). It’s a political issue to subsidize that unexpected short term cost, not a technical issue to keep an aging plant running.
Energy transitions aren’t easy. There will be missteps.
(I would agree the local and or state government should provide support for low income electric users impacted by this until rates come back down from more renewables online pushing out oil generation; cut the utility a check and define the means testing)
To me it’s a clear case of bad policy. Good goals don’t magically make for good policy.
> Average electric bill will go up $15/month
What does bad policy look like in your opinion, if not this? It’s an avoidable fuck-up.
5 replies →