There's more potential energy from HPower but they don't have enough garbage to burn. 

Tangentially related:

Biomass: ‘Clean’ Energy That is Dirtier than Coal

http://www.ililani.media/2017/07/increasing-renewable-energy-versus.html

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Dogwood Alliance released a report, “The Sustainable Biomass Program: Smokescreen for Forest Destruction and Corporate Non-Accountability” in June 2017.

Hu Honua submitted a statement of position to the Public Utilities Commission on July 17, 2017 addressing comments by Life of the Land (LOL).

Hu Honua did a bait and switch, starting with statements about climate change, and swapping them for renewable energy.

“Hu Honua agrees with LOL`s statements ...regarding the threat of climate change…LOL`s comments are a distraction, since the question of whether or not Hu Honua is renewable... was already settled.”

“LOL is correct that a complex life cycle study might be able to estimate to a higher degree of certainty the precise carbon balance of a biomass plants such as Hu Honua…The relevant point is that biomass plants, like wind and solar plants, are renewable."

False dilemma. There are more real world choices than a fraudulent private corporation or top-down government-mandated inefficient, unnecessarily costly, and wasteful programs.

Plus, there are new laws resulting from the Enron scandal that are intended to prevent that from happening again.

Flapp Jack said most of what I wanted to say so I won't repeat it.

When I first bought my home here I had a plan of staying at least 10 years. I ran the numbers and with all the subsidies and tax credits and with the Net Metering I would have broken even after 8 years based on the much higher prices of electricity we were paying and buying the entire system. Then I ran into some financial difficulties at the time and I decided to wait. After a short period of time the panels themselves came down in price and a new model which was slightly more efficient came available. Again, I was going to buy an entire system. And my wife got laid off. So I waited once again and that is when the price of oil dropped, our bills dropped 40%, and the net metering stopped being offered. All of the sudden it didn't make sense any more. I am glad it worked out the way it did.

Yeah, I got and see all of what you and Flapp said. 

But what I posted was more in light of what you said below:

To me the answer is to place Hawaii at the forefront of renewable energy development and maybe some manufacturing. I suggest grants from the feds and maybe tax breaks to companies to come here to develop their products.

Investment in that regard.  Not investment of individual home or property owners. 

I was looking for ways to implement PV on Guam.  Guam has super high design wind forces.  The industry is currently geared around Florida being the controlling case, so none of those products meet the Guam design requirements.  So instead of taking advantage of a good amount of savings, common sense approach was rejected due primarily to red tape. 

Yeah, I got and see all of what you and Flapp said. 

But what I posted was more in light of what you said below:

Investment in that regard.  Not investment of individual home or property owners. 

I was looking for ways to implement PV on Guam.  Guam has super high design wind forces.  The industry is currently geared around Florida being the controlling case, so none of those products meet the Guam design requirements.  So instead of taking advantage of a good amount of savings, common sense approach was rejected due primarily to red tape.

Ahhh, makes more sense to me now. I wish more people would realize how regulation and red tape really ruins development and projects.

Took a tour of PVT today. They have been digging up the old construction debris and recycling about 80%. This allows them to continue with their current permit for another 65 years by making space and using more efficient compacting techniques for future debris. The Ops Manager described how the State gave them huge push back for issuing the permit to recycle the debris because the State gets 3.5% of the revenue that is buried in the ground but they don't get anything for recycling. Another advantage to sorting the debris at the landfill is that construction contractors only have to have one container instead of having to sort into five different containers for each debris type. They eventually got their permit.

"HRS Chapter 342G encourages the reduction of waste generation, reuse of discarded materials, and the recycling of solid waste. Businesses, property managers and developers, and government entities are highly encouraged to develop solid waste management plans to ensure proper handling of wastes." The 3.5% fee is supposed to go towards "encouraging" waste reduction, but the Ops Manager says they are wasting the money on administrative costs. 

Next, they applied to HECO to install 5 acres of PV on finished landfill to run their recycling operations. He said he always brings his lawyer with him to visit HECO or DOH. The only agency he seems to get along with is the EPA. Talks continue...

The Ops Manager also talked about planting trees whose nuts can be used to create biodiesel. The "feed stock" organic material they pull out of the debris will be used to start the tree groves. He also plans to grow the trees on the final landfill cover and surrounding areas that they own. The nuts will be harvested annually and food crops can be grown around the trees because they provide nitrogen to the soil. The nuts can also be used as protein for the local cows instead of shipping our cows to the mainland on 747 shipments. I asked and he said he's getting no government assistance for this project.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/28/africa/croton-nuts-biofuel-aes/index.html

He also described the emergency action plan in the event of a Iniki sized hurricane hitting this island. FEMA will only pay the State and the State will pay the established contractors. They have a plan to stage the massive debris onsite for sorting, recycling, and disposal which means the west side will probably be cleaned up before the rest. Actually, I anticipate the east side debris to be staged at Bellows before it is shipped to Waianae.

Ahhh, makes more sense to me now. I wish more people would realize how regulation and red tape really ruins development and projects.

I mean many regulations really (or at least hopefully) start out with good intentions.  Like making sure there are minimum standards.  It's when people who are so stuck on the process that they forsake common sense is the problem. 

Who woulda thought that that original post would turn into a seriously interesting thread and discussion?
Nevermind. I guess give Omni credit for starting a good topic.

The first page of this thread is kind of hilarious though.

 

I guess burning all our waste and crap is probably the most renewable source out there.
We have an abundance of waste and can produce it non-stop.
And since burning crap has no effect on climate change, why not?

Seriously.

...And since burning crap has no effect on climate change, why not?

Do you have a link or some proof to support this statement? I would think burning crap would release all kinds of bad shit (pun intended) into the air. Am I missing something here?

Do you have a link or some proof to support this statement? I would think burning crap would release all kinds of bad shit (pun intended) into the air. Am I missing something here?

Don't bother .... unless you can include pictures, he won't get it.

Flapp, you got sucked down the rabbit hole.  ( geekdance, your favorite whatever-con thing)

Inspector,
I thought the semi-consensus was there is no man made climate change.
For proof see studies posted page 1-13.
( and don't worry I'm following the humor)

So seriously, if burning stuff doesn't affect (effect?) climate change, why not burn all our crap (or stuff for smell effect (affect)  see the humor? (Use of effect vs.affect for grammatologists on here...see early posts) and have a true renewable resource for energy?

We use it, throw it away, burn it, get energy.

Flapp, you got sucked down the rabbit hole.  ( geekdance, your favorite whatever-con thing)

Inspector,
I thought the semi-consensus was there is no man made climate change.
For proof see studies posted page 1-13.
( and don't worry I'm following the humor)

So seriously, if burning stuff doesn't affect (effect?) climate change, why not burn all our crap (or stuff for smell effect (affect)  see the humor?) and have a true renewable resource for energy?

We use it, throw it away, burn it, get energy.

And you're doing the sucking ....

That's what happens when you try to think without proper training or equipment!                   

The consensus is, there is no scientific evidence providing any estimate of the amount of climate change which can be attributed to man.

We know it's more than zero, so your "thought" is in error.  The question has always been "how much of the total does man contribute?"  That will give us an idea of whether anything we do can have a significant impact on climate change at all.

I can find you some pictures if necessary....   

Flapp, you got sucked down the rabbit hole.  ( geekdance, your favorite whatever-con thing)

Inspector,
I thought the semi-consensus was there is no man made climate change.
For proof see studies posted page 1-13.
( and don't worry I'm following the humor)

So seriously, if burning stuff doesn't affect (effect?) climate change, why not burn all our crap (or stuff for smell effect (affect)  see the humor? (Use of effect vs.affect for grammatologists on here...see early posts) and have a true renewable resource for energy?

We use it, throw it away, burn it, get energy.

Hound,

I am not quite at the "...there is no man made climate change." I concede that we cause pollution and our pollution can affect or effect the climate. My contention is that we affect or effect our climate to such a small amount (at this time) it is not even worth mentioning. I know the difference between what you said and what I said is basically the same but I contend there is a subtle difference.

Sorry to say you got sucked down the rabbit hole because I didn't use the  like I usually do. I just made sure you saw I was making a pun (pun intended). What I really left out was the last word you used.... "Seriously" I meant to put that in at the end. I figured you would have got it if I did that and I forgot.

As far as burning oil/coal/trash we have electrostatic precipitators (Are you impressed I know what those are) to scrub the air of pollutants. I good with that. But my understanding is if you burn crap it stinks. If the wind blows it in my direction I'm not good with that. I moved away from LA for several reasons. The yellow-brown air was one of them.

I am not quite at the "...there is no man made climate change." I concede that we cause pollution and our pollution can affect or effect the climate.

As far as burning oil/coal/trash we have electrostatic precipitators (Are you impressed I know what those are) to scrub the air of pollutants. I good with that. But my understanding is if you burn crap it stinks. If the wind blows it in my direction I'm not good with that. I moved away from LA for several reasons. The yellow-brown air was one of them.

Cool to know that. But there seem to be members who believe that

Can't we put technology into air scrubbing instead of wind,solar,hydro to eliminate the stench to an acceptable level?
(I am impressed with electro taters.  )

But seriously (there it is again) what's more perfect than taking all the crap we consume and throw away and burning it to create a truly sustainable fuel ?

Cool to know that. But there seem to be members who believe that

Can't we put technology into air scrubbing instead of wind,solar,hydro to eliminate the stench to an acceptable level?
(I am impressed with electro taters.  )

But seriously what's more perfect than taking all the crap we consume and throw away and burning it to create a truly sustainable fuel ?

What a brilliant idea?  Where did that come from?

I'm sensing ....(dang, can't use the word sensing cause that's a liberal word)  I see people admitting man-made climate change is a given, just immeasurable.

The consensus is, there is no scientific evidence providing any estimate of the amount of climate change which can be attributed to man.

We know it's more than zero, so your "thought" is in error.  The question has always been "how much of the total does man contribute?"  That will give us an idea of whether anything we do can have a significant impact on climate change at all.

Hound,

I am not quite at the "...there is no man made climate change." I concede that we cause pollution and our pollution can affect or effect the climate. My contention is that we affect or effect our climate to such a small amount (at this time) it is not even worth mentioning.

(I am impressed with electro taters.  )

BZZZZZTTTTTT!!!!!

Damn! I gave myself electro-taters that night ! 

Damn! I gave myself electro-taters that night ! 

Did it hurt?

 
Like hell!!!