Is geothermal energy ever going to work in Hawai`i? Given the so-far failed efforts to harness this resource, the question is long overdue. Still, however, it is off-limits in the orbits of most state and county officials. A chorus of blindered Pollyannas, they smile bravely through the daunting political firestorms, legal trials and physical catastrophes that have beset geothermal’s development in Hawai`i and recite in unison the dogma that has become state policy: Geothermal energy is clean, safe, and can be profitably developed, if only people would give it a chance.
That notion — that people are somehow the main obstacle to geothermal development — minimizes the plethora of physical problems encountered by Puna Geothermal Venture, some of which are described in the pages of this issue. Nonetheless, it is an attitude perfectly consistent with the approach that the state government has taken over the last decade, treating geothermal development more as though it were a candidate running for office than a geological process whose outcome is far from a foregone conclusion. Promises have been made, ad agencies and public-relations firms hired, polls taken. If only enough good will could be generated among the public, officials seemed to think, geothermal’s development would be a lead-pipe cinch.
‘Fool Me Once…’
The state has paid far more attention to the selling of the idea of geothermal energy to a skeptical public than it has paid to the far more serious — albeit less glamorous — task of setting up the regulatory framework and hiring the technical people needed to ensure that geothermal development proceeded prudently and with adequate oversight. For years, the state put off developing air quality rules for hydrogen sulfide — until forced to by the state Supreme Court. Similarly, more than three years after it hired a firm to prepare a geothermal master development plan and environmental impact statement, that project languishes.
The consequences can no longer be ignored. Many — indeed, most — of the problems that have attended the operations of Puna Geothermal Venture could have been avoided or minimized if the Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Department of Health had had on board staff capable of reading the warning signs. Indeed, the fact that the state had to bring in outside technical experts to evaluate the causes and results of the June 1991 blow-out at PGV is itself testimony to the state’s lack of technical knowledge in the area of geothermal development.
Except for that brief, intense look at PGV, the state has been in the position of relying heavily on the company itself for information as to the safety of its operations. It should hardly be surprising, then, that the information provided has been self-serving. As Land Board Chairman William Paty was reported to have said in a briefing on the blow-out, “We’ve been duped! We’ve been duped!”
‘… Fool Me Twice’
In the last month, the operations of PGV have again raised substantial cause for alarm. Even the state should know by now that you don’t turn geothermal steam on and off like tap water. To allow for more gradual shut-downs, bypass equipment is supposed to be used. But that bypass equipment was not available when it was needed in November. As a result, well KS-8 was permanently destroyed and the prospect of another serious well blow-out seemed to loom large for a day or longer. Although PGV has stated it intends to close well KS-8 forever, this is easier said than done; whether it is being done with all due respect paid toward the natural resources that could be jeopardized by a poor job is something that the state appears to be incapable of knowing.
Community groups and neighboring residents, many of them literally fearing for their lives, have called for an inquiry by independent experts into the events leading to the abandonment of well KS-8. With the state still not having brought on board its own experts, and continuing to rely on PGV’s account of events and assurances of safety, the appointment of such a panel is absolutely essential and should be made at once.
And if the state is not willing to do so — in fact, it already has indicated its willingness to sacrifice the potable water sources that lie within the geothermal subzone — the federal Environmental Protection Agency should.
500 Megawatts?
With all the trouble that has accompanied the development of a project intended to deliver 25 megawatts of power, what are the prospects for the state’s grandiose plans to export 500 megawatts of geothermal energy from the Big Island to O`ahu?
Even the state seems to have had some second thoughts lately about the scale on which geothermal energy can be developed. Talk of a “Big Island first” policy for geothermal has replaced references to what for years the state called its geothermal/cable project.
But the very term used to describe the scaled-back policy — “Big Island first” — contains implicitly the promise of more to come once the Big Island is taken care of. In this light, the report of a geothermal consultant hired by the state to assess the nature of Hawai`i’s resource becomes especially significant. As described by Maurice Kaya, energy director for the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, in a deposition taken by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, the consultant, GeothermEx, estimates that there is no more than a 10 percent chance that the geothermal resource in the Kilauea East Rift Zone could support a project delivering 500 megawatts for export to O`ahu.
Alternatives
Geothermal energy has been touted as an alternative to electrical power derived from fossil fuels. That it is — provided it can be developed. But other alternatives exist that avoid geothermal’s environmental and cultural drawbacks and which can be developed without the enormous capital investment required by geothermal energy. (In fact, the large capital outlay required by geothermal development may be what has made labor unions and construction firms such rabid fans of geothermal.)
Solar-water heaters should be standard equipment on virtually every house in the state. Large-scale energy savings can be achieved through conservation and the installation of energy-efficient appliances and fixtures in existing structures. Even greater energy savings can be achieved if houses were required to be built with energy-efficient appliances and fixtures as standard equipment and were landscaped to take advantage of Hawai`i’s trade winds.
Unfortunately, the state is only now beginning to look at conservation and demand-side management with anything approaching serious intent. As contrasted with the glamour and excitement of geothermal energy, those approaches must seem to state planners downright frumpy.
Granted, the development of geothermal energy in Hawai`i has indeed been exciting — too much so, as far as its neighbors are concerned. And a certain glamour and appeal may have attached to the lives of its proponents as they jetted off to international geothermal conferences (at taxpayer expense), hobnobbing with people who may have made geothermal energy work but who all had the good sense not to plant their developments in the middle of a residential subdivision, an active volcanic field, or an endangered rain forest.
It is high time for the state to let go of its besotted infatuation with geothermal energy. The era in which the geothermal push was born — the era of developing more and more resources to accommodate limitless growth — is long past. Across the globe, people are awakening to the fact that limits exist and we must learn to live within them. The sooner our officials learn what the rest of us already know, the better off we’ll all be.
Mahalo
Environment Hawai`i acknowledges with thanks grants from the W.A. Gerbode Foundation and the Hawai`i-La’ieikawai Association.
Correction
In the November “Island Watch” column, incorrect reference was made to administrative rules of the Department of Land and Natural Resources. The rules referred to are Title 13, Subtitle 1, Chapter 1, “Rules of Practice and Procedure.” We apologize for the error.
Volume 3, Number 6 December 1992