Renewable Energy Technology Assessments - Kauai Island Utility ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative Renewable Energy Technology Assessments Table 11-4. Environmental Scoring Results. 11.0 Final Renewable Energy Project Scoring Project Score Comments Hydro: Wainiha 50 Issues to address, but no fatal flaws. Already an existing project on this stream. Land is all controlled by one private owner (A&B) Hydro: Upper Lihue 100 Upgraded turbine, no incremental environmental impacts Hydro: Wailua 25 Substantial diversion of Wailua river Hydro: Waimea Mauka 85 Upgraded project with some slight disturbances of local environment Hydro: Puu Lua-Kitano 40 Run of ditch project, minimal environmental impact. State and HI Home Lands Hydro: Kitano-Waimea 40 Run of ditch project, minimal environmental impact. State and HI Home Lands Wind: Kalaheo 75 Same as general technology score Wind: Omao 75 Same as general technology score Wind: North of Hanapepe 65 Would require construction of new road with associated impacts Wind: Kokee 50 Located in protected area (state park, forest, etc.) Wind: Anahola 40 Located in protected area (state park, forest, etc.), would require construction of new road with associated impacts Wind: Poipu 75 Same as general technology score Wind: Maha’ulepu 75 Same as general technology score Landfill Gas: Kekaha 50 Same as general technology score Biomass: Low Fuel Cost 50 Same as general technology score Biomass: Mid Fuel Cost 50 Same as general technology score Biomass: High Fuel Cost 50 Same as general technology score MSW: Low Tipping Fee 25 Same as general technology score MSW: Mid Tipping Fee 25 Same as general technology score MSW: High Tipping Fee 25 Same as general technology score MSW/Biomass: High Fuel Cost 25 Similar impacts as MSW plant MSW/Biomass: Mid Fuel Cost 25 Similar impacts as MSW plant MSW/Biomass: Low Fuel Cost 25 Similar impacts as MSW plant For the most part, the wind, biomass, and MSW projects received the same environmental impact score as the general resource in the Phase I analysis. The Kokee and Anahola wind projects are located in protected areas, thus received a lower score than in the previous analysis. Significant changes were made to the scores for the hydro projects to account for the site specific nature of environmental concerns associated with hydro development, as noted in the table above. 21 March 2005 11-9 Black & Veatch
Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative Renewable Energy Technology Assessments 11.0 Final Renewable Energy Project Scoring 11.3.6 Socioeconomic Impact Each renewable energy technology was evaluated for socioeconomic benefits in the Phase I screening based upon criteria including job creation, solving existing socioeconomic problems, and transfer of knowledge. For this Phase II scoring effort, the socioeconomic scores from Phase I were re-examined for each specific project. The results of the socioeconomic scoring are provided in Table 11-5. Table 11-5. Socioeconomic Scoring Results. Project Score O&M Construction Other notes employment employment Hydro: Wainiha 50 Low Moderate Improved/new road to site Hydro: Upper Lihue 0 None Very Low Hydro: Wailua 50 Low Moderate Hydro: Waimea Mauka 12.5 Very Low Low Hydro: Puu Lua-Kitano 55 Low Moderate Possible irrigation system benefits Hydro: Kitano-Waimea 55 Low Moderate Possible irrigation system benefits Wind: Kalaheo 25 Low Low Wind: Omao 25 Low Low Wind: North of Hanapepe 25 Low Low Wind: Kokee 20 Low Low Slightly smaller project Wind: Anahola 25 Low Low Wind: Poipu 25 Low Low Wind: Maha’ulepu 25 Low Low Landfill Gas: Kekaha 25 Low Low Biomass: Low Fuel Cost 80 High High Supports new agricultural crop Biomass: Mid Fuel Cost 90 High High Highly supports new agricultural crop Biomass: High Fuel Cost 100 High High Very highly supports new agricultural crop MSW: Low Tipping Fee 85 High High Infrastructure benefits due to low cost waste disposal MSW: Mid Tipping Fee 75 High High Infrastructure benefits due to waste disposal MSW: High Tipping Fee 65 High High Infrastructure benefits due to waste disposal, but at high cost MSW/Biomass: High 100 High High Combined benefits of biomass and Fuel Cost MSW MSW/Biomass: Mid Fuel 100 High High Combined benefits of biomass and Cost MSW MSW/Biomass: Low Fuel 100 High High Combined benefits of biomass and Cost MSW The wind energy projects all received scores of 20-25, depending on size, based upon the anticipated employment impacts of the development of these projects. Even if all of the proposed wind generation were constructed, only a small O&M team would be required to service all of the turbines. Additionally, there would be little economic 21 March 2005 11-10 Black & Veatch
Page 1 and 2:
11401 Lamar Black & Veatch Corporat
Page 3 and 4:
Page 3 Kaua’i Island Utility Coop
Page 5 and 6:
Principal Investigators: Ryan Pletk
Page 7 and 8:
Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
Page 283: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
show all

Renewable Energy Technology Assessments - Kauai Island Utility ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?