Renewable Energy Technology Assessments - Kauai Island Utility ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative Renewable Energy Technology Assessments 11.0 Final Renewable Energy Project Scoring impact from construction due to the relatively short construction time of a wind energy facility and most of the materials being imported from outside the state. The hydro projects received varying scores depending upon the scope of construction and new operations and maintenance personnel required. The Upper Lihue and Waimea Mauka projects received scores of zero and 12.5, respectively, because these are upgrade projects with limited construction scope and impact to operations and maintenance personnel. The Wainiha, Wailua, Puu Lua-Kitano, and Kitano-Waimea projects received scores between 50 and 55 largely due to the more expansive scope of construction The biomass and MSW projects received scores ranging from 65 to 100, depending on the scope of employment and other economic benefits of the projects. The biomass project scores varied based on the level of support for new agricultural crops, which would depend on the price for biomass fuel. The MSW project scores varied with the tradeoff between waste disposal benefits and the cost for waste disposal. All MSW/Biomass plant price scenarios received a score of 100 due to the combined benefits of supporting agriculture and solving a waste disposal problem. 11.3.7 Incentives / Barriers The degree of incentives and barriers for each renewable energy resource was characterized in the Phase I screening. These scores reflected the relative level of incentives and barriers for each technology type. The incentives or barriers to development used in the Phase I screening were modified to include more project specific criteria (project in active development, located near load centers, etc.), and the expanded set of criteria is presented in Table 11-6. 21 March 2005 11-11 Black & Veatch
Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative Renewable Energy Technology Assessments 11.0 Final Renewable Energy Project Scoring Table 11-6. Incentives / Barriers Scoring Criteria. Points Incentives Points Barriers 1 Complementary to Industry 1 Public Health Impacts 2 Good Public Acceptance of Technology 3 Negative Public Perception 2 Addresses Waste Disposal 2 Moderate Visual Impacts 2 Easily Actionable 4 Strong Visual Impacts 1 Replicability/Modularity 2 Potential Interference with Tourism 2 Experienced O&M Staff 2 Additional Infrastructure Required 2 Already in Active Development 2 Industry Supporting Infrastructure 2 Receptive Host Community/Land Owner 2 Hurricane Susceptible 2 Local Development Partners 2 Near Island Load Centers The Phase I incentives/barriers scores have been re-examined and adjusted for the new criteria. The results are presented in Table 11-7. Differences were observed across all technology and project types. Overall, the hydro projects scored higher in the new analysis because of the inclusion of additional benefits related to project development activities. The wind projects generally scored lower than in the first analysis because of the inclusion of additional criteria related to visual impacts. The biomass and MSW projects scored similar to the initial screening analysis. Concerns over these technologies are related to negative public perception and possible health impacts. 11.3.8 Summary The weighting factors were applied to each of the scoring criteria and were summed to produce a final score. A breakdown of the scores by criteria is in Figure 11-3. The figure shows that with the exception of the standalone MSW project with high tipping fees, the top ten ranked projects are all hydro and wind projects. The highest scoring project is the MSW project with high tipping fees. This project benefits greatly from its very low levelized power cost, about $20/MWh. The economics of the project are dependent high revenue from tipping fees, which may not be practicable. The Wainiha hydro project, which had been actively developed in the 1980s, is the second highest scoring project. It has a good combination of low power cost and high scores in 21 March 2005 11-12 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:
Page 235 and 236: Kaua’i Island Utility Cooperative
Page 285: 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?