I'm a few days late on this, but it seems significant.
Hawaii's Republican (oops, did I italicize that?) Governor Linda Lingle has proposed a new bill called "Energy for Tomorrow." You can read the original press release (here as PDF; here converted to HTML) or a shorter fact sheet (PDF; HTML). The five major components:
- "Savings through Efficiency"
- "Independence through Renewable Energy"
- "Fuels through Farming"
- "Security through Technology"
- "Empowering Hawaii's Consumers"
It draws heavily on the Rocky Mountain Institute's Winning the Oil Endgame, and aims to make the state most dependent on fossil-fuel imports energy independent. Bold.
From a story in Renewable Energy Access:
According to [RMI Senior Director of Research & Consulting] Datta, the increase in oil prices since 2002 has cost Hawaii more than $1 billion, and increased energy expenses more then $1500 per household. Hawaii has no fossil fuel resources, but it does have a full portfolio of renewable energy resources.
...
Implementation of all the conservation, renewable energy, and alternative transportation fuels components of this package, Datta said, is expected by the year 2020 to displace 110.5 million barrels of imported crude oil-saving Hawaii's consumers $6.32 billion; and avoiding 48.9 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
If this makes it through the legislature and is actually enacted, it could be a wicked pilot project for the nation at large.
(via Gil Friend)
Comments
View as Flat
cjtfire13 Posted 5:22 am
20 Jan 2006
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:37 pm
20 Jan 2006
"RMI's position on nuclear power is that:
It's too expensive. Nuclear power has proved much more costly than projected--and more to the point, more costly than most other ways of generating or saving electricity. If utilities and governments are serious about markets, rather than propping up pet technologies at the expense of ratepayers, they should pursue the best buys first."
"Nuclear power plants are not only expensive, they're also financially extremely risky because of their long lead times, cost overruns, and open-ended liabilities."
"Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change. True, nukes don't produce carbon dioxide--but the power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change."
"And of course nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal and the proliferation of potential nuclear weapons material. (However, RMI tends to stress the economic arguments foremost because they carry more weight with decision-makers.)"
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid305.php
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink