Civil Beat’s poll question regarding the proposed undersea cable to move electricity generated on other islands to Oahu provided another example of a basic lesson in survey research–How you pose the question often determines the answer.
The survey asked registered voters, “Do you support or oppose Hawaii’s plan to construct underwater cables between some of the islands to transmit electricity from wind, geothermal, solar, and other power sources?”
The plain vanilla wording of the question assumes several things. It assumes people know enough about the “plan” to have an informed decision. It assumes they are familiar with the actual or potential negative environmental, social, and economic impacts of the cable, and assumes they weigh the pros and cons in order to come to a conclusion, “support” or “oppose.”
If those assumptions aren’t true, then the poll result doesn’t mean much in the scheme of things. Does it show that opponents of the project have not yet gotten the attention of the general public? Perhaps. But it certainly doesn’t support the Civil Beat headline, “Hawaii wants undersea cable.”
What if the question was phrased in a way that reminded respondents of the controversial aspects of the cable?
There are lots of possibilities. I’ll suggest several.
Q: Do you support the state’s plan to construct underwater cables to transmit electricity through environmentally sensitive Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary?
Q: Do you think the State should be able to impose major energy projects on local communities, like a proposed wind farm with 90 turbine towers, each 42 stories high, despite near unanimous opposition of residents?
Q: Should the state give priority to locally produced renewable energy projects or spend upwards of $3 billion building an inter island transmission system so that neighbor island sources will power Oahu’s energy future?
Those are not elegant, but what do you expect with the first cup of coffee in the morning?
Write your own version of the question and post it as a comment, below.
Count me as dubious not against. I doubted it would work 20 years or so ago.Key question is the depth of Alenuihihaha channel between Big Island and Maui. It is deepest, I believe, in the island chain and certainly one with greatest dangers.
Until the technology is determined, it seems senseless to argue the economics.
Do you support the construction of an inefficient energy transport system (an undersea cable) to provide renewable energy to the island of Oahu or locally-generated alternate energy investments without expensive and inefficient transportation costs?
Do you support the spending of billions of dollars, financed by HECO customers, to construct a cable system, with environmental issues of its own, to trasnport non-firm power between islands when there is no strategy in place for fully integrating non-firm power, as evidenced by HECO’s limit on PV systems on O’ahu?
The question is slanted. It mentions solar–which is really not part of the argument for a cable– but does not mention the transmission of fossil fuel generated electricity which surely IS part of the plan for the cable.
i’d be for it if it actually meant cheaper electricity. plug HNL into geothermal. what probably would happen is we’ll pay the same or higher rates, and some company will make a ton of money. not into that.
The fact remains that with isolated island by island grids, there isn’t any way to benefit from surplus power on one island. With little or no storage capacity, each island must produce sufficient power to meet demands that vary throughout the day and supply it every day. These demands are closely tied to the environmental conditions — hot day, no trades, high AC demand — these things can’t always be anticipated. Given aging and/or unreliable equipment, I think a case can be made for sharing power between islands. While I don’t want to diminish environmental protection, I think the survey is the right thing to do.
As an electrical engineer my opinion is that this is far and away the best argument for the submarine cable. This is often mentioned as one of the benefits of the interstate grid on the mainland. If you have extra generating capacity in Idaho and you need more power in New York you pump it across country. There is none of this petty parochial bickering about one region being “burdened” with generating power for another location. It is accepted as beneficial to all because next week the power may flow in the other direction. In addition, it allows companies to build generating capacity, of whatever technology, where it makes most economic sense.
As for the supposed harmful effects of the electromagnetic radiation, I spent several years in a previous life dealing with radiation effects, both nuclear and electromagnetic. We are all literally bathed in incidental electormagnetic radiation and have been for our entire lives. I have never seen any solid science which conclusively demonstrates health or environmental effects of electromagnetic radiation except under the most extreme circumstances, like the inside of a microwave oven. Anyone who asserts differently and continues to press a cell phone to the side of their head is… well you supply the word.
Both Doug’s and Etoa’s comments appear to be based on our current demand-based consumption model.
IMO, we’d be better off spending resources on moving toward an availability-based consumption model than on interisland cables. Besides the cost of construction and the environmental costs, such long lines will also dissipate a lot of energy in transmission.
We’ve already taken some steps toward availability-based consumption, e.g., notably ice storage AC, smart meters on Kaua’i. The 500 pound gorilla (or is it really 800 pounds?) is, of course, plug-in electric cars.
What a rail ballot question like poll. Speaking of which I got push polled by pro rail forces. Will vague cable questions be on the ballot next?
Based on my previous post I would phrase the question as follows:
Would you support the construction of a submarine cable to transmit power between islands to improve the reliability of electrical power statewide and allow construction of electrical generating capacity, of whatever technology, where it makes most economic sense?
Isn’t the cost of construction and maintenance of such a cable a major part of determining “where it makes the most economic sense?”
“Would you support the construction of a submarine cable to transmit power between islands to improve the reliability of electrical power statewide and allow construction of electrical generating capacity, of whatever technology, where it makes most economic sense?”
If someone asked me that, my first thought would be that they were planning on turning Molokai and Lanai into smokestack islands!
You are joking, right? It would be prohibitively expensive to build and operate anything like smokestack industry on either Molokai or Lanai. They don’t have adequate ports, on island infrastructure , skilled labor, water and just about anything else that is required.
What effect would these cables have on our fisheries? Have there been any studies about this?
If Oahu has to depend upon the resources from islands like Molokai and Lanai, should the people on those islands be compensated with lower electricity rates?
Then there’s a question about our islands self-sufficiency and sustainability. It’s said that geothermal can supply all of our state’s power requirements without emitting greenhouse gasses.
What are we willing to risk and pay for certain gains?
And can we find ways to consume less power in order to reduce the overall demand?
If Oahu has to depend upon the resources from islands like Molokai and Lanai, should the people on those islands be compensated with lower electricity rates?
Why!! Do the people of New York have to compensate the people of Tennesse with lower electrical rates because the TVA provides power to New York? No. The whole idea stems from a “oh poor me, we’re so exploited” kind of attitude. My feeling is that if the people of Molokai and Lanai want to exist as hunter, gatherer societies then let them. Have the cable bypass those islands and go directly to Maui and the Big Island. I guarentee that will trigger a “oh poor me, we’re being excluded” response.
Do you favor building more renewable energy systems or more transmission lines?
Trust me. I am a politician. Without seeing any economic analyses, I assure you that if you pay $1-3 billion you will get lower your electricity rates and I will get campaign contributions. What could possibly go wrong?
Do you prefer to send billions of dollars every year out of state to for-profit entities & foreign despots, emitting tons of CO2 into the atmosphere & increasing climate change, putting our young adults in harm’s way in foreign countries in order to bring petroleum back to the United States, and drilling in environmentally sensitive areas like the Arctic OR building an undersea cable to transport wind and geothermal renewable energy resources.
NOTE: In order to provide windpower to 950,000 people on O`ahu, we would have to install more than 7000 – that’s seven thousand – windmills which would cost us about $140 billion.
#####################
5/1/2012 S Reconsideration of action taken on 04-12-12 in disagreeing to the House amendments.
5/1/2012 S Senate agrees with House amendments, with Senators Chun Oakland, Ihara and Slom voting “NO”. Placed on the calendar for Final Reading on 05-03-12.
5/1/2012 H Received notice of all Senate conferees being discharged (Sen. Com. No. 834).
5/3/2012 S Passed Final Reading. 22 Aye(s); Aye(s) with reservations: Senator(s) English, Fukunaga, Ige, Ihara, Kim, Nishihara, Ryan, Shimabukuro, Tokuda, Wakai . 3 No(es): Senator(s) Chun Oakland, Hee, Slom. 0 Excused: none.
Thank you for doing the right thing.
I just need to comment that this has been such an excellent discussion. I especially thank Etoh Nrish for thinking about the big picture — I have to say that even though I’m not a big fan of the undersea cable because of it’s inefficiencies, I would vote yes on his question because I agree that we need to get away from the concept of each island being self-sustaining and instead think of a state-wide energy grid.
The poll question does seem to have been rather simple and vague. Even if one looks at those in the political leadership who support the undersea cable, reasons differ. Abercrombie has always supported the cable, but it would be a cable from Oahu to Maui and the Big Island for the transmission of electricity produced by geothermal.
There are also big differences within the opposition to the cable. Above, Ian cites largely idealistic reasons to question the cable — whales, impacts on small communities, economic imperialism. These might be important questions. But these are not questions that are being always asked in a serious way. Will there be serious environmental impacts to wildlife? Do people on the outer islands live like noble ecologists? Are these communities living really independently from a rapacious Oahu? Many voices say “no” to all three of these questions.
But there are also opponents, like Henry Curtis and Hugh Clark, who cite objections to the cable that are grounded in realism. The cable would be a billion-dollar investment in an ocean environment far harsher than where other cables have been laid. One of the perceived goals of the utility seems to have the tax payers and rate payers pay for the cable, then have the utility take ownership of it and jack up rates. Also, despite the assertion that a bigger energy grid is a more stable grid, it depends on the sources of energy. The wind turbines would be an intermittent source of energy, supposedly making the grid less stable; this is the reason, or at least pretext, why the utility severely restricts the number of PV solar panels connected to the grid (even though Kauai’s independent utility has no such restrictions).
Another realistic reason to oppose the cable is that … it probably will not happen. Even if everyone were for it, it seems dubious. Think of the so-called SuperFerry. If you were a sober businessman (or an accomplished sailor), would you invest your money in a high-speed, inter-island commuting ferry system in the middle of an ocean? A low-speed ferry in a place like Puget Sound might make sense, but a high-speed craft across an ocean channel? Also, factor in some small-town inept management, and you’ve got a made-for-failure project that the elite will later claim died because of ten surfers and a rich nimby.
The Civil Beat poll would have been much more interesting if it could have captured the variety of divergent beliefs among the respondents who claimed to support the cable.
BTW, Civil Beat reported that the State legislature revived a bill for the undersea cable, asserting that the cable was not dead after all. But the bill only mandated that if a cable was built, it would be regulated by the PUC. But that does not mean that the cable is alive and well. It seems that the politicians are all too aware of the possibility that the utility will have ratepayers and taxpayers pay for the cable, then the utility will take ownership of it. It means that even the local politicians are at least a bit wary of a utility that these local politicians have colluded with in the past.
They may not be sinking a cable but it looks like they have the tariff all figured out …just in case. See Disappeared news and watch the lege video on u-tube. WHAT A CROCK OF HOG WASH. Maui is now a power center….we have 16 or 18 windmills…big deal. We will have a few more but there is no wave power or algae revved up to go…or giant PV systems. We have several stinko diesel burning generators producing 82% of our electricity. What the heck are they selling here? Makes me very nervous.