The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0269.016 2022-2024 p /CounGi Goy.269 From: mak221 Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2023 5:47 AM To: Council Testimony; Evans, Cynthia F.W.; Galimba, Michelle M.; Inaba, Holeka; Kagiwada, Jennifer; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Kimball, Heather; Lee Loy, Sue; Villegas, Rebecca Subject: "Sustainable hydrogen economy" is a lie. Do not pass the Resolution. Dom IOTcs1GN THE CONTRACT. o� Sam -c --s --i-,- TRIGGER WARNING: THE FOLLOWING EMAIL CONTAINS FACTS. ' C) Aloha Councilmembers: The phrase: sustainable hydrogen economy is a scam cooked up, we would guess, by Hutionta and BluePlanet. Boy, wereyou people sold a bill of goods. No one, and I mean no one except the Hydrogen makers Y P p (surprise!) think we're heading into a sustainable hydrogen economy. We are heading into a Solar Powered Electricity economy. Hydrogen MAY be used for Electricity storage. It is Not the future. I really cannot believe the Council fell for this. Please reread the following from Energy Justice in RED. Does this sound like a Hydrogen economy? Only in an alternate universe, or if you've been scammed by Big Money: From the EnergyJustice.net website: The only way to do this is to produce hydrogen by splitting water with wind and solar generated electricity. However, this wastes 4 times the amount of electricity that the hydrogen will actually yield. (Emphasis added) Used directly, that clean energy could be more effective in reducing greenhouse gas pollution: 1 megawatt hour (MWh) of clean electricity used to make hydrogen for a fuel cell car would offset about 500 lbs of carbon dioxide (CO2) from oil; that same amount in the grid could offset 2,200 lbs from a coal plant or 810 lbs from a gas plant. While less energy-intensive than liquefaction, compressing 9Y q P 9 hydrogen still takes 15% of the hydrogen's energy.18 Compressed hydrogen, at very best, would take up at least 4 times as much space in a tank as gasoline for the same Comm. No. 1 Ref. To: Ref. Date MAY - 3 2023 amount of energy.19 Plus the storage tanks for compressed hydrogen cost 100 times the cost of a gas tank. The price of a hydrogen vehicle is $1 million, and would cost about 50% more than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles if mass produced.26 • The range of the vehicle is limited; cars can't carry enough hydrogen to go very far. • Hydrogen fuel is 3-4 times as expensive as gas27 and made from dirty sources. • A huge, over $500 billion fueling infrastructure is needed before people will buy hydrogen cars Mahelo!! Mark Koppel Umauma 2 From: mak221 Sent: Monday, May 01, 2023 1:30 PM To: Evans, Cynthia F.W.; Galimba, Michelle M.; Inaba, Holeka; Kagiwada, Jennifer; Kanealii- Kleinfelder, Matt; Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Kimball, Heather; Lee Loy, Sue; Villegas, Rebecca; Council Testimony; Command, Robert H; PUC; PUC. Comments Subject: message to the Council Forwarded Message From: Mark Koppel _ To: "mak221 @aol.com" Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 at 07:23:27 PM EDT Subject: Fwd: [CPTF] Revised message to the Council Written in opposition to Rec163-23 Aloha Hawaii County Councilmembers. We have two areas about the resolution that we hope you can help us with. 1. Questions about the so-called Alliance 2. Why this resolution is unacceptable to the people of Hawaii 1. Questions about the so-called Alliance As far as we can tell, the following text is the entire resolution. It provides almost no details. Res. 163- 23: AUTHORIZES THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LANCASTER AND NAMIE TOWN ...TO FORM THE PACIFIC HYDROGEN ALLIANCE Allows for a collaborative relationship amongst the City of Lancaster in California. Namie Town in the Prefecture of Fukushima. Japan. and the County of Hawaii to work towards the decarbonization of energy systems by replacing fossil fuels with green electricity, green hydrogen, and biomass. "Pacific Hydrogen Alliance" sounds impressive, but needs more details. What does it mean? Is Hawaii County producing Hydrogen? Who is running this Alliance? It looks like we are outsourcing our resources to mainland and foreign sources, displacing our local businesses. Next, while the resolution admirably celebrates the decarbonization of energy systems, ending fossil fuels, using green energy, it mentions green hydrogen and biomass (sic). 1 Hydrogen cannot be green. It is made from the electrolysis of water. Electrolysis requires energy. Multiple PUC and Supreme Court ruling have affirmed that burning biomass is not green. It is burning something, which produces CO2. Even if trees were replanted, which we have no guarantee of, young trees do not take any CO2, often for years. Using biomass to produce anything, cannot ever be green. Some have proposed using solar and wind to produce "green" hydrogen. However, there are still problems. From the EnergyJustice.net website: The only way to do this is to produce hydrogen by splitting water with wind and solar generated electricity. However, this wastes 4 times the amount of electricity that the hydrogen will actually yield. (Emphasis added) Used directly, that clean energy could be more effective in reducing greenhouse gas pollution: 1 megawatt hour (MWh) of clean electricity used to make hydrogen for a fuel cell car would offset about 500 lbs of carbon dioxide (CO2) from oil; that same amount in the grid could offset 2,200 lbs from a coal plant or 810 lbs from a gas plant. While less energy-intensive than liquefaction, compressing hydrogen still takes 15% of the hydrogen's energy.18 Compressed hydrogen, at very best, would take up at least 4 times as much space in a tank as gasoline for the same amount of energy.19 Plus the storage tanks for compressed hydrogen cost 100 times the cost of a gas tank. The price of a hydrogen vehicle is $1 million, and would cost about 50% more than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles if mass produced.26 •The range of the vehicle is limited; cars can't carry enough hydrogen to go very far. • Hydrogen fuel is 3-4 times as expensive as gas27 and made from dirty sources. • A huge, over$500 billion fueling infrastructure is needed before people will buy hydrogen cars This fact would seem to indicate that there is no use for it, except possibly for storing solar/wind electricity. Our entire world is moving to the non-burning production of electricity. It will power everything. 3. Why this resolution is problematic for the people of Hawaii. We need to know what the Council is committing the people of Hawaii to. With all due respect, Given the State's commitment to truly clean energy sources such as solar and wind, this resolution doesn't seem the way to go. This resolution must be Held or Deferred. Mahalo for reading. We will be at the hearing. Hawaii Clean Power Task Force 2 From: mak221 Sent: Monday, May 01, 2023 12:48 PM To: Council Testimony; Evans, Cynthia F.W.; Galimba, Michelle M.; Inaba, Holeka; Kagiwada, Jennifer; Kanealii-Kleinfelder, Matt; Kierkiewicz, Ashley; Kimball, Heather; Lee Loy, Sue;Villegas, Rebecca; Command, Robert H Subject: Oppose Resolution 163 (Hydrogen) Aloha members of Hawai'i County Council, I strongly Oppose Resolution 163 (Hydrogen) This proposed resolution, which will only have one hearing, authorizes the Mayor to execute agreement terms unknown with cities in California and Japan which host hydrogen corporations. The purpose is to "advance towards a hydrogen society". This is a RED FLAG to pass sweeping, vaguely worded commitments, with minimal debate and less than a week's notice to the public. Our trust is stretched thin. This isn't the first time we have seen the council rushing to 'innovate' without a diligent process. The last time was Resolution 73, which supported up-ending the entire county solid waste plan in three short years to benefit the Yummet corporation. Resolution 73 passed before receiving an in- depth report from Douglass Adams, the Hawai'i County Director of Research and Development Management, who was sent to assess Yummet's operations on the continent. Voting in favor of a special interest pushing a questionable agenda is already a breach of faith. Doing so without making an effort to hear from and interrogate the county agency charged with conducting due diligence regarding that special interest is inexcusable. Here we are again, Res 163 is a rushed, ill-informed, extremely vague va proposed resolution that has not made a clear case that it is in the interest of our people or 'aina. NOT economically, NOT environmentally. NOT a sound or just, energy commitment. It is a gamble on an emerging energy sector that has an inestimable timeline to ROI and inestimable unintended negative impacts. Unanswered questions I have are; - Why the big rush? - How does this not compete with the state's "Hawaii Pacific Hydrogen Hub" initiative? - Is the county council aware of the details of the agreement and our commitment of staff time or funds? - How is this not a distraction from other more pressing demands on county staff resources to provide oversight and managing protections for family housing, potable water, wastewater, roads, local food ag, etc.? The council would be blatantly abdicating its responsibility to taxpayers if it approves the vague language in Resolution 163 and authorizes the Mayor to "execute, on behalf of the County an agreement, and related documents. . ." Please take the time to understand the facts around this resolution and allow the public also to understand the promises and impacts. Passing anything this vague is corrosive and will damage our trust in you, our current council of representatives. Thank you for your time and consideration, Mark Koppel Umauma