||| FROM RIKKI SWIN |||
Solar power works well in many places — but NOT HERE The San Juan Islands have some of the lowest solar potential in the continental U.S. due to latitude, persistent clouds, fog, and rain — among the most difficult and lowest output in the lower 48. For site-specific estimates, use www.GlobalSolarAtlas.info/map or NREL’s PVWatts tool. This is not NIMBY it is NITWP (Not In The Wrong Place)
If a Submarine Cable goes bad – OPALCO solar will not help. A damaged cable will take days or longer to repair, solar microgrids will only supply power for a few hours (and not everyone).
Solar grids here will not help the environment one bit! OPALCO power is already carbon-free! BPA is hydro power which is renewable and carbon free.
Solar expansion on Decatur Island will increase our carbon footprint. When you cut down trees you increase carbon in the atmosphere. Living trees absorb carbon dioxide so when you cut them down less carbon is absorbed.
Did OPALCO Members (not solar subscribers) purchase 2 million $ of solar panels BEFORE approval for Bailer Hill? And now they must force those panels onto Decatur Island? Who paid the cost of these panels? YOU?
Member Funded Solar is smoke and mirrors! Solar subscribers pay up front but in return they receive monthly bill credits. The lost revenue translates to everyone paying for the solar microgrids – not just the subscribers.
OPALCO says microgrids are needed for resilience against increasing mainland outages. BPA is not warning of any such thing. BPA is also not encouraging OPALCO to build anything. (This surprised me,….BPA supplies 12-14 million people across Idaho, Oregon, Washington, western Montana and parts of California and Nevada, Utah, Wyoming and eastern Montana)
Critical facilities (healthcare, fire stations, water treatment) already have on-site backup. This is standard practice and required by law.
Solar microgrids are ugly! Yes – Subjective – but I can’t find anyone that thinks they are beautiful. And what about the animal habitats they destroy?
We don’t need ANY solar – we are a retirement Community- No vital factories or major businesses. Local residents have individual options 1) Wait 2) Generator 3) Rooftop solar (no payback) 4) get a battery backup for your computer ($500). I lived in Victoria for about 10 years and we had power failures every so often and we waited until they fixed it. That’s how it was in Chicago when I lived there years ago.
OPALCO is planning many solar microgrids San Juan, Orcas, Lopez, Shaw, Blakely, Decatur . Current focus: expansions like Bailer Hill (San Juan Island) and Decatur additions.
Total project costs estimates of 50–60 million $ for all planned microgrids. Examples: Decatur (~$ several million, partially member-funded); Bailer Hill has secured ~$2.4M in grid modernization grants + $1M for low-income assistance. Local renewable generation—which directly supports microgrid expansions through solar arrays, energy storage systems (ESS), and tidal pilots—is estimated at $56.9 million total per OPALCO
OPALCO planned microgrids will consume 100’s of acres. Decatur current: ~3.6 acres; proposed expansion: up to ~8–19 acres (cleared second-growth forest). Bailer Hill: 19 acres. Hypothetical larger visions (e.g., offsetting future demand) discuss 135–218 acres per ferry-served island!
Website: www.OurOpalco.com
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Hello,
OPALCO’s solar implementation is quite flawed and I am not surprised by the ire fostered by OPALCO’s duplicitous depictions of a last-millenium-utility-strategy–and its merits. For example: OPALCO penalizes rooftop solar providers.
Rooftop solar is an excellent solution for (backup) power in the community, when tied to a rational strategy for energy storage that promotes DERs. Unfortunately, OPALCO’s misguided attempts to centralize power generation (so 20th century!) has crippled DERs and residential solar growth for the San Juan Islands.
These statements will make more sense to you once you install solar and batteries in your residence. It’s really a very good idea.
Decentralized Energy Resources, DERs promote a modern, flexible grid: They can reduce transmission losses and enhance resiliency during outages if needed. DERs can even qualify as an economical approach for summer-only occupancy (summer-home). However, all solar is rather questionable in the San Juan’s . Click on the solar atlas link in the original text above and see how poorly our area is rated. It’s due to our northern latitude and marine conditions, i.e. fog, rain, mist, clouds. If you just want backup for possible outages – get a generator , gas or diesel. Far less expensive than solar. Check out the new website for more information on OPALCO. http://www.OurOpalco.com
It is interesting that a submission can be so right and so wrong at the same time.
It’s right on about the low insolation available in this geographical area. This aspect of our area was used (by a governmental change of a decimal point in the 1970s) to make it look worse to justify nuclear power. A few of us may remember.
It’s dead wrong in asserting that solar doesn’t work here. We had solar on Waldron for 20 years and lived like royalty, thanks to LED light bulbs and transistorized electronics. The clue, as Dan points out, is storage, which OPALCO expects to include into the mix.
The logical flaw in Rikki’s argument is that people think a low solar output is a system feasibility killer because it “only” generates a fraction of full sun output. First, cloudy days generate more power than people think. Second, the cumulative power in kilowatt-hours (in other words, real world energy) is considerable.
What determines whether a silent, low visibility form of generation works isn’t “cloudy environments kill solar feasibility”, but rather we kill it by misreading the numbers and the reality of power economics. Of course large solar arrays in the coastal Northwest will not be feasible investments for those seeking profits. But such installations, to make money, must match wholesale power prices, not retail prices, which is our target. This difference alone tilts feasibility for solar as a distributed energy resource. (DER). For OPALCO’s members, solar DERs make good sense for those who can afford installation. Work the Switch-It-Up numbers and you’ll see.
OPALCO is in a different situation. It is not a retail user, and so needn’t match retail rates. Instead, OPALCO’s prime concern is resilience to support its sole legal reason to exist. A second reason is to gain the ability to shave the top of high demand times (winter and summer peak use hours) to avoid hitting the BPA surcharge when BPA has to go into the market and buy power at 50 or 100 times its normal charge to us to do exactly what OPALCO does: keep the power flowing. The saving can be considerable. Some may remember he last time this happened. Market resilience has a cost.
Then there’s physical resilience. Few are aware of the condition of the Northwest power grid, but those who are, are not optimists. I won’t go into it here beyond saying, “No, solar and batteries won’t run our county grid, but every little bit helps and if the Northwest grid goes down, we’re going to need it.”
Yes, Rikki, individual diesel and gas generators solve individual problems, but add to the carbon load the planet is suffering. This county, and OPALCO both have recognized an obligation to the planet, and the choice of a solar installation reflects that value. It is only human to vary from large general commitments when personal convenience is threatened. Think of the human race in a ship, with each human drilling a small hole in the hull below the water line for, say, a cooling spray of water down in the hold near the hot engine. Each figures that their act is insignificant but the cumulative effect, though slow, is colossal… I don’t need to go on.
Much is being said about OPALCO’s effort on Decatur Island, as to which there is an excellent article about it in the Journal of the San Juans at https://www.sanjuanjournal.com/news/solar-debate-on-decatur-sparks-conversation-about-cooperative-governance/ (Sorry Lin). But we should remember that it isn’t OPALCO that is creating the need for power. It is us, who come here to re-balance ourselves in nature while continuing mainland habits of consumption that threaten it. And here I’ll stop because with this issue, I lose everyone, all of us, each of whom is convinced to the core that it is someone else’s fault. Don’t blame it on OPALCO. If someone has a better idea than “Do nothing!” I hope they’ll let OPALCO know … and the rest of us too.
This is not a problem for simplistic thinking.
If the added solar can maintain our rates and assist the grid, then I see that as a partial win as long as Opalco will pass those savings along. Bonneville is at it’s lowest generation capacity in the Summer months, when for us, Solar generation is at it’s peak. Not the most efficient but one more tool in the toolbox. I wonder if the old landfill behind the exchange would be the perfect spot of a solar array.
That’s a good point, Wade. Solar is not going to help us much in the depths of winter when the temps fall to 15 degrees and PSE has to buy power at exorbitant rates from fossil-fueled suppliers. But it can feed power to the grid in the summer months when hydropower wanes due to low water flows and high demand comes from air conditioners on the mainland. Maybe there’s a trade off there.
Bill, Thanks for your input. I try to be as non-technical as possible so more members will grasp what is going on – how we are being manipulated. That said, I have no problem backing up all my points with technicals and pure science. I don’t engage in “simplistic thinking” as you put it, just easy to understand points. HOwever, that said, here is some technical support for the items you questioned:
While small-scale, off-grid setups can function with extreme efficiency and lifestyle adjustments (e.g., minimal consumption), utility-scale projects like OPALCO’s face different realities. The San Juan Islands have some of the lowest solar potential in the continental U.S., with average specific production around 947 kWh per kW installed annually due to the rainshadow effect—far below the national average of 1,200–1,500 kWh/kW/year or sunny regions like Arizona (1,800+). This means more panels and land are needed for equivalent output, driving up costs and environmental impact. Their Waldron example is anecdotal and doesn’t scale to OPALCO’s needs, where winter cloud cover (when demand peaks) drastically reduces output—solar might cover just 1% of the co-op’s total load even after expansion.
Storage helps smooth intermittency, but in low-insolation areas like ours, it amplifies inefficiencies—you need oversized batteries to store limited generation, inflating costs (e.g., OPALCO’s Decatur expansion includes battery storage but still requires clearing 6–8 acres of forest for marginal gains). Cloudy output is diffuse (10–30% of peak), but annual totals remain low; data shows our region’s insolation is insufficient for reliable baseload without heavy subsidies or grid reliance. If cumulative power were truly “considerable,” why the ongoing controversy over projects yielding only modest power while risking fire hazards, soil disturbance, and habitat loss for endangered species like Townsend’s big-eared bats? This isn’t misreading numbers—it’s basic math on ROI in a cloudy climate.
Low output absolutely impacts feasibility when scaled up, especially for a co-op like OPALCO that’s not just matching retail rates but dealing with wholesale realities and grants. The Decatur expansion aims for 2.1 MW but faces opposition precisely because the benefits (e.g., 2,275 MWh/year) don’t justify the costs—$1M/mile for grid ties if not near substations, plus environmental trade-offs like reduced carbon sequestration from forest clearing. For DER, it might pencil out for affluent members via incentives, but co-op-wide? It’s forcing industrial-scale solar on preserved land, ignoring alternatives like rooftops or already-cleared sites that residents proposed (five options dismissed without full review). Profit-seeking isn’t the only lens—public pushback highlights how these projects create “industrial blight” in a tourism-dependent area, eroding the natural charm that draws people here.
Resilience is valid, but solar+batteries in our low-sun winters (when heating demand spikes) offer limited peak shaving—summer peaks might benefit more, but overall, it’s a band-aid on aging submarine cables and growing demand from electrification. Savings from avoiding surcharges (50–100x normal) sound big, but quantify it: the expansion might save on market buys, yet upfront costs (land purchase, clearing) and risks (e.g., no decommissioning plan) outweigh them, especially with grants tied to low-income programs that don’t address core issues. Grid optimism is low, sure, but distributed diesel/gas gens provide immediate, reliable backup without permanent landscape alteration. If “every little bit helps,” why not prioritize less invasive options first?
Clearing 20 acres of forest for solar releases stored carbon, harms biodiversity, and contradicts climate goals—Friends of the San Juans called it “counterproductive,” urging use of cleared lands instead. Diesel does emit, but individual gens are targeted solutions without co-op-scale environmental disruption (e.g., no bat habitat loss or soil erosion). The ship analogy cuts both ways: each forest cleared for marginal solar gain is a “hole” in local ecosystems, especially when tribal consultations were superficial (e.g., ignoring sacred sites on Decatur). OPALCO’s carbon commitment is noble, but deed restrictions on the land (Native Growth Covenant) legally prohibit this development, making it flawed from the start.
Consumption is the root, but OPALCO’s governance has fueled distrust—residents feel unheard, with proposals for an Energy Security Advisory Committee ignored and communication breakdowns eroding co-op principles. It’s not “do nothing”—alternatives include tidal energy (which OPALCO explored but sidelined), rooftop solar incentives, or siting on non-forested land to avoid 95% island opposition. Simplistic? Hardly—this is about balanced, member-driven decisions, not top-down projects that “ruin the charm” of our islands.
And more important than all the above and all my other points – WE ARE A RETIREMENT COMMUNITY! BPA is not warning or suggesting we do anything – they have it covered according to them. Why do we need 50 million $ of short term back up for anything? Critical facilities already have generators – they don’t need this. We don’t have any critical industry or businesses – why can’t we be inconvenienced like the rest of the country if an outage occurs? Dump this unnecessary program and get to work on redundant cables and stop the financial mismanagement of OPALCO – it’s costing us a bloody fortune to support their whims and experimental programs.
ooops I forgot to include the OPALCO member website http://www.OurOpalco.com
Thanks, Rikki.
A couple of thoughts.
First, BPA has no obligation to warn anyone of anything, though they will, per contract, give notice of insufficiency. The power industry runs weeks, days and sometimes hours ahead, but when things start to break as they did when Enron payed hob with the market, the power management section is like an airport control tower when planes are crowding incoming and outgoing.
Second, the Internet has a lot of information, and an AI can get (and invent) far more than we can. But notwithstanding, reality prevails. No matter what is on the internet, I’ve lived fully solar (wood (short carbon cycle) heat and cooking. Hallie and I agree that those years on Waldron were the happiest of our lives. Some define happiness in other terms, but living in a state of wonder and appreciation in a close community few can enjoy today moves us to a quiet joy. I’m here to tell the world that used right and not carelessly or wastefully, solar works and can moreover keep an EV (on Waldron) charged.
Third, I fully understand the feelings on and about Decatur. As we invest more of our lives here, we, too, take on a tinge of a people who are not only on the land buying and selling it, but also becoming of the land. As we live on a place giving us life, even if only air, water, and spiritual grounding, we become in debt to the land. For those who don’t or can’t adjust their lenses to see this, I recommend Leslie Silko’s novel Ceremony, said to be the greatest Native American novel written. I support OPALCO’s efforts to serve because that is its function; the fact that as you say this is a retirement community makes reliable clean power all the more necessary.
Finally, I think there is a serious and pervasive confusion about governance. Yes, members want to be heard, and they are heard. The message that OPALCO obviously hears louder than even calls for governance change (however that would work out) is, “We want reliable power, we choose not to conserve, and since you won’t serve our profligate habits while we enjoy our retirements (huge TVs, heat on overnight, outdoor lighting, resistance heating and cooking, etc.) we will change your behavior, OPALCO, but will not change ourselves or our behavior because we are the boss; it is our right.”
I have had a lot of experience with co-ops in the course of nearly 60 years of practicing law. Uprisings to experiment with governance by people who (1) don’t understand what it really is, and (2) who insist that it is their right to continue irrational behavior, destroys the co-op. And I think that failing or more to the point refusing to conserve and live more lightly on land they profess to love is exactly why Decatur, the land and those whose past is deeply and literally embedded in its soil are doomed to suffer. It is not OPALCO that is the problem, It is us, wielding the entitlement that comes from ownership rather than a symbiosis with where we live.
Poetic? Idealistic? The consequences of where we are are neither. OPALCO is responding rationally with a situation we members have created and are exacerbating. It isn’t OPALCO’s governance that is at fault. It is ours.
Solar is a least harm solution to a problem that we, not OPALCO, has created. .
All that and you still have not said why we can’t go without electricity for a few hours?
Keep in mind that what OPALCO is building will only supply power for a few hours (and not to everyone).
What makes us so important? Why spend 50-60 million $ for a couple hours of electricity?
It’s really that simple.
http://www.OurOpalco.com
A couple hours? How could we, or anyone, know that an event would be that short? A major disruption could take more than a few hours as systems disconnected to save themselves from overload get in sync and on line. Neither OPALCO, nor individual members in their personal capacities feeling free to make such assumptions on behalf of the entire county can make that assumption.
If the Northwest grid fails, it will be longer than a few hours, in which case OPALCO can exercise triage with what power it has. It isn’t merely a member’s personal inconvenient that is risked in a power interruption. Looking at such an interval as small change ignores the very real economic damage suffered by a county’s economy by an unplanned power interruption. It is normal for individuals to accept inconveniences while ignoring the consequences suffered by others who fail to live as we do, or whose circumstances are straitened.
In addition, as has already been mentioned, peak shaving has a real value by preventing our being hit with BPA contract Tier 2 (market) rates if and when our demand exceeds the contracted amount with BPA.
The proposed solar enlargement cannot rationally be criticized because it isn’t enough. Of course it isn’t enough! It constitutes a second solar step toward energy resilience. No doubt the third step will be similarly attacked. This is a long term project.
As to what makes us so important? Compared to what exactly? We live in a place and period that is ruled by economics. I have already mentioned above the book Ceremony that draws a clear comparison between Native American values (at their best incorporating forgiveness) and modern economics (at its worst which absent bankruptcy, is unforgiving). This wasn’t OPALCO’s choice, it was and is ours. We can individually choose to live in either or in a mixture of the two ways, but OPALCO is constrained to abide by the laws of physics and economics, and such human-inspired values as are embedded in federal, state and local laws.
We, as individuals, can say what we want, as in this column we are. But no matter how strong or deep our solastalgia, OPALCO must and so will exert its efforts to fulfill its mission: to serve its members with an adequate supply of as environmentally clean power as practicable as reliably as it can. Yes, there are tradeoffs which as I’ve mentioned, are embedded in regulatory measures. There always will be. Our civilization has chosen its route, and OPALCO’s members, all of them. have the power to simplify OPALCO’s route by reducing their demand for power. So far, the demand for the convenience of electric energy has only grown.
Bill,
Thank you for your detailed response—it’s a robust defense of OPALCO’s approach, and I respect the passion for long-term resilience. However, I stand by my critique: the microgrids, while well-intentioned, fall short of delivering meaningful, scalable backup for our community’s needs, especially when weighed against their costs and limitations. Let me address your points directly and firmly.
First, on outage uncertainty and the assumption of “a couple hours”: You’re correct that no one can guarantee short durations—major grid events could extend well beyond that due to reconnection challenges or overload protections. But that’s precisely why OPALCO’s systems are inadequate. Per OPALCO’s own documentation and PNNL analyses, Decatur provides only ~2–4 hours of partial backup (e.g., ~500 homes at summer peak, less in winter), and Bailer Hill is scoped for similar short-term support to select Friday Harbor circuits (hospital, fire station, etc.). These aren’t built for multi-day or county-wide failures like a submarine cable break or prolonged mainland disruption. If we’re serious about preparing for uncertainty, why invest millions in solutions that explicitly don’t scale to longer events? Triage with limited power is a fallback, not a plan—it’s reactive patching, not proactive resilience.
On broader impacts beyond “personal inconvenience”: I don’t ignore the economic ripple effects—tourism hits ($200M+ annual economy), spoiled food, medical disruptions, and stranded ferries hurt everyone. But let’s be clear: our San Juan Islands are primarily a retirement and tourism community, not a hub of critical industry or high-stakes operations. We lack the dense, interconnected infrastructure of major cities like Seattle (with its tech giants, hospitals serving millions, port operations, and data centers) or Bellingham (manufacturing, universities, and transportation hubs). In those areas, even brief outages can cascade into massive economic losses (e.g., $1B+ from a day-long Seattle blackout) and life-threatening disruptions for vulnerable populations on a far larger scale. Here, we can more readily absorb short interruptions—most residents are retirees or seasonal, and essentials like the hospital, fire station and water treatment already have generators for extended backup. Prioritizing “uninterrupted” power here over more urgent regional needs feels disproportionate and somewhat selfish, especially when the microgrids only cover hours for a fraction of users.
Regarding peak shaving and Tier 2 avoidance: This is a fair benefit, with PNNL crediting demand reductions and transmission deferrals (e.g., ~$700k lifetime for Decatur). But it’s not unique to centralized solar—demand response programs, member incentives for load shifting, or efficiency upgrades could achieve similar savings without the high upfront costs or land impacts. BPA rates are rising anyway (5–9% annual), so hedging Tier 2 is smart, but not at the expense of alternatives that might deliver better ROI.
As for the “incremental” nature: Calling this a “second step” toward resilience doesn’t change the math—each step costs millions (Decatur ~$3M+; Bailer Hill projected higher), yet the output remains limited to hours and partial loads. “Of course it isn’t enough” isn’t a compelling justification; it’s an admission that the current path may never scale sufficiently without endless additions. Future steps will face the same scrutiny if they don’t address core gaps like duration and coverage. This isn’t opposition to progress—it’s demanding evidence that the trajectory justifies the member-funded expense.
Finally, on economics vs. values: I appreciate the reference to Ceremony and the unforgiving nature of modern systems. OPALCO must navigate physics, regulations, and contracts—but as a member-owned co-op, it should also reflect our community’s priorities: preserving our island’s character, minimizing land use, and focusing on practical, low-impact solutions. Demand growth is a factor, but OPALCO could lead more aggressively on reduction (stronger rebates, education) rather than building out generation that adds fixed costs. Our “importance” isn’t zero, but compared to urban centers like Seattle or Bellingham—where power failures disrupt essential services for hundreds of thousands—our needs are more manageable with simpler backups. We can prioritize affordability and equity over expansive projects that benefit only subsets for short periods.
rikki swin
http://www.OurOpalco.com
I would really like to see a quantitative comparison of the two strategies at play here:
1. Centralized generation and storage as proposed by OPALCO
2. End-node resilience as proposed by Rikki
To learn a little more about what #2 looks like, here is a whitepaper from EG4. These types of devices can be mounted in a garage or back of the home/business and when coupled with a backup battery can offer a really interesting set of benefits, such as:
– Grid sell-back
– Peak shaving
– Load shifting
– Emergency backup
– Generator and local solar integration (all automatic)
– Grid interconnect safety
https://eg4electronics.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/EG4-GridBOSS-and-FlexBOSS21-Product-Launch.pdf
I use EG4 products and am very satisfied. There are other vendors too.
How does the OPALCO strategy compare in cost and functionality to spending a similar amount of funds in incentivizing the installation of such equipment at customer sites? Certainly option #2 does not have the environmental and real estate cost of #1
I don’t know the answer to this, but a data-driven analysis would be helpful. I have yet to see OPALCO engage this question.
Hi Rikki, I’m enjoying this conversation if only because we are dealing more in facts rather than passion-induced factoids!
Concerning incrementalism: your argument could have been applied to OPALCO’s beginnings. Fortunately, that argument didn’t stop the county from being, certain outer islands excepted, from full electrical service. Nor is anyone born an adult. It takes time and patience to create what OPALCO is aiming for, and yes, there will be natural and aesthetic costs which merely by being here, we have implied from the beginning. OPALCO is seeking to fulfill its role responsibly not only to it service area, but also to the planet, which latter matter most of us prefer to ignore in favor of our local (tourist and real estate) concerns, amounting to a conflicting economic pressure. The mere human presence requires this continuous act of balancing.
I think that OPALCO funds many or most of its projects of this nature from grants, not member rate payments. As I understand it, OPALCO has lost grants because of member resistance causing deadlines not to be met. In this sense, the numbers do, or could, work over time, just as Biden tried to jump-start EVs to respond to climate instability. Climate response actions, being on a scale beyond us, require money from beyond us.
OPALCO has limited power to do effectively and fairly what you propose in your last paragraph. It lacks the regulatory power that the county has (Seattle City Light can do what you suggest as it is a government entity; OPALCO is not), but perhaps more to the point, OPALCO is caught on another dilemma: the less-well-off use, for instance, resistance heating in rented space that may or may not be well-insulated. They are the first hit is a rate structure to which the better-off are not only unaware, but also effectively immune. So we have been forced into the conundrum: everyone wins, or no one wins. We’re in the second category.
I’m only saying that if all other means are frustrated, as indeed they have been, start small. And in OPALCO’s case, having grant money to tilt the economics in its, and its members’ favor, it makes economic sense. The use of external funds for internal (as well as external) benefit make sense.
Bill, I have just added a page to the http://www.OurOpalco.com website that breaks down the OPALCO solar funding. I think you will be surprised to learn that most (2/3) of the solar funding comes from members (not subscribers). Subscribers for Decatur paid 850K up front but got bill credits in return, and actual members paid 1.45 million – in rate increases – but OPALCO didn’t call it solar – they hid it – they disguised it. Take a look at the page and see if SOLAR still agrees with you.
Very interesting commentary!
Bill’s point about the solar resiliency program being long term is a good one, I think. No long term project looks cost effective in the early stages. The goal isn’t to completely run SJC on solar power, it’s to have SOME power available for essential services during outages. It’s NEVER going to be cost effective to install industry scale PV and battery backup. But that does not mean that it should not be done; it means that we are looking for BACKUP for essential services and we will have to pay extra for that resiliency. Compare the price tag for gaining a little essential energy resiliency with the value of all the giant, white plastic boats in all the marinas in SJC. Those boats, which are 99.9% recreational (if they get used at all) represent discretionary resources that could easily be imagined going towards essential energy infrastructure, IF we had sensible priorities that is…
Rikki – Yes, outages lately have been thankfully brief and frankly we enjoy a few hours of quiet and candlelight, right? But if you have lived here very long you know firsthand that island outages are NOT ALWAYS BRIEF. The year I moved here the power was out for nearly 3 weeks at our house and we had back to back 100 year storms; 75+ mph winds, hundreds of thousands of trees blown over, 2’+ of snow and single digit temperatures. But the sun was shining and we would have had heat and running water if we’d had PV and a house battery!
The climate is growing increasingly unstable and the wandering jet stream means that we are vulnerable to sudden incursions of arctic air such as what the rest of the country has been experiencing the last couple of months. (Fraser River outflow!) How are you going to feel “waiting” for the BPA power to arrive when it happens here? If you don’t have a way to heat your house that doesn’t require electricity, you are going to be mighty cold.
While it is undeniable that a large percentage of SJC residents are in fact retired, I suggest that makes us MORE dependent upon a reliable electrical supply, rather than less. How many people of advanced age require medical devices that need a continuous electrical supply? That might be a refrigerator for insulin, an oxygen generator, a home dialysis machine, mobility devices or any number of other literally ESSENTIAL electrical needs. We’ve gotten in the habit of thinking of “essential services” as the police, fire department, medical center, grocery store, pharmacy and ferry terminal, but there are many essential devices and services that are home based. If you are dependent upon ANY electrical device, I suggest that you ensure you can provide your own electricity for that device for at least a couple of weeks and longer would, of course, be better.
Lastly, everyone living in Cascadia is, or should be, aware that we are terrifyingly vulnerable to tectonic movement in the Cascadia Subduction Zone. That subduction zone has generated a massive earthquake approximately every 400-700 years for at least the last 10,000 years. Some of those earthquakes generated massive tsunamis; we’re talking 100’+ waves in some times and places! CSZ earthquakes are also associated with volcanic activity: Mount Lassen in California in 1916 and Mount St. Helens in Washington in 1980 being two examples. Volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis, oh my!
In preparing for all low-probability but devastating-consequence events, deciding just how much we can afford to spend in order to build resilient public and private systems is the real question. We KNOW what needs to be done but we do not prioritize the investments. Massive, plastic yachts are the floating evidence of what is actually being prioritized in SJC.
I don’t really see what yachts have to do with this discussion. Most people who own them are going to have the means to be self sufficient regardless of what decisions the OPALCO board makes.
There are multiple ways to be resilient. OPALCO proposes a centralized approach and Rikki proposes a distributed approach. I tend to think the centralized approach is going to be very expensive and offer little benefit when needed most.
Ken, Did you read the 2nd bullet point ?
If a Submarine Cable goes bad – OPALCO solar will not help. A damaged cable will take days or longer to repair, solar microgrids will only supply power for a few hours (and not everyone).
My bullet points have to do with solar power – you kinda got off-topic