[Mpls] Park Board meeting highlights

[Dyna Sluyter]

On Friday, May 7, 2004, at 07:58 AM, Mark Snyder wrote:

> It might be a good idea to remember that some of that new energy  
> capacity
> will come from Xcel Riverside in five years. Not only will the switch  
> to
> natural gas significantly cut emissions,

	Mark, we were talking about clean energy. You know- the kind we get  
from hydro, solar, and wind generation. Granted, natural gas burns a  
bit cleaner in the short run. But all hydrocarbons generate greenhouse  
gases when burned, and the latest and greatest new natural gas fired  
plant is little better that a dirty old diesel in that regard. It is  
these greenhouse gasses that are causing global warming and with it the  
probably the extreme weather of recent years. It's that extreme weather  
that causes more power outages and drives the demand for relatively  
cheap diesel backup generators. BTW, can this retrofitted plant run on  
renewable fuels?

> but it will also boost generating
> capacity by 80 megawatts. The High Bridge project in St. Paul will  
> increase
> generating capacity by 270-280 megawatts.

	That's going to require a LOT of natural gas... are any new pipelines  
being built through our neighborhoods to supply all that natural gas?  
And what effect will this huge increase in demand have on natural gas  
prices? I realize the folks who live in the luxury lofts viewing the  
falls don't have to worry about these things, but us working folks do.

> http://www.xcelenergy.com/XLWEB/CDA/0,3080,1-1-1_11824_11839_12436- 
> 877-0_0_0
> -0,00.html
>
> That's an addition of at least 350 megawatts to the local grid for  
> about
> $600 million or $1.7 million per megawatt. Compared to these projects,  
> Crown
> Hydro ($10 million for 3.2 megawatts) is a very expensive drop in the
> bucket.

	Your comparing the costs of a retrofit with new construction and  
ignoring the economies of scale Exel's larger plants have. If you  
accurately compared the cost of like sized new hydro and natural gas  
plants hydro might very well be cheaper. Keep in mind that you are  
comparing very expensive natural gas fired "peaking" plants with hydro  
power that is almost continously available.

> However, I do know wind energy costs nowhere near $10 million per  
> megawatt.

	I didn't say it did. Actually wind energy's costs are closer to those  
of hydro.

> New wind turbine installations are being planned in Northfield right  
> now
> that will run about $1 million per megawatt, or less than one-third  
> the cost
> of the Crown Hydro project. This outstanding project is a joint venture
> between Carleton College, the Northfield School District and RENew
> Northfield.

	You're talking about an educational installation which tweaks the  
economics some. Those ratings are probably for wind velocities seldom  
seen in Northfield, but common on the Buffalo Ridge where wind power  
makes sense. Minneapolis is a couple hundred miles from the Buffalo  
Ridge, but we do have one heck of a river dropping through our city.	

> Sorry to disappoint any potential investors, but these locomotive
> "generators" would certainly not be regulated as "mobile sources" and  
> would
> probably not be allowed to run as backup generators because that's not  
> what
> they were designed for. This may come as a shock to some people, but  
> the air
> permit engineers at MPCA do actually know what they're doing and  
> they're not
> going to allow stunts like that to take place.

	Already done in a much more tightly regulated state, California.

> As for the "emergency generators" those are regulated by MPCA as  
> stationary
> sources. They usually are lumped in with whatever other sources of air
> pollution exist at a given facility, such as boilers or manufacturing
> processes.

	But these are old locomotives that are immune from any pollution  
controls... Keep in mind that there are plenty of 30 and 40 year old  
locomotives running every day in Minneapolis. Fixed diesel generator  
sets due to their intermittent use tend to have even longer lives. For  
example, Detroit Diesel reports that they still frequently supply parts  
for now discontinued diesel engines they built in the 1940s.

> For example, here's a link to an air quality permit issued a few  
> months ago
> to the 3M facility in Maplewood:
>
> http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/permits/issued/  
> 12300694-001-aqpermit.pdf
>
> Information on their diesel emergency generators can be found starting  
> on
> page 9. Interestingly, their diesel generators are limited to 500  
> operating
> hours per year.

	Given that MPCA has trouble enforcing standards for big quite  
stationary things like coal and nuclear plants, how are they going to  
ascertain that said plant is only operating 500 hours a year? Then  
consider that many older generators are exempt from MPCA regulation. So  
how in heaven or hell is MPCA going to control a 30 year old exempt  
locomotive that can up and move anytime it's owner wants?

	Consider also that Amtrak, a quasi-federal agency, has dozens of  
surplus locomotives parked that can happily supply a megawatt or so of  
480 volt AC without breaking a sweat. We have a large Postal Service  
facility in the northeast corner of our city with a rail siding. That  
plant was recently down for 22 hours waiting for Exel to restore power.  
The Postal Service is Amtrak's largest customer... and would quickly  
cough up a surplus locomotive/generator if demanded. Of course with  
federal agencies involved MPCA would be quite preempted.

	Or the Park Board could let us have clean hydro power...

		From the Riverfront, servants quarters...

			Dyna Sluyter