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
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
