ken bradley wrote:
Minnesota electricity consumer already purchaseYes, it's true. Xcel is the electricity supplier for the city of Minneapolis, and Xcel does purchase 4% of its energy from Manitoba Hydro (according to Xcel's own numbers and remember Xcel also services other states). Greater Minnesota (outside Xcel's service area) also purchases power from Manitoba Hydro. And yes, everything I've heard about Manitoba Hydro sounds like it's a bad deal for the environment and the people who live near it.
hundreds of millions of dollars of large-scale
hydropower from Manitoba every year, which has had
numerous negative impacts on Cree and Metis people
Those facts don't seem like much of an argument in favor of Crown Hydro, though. Building Crown Hydro is not going to reduce how much power Minneapolis buys from Manitoba Hydro any measurable amount, and even if it Xcel stopped buying that 4% from them, it would not make Manitoba Hydro go away and tear down their dams.
I find it difficult to be sympathetic toOk, so ignore the condo owners (by which I assume you mean the people who live at the riverside). What about the rest of us who are opposed to it? I personally know half a dozen people who are strongly against it, none of whom live remotely close to the river. Besides, since when are people's rights and opinions worthless just because they live in condos near the river? Frankly, I'm glad they live there. A lot of them are empty nesters who have moved in from the suburbs, something I am very happy about. It helps improve Minneapolis property tax revenues and revitalize the downtown and the city. It sure beats having more ex-urban sprawl.
the condo owners concerns about impacts, because the
Crown Hydro impacts seem minimal and insignificant in
comparison to the dams in Northern Manitoba.
This argument is like saying we shouldn't bother treating kids of Minneapolis residents for West Nile Virus or food poisoning, because the kids of Honduras or Sudan have it so much worse. It ignores the impracticalities and ineffectiveness of trying to send those medicines that far away (or that power back to Canada).
The Crown Hydro project will be a low-impact, run ofYou should spend some time reading the filings at FERC and reviewing the plans. I know it's tedious and slow going, but I think you'll discover this project involves a whole lot more construction, excavation, alteration and new concrete than you think it does. Their plans use maps that are 50 years out of date. Who knows what's down there or the condition that some of it might be in. I'll be amazed if Crown Hydro's engineers have actually personally visited the tunnels and tail races they are talking about enlarging and altering.
the river project, which will use preexisting
infrastructure and many people believe it will restore
the historical integrity of the area. Others have
argued that the process of excavation will disturb
important historical and archeological treasures.
Just because world-wide other historical and archaeological treasures are damaged and lost provides no excuse for doing so here. Consumers may be unaware that their spending habits are the economic driving force behind some of that destruction, but that does not argue for or justify the Crown Hydro project. Instead, it argues for educating consumers and voters, and changing government policies.
Crown Hydro Proponents
1) Numerous environmental and public policy
organizations agree this is a very good renewable
energy project and will provide a positive impact on
the environment including the Green Institute, Izaak
Walton, Minnesotans for an Energy-Efficient Economy
(ME3), and many, many more.
Many, many more? I've seen a supporting statement from the Izaak Walton League, which I found perplexing. I have not seen anything from the Green Institute, and they are on this list.
As for ME3 -- these are same folks who claimed in the FERC filings that "the amendment [to move the project from the Crown Roller Mill to Park Board property] is reasonable and thoughtful and should NOT CAUSE ANY CONTROVERSY" [emphasis added].
ME3 also claimed this project would provide "approximately 20 million kilowatt hours per year" which would imply running at an average of 71% of maximum capacity for the entire year, 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year. The turbines that Crown Hydro plans to use only generate 1,600 kilowatts each when running at 100% efficiency and being fed 500 cubic feet per second each of water. There are 2 such turbines, which would produce 3,200 kilowatts each at that efficiency but would of course require twice as much water, or 1000 cubic feet per second.
It is unlikely they could hit 71% over the year. The turbines will be shut down from time to time for maintenance and inspection. The water levels of the river during much of the year won't allow 1000 cubic feet per second to be siphoned off for Crown Hydro, especially if they have to maintain 500 cubic feet per second over the falls, and more so, 2,000 cubic feet per second over the falls (the previous required minimum by the Park Board) during peak tourist event days, as requested by the Park Board. Moreover, does anybody know of any machinery that runs at 100% efficiency for any significant length of time? Since there will be times when the turbine are not running, and times when there will not be enough water, to hit 71% for the year, they will have to run a lot higher than 71% when they can. Suffice to say, "20 million kilowatt hours" seems more than optimistic and speculation on ME3's part.
2) The project will provide the Park Board with$90,000? Where do you get that number? The lease is for $30,000 a year for the first 10 years, and there's a clause regarding splitting the profits above some number. That number is high enough there's a chance the Park Board won't see a dime beyond the $30,000.
$30,000 to $90,000 a year in revenue. (None of our
current energy suppliers provide revenue to our Park
system or any other government agency).
After 10-yearsWhich hat did that magical number get pulled out of? If by some miracle Crown Hydro can get the power up and running by January, 2005 or get an extension on the state of Minnesota's 10 year SUBSIDY of $.015 per kilowatt hour, after 10 years Crown Hydro's revenues will actually go DOWN, absent any rate increases from Xcel.
the Park Board has the potential to make $400,000 a
year from this project. This is after the debt has
been paid.
3) The project will improve access to the area, andJust plain no. It removes a parking lot that provides access to the area. It may require restrictions to the approaches of the head race and tail race for safety.
provide greater access to the river.
4) The project will be a wonderful educational toolThe turbines will be underground. There is a hydro power exhibit at the Mill Ruins Museum just up the hill. Xcel is willing to accomodate group tours of their plants. Call them at *1-800-895-4999* to schedule such a tour.
for everyone that will provide the public access to
see how the generates operate. (The Ford and St.
Anthony dams do not provide this to the public)
Continued in next posting.
<Chris Johnson / Fulton>
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
