On 5/7/04 7:35 PM, "Dyna Sluyter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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? Is that what we were talking about? That seems to contradict your earlier comments: "Nuclear power is going nowhere and any new coal plant will be hundreds of miles away. Yet each year our population increases and demand for energy with it. Where is that energy going to come from?" Hmm...sounds like someone is trying to change their tune. >> 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. This has been discussed before in this forum. The amount of natural gas needed for these retrofits is not considered significant compared to what we already use for heating and industrial purposes. It was researched by the Department of Commerce and discussed by the Public Utilities Commission while MERP was being considered. Their conclusion was that MERP will not have any significant impact on supplies or pricing. But you don't have to take my word for it, check out the PUC briefing papers: http://www.puc.state.mn.us/docs/briefing_papers/b03-0168.pdf Discussion on natural gas supplies starts on page 66. >> 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. So? The point is that there are options available for increasing our local generating capacity that are cheaper and don't carry the various other concerns raised with regards to Crown Hydro. Even the so-called "expensive" peaking plants will cost half as much to develop per megawatt of capacity produced as the Crown Hydro project. If we want to generate more electricity from the river, we can do that simply by sending more water to the existing Xcel hydro plant. That'll get us more clean energy without having to worry about hardly any of the other concerns that the Crown Hydro proposal has raised. And if the water level concerns do prove valid, it's a heck of a lot easier to cut back on what the Xcel hydro plant gets than it is to undo a $10 million dollar construction project with a 50-year lease. >> 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. Really? Again, referring back to your earlier post: "A megawatt of solar power capacity costs about $10,000,000. Wind and small hydro are just as clean for a bit less investment." I guess Dyna's idea of "a bit less" is different from mine. > 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. Please define "educational installation" and explain how that would "tweak the economics?" I sure hope you don't mean to suggest this is simply a demonstration project like the wind turbine at Macalester in St. Paul. Because a pair of 1.65 megawatt wind turbines is hardly a demonstration project. Combined, these turbines will supply the electricity for the equivalent of 1000 households. As far as wind ratings, I hate to correct Dyna yet again, but the folks with RENew Northfield did actually conduct wind monitoring tests over a period of several months in conjunction with the State Energy Office at Department of Commerce. Anyone wanting to deal with actual facts can view the wind monitoring data summary at: http://www.renewnorthfield.org/nf_schools_data_summary.htm >> 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. Can you cite any examples of that? I apologize if this offends, but I'm having a hard time taking your word for it when it's been so easy to provide examples that contradict all these other "facts" you've been stating so far. >> 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. Who says there are any older generators exempted from MPCA regulations? There are no exemptions from air permitting regulations based on age of the equipment. There are differing standards for sources that are based on age of the facility (often referred to as "grandfathered" facilities), but those sources are still regulated. To make sure this is clear, the age of a pollution source is defined as when it was installed at a location, not when the machinery/equipment was manufactured. For example, if I own a factory and decide to move my operations to a new city, whatever equipment I have is required go through a new permitting process at the new facility location. It's not exempted because of age or pre-approved because it was previously located in a permitted facility. At best, I'll get a head start on the permitting paperwork because I already have the equipment descriptions and emissions calculations prepared. More likely, I'll have to install new pollution controls or just replace the equipment altogether because that'll be more cost-effective than installing the pollution controls needed to continue operating the old equipment. Therefore, turning a 30 year old locomotive into a diesel emergency generator isn't going to be allowed by MPCA unless that locomotive can be modified or fitted with pollution controls that allow it to meet current standards for diesel generators. Fortunately, pollution controls do exist for diesel engines. Here's a listing: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/retroverifiedlist.htm The current focus right now is on trucks and buses because they are the primary sources of emissions involving diesel fuels but some of the technologies (like the filters) are certainly adaptable to locomotives or stationary generators. But it's apparent that some folks need to learn just how this air permitting stuff works. Here's a good starting point: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/aboutpermits.html > 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? Who says MPCA has trouble enforcing standards for coal or nuclear plants? Especially since MPCA doesn't even regulate the nuclear plants? That's done by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Sheesh. As for the incorrect claim about older generators being exempt, that's already been debunked above quite thoroughly. > 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. And how would Crown Hydro have helped with that situation? The electricity generated would be fed into the same grid we're already using. Since there hasn't been any reports of 22-hour shutdowns of our local utility plants recently, it sounds like whatever problem that Postal Service facility had was due to distribution, not generation. Mark Snyder Windom Park "The most violent element in society is ignorance." - Emma Goldman 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
