Allen does raise some good perspective with regards to hydropower vs. other sources of electricity.
But supporting hydropower isn't the same thing as supporting Crown Hydro. Again, the benefits Allen and others have cited for hydropower could be much more easily and cheaply realized by simply increasing capacity at the existing (and underutilized) Xcel Energy hydropower plant that is located on the Mississippi. That's where I'm at with this whole Crown Hydro issue. If there wasn't already a hydropower plant on the Mississippi or if that plant was already running at full capacity, I might favor the Crown Hydro project. But given that we have this other option for increasing the amount of relatively clean power from our own back yard, I think proponents of Crown Hydro should provide reasons for why their proposal should be favored over the other option that is available for increasing hydropower generation. That would hopefully help focus this discussion on "Why Crown Hydro?" rather that continue to get sidetracked on the overall discussion about hydropower vs. other sources of electricity - since that's really where the issue lies is whether we should specifically support the Crown Hydro project. Mark Snyder Windom Park On 5/14/04 12:21 PM, "Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Crown Hydro is a good opportunity for the city of Minneapolis to demonstrate > it's commitment to renewable energy. Are there risks involved? Yes, > anytime you have a construction project there are risks. And this project > has more given it's location. But this is 2004. Predicting water flows > over the falls is no longer rocket science nor is the construction problems > at hand. There are risks but I have yet to see anyone show that they are > great. The impression I get is that we're talking about routine surgery, > let's say orthoscopic surgery on the knee, and people won't do it because > there is a very small risk of a staff infection. I haven't seen many people > stop to think about what the risks are if we don't allow this project to > proceed. > > Is this project resulting in expensive power? Yes. But what are our > choices? There is no solar industry worth noting in the state. And the > wind power that is the flavor of the day has many issues. For example, > growth of wind farms at Buffalo Ridge and other places in the state is at > some point necessitate constructing new high voltage power lines to carry > that juice back to Minneapolis and surrounding communities. And if that > seems like a minor issue to you, read about some of the fights that have > occured over these in the recent past such as in northern Wisconsin. When > the wind stops blowing, which it does in even the most consitant regions, > power needs to be generated from other sources. On average, wind "plants" > produce electricty 40% of the time. Fossil-fuel plants run 90% of the time. > And there are subsidies to this wind power, such as the fed's $.0018 /.kwH > that need to be taken into account. If you think the energy for Crown Hydro > is expensive and heavily subsidised, it's not any different than what would > occur with wind. > > I don't mean to rail against wind power. I simply want to put things in > perspective. There are alternatives to this project. However, Crown offers > a chance for MPLS to produce some relatively clean power in it's own back > yard. We're not asking our neighbors to put up with the negatives, we're > taking those responsibilities on ourselves. > > Allen Graetz > Lowry Hill 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
