Get out the waders, NRG’s at it!
February 19th, 2007
 
It’s gettin’ mighty deep in here… but from the Comments to this snake-oil sales pitch, the readers get it! Click on title below to add your own (it’s worth setting up an account to weigh in on this).
Clean-coal plant would benefit Delaware
By CAROLINE ANGOORLY
Posted Monday, February 19, 2007Delaware, we have a problem. We need more power.
It’s a fact that Delaware needs over 500 additional megawatts (MW) of power by 2013, according to PJM Interconnection, the organization that ensures Delaware has a reliable supply of electricity.
How can Delaware get the power it needs, when it needs it, at rates its residents and businesses can afford while at the same time providing long-term environmental benefits for generations of Delawareans? If you want to address both environmental and energy supply objectives, clean coal is the answer.
The clean coal plant proposed by NRG will provide Delaware with competitively priced power, whenever it is needed, with significantly lower emissions (including over 95 percent mercury removal and 99 percent sulfur removal).
Our clean coal project uses innovative technology — Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) — at the current Indian River site. The project will also include shutting down the two oldest existing traditional coal-fueled units at the Indian River plant. The innovative IGCC technology will capture and sequester approximately 65 percent of the carbon emissions and dramatically cut overall emissions at the facility. We expect overall sulfur and mercury emissions to be reduced by around 80 percent and nitrogen oxides by about 60 percent at the existing facility.
The clean coal plant proposed by NRG also means a $1.5 billion investment in Delaware that brings over 1,000 construction jobs during the five-year construction period, and around 100 new permanent employees at the Indian River plant.
While the concept that a renewable energy source such as wind can power our homes and businesses is appealing, the fact is that the proposed offshore wind project cannot meet Delaware’s energy needs.
Residents would pay the sizable capital costs of building a 600 MW wind power project that would provide only around a third of that power (since the wind does not blow all the time). On the hottest days, when the wind is not blowing and everyone wants to run their air conditioners, the only way to get power will be to buy it from other power plants when it is the most expensive. It is no coincidence that there is not a single offshore wind power project operating in the United States today … not one.
And the biggest reasons why are because offshore wind is generally cost prohibitive and, as with all wind power, intermittent and therefore incapable of being an alternative to conventional power plants that run all the time.
Some say NRG is against wind power because we are invested solely in coal. That’s simply not the case. NRG is also in the wind power business. Our wind subsidiary, Padoma Wind Power, which is one of the most accomplished wind developers active in the United States today, declined to bid in response to this Request for Proposals issued by the State of Delaware.
It was their opinion that a huge, first-of-its-kind wind farm off Delaware’s beautiful coastline is the wrong project at the wrong time in the wrong place, especially given what the Delaware General Assembly has identified the state needs now-baseload power that is reliable, affordable and environmentally responsible to fuel the state’s economic growth.
NRG’s proposed plant would use coal gasification technology — specifically identified by the legislature — to provide reliable and affordable energy while also delivering material environmental benefits.
Delaware has an opportunity now to once again be “the first state” in addressing its power needs using clean coal technology, leading the nation in encouraging independence from foreign oil and gas while meaningfully addressing environmental issues — including global warming.
GRHR Letters to Editor
February 17th, 2007
Here are the latest LTE’s in the Grand Rapids Herald Review.
Project will be scenic blunder
Herald-Review
Friday, February 16th, 2007 05:01:56 PMEditor:
Having read many of the previous letters regarding the proposed Mesaba Energy project, I will attempt to avoid re-hashing all the reasons that this project should never happen and there are many.
The schmoozing and back-scratching between company management and local and state politicians trying to get the Mesaba Energy project to become a reality has been both blatant and shameful. Does this lack of conscience just qualify as business as usual?
Pollution on the local level will be extremely harmful to our lakes and our lungs. The BWCA and Voyageurs National Park are national treasures that should not be compromised by air pollution and mercury contamination.
Hopefully this boondoggle of a project will collapse under its own weight. If not, the road leading to it will need to be renamed. How about the Un-Scenic Highway, the Not-So-Scenic Highway or my personal favorite, The Scenic Blunder in the Sky-Way.
Bob Erickson
Balsam
========================
The next is from Ron Dicklich, who in my book lost any semblence of credibility at the Hoyt Lake DOE Hearing, when he misrepresented Utility Personal Property Tax as having been repealed, DUH, it’s not been repealed, he set up Rukavina with bad information, and as lobbyist for Great River Energy he should know better. At that same meeting, he had no clue the origins of the Mesaba bill and couldn’t even remember when the Mesaba bill was passed, much less what was in it! But this is the guy who is supposed to be watching legislation for the County and didn’t bother to let them know that a bill had been introduced in March 2006 exempting Mesaba from Utility Personal Property Tax that would cost the county millions in tax revenues annually. According to Plants Sites & Parks, October/November 1999, Ron Dicklich was Minnesota Iron and Steel’s Director of Public and Governmental Affiars – I guess that’s something he would know something about! And it’s a matter of public record that there is a contract with the County where he’s been hired as a “project coordinator” for $5,000/mo., he even gets to office at the County! At what point is he an interested person who should not be paid for or be involved in any part of this? I think that line was crossed a long time back…
And about cost — Dicklich has obviously not read the record about the cost of electricity produced by Mesaba. Hey Ron, you can find that at www.mncoalgasplant.com/ppa.html Check out the Dept. of Commerce’s Elion Amit’s testimony.
Dr. Elion Amit Direct Testimony
Time for you to do some homework… and about all of those searches from Pengilly for “Ron Dicklich” on my site this last week.. 13 was it?
CLICK HERE for Charlotte Neigh’s letter that he’s whining about.
Herald-Review
Monday, February 12th, 2007 08:18:21 AMEditor:
In my opinion, Charlotte Neigh’s letter of Jan. 31, 2007 was full of misleading information. I am compelled to set the record straight.
It is not true that I am paid $5,000 per month by Itasca County. RAMS has a contract with Itasca County to pay them up to $3,000 per month for project coordination services, and up to $2,000 per month for support services. I am compensated by RAMS as executive director and do not receive extra compensation for the services I provide. Rams has been eligible for up to $5,000 per month reimbursement since Aug. 28, 2006. To date, they have billed for just over $4,900 total.
Ms. Neigh’s suggestion about Commissioner Eichorn’s need for more accuracy is laughable as she left out major pieces of information concerning the Taconite hearing.
As a part of the hearing, Xcel Energy representatives testified they should not have to purchase the Mesaba Energy load was because there was no need in the market for additional electrical generation. The point I made in testifying was a letter I read from Xcel Energy to Howard Hilshorst. The letter stated Xcel was not able to make a proposal to MN Steel because they did not have enough resources. That means they did not have electricity to sell. Apparently they were not being honest about the supply issue.
The rule of supply and demand controls electricity just as it does other products and commodities. If you support MN Steel, you should be concerned about the largest electric company in the Midwest not having sufficient power to make a proposal to sell power for MN Steel. Electric companies say with Mesaba coming on line, costs of electricity will go up. I say that if it doesn’t come on line, our costs will go up. My point is that based on supply and demand MN Steel may need Mesaba to come on line just to keep electric costs competitive so that they can keep their costs down and compete in a steel market that will be competitive into the future.
It was also stated that the cost of building transmission would increase the cost of electricity. It could, but, it would make more sense to build eight miles of transmission than 200 miles.
What Commissioner Eichorn was saying, and that I testified to, was that MN Steel’s need for lower energy costs could depend on the future of Mesaba Energy. MN Steel will find electricity, but at what cost? MN Steel is our future. I am not willing to take any chances of it not being able to happen because of a lack of electricity or electricity that is too high cost. Xcel and others want to make sure that the supply levels assure them the profit their shareholders want. That is really what this is all about. I chaired the Minnesota Senate Committee on Energy and Public Utilities for four years and have a background on these issues.
Ron Dicklich
Executive Director
RAMS
And this one… good DOG, he thinks that the Beulah, ND, plant is doing “just fine” environmentally? Not only did it go bankrupt in the 1980s, it’s a hazardous waste site and has contaiminated the water! Here’s the Report to Congress on Special Wastes from Processing, Chapter 5 – check out p. 9 about Uranium-238 and Thallium! Yup, just fine…
Herald-Review
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007 10:35:21 AMEditor:
I believe we need the Excelsior Energy plant here. I think our county needs to look toward the future as well as look at the environmental impact. Itasca County needs this plant. It’s time we boost our economy and get good viable jobs to Itasca County. If this plant is so bad then why does the state of North Dakota have a coal gasification plant in Beulah N.D.? My brothers-in-law and father-in-law work there. According to them the plant is a success. The community thought the same as we did what about the environment’s impact. So far its doing just fine.
A bunch of panic talk always seems to destroy a good prospect of a big company looking to our area for building sites. I am a hunter and fisherman and believe in environment protection. If this is such unproven technology, why are we so afraid of it. The state of Minnesota would not grant permits to this company nor would the EPA on the federal level, if this was so bad. It’s time Itasca County residents look to the future.
Our tourism is not what it was years ago. I came here in 1979 with my family. I have seen a lot of development. A lot of people say we need different industry besides timber and iron. Now we have one and we are scared to death of it.
I think the fear of the unknown in this county is what suppresses it. We can no longer afford to worry about tourism or people not wanting to retire here if Excelsior builds this projected plant. MP&L has a great pollution control system at the Boswell Power station. Many times when I worked out there as a security guard the MP&L Company news letter would say how the Minnesota EPA awarded them or commended them on a job well done by using the system they have in place to keep our environment safe. There is air pollution any where in this world and many are taking action to safe guard against any permanent serious damage to the ecology. I believe Itasca County needs too look forward to the future to keep generations of children here giving them something besides box stores or driving 60 miles to a mine. Years of hearing, “We need more viable jobs” are coming back to haunt us. We have a great opportunity. Let’s not blow it this time.
Many studies have been conducted and panic talk is going to get us nowhere. However I don’t condemn anyone playing it safe either and watching out for the environment. That too is a great cause in itself. The mere mention of nuclear plants is outrageous. They are a lot more dangerous than a coal plant. Three Mile Island out East shouldn’t be forgotten. I believe this company has done and will do everything to keep our biggest resource and investment safe, the environment.
Dave Gunderson
Grand Rapids
Presentations at IEDC
February 16th, 2007
Here’s the lineup from the IEDC “Electricity 2020” forum in Grand Rapids on Wednesday — see for yourself.
Mike Bull – The Next Generation Energy Initiative
Bill Grant, Izaak Walton League – Energy Efficiency and Climate-Friendly Power Supply
IEDC gets carried away
February 15th, 2007
More acts of desperation… a blatant attempt to promote Mesaba, to influence a decision headed south, a public flaunting of ex parte restrictions by promoting coal gasification and raising material issues in the Mesaba docket with PUC Chair present. How dense can they be? The Itasca Economic Development Corporation went overboard with promotion of coal gasification in its “Electricity 2020 Forum” yesterday at the Sawmill Inn in Grand Rapids. Peter McDermott really screwed up.
From the IDEC site, on Mesaba:
IEDC has indeed been a vocal promoter of Excelsior’s Mesaba Project, going so far as to try to get help from the Minnesota Chamber in slapping down local opposition — ummmm… hello, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce is not supporting the project because of their valid concerns about the potential impact of Mesaba related rate increases on their members. It’s too bad that McDermott isn’t reading the pleadings that the Chamber has submitted in the Mesaba docket. It’s too bad that the Chamber didn’t send someone yesterday!
When I saw this “Electricity 2020 Forum” sponsored by IEDC, I expected more cheerleading for Mesaba, but was suprised to find that the Chair of the PUC was one of the featured speakers!!! The Mesaba Project is before the PUC right now, the ALJ decision is due on Monday, this docket is active — it’s not appropriate to bring in the Chair of the PUC to an area where this project would be located and where the project would obviously be discussed. I raised these ex parte concerns with the Asst. A.G. assigned to ex parte issues, with various staff and brought it to Mike Bull’s attention. Before the fact, that’s really all I can do. You’d think with that warning, they’d be on their best behavior, but NOOOOOOOOOO…
Mike Bull was first, and didn’t belabor IGCC. Bill Grant was next, and as the IGCC toady that he is (Bill Grant – October 24 2006 presentation “Transition to Sustainable Energy…”), he did his job well, presenting on “Conservation” and spending half the time telling us how coal gasification works (missing the many ways it doesn’t work) and how we need it. He also said that demand is increasing by 2% annually. He knows better. One would think that someone charged with speaking on “Conservation” and coming into the Mesaba Project territory with Chair Koppendrayer present, he would have no need to bring up Mesaba, and would know better, but NOOOOOOOOO… he went on and on and on. Next was Mike Jones from EERC and PCOR at NDU, recipient of the $21 million from DOE via Excelsior grant for carbon capture and sequestration, and mid-presentation he said, “I’ve been asked to talk about coal gasification” and proceeded to spend the rest of his presentation giving a pitch for coal gasification!!!
During Question & Answer time, it got to be too much. We couldn’t ask questions directly, and had to submit them on cards, but Moderator Rick Lemonds brought Mesaba into a generic question, and the second time he did it, prefacing the question with “Here’s another one about Mesaba” and asking about comparison of emissions of IGCC and regular coal. I objected from the back of the room, saying it was ex parte contact because the issues being discussed were material issues in the Mesaba docket. Chair Koppendrayer agreed, he confirmed that it was a valid concern, and that he thought he should not be present — and he got up and left the room!! (he also did that later) I think he handled it well. IEDC, however, should have known better. In our chat a week or so before the presentation, the Asst. A.G. assured me that they knew of the ex parte limitations. And IEDC screwed up. Peter McDermott was joking in the buffet line about open meeting requirements and clearly doesn’t get it or doesn’t care and doesn’t appreciate what this violation does to his credibility. It’s one thing to be an obvious Excelsior toady, but to violate ex parte restrictions, he and Rick Lemonds showed poor judgment at best.
Here’s the PUC’s Ex Parte page.
Here’s the ex parte rules, Minn. R. ch 7845.
I’ve ordered the DVD of the presentations, and will post it ASAP.
Denver conference in the news
February 12th, 2007
As I’m sitting here waiting for the hosts with the mosts, here’s the article in the Denver Post. A very hearty thanks to Nancy LaPlaca and Andy Bardwell for opening their home and hosting a welcome potluck — you know how it is in these things, the food is to die for (where did those photos go?). THANKS!!!
“Clean coal” captures notice at dual seminars
By Steve Raabe
Denver Post Staff Writer
Denver Post
Article Last Updated:02/11/2007 06:25:27 PM MST“Clean coal” power plants: environmental epiphany or junk science?
The debate rages today in an ironic setting, nearby conference rooms booked by two disparate groups at the Marriott City Center in Denver.
The irony is intentional, said Nancy LaPlaca of environmental advocacy group Ratepayers United of Colorado.
Once her group heard that a utility consulting firm was holding a clean-coal seminar, she knew that hers had to be there to balance the pros with the cons.
Or at least pose some tough questions.
“We’re not necessarily opposed,” she said. “But we’re not sure it works.”
Denver-based Electric Utility Consultants Inc. will be charging a walk-in registration fee of $1,395 to industry insiders.
Ratepayers United, playing to budget-minded activists, will charge nothing for its seminar.
Xcel Energy is proposing a test plant in Colorado to assess a new technology, known as integrated gasification combined cycle, or IGCC. It will cost at least $500 million and possibly $1 billion or more.
The plants, instead of burning pulverized coal, convert coal to a hydrogen gas. The gas is then burned to create steam and spin electricity-producing turbines.
Pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide can more easily be removed from gas than from coal.
So far, so good.
But then the big question: What to do with the CO2?
In theory – but not yet in practice – IGCC plants can capture the carbon dioxide and pump it into spent oil and gas wells or vacated mines in a process known as sequestration.
Industry analysts and some environmental groups say that could be the key to reducing carbon emissions and their suspected link to global warming.
Yet no American power plant has successfully captured and sequestered carbon dioxide, even though a handful are classified as “capture ready.”
“Sequestration is an integral part of the puzzle,” said Perry Fontana, a vice president of utility consultant and engineering firm URS Corp. “We’re excited about the technology.”
Fontana will be one of the speakers at today’s utility and industry conference.
But officials of Ratepayers United – a group formed to oppose coal-burning power plants in Colorado – aren’t yet convinced that sequestration will work.
“Carbon capture and sequestration is not ready for prime time,” said LaPlaca, chairwoman of the group. “The technology is still 10 years away. It is so expensive and so unproven, why don’t we put more money into (conservation) and renewables?”
Speakers from the environmental group will push the idea of solar thermal power – using the sun’s heat for utility-scale power plants – which they say are clean, renewable and workable now at only slightly more cost than IGCC.
Xcel Energy, however, believes the clean-coal technology will work.
“Carbon sequestration is being done around the world – from Canada, to Algeria to Norway,” said Xcel spokeswoman Ethnie Groves. “Through our demonstration project, we’ll bring that technology to Colorado and more effectively capture carbon-dioxide emissions.”
Staff writer Steve Raabe can be reached at 303-954-1948 or sraabe@denverpost.com.
