Proposed Crown Hydro Plant

[lordmoke]

Well, this stupid thing is back in the news yet again:
http://www.journalmpls.com/news-feed/cr ... ic-meeting

This project absolutely HAS to be killed. Drying up the falls? Kiss my ass. How much legal recourse do the city and/ or its residents actually have to fight something like this? We were able to block it until now due to the fact that it was set to be built on Park Board land, but they've moved it to federal land.

Also, is there anyone actually in favor of this idea? If so, why?

[HiawathaGuy]

Are you serious?! I am completely open to hearing this out and then making a decision. Last time they met with the neighbors (NIMBYs), it was clear that nothing would make them happy. Even guarantees that should the river flow drop below a certain level, the turbines would stop, etc. I'm so sick of the "head in the sand" perspective on Green Energy in this supposedly green city. We have a renewable source of power, in the falls. They aren't going to let the 'falls dry up' - and making false statements to that point aren't helpful.

Let's let the company answer the real questions - and realize how both concerns on vibration/noise/water levels can be addressed all while allowing the company to produce electricity and reduce our need for fossil fuels.

[lordmoke]

They aren't going to let the 'falls dry up' - and making false statements to that point aren't helpful.

It's explicitly stated in the license that Crown is indeed allowed to run the falls dry. Decades of work have been going in to returning the river to a less industrialized, more natural state. I'm not sure why reversing course on that and reintroducing industrialized uses to the riverfront constitutes being "green."

[MplsSteve]

"The two major concerns voiced over Crown’s proposal are that drilling a 930-foot tunnel in a geologically sensitive area could harm the Stone Arch Bridge, and that drawing water from an area of the Mississippi River that already houses an Xcel Energy hydroelectric facility nearly three times larger than Crown’s proposal could dry up St. Anthony Falls for long stretches of time."

That hardly sounds like NIMBYism to me. They sound like legitimate concerns.

[FISHMANPET]

Being "green" isn't about the environment being literally green, it's about how much energy we use and where it comes from. I think producing clean energy from the falls to replace fossil fuels is very green. You could make all sorts of arguments based on the aesthetic impact, but you can't say that a hydropower project isn't green.

And I have no thoughts on this proposal one way or the other, I just think it's an incredibly naive view of being "green" to say that making the environment look less pretty is ungreen.

[David Greene]

There is certainly history to justify concern about stability of the riverbed. One only has to walk around Water Power Park to learn about the tunnel disaster that swallowed up part of Nicollet Island and almost destroyed the falls.

[lordmoke]

Being "green" isn't about the environment being literally green, it's about how much energy we use and where it comes from. I think producing clean energy from the falls to replace fossil fuels is very green. You could make all sorts of arguments based on the aesthetic impact, but you can't say that a hydropower project isn't green.

And I have no thoughts on this proposal one way or the other, I just think it's an incredibly naive view of being "green" to say that making the environment look less pretty is ungreen.

I didn't literally mean that the mere presence of an undisturbed area constitutes environmental friendliness. If the plant cuts off water to the falls, the only connections upstream and downstream will be through two sets of generators, which seems less than ideal for fish. Hydropower, while very nice on the whole "carbon is bad" front, is notoriously disruptive and damaging to the ecosystem of the area surrounding it.

[Silophant]

I'm as pro-green energy as anyone, but it's important to take this into perspective. Running the falls dry is a big deal for the beauty and the ecosystem of the area. It might be worth it if it would make a noticeable dent in carbon use. But it won't. This is a 4 MW plant. That's 1/3rd of the size of the existing Hennepin Island plant (which does shut down when necessary, instead of running the falls dry), about 1/140th of the size of the Riverside or High Bridge plants in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and less than 1/500th of the size of the Sherco plant up in Becker. If this wasn't going to have a negative effect on the falls, it'd be worth it, even at it's limited size. But, as it is, the positives don't outweigh the negatives.

[MNdible]

I'm a bit ambivalent about this, but I will emphasize that the ability to generate power in the heart of downtown Minneapolis is huge, because it's right next to the users, and that allows a great deal of the transmission loss to be eliminated. Pumping in coal power from SherCo (or Big Stone!) is especially bad because not only are you releasing all of that carbon, you're also wasting a ton of electricity to just get the juice where the demand is.

One of a number of reasons why I whole-heartedly support the HERC. This case is a bit different, and as I said I'm not wholly convinced that the cost-benefit math works.

[matt91486]

The fact that they've got an agreement from 1999 with stupid conditions that are still valid is pretty annoying. And to think we were just talking in another thread about lighting the falls to make them aesthetically pleasing. This just seems like it would never get approved in the current climate with the same conditions.

EDIT: Is there some method of voicing displeasure with the appropriate federal agency? Not that they'll ever read it.

[Anondson]

Regulators are yanking some money, partly because this is taking so long to get access to land, and that it has taken so long that entire communities have been built with thousands of residents that were there when this was first proposed.

http://www.startribune.com/regulators-p ... 491067881/

Ten years ago I might have been for doing this. Today I think doing it would be counter to where the riverfront is going. And just too risky putting a tunnel under the fragile Stone Arch Bridge. Plus, the state is making such great progress adding wind and solar renewables.

[kiliff75]

Plus, the state is making such great progress adding wind and solar renewables.

Agreed, this project would only produce 3.4 MW and we can easily make that much clean energy from two typical 2 MW wind turbines. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to what’s being developed in the Midwest (1400 MW of wind power are being developed in Minnesota at the moment).

[Silophant]

“That would pretty much negate what we’re planning to do, which is to build a building there with two levels of underground parking,” Monson said.

There's a reason right there to do it.

[Oreos&Milk]

Regulators are yanking some money, partly because this is taking so long to get access to land, and that it has taken so long that entire communities have been built with thousands of residents that were there when this was first proposed.

http://www.startribune.com/regulators-p ... 491067881/

Ten years ago I might have been for doing this. Today I think doing it would be counter to where the riverfront is going. And just too risky putting a tunnel under the fragile Stone Arch Bridge. Plus, the state is making such great progress adding wind and solar renewables.

Yea, I'd be interesting to see renderings and a proposal with details. If they could come up with a plan that wasn't so ugly and still retained a somewhat natural water feature I could see it being very worth it. It's not like the river is a natural water feature anyways. Maybe it would cost to much but can't they come up with an idea that is more tasteful and retains the park like features that we could build a nice park around




Maybe i'm just ignorant but it would be pretty cool if we could build a hydroelectric plant and still have a water effect, and heck maybe even a waterslide and a small water park like green space build around the already proposed new park. Sure maybe having people right above a water element and tons of electricity is not the most safest thing but... can't we have cheaper electricity, keep our water element and build a water slide that this company will pay for since in theory were allowing them to build their money making plant.

[Anondson]

Now Xcel terminated its grant too, pretty much in response to the PUC cutting the cord.

http://tcbmag.com/news/articles/2018/oc ... o-facility