the Regional Plan

Southeast Clean Energy Resource Team
Strategic Energy Plan Summary
June 2005
INCREASING
EFFICIENCY AND
DEVELOPING
CLEAN ENERGY
WILL HELP SE/SC
C E RT M E E T
THE REGION’S
ENERGY
D E M A N D.
CERTs Partners:
Minnesota Department of
Commerce, The Minnesota
Project, University of
Minnesota Regional
Sustainable Development
Partnerships, Rural Minnesota
Energy Board, Metropolitan
Counties Energy Task Force,
Resource Conservation and
Development Councils
Funded by:
The Legislative Commission on
Minnesota Resources from the
U.S. Department of Energy Oil
Overcharge Money, The Carolyn
Foundation, The Blandin
Foundation, Minnesota
Department of Commerce, U.S.
Department of Energy,
Community Assistantship
Program, University of Minnesota,
with financial support from the
Otto Bremer Foundation and the
Regional Sustainable Development
Partnerships Program, University
of Minnesota Initiative for
Renewable Energy and the
Environment, University of
Minnesota Regional Sustainable
Development Partnerships
The vision, goal and mission of the
Southeast/South Central Clean Energy
Resource Team is to lead the region
toward energy self-sufficiency, where the
energy needs of the region are being met
from local clean renewable energy
resources, using energy more wisely, and
renewable energy projects owned and
managed by people in the region.
C E RT C O N F I D E N T A C L E A N
R E N E WA B L E E N E R G Y
FUTURE IS POSSIBLE
The SE/SC CERT region has wonderful
renewable energy resources, including
wind, solar, biomass, biogas, and geothermal, and opportunities for cogeneration.
The team is confident that the current
and future needs of the people in the
region for energy in various forms can be
met by using existing resources more
wisely and by implementing clean energy
projects throughout the region.
C E RT E M P H A S I Z E S N E E D
F O R C I T I Z E N S TO B E
I N V O LV E D I N T H E I R
HOMES, SCHOOLS,
CHURCHES, BUSINESSES,
AND COMMUNITIES
In Phase 1, the SE/SC CERT gathered
information about energy and how it is
being used and identified renewable
energy resources and opportunities to use
energy more wisely in our region. In
Phase 2, the team will launch an education and outreach campaign to share the
information gathered and work with citizens, utilities, schools, government officials, churches, economic development
organizations, interested businesses, and
communities to implement renewable
energy and energy efficiency programs in
our region.
AC C O M P L I S H M E N T S O F T H E
S E / S C C E RT J A N U A RY 2 0 0 3
TO J U N E 2 0 0 5
What has the team accomplished in
Phase I of the project?
·
Prepared a strategic plan with vision
and mission statements, a goal,
objectives and strategies to guide the
team's work
·
Completed a broad inventory and
assessment of the SE/SC CERT region,
including land use, demographics, and
infrastructure
·
Finished an assessment of the current
energy situation in the region, including who is providing energy, what
types of energy and amounts are being
used, locations of power plants and
renewable energy projects in the region
·
Identified renewable energy resources
and opportunities to use energy more
wisely in the region
·
Identified barriers to implementing
renewable energy projects and started
working on ways to address them
·
Began developing an education/outreach campaign about energy and the
findings in our various assessments
·
Began work on a demonstration
renewable energy home at Eagle Bluff
Environmental Learning Center
·
Held five regional meetings. Topics
included: Principles and Possibilities of
Renewable Energy in SE MN,
Renewable Energy and Economic
Development, Agriculture as a
Producer and User of Energy.
S E / S C M I N N E S OTA
AT A G L A N C E
The region encompasses nearly 6 million
acres. According to the latest Land Use
Census, 70% of the land was being cultivated; 14% was forested; and 10% was
pasture and hay ground. Only 3.5% of the
land was being used for urban and rural
development The 2000 Census showed
that there were approximately 580,000
people living in 220,000 households. By
2030 the population is expected to grow
to 704,930, with the fastest growth occurring in Olmsted, Rice, and Dodge
Counties.
Southeast/South Central
CERT Member Snapshot:
Blue Earth County
Commissioner
Citizens United for
Responsible Energy
Dairyland Power
Cooperative
Eagle Bluff
Environmental
Learning Center
Farm Wind Power, LLC
Individuals interested in
energy issues
Isaac Walton League
OT H E R C I T I Z E N
I N V O LV E M E N T I N
R E N E WA B L E E N E R G Y I N
THE REGION:
Olmsted Waste-to-Energy
Facility
·
The CERT members in Olmsted
County have formed the Olmsted
CERT
RENew Northfield
·
The Three Rivers RC&D has formed
an energy committee to work within
Region 9
·
Citizens are forming an energy
committee in Houston County to
work within the Tri-County
Co-operative territory
·
Citizens in Winona County are
involved in a variety of renewable
energy projects
·
RENew Northfield is very active in
Rice County and the Northfield area
·
CURE is actively involved in renewable energy projects in Lake City and
Wabasha County
Prairie Country RC&D
Southern Minnesota
Municipal Power Agency
Sun’s Warmth
Winergie Wind Energy
Development Corp
Winona County
Environmental Services
For More Information:
Erin Tegtmeier
Experiment in Rural
Cooperation, Southeast
Minnesota Regional Sustainable
Development Partnership
507.536.6313
[email protected]
Melissa S.B. Pawlisch
University of Minnesota’s
Regional Sustainable
Development Partnerships
612.624.2293
[email protected]
W W W. C L E A N E N E R G Y R E S O U R C E T E A M S . O R G
Southeast Clean Energy
Resource Team
Strategic Energy Plan
CERTS PARTNERS:
Minnesota Department of Commerce
The Minnesota Project
University of Minnesota Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships
Rural Minnesota Energy Board
Metropolitan Counties Energy Task Force
Resource Conservation and Development Councils
F U N D E D B Y:
The Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources from the U.S. Department
of Energy Oil Overcharge Money
The Carolyn Foundation
The Blandin Foundation
Minnesota Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of Energy
Community Assistantship Program, University of Minnesota, with financial support from the Otto Bremer Foundation and Regional Sustainable Development
Partnerships Program
University of Minnesota Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment
University of Minnesota Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships
FINAL REPORT
Energy Use, Renewable Energy Resources and Potential for
Meeting the Energy Needs of the Fifteen Counties in SE/SC MN
from Local Renewable Energy Resources and Energy Efficiency
From the Citizens on the
THE SE/SC CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCE TEAM
Representing 15 Counties in SE/SC Minnesota:
Blue Earth, Dodge, Faribault, Fillmore, Freeborn, Goodhue, Houston, Le
Sueur, Mower, Olmsted, Rice, Steele, Wabasha, Waseca, Winona
JUNE 2005
Dedicated to Dick Broeker, 1942 - 2004
The SE/SC Clean Energy Resource Team (CERT) dedicates this report to the memory of
Dick Broeker. As Director of the Experiment in Rural Cooperation in SE Minnesota,
Dick was involved in establishing the CERTs Project. When the Clean Energy
Resources Teams were formed in regions around the state in December 2003, Dick was
instrumental in organizing our team and helping us with our work through June 2004,
when he retired. During this time, we completed a Strategic Plan to guide our work
and an Inventory and Assessment of the people, infrastructure and resources in our
area.
Dick was our friend, mentor and cheerleader. He believed strongly that individuals
could make a difference and that citizens working together in new public and private
partnerships could make the world a better place. He helped us in myriad ways -- by
connecting us with technical experts, finding resources for us and helping us think
through and articulate complex issues.
Most importantly, Dick had great faith that we -- ordinary citizens in SE/SC Minnesota - could design a clean renewable energy plan for our region and then shape an energy
future based on that plan. Because he believed in us, we believed in ourselves. We’ve
done -- and will do -- our best to live up to his vision.
This report is part of Dick’s legacy, which will continue on as we use it to shape our
work and create the clean renewable energy future for our region that we envisioned at
the start of our journey together in December 2003.
June 2005
2
PREFACE
“The thing to do with the future is not to forecast it, but to
create it. The objective of planning should be to design a
desirable future and to invent ways of bringing it about.”
-Russele Achoff
We believe it is essential for citizens of the state to be involved in the decisions being
made about our energy future and the type of energy future we want. Energy
impacts every aspect of our lives; those decisions shouldn’t be left to technical experts,
politicians, government officials and/or executives at the power companies. Section 1
defines the type of clean, renewable energy future we want for our area. This includes
an articulation of the values and principles that serve as the foundation or
underpinnings of the type of energy future and energy system we want – one that is
clean, renewable, affordable, reliable and safe.
The rest of the report sets out to accomplish five things: (1) provide information about
the Clean Energy Resource Team Project and our SE/SC CERT; (2) paint a broad picture
of the people, resources and infrastructure in our 15 counties in SE/SC Minnesota –
things such as land use, how many people there are, where they are living, how they
are moving about and the major economic activities they are engaged in; (3) describe
briefly what energy is, how we use energy in different forms and amounts, where
different sources of energy comes from and future prospects for their availability, the
health and environmental impacts resulting from using different types of energy,
external costs and subsidies masking the true costs of using different types of energy;
(4) identify and assess the renewable energy resources in the region and the potential
for saving energy and replacing conventional fuels with energy produced from those
local renewable resources; and (5) identify barriers to implementing renewable energy
projects in our region.
Hopefully this information will serve as a road map for designing and implementing
a clean, renewable energy future for our region, our counties and our communities.
When we started this project, we weren’t sure if we would be able to meet
our energy needs in different forms from local renewable energy resources
and using energy more wisely. We are now confident that we can do so
and export energy to other regions. The question becomes do we have the
June 2005
3
political will and fortitude to make it happen for our children and our
grandchildren.
There are different reasons why members of our Clean Energy Resource Team support
clean renewable energy and using energy more wisely. Some of us are interested in the
good jobs and economic development benefits that accompany locating renewable
energy and energy efficiency projects throughout our area. We estimate that well over
a billion and a half dollars are leaving our area every year to import energy. By
developing renewable energy projects within our area to meet our energy needs, we
could keep those dollars at home. Some of us are farmers who want to earn more
income from having wind generators on our farms and adding value to our
commodities. Some of us are environmentalists concerned about global warming,
mercury pollution and acid rain. Most of us are parents and grandparents concerned
about what the future holds for our children and grandchildren.
The beauty of renewable energy is that it has something for everyone – Republicans and
Democrats, liberals and conservatives, farmers and city dwellers, young and old,
environmentalists and business people. Renewable energy makes good sense for
everyone and good dollars and cents for our region. So if you read something in this
paper that you don’t agree with, please keep reading. You don’t have to believe in
global warming or be an environmentalist to support renewable energy. Renewable
energy has something for everyone.
We decided not to assess the potential of renewable technologies that are on the
horizon, such as fuel cells, producing ethanol from cellulose, hydrogen. We think that
producing ethanol from cellulose and being able to charge fuel cells from locallyproduced biogas hold great potential for our future. We are also interested in progress
being made to extract hydrogen from water using wind-powered electrolysis for local
and regional use. However, we do not think it is wise to be producing hydrogen from
nonrenewable fuels, such as natural gas, other fossil fuels or nuclear power.
We hope the reader will keep in mind that this report was prepared by citizen
volunteers, who took time from their regular busy lives over the course of a year and a
half to prepare it and be part of designing and creating a clean renewable energy future
for the 15 counties in SE/SC Minnesota. It is broad sweeping and was not meant to be
highly technical or comprehensive or provide in-depth information about renewable
energy technologies or energy efficiency programs that the reader could easily find
elsewhere. We regret any errors.
June 2005
4
Acknowledgements
Many individuals and organizations have supported our efforts and contributed to this
report’s content and preparation. We thank them and anyone we may have
inadvertently forgotten.
Individuals we want to thank include Dick Broeker, Director of the Experiment in Rural
Cooperation (the SE MN Regional Sustainable Development Partnership) through June
2004; Erin Tegtmeier, Director of the Experiment in Rural Cooperation (the SE MN
Regional Sustainable Development Partnership) beginning July 2004; Joel Haskard,
CERT Assistant Coordinator; Shannon Drake, our research assistant extraordinaire;
David Morris and John Bailey from the Institute for Local Self Reliance for advising us
on myriad topics throughout the project; Lola Schoenrich, Amanda Bilek, and Mark
Lindquist from the Minnesota Project; Jamie Schultz for doing GIS work; Mike
Michaud, Jeff Cook-Coyle, and Lee Dilley for their wind assessments; Douglas Tiffany
from the University of Minnesota for his agriculture/energy use information; Rich
Huelskamp for his assessment of conservation potential; Charles Peterson from the
PCA for help in obtaining information about waste water treatment plants, biosolids,
and feedlots for the potential biogas assessment; Jeff Cook-Coyle for his outline of the
barriers issues and economic development potential for wind development in our
region; Mike Michaud for helping identify barriers and working on how we might
remove barriers we have identified; Carol Overland and Kristen Eide-Tollefson for their
help in understanding transmission line issues; Ward Lutz for his help on the energy
used in transportation in our region and the definitions of energy conservation and
energy productivity; and Norm Erickson for all his comments and contributions.
We want to give special thanks to Nancy Adams, who chaired the SE/SC Clean Energy
Resource Team with dedication and enthusiasm and wrote this report, and to Melissa
Pawlisch, the statewide CERT coordinator, who has worked tirelessly on our behalf and
helped identify, gather and assess important information, connected us with technical
experts and resources, and cheered us on when we were overwhelmed with the
enormity and complexity of the task at hand.
June 2005
5
SECTION 1: THE KIND OF ENERGY FUTURE WE WANT
10
SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION TO THE CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCE TEAMS
15
SECTION 3: THE SE/SC CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCE TEAM (CERT)
17
SECTION 3.1 TEAM MEMBERS, RECRUITMENT , STRUCTURE , MEETINGS
17
SECTION 3.2 TEAM VISION , MISSION, GOAL, AND STRATEGIC PLAN WITH STRATEGIES
AND OBJECTIVES
19
SECTION 3.3 PRIORITIES FOR WORK AND ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES
21
SECTION 3.4 FUTURE PLANS FOR PHASE II OF CERT S’ WORK
23
SECTION 4: PEOPLE, RESOURCES, AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE SE/SC
CERT REGION
25
SECTION 4.1
SECTION 4.2
SECTION 4.3
SECTION 4.4
SECTION 4.5
SECTION 4.6
SECTION 4.7
25
25
26
26
26
27
28
COUNTIES IN THE SE/SC CERT REGION
REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS, HOUSEHOLDS , PROJECTED GROWTH
HOUSEHOLD AND HOUSEHOLD OCCUPANT INFORMATION
LAND USE
WATERSHEDS , RIVERS, AND AQUIFERS
TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
AGRICULTURE
SECTION 5: DISCUSSION ABOUT ENERGY
35
SECTION 5.1
SECTION 5.2
SECTION 5.3
SECTION 5.4
SECTION 5.5
SECTION 5.6
SECTION 5.7
SECTION 5.8
SECTION 5.9
AFFORDABLE
35
35
35
35
36
36
37
37
DEFINITION OF ENERGY
BEST ENERGY RESOURCE
ENERGY CAN BE RENEWABLE OR NON RENEWABLE
ENERGY RESOURCES COME IN AND ARE USED IN MANY FORMS.
CONVERSION AND TRANSMISSION OF ENERGY
ENERGY IS BEING USED BY VARIOUS SECTORS
ENERGY MEASUREMENTS
CLEAN , RENEWABLE, SAFE, AFFORDABLE AND RELIABLE ENERGY
RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES ARE CLEAN , SAFE, RELIABLE AND
SECTION 6 ENERGY USE IN MINNESOTA
June 2005
38
50
6
SECTION 6.1 MN ENERGY USE IN 2000 BY TYPE, AMOUNT , COST AND PERCENT OF
ENERGY CONSUMED
SECTION 6.2 MN ENERGY USE IN 2000 BY SECTOR
SECTION 6.3 MN ENERGY USE IN 2000 FOR PETROLEUM , NATURAL GAS AND
ELECTRICITY
50
51
52
SECTION 7 ENERGY USE IN SE/SC CERT AREA
58
SECTION 7.1
SECTION 7.2
SECTION 7.3
SECTION 7.4
SECTION 7.5
SECTION 7.6
SECTION 7.7
58
59
59
64
65
67
69
LARGEST ENERGY USERS
NATURAL GAS PROVIDERS
ELECTRICITY
RESIDENTIAL ENERGY USE
TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
COMMERCIAL ENERGY USE
INDUSTRIAL ENERGY USE
SECTION 8 ENERGY CONSERVATION, PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY
74
SECTION 8.1 DEFINITIONS
SECTION 8.2 EMBARKING ON A CAMPAIGN TO CONSERVE ENERGY AND USE IT MORE
PRODUCTIVELY 75
SECTION 8.3 TRANSPORTATION ENERGY EFFICIENCY
SECTION 8.4 COMMERCIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY
SECTION 8.5 INDUSTRIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY
SECTION 8.6 CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
SECTION 8.7 ENERGY SERVICES COMPANIES (ESCO)
SECTION 8.9 BUILDING CODES
74
80
80
82
85
85
86
SECTION 9: RENEWBLE ENERGY RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT
FOR THE SE/SC CERT REGION
88
SECTION 9.1 WIND RESOURCES AND POTENTIAL FOR SE/SC MN
88
SECTION 9.2 SOLAR
92
SECTION 9.3 BIOMASS
94
SECTION 9.4 BIOGAS
99
SECTION 9.5 HYDROELECTRIC
104
SECTION 9.6 COGENERATION OR COMBINED HEAT AND POWER (CHP)
105
SECTION 9.7 GEOTHERMAL GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMPS , GEOTHERMAL WATER
SOURCE HEAT PUMPS AND AIR-TO-AIR HEAT EXCHANGERS
107
June 2005
7
SECTION 9.8
SECTION 9.9
BIOFUELS AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR TRANSPORTATION (HYBRIDS ) 108
ALTERNATIVE CARS AND HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES (HEVS)
110
SECTION 10. BARRIERS TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT
112
SECTION 10.1
SECTION 10.2
SECTION 10.3
SECTION 10.4
SECTION 10.5
ECONOMIC BARRIERS
REGULATORY ISSUES
INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS
COMMERCIAL BARRIERS
INTERCONNECTION BARRIERS
112
114
114
115
116
TABLES______________________________________________________________________
TABLE 1: A CHANGE IN VALUES
TABLE 2: ACTIVE MEMBERS OF SE/SC CERT
TABLE 3: CROP PRODUCTION 2002
TABLE 4: LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION 2004
TABLE 5: POWER PLANT POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
TABLE 6: POLLUTION FROM TWO COAL PLANTS IN THE SE/SC CERT REGION &
MINNESOTA
14
17
28
28
39
TABLE 7: COSTS OF ELECTRICITY WITH AND WITHOUT EXTERNAL COSTS
TABLE 8: MINNESOTA ENERGY USE IN 2000 BY FUEL TYPE
TABLE 9: MN ENERGY USE BY SECTOR (2000)
TABLE 10: PETROLEUM PRODUCTS USED IN MINNESOTA
TABLE 11: MINNESOTA ELECTRICITY RATES IN 2000 BY SECTOR
TABLE 12: MINNESOTA’S RENEWABLE ENERGY POTENTIAL
TABLE 13: ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION PER COUNTY IN THE SE/SC CERT
TABLE 14: RESIDENTIAL ENERGY USE IN MINNESOTA (2000)
TABLE 15: TRANSPORTATION ENERGY USE IN MINNESOTA (2000)
TABLE 16: COMMERCIAL ENERGY USED IN MINNESOTA (2000)
TABLE 17: INDUSTRIAL ENERGY USE IN MINNESOTA (2000)
TABLE 18: ENERGY USED IN MN AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK
TABLE 19: FUEL EXPEN DED ON MAJOR CROPS (2000)
TABLE 20: ENERGY USED IN MAJOR CROP PROCESSING FACILITIES (2001)
TABLE 21: WIND POTEN TIAL BY COUNTY -- SE/SC CERT
TABLE 22: POSSIBLE RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION SITES IN SE/SC
TABLE 23: MAJOR CROPS
TABLE 24: SAWMILLS AND OTHER WOOD PRODUCERS
TABLE 25: SAWMILL RESIDUE BY COUNTY IN THE SE/SC CERT REGION
46
51
51
52
53
54
60
64
65
68
70
71
71
72
89
91
96
98
98
June 2005
40
8
TABLE 26: DAIRIES IN SE/SC REGION
TABLE 27: OPEN LANDF ILLS
TABLE 28: CLOSED SANITARY LANDFILLS
101
103
104
GRAPHS_____________________________________________________________________
GRAPH 1: MINNESOTA ENERGY SOURCES
GRAPH 2: MINNESOTA ENERGY USE BY SECTOR
GRAPH 3: COMPARATIVE USE OF ENERGY BY SECTOR
GRAPH 4: SOURCES OF RESIDENTIAL ENERGY USE
GRAPH 5: SOURCES OF TRANSPORTATION ENERGY
GRAPH 6: SOURCES OF COMMERCIAL ENERGY IN MINNESOTA
GRAPH 7: SOURCES OF INDUSTRIAL ENERGY IN MINNESOTA
50
51
52
64
65
67
69
APPENDICES________________________________________________________________
Chart 1 Cities and Towns and Population Projections
Chart 2 Cities and Towns by Population and Households
Chart 3 Feedlots
Chart 4 Agriculture and Livestock Processors
Chart 5 Soybeans and Corn Consumed in Area
Chart 6 Gyles Randall Statement on Corn-Soybean Rotation Not Sustainable
Chart 7 Energy to Raise Corn and Soybeans -- MN, CERT Region
Chart 8 Major Energy Users
Chart 9 Natural Gas and Electricity Providers
Chart 10 Co-ops, Munis and Power Providers in the 15 County SE/SC CERT Region
Chart 11 Munis and Coops and Customers by Sector, Power Consumption
Chart 12 Power Plants Fuel Types
Chart 13 Renewable Energy Projects
Chart 14 Transmission Line Map
Chart 15 Substations
Chart 16 Conservation Chart for Houses
Chart 17 Small Wind Potential - Mike Michaud
Chart 18 Updates ILSR Biomass Charts, Ethanol from Corn Stover
Chart 19 Biomass Estimates - Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Chart 20 Forest Products Industries
Chart 21 Livestock
Chart 22 WWTP, Biosolids, Stab Ponds
Chart 23 E-85 Stations
June 2005
9
SECTION 1: THE KIND OF ENERGY FUTURE WE WANT – ONE THAT
IS CLEAN RENEWABLE, RELIABLE, AFFORDABLE AND SAFE – AND ITS
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES AND VALUES
During the course of the past year and a half, we have had several fruitful discussions
about what kind of energy future we want for ourselves, our children and future
residents of our region. Several principles and values emerged, as outlined below. We
think it is imperative that citizens articulate the principles and values that are important
to us and that these principles and values be the basis against which to weigh future
decisions being made about energy. Politicians, government officials, and technicians
can develop policies and technologies, but it is the citizens who should articulate the
vision, principles and values on which to form those policies and develop those
technologies. It was interesting to us that three of the attributes we identified are the
same as the three pillars of the electric industry: safe, reliable and affordable.
The first thing we grappled with was a definition of renewable energy. We decided to
accept the following definition: renewable energy is a naturally occurring form of
energy that has t he capacity to replenish itself through ecological cycles and sound
management principles. These include wind, active and passive solar, geothermal,
biogas, cogeneration, sustainably-grown biomass and biofuels, and low impact hydro.
Defining “clean”, as in Clean Energy Resource Team, wasn’t as clear-cut. Since all
forms of energy, except the sun hitting the earth directly, disrupt the environment in
one way or another while being produced, transformed or transmitted, we decided to
weigh the issue of “cleanliness” on a continuum – some energy technologies definitely
did less environmental damage over their lifecycles than other forms and were thus
“cleaner” than other technologies.
PRINCIPLES OF A CLEAN, RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEM AND FUTURE
1. Efficiency. Our cheapest, safest, cleanest and most available energy resource
involves using energy more wisely. We must use less energy, increase the efficiency
with which we use energy, and increase the productivity of the energy we use to do
more work. This applies to both renewable and nonrenewable energy resources. For
definitions of these terms, see Section 8.1.
2. Sustainability. We must maximize the use of renewable energy resources and
technologies that are sustainable. When people talk about something being sustainable,
they usually consider three factors: the environment, society and economics.
June 2005
10
Sustainable renewable energy systems:
• Come from a diverse mix of decentralized, local renewable energy resources
• Do the least amount of harm to the environment possible, make no net
contribution of greenhouse gases and promote stewardship rather than
exploitation of natural resources
• Are designed to contain and/or reuse their own waste, rather than release it into
the environment
• Match energy technologies with the work to be done, taking scale into account
(as Amory Lovins says, we don’t need to use a chain saw to cut butter)
• Are affordable and enrich, rather than bankrupt, local communities and people;
keep energy dollars at home to provide good jobs and taxes to be used for
schools, roads, infrastructure and other societal needs in our state and local
communities; are not rationed, with energy going to people who can afford to
pay over those who cannot
• Are based on full cost accounting, or life cycle analysis, which include paying for
external costs and not saddling future generations with debt; take a long-term
view, rather than be based on short-term profit; consider the rights of future
generations to have clean air, water, forests, productive land and wilderness
areas
• Minimize risk and prevent harm from price volatility, unknown or unproven
technologies, disruptions in supply and delivery from shortage, terrorist attack
or overloading an antiquated, centralized grid system.
3. Equity and Place. We must maximize the use of energy sources that most benefit
the local and regional community. These systems will include a mix of different types
of smaller, decentralized renewable energy projects that produce energy as close to the
place where they will be used as possible. Communities will own and manage their
energy systems and keep their energy dollars at home to use for the betterment of their
own communities. People who are impacted by the energy system will receive
information about the system at every step and have some say about how it is managed.
Changes on the Horizon for Our Civilization. We and future generations will be
dealing with two events that are changing life on this planet forever: the end of the
cheap oil and global climate change. One way historians define different periods in
history is by the predominant type of energy used. Using this definition system, our
civilization is in transition – moving from the end of the Petroleum Age and into the
dawn of the Solar Era. There is a great deal of discussion today about “Peak Oil.” Peak
oil is the point in time when extraction of oil from the earth reaches its highest point
and then begins to decline. Some people believe that global oil production has already
June 2005
11
“peaked” or will in the next few years. At the time global oil production peaks,
supplies of oil will decrease, oil prices will rise and shortages will occur. The world will
probably never run out of oil, but we will reach a time when it is too difficult or
expensive to extract. Every aspect of our lives in the past has been impacted by cheap
oil, and increasing costs and shortages of oil will impact every aspect of our lives in the
future.
In addition to the end of cheap oil, our climate is changing. We have only begun to see
the changes that are coming as a result of global climate change – melting glaciers,
rising sea levels, changing temperatures of ocean currents, more frequent and intense
storms, flood and drought cycles, people dying from the heat and so on. Energy use
and global climate change are intertwined. Global climate change is happening
primarily because of the accumulation of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels in
our power plants, factories, buildings and vehicles.
Plants capture and store solar energy. In the Solar Era the carbohydrates of plant
materials will replace the hydrocarbons of petroleum to meet our needs for fuel and
raw materials for industry, in addition to providing food. We will become more aware
of how dependent we are on the earth’s biological systems – agricultural lands, fresh
water, forests, air and fisheries, which are currently being degraded from overuse
and exploitation. We will become increasingly dependent on our agricultural lands
and forests to grow crops and cellulose for biofuels in sustainable ways. Our ability to
grow enough crops hinges on whether or not we will have enough water, either in our
groundwater aquifers that we can use for irrigation or through adequate rainfall. The
rainfall patterns and aquifer recharge patterns in Minnesota are changing because of
global warming, and our climate is becoming hotter and drier. Thus, we are concerned
about having adequate water resources in the future to support the carbohydrate
economy of the Solar Era.
Plans are being made in Washington, St. Paul and utility board rooms around the world
to move ahead to build new coal-fired plants, natural gas plants, nuclear plants and
extensive transmission line systems to move energy from one region of the country to
another. This business-as-usual approach to meeting future energy needs is advocated
by many decision-makers. However, all of these big projects have tremendous social,
environmental and economic costs that we have identified in Section 5. When these
costs are taken into account, the business-as-usual approach offers no hope of a safe,
reliable or affordable energy future.
These are not acceptable to us: going to war to maintain access to foreign oil, building
more nuclear, natural gas and coal-fired plants, imposing tremendous environmental
June 2005
12
problems and debt on future generations and degrading the environment to obtain
energy at any cost. Business-as-usual is a dark alley we cannot afford to go down.
Future generations will judge us harshly if we do.
Fortunately, there is another way. We can change the wasteful ways we use energy in
all forms without sacrificing our comfort or compromising the comfort of future
generations. We can meet the needs of our region for energy in various forms from
renewable resources located in our region and using energy more wisely.
In addition to providing the sustainable, clean energy future we need and want,
investing in energy efficiency and developing the bountiful renewable energy resources
found in our region would keep our energy dollars at home, create hundreds of small
businesses and good jobs and spearhead economic development throughout SE/SC
Minnesota.
Transitions are often difficult and perilous. The following table suggests the shift in
values that will be necessary to guide us as we move from the end of the Petroleum Age
into the Solar Era.
June 2005
13
Table 1: A Change in Values1
Petroleum Age
Values
No Limits
Pillage earth’s
resources
Limits-resources under stress
Relation to Nature
Domination of nature
Harmony with nature
Human Beings
Separate from nature
Part of nature
Economy
Materialism
Throw-away society
Sustainability
Reuse, recycle
Nature of Products
Planned Obsolescence
Durability, high quality design and
engineering
Scale
Bigger is better
Centralization
Specialization
Small has a place too
Decentralization
Diversity, Holistic thinking
Speed
Let’s go faster
Where are we going?
National Security
Military might
People able to meet basic needs, protect
ecosystems
Determinants of
Status
Material Possessions
Personal development and social contributions
Happiness
Accumulation
Spiritualism
Relationships
Do what you want
Competition
Individual
Prudence, Self-restraint
Cooperation
Community
Earth’s Resources
1
Solar Era Values
Stewardship
Adapted from Brown, Lester. 1981. Building a Sustainable Society. Worldwatch Institute, p. 351
June 2005
14
SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION TO THE CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCE
TEAMS
The Clean Energy Resource Teams (CERTs) were established in the fall of 2003 to
engage citizens and communities in planning and designing their own energy futures.
The project is a partnership and collaboration between the Minnesota Department of
Commerce, Minnesota Project, University of Minnesota Regional Sustainable
Development Partnerships, Rural Minnesota Energy Board, Metro County Energy Task
Force, Resource Conservation and Development Councils, and citizens in six regions
around the state. One of the main goals of the project is to connect communities and
citizens with the technical resources and expertise necessary to design and implement
renewable energy projects.
Funding for the first phase of the CERTs project was provided by the Legislative
Commission on Minnesota Resources, Minnesota Department of Commerce, U.S.
Department of Energy, Carolyn Foundation, Blandin Foundation, University of
Minnesota Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment, University of
Minnesota Regional Sustainable Development Partnerships and University of
Minnesota Community Assistantship Program.
A statewide coordinator, Melissa Pawlisch, was hired on September 29, 2003, and an
assistant coordinator, Joel Haskard, was hired on November 3, 2004. The CERTs
manual, “Designing a Clean Energy Future: A
Resource Manual” provides case studies of
renewable energy projects located throughout
the state and information on available renewable
energy technologies. The Minnesota Project
manages the CERTs web page, which includes a
wealth of information about different renewable
energy technologies, team activities and ways to
save energy and use it more efficiently and
productively:
www.cleanenergyresourceteams.com.
Seven Clean Energy Resource Teams are
working throughout the state (see map). Teams
include between 30 and 200 stakeholders
representing area local governments, farmers,
utilities, colleges, universities, businesses and
environmental and economic development
June 2005
15
groups. Individuals are involved at different levels, ranging from serving on team
steering committees, examining topics of particular interest, attending quarterly team
meetings and weighing in with opinions and ideas on the regional CERTs list serves.
The Metro County Energy Task Force is serving as the CERTs team in the metro area.
All of the teams are studying their region’s energy systems and identifying areas where
conservation efforts and community scale renewable energy projects can be introduced.
Each team has had at least one workshop with expert speakers on various renewable
energy topics or taken tours to help them understand the regional energy system and
identify areas of regional economic opportunity.
Each CERT is developing a clean renewable energy plan for its region based on its
vision of the kind of energy future it wants for the region and a careful study of its
regional renewable energy resources and conservation potential. All of the visions
articulated by the CERTs teams recognize the two-pronged potential of renewable
energy to foster economic development in their regions and protect the environment.
June 2005
16
SECTION 3: THE SE/SC CLEAN ENERGY RESOURCE TEAM (CERT)
Citizens from the following 15 counties in SE/SC Minnesota have come together to form
the SE/SC CERT to develop a renewable energy plan for the region and begin some
conservation and renewable energy projects in the area: Blue Earth, Dodge, Faribault,
Fillmore, Freeborn, Goodhue, Houston, Le Sueur, Mower, Olmsted, Rice, Steele,
Wabasha, Waseca and Winona.
Section 3.1
Team Members, Recruitment, Structure, Meetings
3.1.1 Initial Team Membership Recruitment. The first meeting to organize the SE/SC
CERT was held on December 16, 2003. Individuals were recruited by various methods:
letters of invitation, press releases, announcements in local papers, follow up stories in
the local press and on local radio stations, Sierra Club mailings to their members in the
region and announcements in its newsletter and word-of-mouth. Individuals who
attended signed in and the CERTs mailing list was started.
3.1.2 Team Members and Steering Committee. The SE/SC CERT represents a wide
variety of stakeholders in the region. Around 150 names are on the core membership
list. These are people who have attended meetings and/or indicated an interest in being
kept apprised of SE/SC CERT activities at different events where SE/SC CERT has had a
display table. A core group of around 20 steering committee members has been
meeting monthly to develop a renewable energy plan for the region and to help
establish projects throughout the region. The members of the steering committee as of
May 2005 are as follows:
Table 2: Active Members of SE/SC CERT
Member
Nancy Adams
Farmer/Citizen Activist
Bruce Anderson
President, ReNew Northfield
Sig Anderson
Business Owner
Jeff Cook -Coyle
Wind Developer
Joe Deden
Director, Eagle Bluff Environmental
Learning Center
Lee Dilley
Malt-O-Meal
Kristen Eide-Tollefson
Clean Energy Advocate
Gael Entrikin
Citizen Activist
John Helmers
Manager, WTE Facility
Rich Huelskamp
Larry Landherr
June 2005
Energy Consultant
Citizen Activist
Town
Le Roy
Northfield
Lake City
Rochester
Lanesboro
Northfield
Frontenac
Rochester
Rochester
Red Wing
Rochester
17
Ward Lutz
Anne Morse
Nick Nichols
Roger Wacek
Tim Wagar
Citizen Activist
Winona County Recycling
Independent contractor
Citizen Activist
Citizen Activist
Rochester
Winona
LaCrosse
Owatonna
Rochester
Katy Wortel
County Commissioner
Mankato
Section 3.1.3 Team Organization. The SE/SC CERT originally set up three committees
that met independently from the steering committee: the Policy, Outreach and
Education Committee (POE); the Inventory, Assessment and Planning Committee
(IAP); and the Project Committee. After the completion of the Assessment and
Inventory, the steering committee was expanded to include members from the three
committees and met as a committee of the whole.
Section 3.1.4 Team Meetings
3.1.4.1 Steering Committee Meetings. The SE/SC Steering Committee met on the following
dates: January 13, 2004; February 18, 2004; April 7, 2004; May 3, 2004; May 17, 2004;
June 7, 2004; August 19, 2004; September 7, 2004; October 5, 2004; October 18, 2004;
November 11, 2004; December 14, 2004; January 28, 2005; March 22, 2005; April 19, 2005,
May 5, 2005; May 17, 2005.
3.1.4.2 Quarterly Meetings. The SE/SC CERT held seven quarterly meetings, as outlined
below. Before each meeting, press releases were sent to regional media outlets and email invitations were sent to the SE/SC CERT list serve and through the e-mail lists of
some of our CERT partners in the region. Written letters of invitation and a SE/SC
CERT brochure were sent to all legislators, Economic Development Authorities (EDAs)
and Chambers of Commerce in the region prior to the quarterly meeting on Economic
Development and Renewable Energy. The meeting dates and locations of all quarterly
meetings were also posted on the CERTs website. Meeting summaries were sent to the
list serve and posted on the CERTs website. Presentations from meetings were also
posted to the website when available. Dates and topics for the SE/SC CERT quarterly
meetings follow:
1. December 16, 2003: “An Introduction to CERTs” initial meeting
2. March 3, 2004: “SE/SC CERT Mission, Vision and Goal Statements,”
Brainstorming Session.
June 2005
18
3. June 26, 2004: “Principles & Possibilities of Renewable Energy in SE MN” and
Assessment Findings. Key-Note Speaker: David Morris. Summary of Inventory
and Assessment: Nancy Adams.
4. September 14, 2004: “Renewable Energy and Economic Development.”
Keynote Speaker: Kevin Knobloch, President, Union of Concerned Scientists.
Panelists: Dean Harrington, President of the 1 st National Bank of Plainview;
Duane Johnson, Planning Director of Dodge County; Dan Hayes of Southeast
Minnesota Public Power Association (SMMPA); and Tara Widner of the
International Steelworkers Union.
5. January 11, 2005: Review of Work To Date and Plans for Moving Ahead.
Committee Members.
6. February 5, 2005: “Agriculture as a Producer and User of Energy.” Keynote
Speakers: Alan Teel, “ Biomass Energy - Opportunities and Challenges;” Linda
Meschke, “Growing Renewable Energy Communities and Biomass;” Amanda
Bilek, “On Farm Energy Use & Efficiency Potential;” Nancy Adams, “Changing
Prospects for Minnesota Agriculture.”
7. June 22, 2005: Tour of Renewable Energy Projects.
3.1.4.3 Statewide Meeting. Representatives from all of the CERTs met for a statewide
meeting on February 28, 2005 in St. Cloud.
Section 3.2
Objectives
Team Vision, Mission, Goal, and Strategic Plan with Strategies and
Vision: We envision citizens, businesses and communities producing a rapidly
increasing share of the region’s energy through locally owned renewable energy
projects. This vision can only be realized through the wise and efficient use of all
energy resources, e.g., energy conservation and energy efficiency.
Mission: The Southeast/South Central Minnesota Clean Energy Resource Team’s
mission is to lead our region toward energy self-sufficiency.
Goal: Our goal is to create a future for ourselves and generations to come based
on clean, locally owned, renewable energy.
June 2005
19
Objective 1: Conserve energy and use less energy. Every gallon of
gasoline unburned and every watt of electricity saved will move us closer
to our goal most efficiently and economically.
Strategy 1. Implement an education and public relations campaign
regarding energy, the importance of conserving energy and using
less energy and ways in which individuals, schools, businesses, etc.
can save energy.
Strategy 2. Identify energy conservation opportunities being
promoted by our power providers. Help publicize these and
encourage the providers to change them if they aren’t meeting the
needs of the area.
Strategy 3. Implement energy-saving programs at targeted
locations throughout the region.
Objective 2: Design a Renewable Energy Plan for the region based on the
indigenous renewable energy resources of the region and the types and
quantities of energy needed in the future.
Strategy 1. Carry out an assessment of the 15-county region. This
will identify things like the population, cities and towns, number
of households, schools, hospitals, airports, transportation methods,
large energy users and natural resource base. Determine projected
growth and future energy needs based on that growth.
Strategy 2. Understand the types, forms and amounts of energy
currently used in the region. We consume energy primarily in the
forms of liquid fuels, gas - natural gas and LP - and electricity. The
electricity used in the region is generated largely by coal-fired and
nuclear power plants. The major sectors using energy are
transportation, residential, commercial, industrial (including as raw
materials for other products) and agriculture.
Strategy 3. Identify critical points where existing energy supplies
are likely to face constraints due to supply, delivery, cost, public
health or other environmental factors over the next 20 years.
June 2005
20
Strategy 4. Establish target goals for how much and what types of
energy we will need in the future. Take the amounts we are now
using, subtract the amounts we can save from conservation, add
the needs from projected growth.
Strategy 5. Identify opportunities for renewable energy projects –
large wind, small wind, photovoltaic solar, active and passive solar
thermal, biomass including residues and potential for growing
biomass crops on marginal lands, biogas, cogeneration and small
low-head hydroelectric.
Strategy 6. Establish a renewable energy mix that will meet the
future energy needs of the region, as determined above, from clean,
renewable sources.
Objective 3: Facilitate in all possible ways the establishment of renewable
energy projects throughout the region to meet our needs for clean
renewable energy in the forms we will need – liquid, gas and electricity.
Strategy 1. Use the resources of the Regional Partnerships, CERTs
and their associates to obtain information, technical expertise and
ideas for and access to funding sources.
Strategy 2. Identify barriers to the implementation of renewable
energy projects and identify ways to eliminate or get around them.
Strategy 3. Encourage Minnesota citizens and policymakers to
support clean energy initiatives whenever and wherever they have
the opportunity.
Section 3.3
Priorities for Work and Allocation of Resources
3.3.1 Work Plan. The SE/SC CERT members felt that they were being asked by the
LCMR and their CERT partners to do several things, including:
(1) Complete a broad, sweeping inventory of the region, which included people,
resource bases, land use, major economic activities and infrastructure;
June 2005
21
(2) Complete an assessment of current energy use;
(3) Identify potential renewable energy technologies and renewable energy
resources in the region;
(4) Identify potentials for using less energy and using energy more productively
and efficiently;
(5) Develop a plan to meet future energy needs of the region using a threepronged approach: using energy more efficiently and productively, reducing
energy use and developing a decentralized mix of renewable energy projects
around the region;
(6) Implement energy education, conservation programs and renewable energy
projects in the region.
3.3.2 Allocation of Resources. Our SE/SC CERT received approximately $22,200 to
accomplish our work. We allocated those funds in the following ways:
3.3.2.1 Student Researcher. We hired a student worker to help do research and compile
information for the inventory and assessment and community outreach program.
3.3.2.2 Prepare Final Report. We interpreted our main responsibility to be to prepare a
credible renewable energy plan for our area. We obtained the help of consultants to
help us determine what kinds of information to gather for the assessment and
inventory, help us understand technical information and give us ideas for renewable
energy projects we could undertake in the region to replace conventional fuels and
review the final draft to see that it was correct and as inclusive as a group of volunteers
could be expected to make it.
3.3.2.3 Model home project at Eagle Bluff Environmental Learning Center near Lanesboro.
Representatives from SE/SC CERT, the Initiative for Renewable Energy and the
Environment (IREE) at the University of Minnesota and Eagle Bluff Environmental
Learning Center began working together to design a conventional, energy-efficient
home that would use renewable energy. The home is being designed with three
purposes in mind: 1) serve as a model home that Eagle Bluff’s participating students
could see themselves living in; 2) provide an educational, renewable energy
demonstration and classroom; and 3) serve as a residential home for Eagle Bluff’s two
graduate naturalists. The walkout basement will be used for classroom access (25
June 2005
22
persons) and an energy center. The classroom will be able to show different loads in the
house being switched from different sources, depending on their availability and use –
wind, solar, storage. The home will be designed with real time monitors so students
can monitor how the home is receiving its power and other conditions back in their
classrooms via the Internet.
3.3.2.4 Address Barriers. We obtained the help of a consultant to address one of the
major barriers we identified to getting renewable energy projects established
throughout our area: being able to obtain access to the grid. He prepared and
presented a statement on behalf of the SE/SC CERT at the Meeting of the Minnesota
Transmission Owners in Rochester on October 6, 2004 and is preparing the outline of a
paper that will address this issue.
3.3.2.5 Outreach and Education Campaign. We felt one of the most important things we
could do was disseminate information throughout the region about (1) energy, (2) the
findings from our inventory and assessment on how energy is being used in our region,
how it can be used more wisely and renewable energy resources in the region, and (3)
ideas for things individuals, schools, communities and businesses could do to use
energy more wisely and start renewable energy projects across the region. We devoted
part of our money to developing this Outreach and Education Campaign and compiling
and printing materials to hand out at presentations in each county that could serve as
the beginning of a county information center on renewable energy.
Section 3.4
Future Plans for Phase II of CERTs’ Work
3.4.1 Phase 2. The original funding for Phase 1 of CERTs work ends on June 30, 2005.
The SE/SC CERT intends to devote the next two years - Phase 2 - to working with
citizens, utilities, schools, government officials, churches, economic development
organizations, interested businesses and communities throughout the area to engage
them in discussions about what kind of energy future they want and how we can work
together to create a clean renewable energy future for our region. Phase 2 will begin
with an education/outreach campaign with one meeting in each county to present the
findings of the SE/SC CERT inventory, assessment and regional plan. Hopefully,
citizens who attend these meetings will serve as a core group to help start renewable
energy projects and energy conservation/efficiency programs in their communities. We
are in the process of breaking out all the information we have compiled for our region
by county for use in county planning efforts. We are also planning to contact all of the
major energy providers in our region to learn more about their plans for renewable
energy projects and conservation/efficiency programs and see how we might work
together to create a clean energy future for our region.
June 2005
23
3.4.2. County CERT Groups and Other Organizations are being formed to work on
renewable energy throughout the 15-county region.
3.4.2.1 The Olmsted County CERT has been formed to focus on renewable energy efforts
in Olmsted County. Their monthly newsletter can be found at:
http://www.cleanenergyresourceteams.org/southeast.html. The group is currently
working on county-wide energy awareness projects, such as supporting use of biodiesel
beyond B2 in community fleets, lowering residential energy use and exploring
partnerships for specific alternative energy projects. For more information contact
Ward Lutz at [email protected].
3.4.2.2. The Three Rivers Resource Conservation and Development Council has formed an
Energy Committee to work within Region 9. Current participants include Nicollet County,
Blue Earth County, Martin County, Watonwan Soil and Water Conservation District,
Blue Earth River Basin Initiative, University of Minnesota Extension Service, Gustavus
Adolphus College, Minnesota State University - Mankato, Region 9 Development
Commission, Three Rivers RC&D, Greater Mankato Economic Development, Benco
Electric, Windfinity and other interested parties. The group is identifying the area’s
current renewable energy resources, assessing current projects and working
collaboratively to establish renewable energy projects and conservation projects in the
area. For more information, contact Amy Stratton at [email protected].
3.4.2.3 Houston County citizens are in the process of forming a group to work on
renewable energy projects in the Tri-County Co-op service area. They want to take the
findings of the SE/SC CERT assessment and create renewable energy projec ts
throughout the area to create positive economic change in their counties. For more
information, contact Nick Nichols at [email protected].
3.4.2.4 Winona County. Contact Anne Morse to learn about many exciting programs
happening in Winona County at [email protected].
June 2005
24
SECTION 4: PEOPLE, RESOURCES, AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE
SE/SC CERT REGION
The following is a summary of the broad inventory and assessment the SE/SC CERT
undertook to learn more about the region, its people, resources, infrastructure and
agriculture.
Section 4.1
Counties in the SE/SC CERT Region
The region of the SE/SC CERT includes the following 15 counties: Blue Earth, Dodge,
Faribault, Fillmore, Freeborn, Goodhue, Houston, Le Sueur, Mower, Olmsted, Rice,
Steele, Wabasha, Waseca and Winona.
Section 4.2
Regional Demographics, Households, Projected Growth
The 2000 Census showed that there were 577,176 people living in the 15 counties in
219,167 households. The population is spread out across the landscape as follows: 14.9
percent of the population lives in one city – Rochester; 38.8 percent of the population
lives in six cities with populations over 20,000; 19.5 percent of the population lives in 17
cities with populations ranging from 3,000 to 19,000; and 41.7 percent of the population
lives in 377 towns with fewer than 3,000 people. 23.2 percent of the people live in towns
of less than 999 people (see Charts 1 and 2 in the Appendix) .
The population of the region is expected to grow to 622,700 people with 244,810
households by 2010 and 704,930 people with 292,790 households by 2030. The fastest
growth is occurring in Olmsted, Rice and Dodge Counties. 2
2
Minnesota State Demographic Center. 2002. “Minnesota Population Projections 2000-2030.” Retrieved from:
http://www.demography.state.mn.us/DownloadFiles/00Proj/PopulationProjections02Intro.pdf, June 12, 2005..
June 2005
25
Section 4.3
Household and Household Occupant Information
Seventy-seven percent of the 219,167 houses in the SE/SC region are occupied by their
owners. This is important because people who own the homes they live in are much
more likely to invest in conservation and renewable energy projects to save money on
their utility bills and enhance their property values. However, other factors impact on
the willingness and/or ability of homeowners to invest in renewable
energy/conservation projects, such as the age of the owner/occupant, median family
income and value of the home. Twenty-six percent of the households in the region are
occupied by one person and 25 percent of the households in the region have one
member over age 65. Median family income in the region ranges from a high of $61,610
in Olmsted County to $41,793 in Faribault County. The percentage of families living
below the poverty level range from less than four percent in Olmsted and Goodhue
Counties to over 6 percent in Blue Earth, Mower and Fillmore Counties. Five counties
have median house values over $100,000: Steele, LeSueur, Goodhue, Olmsted and
Rice. 3
Section 4.4
Land Use
The 15 counties encompass a large and diverse area: over 9,000 square miles or almost
six million acres. The land varies from the hilly, forested area in the southeast to the flat
prairie agricultural lands in the western part of the region. According to the latest land
use census, 70 percent of the area is being cultivated, 14 percent is in forests, 10 percent
is pasture and hay ground, 3.5 percent is taken up by urban and rural development, 2
percent is water and 1 percent is wetland. 4 Thus, 94 percent of the land in the region is
being or can be used to produce biomass for energy in the form of intentionally planted
energy crops and crop and forest products residues.
Section 4.5
Watersheds, Rivers, and Aquifers
The area has wonderful rivers and water resources. There are two major watersheds:
the Lower Mississippi River Basin and the Minnesota River Basin. Major rivers include
the Blue Earth, Cannon, Cedar, LeSueur, Minnesota, Mississippi, Root, Shell Rock,
Upper Iowa, Wantonwan, Wapsipinican, Winnebago and Zumbro. It was not possible
to get good information about the aquifers in the region, including sizes and aquifer
3
US Census Bureau. 1999. “Income and Poverty in 1999.” Retrieved from: http://factfinder.census.gov in February
2005.
4
Data Net. 1990. “Minnesota Land Use and Cover Statistics.” Retrieved from:
www.lmic.state.mn.us/datanetweb/landuse.html on June 12, 2005.
June 2005
26
recharge rates. We are concerned about changing rainfall patterns and changing
aquifer recharge patterns because of global warming and future residents of the area
having enough drinking water and water to grow crops, produce biofuels and use for
other purposes.
Section 4.6
Transportation Infrastructure
4.6.1 Major Highways. Two major interstates cross through the area: Interstate 90 runs
east and west across the southern part of the region and Interstate 35 heads north and
south. Other major state highways include 169, 218, 52, 63 and 61, which lead north to
the Twin Cities, and 14, which crosses east to west.
4.6.2 Railways. The following railroads are operating in the area: from east to west, the
DM&E (Dakota Minnesota and Eastern), UP (Union Pacific) and IMRL (I & M Rail Link)
and, from north to south, the Canadian Pacific and Union Pacific Railways. As oil
prices soar, railroads will play a much greater role in our transportation system in the
future. Rail is one of the most efficient ways to move goods and people, and various
fuel sources, including sustainably -grown wood, can be used to power the trains.
Increasingly, goods will move through our area by rail to and from barges going up and
down the Mississippi River and other major rivers.
4.6.3 Airports. The following eight commercial airports are located in the area: Albert
Lea, Austin, Faribault, Mankato, Owatonna, Red Wing, Winona and Rochester (which is
an international airport). Six municipal airports are located at Blue Earth, Dodge
Center, LeSueur, Preston, Rushford and Waseca.
4.6.4 Public Transportation in and Between Cities. According to the Minnesota Atlas,
the following cities in the area had fixed ride public transit systems in 2002: Faribault,
Mankato, Red Wing and Rochester. Albert Lea, Northfield, Stewartville and Winona
had Dial-A-Ride systems. Many counties had countywide public transit systems,
including Dodge, Fillmore, Goodhue, Houston, Mower, Rice, Steele, Wabasha and
Winona.
4.6.5 Vehicles. In 2003 there were 578,027 registered vehicles in the area, as follows:
passenger cars (361,024), pick-up trucks (154,376), buses (1,720), other trucks (26,571),
motorcycles (22,651), recreational vehicles (5,738), mopeds (1,372), van pool vans (6),
state-owned tax exempt vehicles (513) and tax exempt vehicles (4,056).
June 2005
27
Section 4.7
Agriculture
Agriculture production is the predominant use of land in the region (70 percent) and a
major economic activity. In the latest agricultural census (2002), there were 16,748
farms in the 15 counties, utilizing 4,847,624 acres. 5
4.7.1 Crop Production. In 2002, the region had 1,799,100 acres planted with corn,
yielding 289,843,940 bushels; 1,362,400 acres in soybeans, yielding 72,600,900 bushels;
414,600 acres in hay, yielding 1,656,900 tons; 61,600 acres in oats, yielding 4,703,700
bushels; and 3,000 acres in wheat, yielding 133,600 bushels. 6
Table 3: Crop Production 2002
Crop
Acres - 2002
Yield - 2002
Corn
Soybeans
Hay
Oats
Wheat
1,799,100
1,362,400
414,600
61,600
3,000
289,843,940 bushels
72,600,900 bushels
1,656,900 tons
4,703,700 bushels
133,600 bushels
4.7.2 Livestock Production. In 2002, there were 9,354 registered feedlots in the 15county area (see Chart 3 in the Appendix). Livestock numbers for 2004 included
572,000 cattle, 131,000 milk cows in 1,494 dairies and 20,100 sheep and lambs. 7 In 2002,
there were approximately 2,021,000 hogs and pigs, 3,359,000 turkeys and 2,874,000
chickens in the region. 8
Table 4: Livestock Production 2004
Animals
NUMBERS 2002
Numbers 2004
Cattle
Milk Cows
Sheep & Lambs
Turkeys
Chickens
Hogs & Pigs
3,359,000
2,874,000
2,021,000
572,000
131,000
20,100
-
5
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002. “2002 Census of Agriculture”. Retrieved from:
http://151.121.3.33:8080/Census/Create_Census_US_CNTY.jsp#top in Fall 2004.
6
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2004. “Minnesota Agricultural Statistics: Crop County
Estimates.” Retrieved from: www.nass.usda.gov/mn in Fall 2004.
7
Minnesota Agricultural Statistics Service. 2004. “Minnesota Ag News.” Retrieved from: www.nass.usda.gov/mn
in Fall 2004.
8
Feedlot and poultry statistics came from the Pollution Control Agency via personal conversation with Nancy
Adams.
June 2005
28
4.7.3 Processing of Crops and Livestock. The region has several grain, oil seed, dairy,
fruit and vegetable, fat rendering and livestock processing facilities, which are listed by
type and location below. Many of them are among the largest users of energy in the
region and should be good candidates for using cogeneration, biomass, biogas, biofuels
and other renewable energy technologies to replace the large amount nonrenewable
fuels they are currently using. The processors who use the largest amounts of energy
are listed in Table 20 along with the amounts and types of energy used. A list of the
food processors by name, county and town as of January 2005 is in the Appendix, Chart
4.9
9
•
Oilseed Crushing Plants: Two soybean-crushing plants are located in Mankato
– ADM (4,200 T/Day) and Cenex Harvest States (3,600 T/Day). There is an
oilseed crushing plant in Red Wing (usually sunflower or flax) with a capacity of
3,000 T/Day.
•
Soydiesel: SoyMor is building a new biodiesel plant expected to produce 25
million gallons of soydiesel per year in Glenville in Freeborn County; it is
expected to open in mid 2005. A second biodiesel plant is being considered for
Eyota in Olmsted County.
•
Corn/Ethanol: As of May 2005, approximately 202 million gallons of ethanol
from corn are being produced in the region per year: Lake Crystal (50 million
gallons), Winnebago (44 million gallons), Preston (40 million gallons), Albert Lea
(38 million gallons) and Claremont (30 million gallons). A new ethanol plant is
being proposed for Janesville that would produce 100 million gallons of ethanol
per year and use 37 million bushels of corn every year.
•
Dairy Processing & Sales: Faribault, Harmony, Houston, Le Sueur, New
Prague, Owatonna, Pine Island, Preston, Rochester, Spring Valley, Wanamingo,
Waseca and Zumbrota.
•
Fat Rendering Companies: Blue Earth, Chatfield, Le Sueur and Mankato.
•
Fruit and Vegetable Processing & Sales: Blue Earth, Caledonia, Dodge Center,
Kenyon, Le Sueur, Mankato, Montgomery, Owatonna, Plainview, Rochester,
Waseca and Wells.
Figures taken from Texas A&M University “AgriNet” website: http://agrinet.tamu.edu/agbus/mnsic.htm.
June 2005
29
•
Meat Processors & Sales: Albert Lea, Alden, Austin, Brownsdale, Chatfield,
Faribault, Good Thunder, Le Center, Lonsdale, Mankato, Montgomery,
Northfield, St. Charles, Spring Valley, Wanamingo, Wells, Winona and Zumbro
Falls.
•
Grain Processing & Sales: Adams, Albert Lea, Alden, Austin, Blooming Prairie,
Blue Earth, Brownsdale, Byron, Cannon Falls, Chatfield, Grand Meadow,
Harmony, Hayfield, Janesville, Kiester, Lake City, LeSueur, Lewiston, Le Roy,
Lonsdale, Lyle, Mankato, Mapleton, New Prague, New Richland, Northfield,
Owatonna, Pine Island, Stewartville, Wabasha, Waldorf, Waseca, Wells, Windom
and Winona.
4.7.4 Amounts of Local Corn and Soybeans Being Used in the Region and Processing
Techniques.
4.7.4.1 Soybeans Consumption in the Region and Prospects. In 2002, livestock consumed 28
percent of the soybeans produced in the region. 10 If the two soybean processing plants
in Mankato ran at maximum capacity, the region would have to import 1,135,283 tons
of soybeans (see Appendix, Chart 5). With the addition of the soydiesel plant at
Glenville and talk of a new soydiesel plant at Eyota, it is clear that the area will be
importing large quantities of soybeans for the soybean processing plants in the area.
4.7.4.2 Soybean Processing. Soybeans are processed into oil and protein meal before
being used. As a general rule, one 60-lb bushel of soybeans yields 11 lbs of soy oil and
47.5 lbs of soybean meal. The soybean meal is crushed and formulated into livestock
feed.
4.7.4.3 Corn Consumption in the Region. In 2002, livestock consumed 34 percent of the
corn produced in the region. Nineteen percent was used to produce ethanol and the
remaining 47 percent was sold or used for other purposes. 11
4.7.4.4 Ethanol Production from Corn. Sixty percent of U.S. ethanol production uses a
dry-grind technology, instead of a wet-milling process, because of lower capital costs.
Basically, the process or recipe for making ethanol, as described by Matt Sederstrom, is
as follows: Begin with # 2 yellow corn, grind a bushel (56 pounds), add water, make a
mash, cook to kill the bacteria and expose the starch, add enzymes to convert the
starches to sugars, add yeast to the sugars to begin fermentation and produce beer.
10
Douglas G. Tiffany and Jerry Fruin. 2001. Filling the Livestock Feed Troughs of Minnesota. Retrieved from:
http://www.apec.umn.edu/faculty/jfruin/research.html fall 2004.
11
Ibid.
June 2005
30
Distill the beer into ethanol (2.75 gallons – requires heat to distill), carbon dioxide (18
pounds food grade) and distillers dried grains with solubles (18 pounds - generally
requires drying). One hundred-fifty bushels of corn yield 413 gallons of ethanol per
acre and 2,700 pounds of distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS). 12 A complete
description for making ethanol can be found at:
http://www.cvec.com/making_ethanol.htm.
There is a huge debate about whether it takes more energy to produce ethanol than is in
the ethanol that is produced. Net-energy balance figures vary because of how the
studies to determine them are conducted (what they include) and when they were
done. Recent technological advances in ethanol production have reduced the amount
of energy needed to produce ethanol and changed the net-energy balance considerably.
We refer the reader to the following website to read an objective analysis of this debate
entitled “The Net Energy of Ethanol: An Introduction to the Studies,”
www.newrules.org/agri/netenergy.html.
4.7.5 Changing Prospects for Growing Corn and Soybeans and Minnesota Agriculture.
We believe sustainability and diversity are two imperative principles. We are
concerned that so much emphasis is currently being placed on corn and soybeans to
produce biofuels and raw materials for industry to replace those currently being made
from oil. We believe that ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybeans are important
transitional fuels to replace gas and diesel until future technologies, such as fuel cells
and ethanol from cellulose, are commercially available. We also support local farmers
owning and operating renewable energy facilities to keep energy dollars and control of
energy production in our local communities.
However, we caution against putting too many of our eggs into the corn/soybean basket
because the current production system for raising corn and soybeans is not sustainable.
Dr. Gyles Randall, a well-respected soil scientist from the University of Minnesota, has
stated that the current corn/soybean rotation is not sustainable – economically, socially,
ecologically or environmentally. His reasoning is explained, in part, below. A press
release explaining his reasoning can be found in the Appendix, Chart 6. 13
4.7.5.1 Conventional agricultural production systems use a large amount of oil, petroleum
products and natural gas to produce corn and soybeans. Oil and natural gas prices are
skyrocketing and will continue to do so as global demand exceeds supplies in the
12
Sederston, Matt. 2005. “Corn Processing in Corn Fields.” Presentation at Grand Forks Renewable Energy
Conference, February 2005, Grand Forks, ND.
13
Randall, Gyles. 2001. “Commentary: Intensive Corn-Soybean Agriculture is Not Sustainable.” Retrieved from:
http://www.landstewardshipproject.org/pr/newsr_010927.html on June 12, 2005.
June 2005
31
coming years. This will make it more and more expensive to grow agriculture
commodities like corn and soybeans. In 2002 Minnesota farmers used approximately
123 million gallons of diesel fuel, 15 million gallons of gasoline, 74 million gallons of LP,
462 million kWh of electricity and 23 million CFA of natural gas to grow corn and
soybeans (see Appendix, Chart 7). 14 Already dependent on government subsidies, our
farmers can’t cover their production costs when oil and natural gas prices rise. As
pressures mount from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and others to curtail
government subsidies to agriculture producers and the cost of production soars because
of rising fuel prices, it is doubtful that the current high-energy input agricultural
production systems can continue. This in turn casts doubt on whether we will have
enough corn and soybeans in the future to be able to fulfill all the end uses being
planned for them.
4.7.5.2 Rainfall patterns and aquifer recharge patterns in Minnesota are changing because
of global warming. Annual row crop production depends on reliable rainfall and
adequate water at critical times throughout the growing season. Because of global
warming, weather patterns and rainfall patterns in Minnesota are changing. Many
areas of the state are experiencing flood and drought cycles and more frequent and
intense storms, which scientists predicted would result from global warming. Snow in
the spring is melting and running off, instead of replenishing our aquifers. Rain events
are not as gentle or evenly spread throughout the growing season as in the past, but
rather sporadic and often torrential. These torrential downpours are running off the
land rather than soaking in and recharging our aquifers and groundwater. As rainfall
becomes sporadic, farmers growing annual row crops will need to increase irrigation.
Because our aquifers aren’t being recharged the way they used to be, it is questionable if
there will be enough water in our aquifers to meet all the demands that will be placed
upon them in the future, including growing crops, making biofuels and providing for
the needs of people and industries in urban and rural areas. 15
4.7.5.3 Our agricultural lands are being degraded or being lost to development . According to
the American Farmland Trust, from 1992-1997, Minnesota lost over 27,000 acres of
agricultural land and almost 47,000 acres of rural land each year to development, i.e.,
roads, parking lots, housing developments, etc. Of those 371,700 acres that were
developed during this five-year period, 53,400 acres were irreplaceable prime
14
Derived from figures in: Tiffany, Douglas. “Minnesota Farm Energy Use and Kyoto Accord.” Calculations are
based on gallons of diesel per acre, gallons of gasoline per acre, gallons of LP per acre, kWh of electricity per acre
and Mcf natural gas per acre.
15
ME3. 2002. Playing with Fire. Retrieved from: http://www.me3.org/issues/climate/withfire2002-03.html on June
12, 2005.
Kling, George, et. al. 2003. Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region. Retrieved from:
http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/glchallengereport.html on June 12, 2005.
June 2005
32
agriculture land and 71,600 were prime rural land. 16 Due to all of the development that
has taken place since 1997, we think it is safe to assume that we have been losing
approximately the same amount or more of agricultural and rural land each year since
1997. In addition to losing our agricultural lands to development, the productivity of
our soils is being compromised in several ways, as described below. If these trends
continue unabated year after year, future generations may not have enough land or
productive land to grow the crops they will need. In partic ular, future residents of the
state will need green belts around all the major cities to grow food for people residing
in the cities. Without cheap oil to grow food and transport it an average of 1,500 miles
from where it is grown to where it is consumed, as is currently happening, our whole
food production and distribution systems will change in the future. We will need every
available acre of land in our region and Minnesota to grow energy crops, food crops
and raw materials for industry to be used locally and replace food, energy and raw
materials currently being shipped into the area.
Our agricultural lands are being degraded through erosion, burning of the humus in
the soil from the application of harsh chemicals, lack of biodiversity and the buildup of
diseases and pests from non-rotational plantings. In addition, Professor David Tillman
from the University of Minnesota has warned that the corn/soybean rotation has broken
down and in essence become a monoculture cropping system. As a result, diseases and
pests from corn planting are remaining in the soil throughout the soybean planting
cycle and remain present for the next planting of the corn crop and vice versa. This
buildup of diseases and pests from both corn and soybeans in the soil is also leading to
loss of productivity of Midwestern agricultural lands. 17
4.7.5.4 Scientists have found that yields in the world’s major crops, including corn and
soybeans, are dropping because of higher temperatures and other factors due to global
warming. Studies have found that increasing temperatures, particularly at night and
during the grain filling period, negatively affected crop yields for rice, soybeans and
corn. 18 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that global warming
may cause corn yields to crop by 15 to 30 percent across the U.S.19 In addition, warming
conditions attract different diseases and pests to move into new territories and stay for
16
American Farmland Trust. 2004. “Minnesota Statistics Sheet.” Retrieved from:
http://www.farmlandinfo.org/agricultural_statistics/index.cfm?function=statistics_view&stateID=MN on June 12,
2005.
17
DeVore, Brian. 1998. “Biodiversity and Agriculture: A House Divided.” The Land Stewardship Letter. Vol. 16,
No. 5, November 1998. Retrieved from: http://www.landstewardshipproject.org/lsl/lspv16n5.html .
18
Pore, Robert. 2004. “Global Warming Impacting Nebraska?” The Independent. July 3, 2004. Retrieved from:
http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=33306 on June 12, 2005.
19
Service, R.F. 2004. “As the West Goes Dry”, Science. Vol. 303, pp. 1124-27. Retrieved from:
http://climate.ntsg.umt.edu/html/science_western_water.pdf on June 12, 2005.
June 2005
33
longer periods. Plants in those areas have no natural immunities to protect themselves
against the invading pests and diseases. No one knows, for example, what will happen
to soybean production in Minnesota because of the soybean rust that is currently
impacting yields in the Southern U.S.
4.7.5.5 Prices and competition for Minnesota crops will increase in the coming years, which
will make them more expensive and not as available for local use. Countries around the
world with growing populations, particularly China and India, will compete to buy
Midwestern corn and soybeans for food in the years ahead, when they can no longer
grow enough to meet their local demands. Prices for corn and soybeans will more than
likely increase. Selling larger quantities of corn and soybeans overseas to fill these
growing markets and provide a favorable trade balance for our economy will mean
fewer quantities left in Minnesota to convert to fuels and other products.
June 2005
34
SECTION 5: DISCUSSION ABOUT ENERGY
In this section, we try to do several things: define energy, define renewable and
nonrenewable energy, present some general information about energy and then look at
renewable and nonrenewable energy technologies and assess them in terms of which
energy technologies are the (1) cleanest, (2) most affordable if you weigh their true cost,
i.e., if you take out government subsidies and add external costs, (3) safest and (4) most
reliable.
SECTION 5.1 Definition of Energy. The capacity to do work.
SECTION 5.2 Best Energy Resource. Our cheapest, safest, cleanest and most available
energy resource involves using less energy and increasing the productivity of the
energy we use to do more work.
SECTION 5.3 Energy Can Be Renewable or Non Renewable.
5.3.1 Nonrenewable energy resources are finite and supplies will reach a point where
they are exhausted or too expensive to extract. Nonrenewable energy resources are
primarily hydrocarbons in fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) and nuclear energy.
They require drilling and/or mining to be extracted, and their sources are often located
long distances from the power plants where they are used. Thus, they must be
transported long distances via pipelines, ships, trains or other methods.
5.3.2 Renewable energy is obtained from sources that are virtually inexhaustible when
managed properly, such as wind, solar, biogas, hydroelectric, geothermal and
sustainably produced biomass and biofuels. Renewable energy can be provided from
local resources located in the vicinity of end users.
SECTION 5.4 Energy resources come in and are used in many forms.
5.4.1 Liquid. Sources include gasoline, oil, kerosene and used vegetable oil.
5.4.2 Solid. Sources include coal, wood, construction wood waste, garbage and
biomass.
5.4.3 Gas. Sources include propane (LPG), landfill gas and natural gas.
June 2005
35
5.4.4 Electricity. Electricity is generated from burning coal, wood, biomass and waste
materials, nuclear fission, hydropower, wind, biogas or solar sources.
5.4.5 Geothermal. The heat of the earth is used as a seasonal source/sink for energy.
5.4.6 Sunlight/Solar. The energy from the sun that hits the earth can be used in active
systems, i.e., photovoltaic solar panels which convert sunlight into electricity and hot
water heating units and passive systems, i.e., orienting a building to take advantage of
the sun’s heat.
5.4.7 Biomass. Plants capture and store solar energy, which can be utilized by
converting biomass to electricity, syngas or liquid fuels, i.e., ethanol from cellulose or
corn, biodiesel from various organic products and soy-diesel and other biofuels from oil
crops.
5.4.8 Wind. Wind, caused by the uneven heating of the earth by sunlight, can be used
by large wind turbines to generate power for utilities or smaller wind turbines to
generate electricity for individual homesteads. Great strides have been made in wind
technology so that electricity can now be generated from winds in areas formerly
thought to be unsuitable for wind generation.
SECTION 5.5 Conversion and Transmission of Energy. Energy may be converted from
one form to another and moved from one place to another. In the conversion and
transmission process, substantial amounts of energy may be required and/ or lost and
pollution in various forms and wastes may be created. The efficiency of most power
plants is only around 30 percent.
SECTION 5.6 Energy Is Being Used By Various Sectors and energy information is kept
by sector, as well as fuel type.
5.6.1 Residential. Energy is used in home heating and cooling, refrigeration, water
heating, lighting, cooking and other appliances.
5.6.2 Commercial. Energy is used by hospitals, schools, offices, businesses and the
service sector.
5.6.3 Transportation. Energy is used by cars, trucks, buses, planes, trains and boats.
5.6.4 Industrial. Energy is used in manufacturing and agriculture.
June 2005
36
5.6.5 Generation of electricity. Electricity is generated from nonrenewable and
renewable resources, i.e., coal, nuclear, natural gas, wood and wood waste,
hydroelectric, solar, wind and biogas.
SECTION 5.7 Energy Measurements. Energy can be mea sured in different ways, i.e.,
BTUs, joules, kilowatt-hours. Electric energy in the U.S. is usually expressed in
kilowatt-hours (kWh), which is 1,000 watt-hours, or in megawatt-hours (MWh), which
is one million watt-hours or one-thousand kilowatt-hours. To compare different forms
of energy, i.e., the amount of energy in a gallon of gas to the amount of energy in a cord
of wood, both are converted to BTUs (British Thermal Units). A BTU is the amount of
heat produced when you strike a match. A typical hom e in Minnesota uses around 650
kWh a month. The average size of US power plants is 213 MW. A 1000 MW power
plant is a large power plant. One MW can provide electricity to 400-900 houses.
SECTION 5.8 Clean, Renewable, Safe, Affordable and Reliable Energy. The three
pillars the electricity industry uses to describe the electricity they generate using coal,
oil, natural gas and nuclear power are safety, reliability and affordability. In their
analysis, they don’t consider or include many important factors, such as (1) large
government subsidies supporting the fossil fuel and nuclear industry, (2) external costs
society and individuals have to pay for health and environmental problems stemming
from power plant pollution, including global warming, acid rain, cancer and respiratory
problems resulting from particulate pollution, toxins and mercury and (3) the costs of
our military to protect oil fields in the Middle East. In addition, they don’t consider the
vulnerability we face from disruptions of energy supplies being shipped around the
world, antiquated and overtaxed grid systems, future shortages due to increasing
demand for finite resources, price volatility and price gouging or terrorism. Recent
events show how vulnerable we are – from the blackouts on August 14th, 2003, that
shut off power to the Eastern seaboard to bombings of oil refineries and pipelines in
Saudi Arabia to skyrocketing natural gas and oil prices.
We believe, when you weigh all the issues, using energy more wisely and obtaining our
energy from a variety of clean, renewable energy resources located in our region is an
energy system that is truly safe, reliable and affordable. After completing an inventory
and assessment of the renewable energy resources in our region, we now know it is
possible to create such a system for our region.
For the purposes of this discussion, we are defining these concepts as follows.
5.8.1 Clean. Energy is being produced in a way that does the least amount of harm to
the environment in terms of releasing pollution, including carbon dioxide.
June 2005
37
5.8.2 Renewable. Energy is being provided by sources that are virtually inexhaustible
when managed properly.
5.8.3 Safe. Energy technologies, production sites and transmission systems are not
targets that would create widespread chaos if they were attacked or broke down; they
are not too complex, big or dangerous to manage; they do not harm or threaten the
current or future health of people, ecosystems and the planet.
5.8.4 Reliable. We can depend on getting energy and supplies when we need them,
taking into consideration where they are located, how they are delivered, who controls
them, if they will be subject to price volatility resulting from increasing global demand
on diminishing finite resources; we can depend on the availability of required ancillary
inputs, such as water.
5.8.5 Affordable. The actual cost of the energy resource is practical after full cost
accounting methods are applied, i.e., subsidies are taken out and external
environmental, health and security costs are factored in.
SECTION 5.9 Renewable Energy Resources are Clean, Safe, Reliable and Affordable.20
5.9.1 Clean. Energy is being produced in a way that does the least amount of harm to
the environment in terms of releasing damaging emissions, including carbon dioxide.
5.9.1.1 Nonrenewable energy resources
According to Power Scorecard, the generation of electric power from conventional
power plants produces more pollution than any other single industry in the U.S. There
are five major types of emissions from power plants, as shown below in column one.
The second column shows the percentage of the emissions power plants contribute to
total U.S. emissions for the category, and the third column indicates a few of the many
health and environmental problems they cause. In addition to these emission impacts,
power plants also use large quantities of water for cooling processes that can impact
local water resource availability.
20
Power Scorecard. “Electricity and the Environment.” Retrieved from: www.powerscorecard.org/elec_env.cfm
January 2005.
June 2005
38
Table 5: Power Plant Pollutant Emissions
Pollutants
Sulfur oxides – SOx
Nitrogen oxide –
NOx
Particulates
Carbon dioxide –
CO2
Mercury
% Attributable to
Power Plants
67%
33%
33%
34%
Environmental & Health Problems
Acid rain and respiratory problems
Smog, acid rain, depletion of the ozone layer
particulates
Acid raid, cancer, respiratory diseases and heart
disease
Global warming and climate change
Nervous system damage in babies
5.9.1.1.1 Coal-fired Plants are the dirtiest – generating 97 percent of the particle soot and
sulfur dioxide emissions, 92 percent of NOx, 86 percent of carbon dioxide and almost
100 percent of mercury emissions coming from power plants. 21 According to the Union
of Concerned Scientists, a 500 MW coal plant produces 3.5 billion kilowatt-hours per
year, enough to power a city of about 140,000 people. It burns 1,430,000 tons of coal and
uses 2.2 billion gallons of water and 146,000 tons of limestone. One 500 MW coal-fired
plant gives off the following every year:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide
10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide
3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide
500 tons of small particulates
220 tons of hydrocarbons
720 tons of carbon monoxide
125,000 tons of ash
193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber
225 pounds of arsenic
114 pounds of lead
4 pounds of cadmium and many other toxic heavy metals, including mercury
and trace elements of uranium 22
Table 6 shows how many tons/pounds of pollutants are being given off by the two coalfired power plants in the SE/SC CERT region and totals for Minnesota.
21
Clear the Air. 2002. Minnesota’s Dirty Power Plants. Retrieved from:
http://www.cleartheair.org/regional/factsheets/factsheetMNfinal.pdf on June 10, 2005.
22
Union of Concerned Scientists. 2000. “How Coal Works.” Retrieved from:
www.uscusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy/page.cfm?pageID=60 on June 8, 2005.
June 2005
39
Table 6: Pollution from Two Coal Plants in the SE/SC CERT Region & Minnesota23
2002
Tons SO2
Tons NOx
Tons CO2
Lbs Mercury
Rochester
Silver Lake
882
224
111,668
4
Austin
2,001
407
186,060
Null
All Minnesota
100,945
86,408
40,885,395
1,628
5.9.1.1.2 Nuclear power plants produce wastes that are among the most toxic substances
known, and there is no way to store or safeguard them for two hundred and fifty
thousand of years. Nuclear plants can release small amounts of airborne radioactive
gases. Mining uranium contaminates local land and water resources with radioactive
materials and poses radioactive contamination hazards for mine workers and nearby
populations. In the enrichment process, large amounts of electricity are used, most of
which is provided by coal-fired power plants, which release the above pollutants into
the environment. Nuclear plants that rely upon water for cooling systems require two
and a half times the amount of water used by a fossil fuel plant. Therefore, nuclear
plants have substantial impacts on ecosystems and health – from mining to production.
5.9.1.1.3 Natural gas is the cleanest of all the fossil fuels, however, it is not clean. On a
per BTU basis, burning natural gas produces about half as much CO2 as coal, less
particulate matter and very little sulfur dioxide or toxic air emissions. Burning natural
gas also produces nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxides in quantities comparable to
burning coal. Natural gas drilling and exploration can negatively impact the land and
pollute nearby waters.
5.9.1.1.4 Oil. When oil is burned to produce electricity, it pollutes the air, land and
water with nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulates, carbon dioxide, methane and
heavy metals, such as mercury, and volatile organic compounds. Drilling and refining
oil produces a long list of pollutants that poison the air, land and water and threaten the
health of workers, residents near the sites and ecosystems. Oil spill accidents during
transportation can result in grave environmental damage to wildlife and ecosystems.
23
National Campaign Against Dirty Power, “Power Plant Air Pollution Calculator.” Retrieved from:
http://www.cta.policy.net/dirtypower/map.html on June 10, 2005.
June 2005
40
5.9.1.2 Renewable energy resources
5.9.1.2.1 Biomass. When biomass is burned, the two main emissions are particulates
and NOx, depending on the type of biomass and technology being used. Carbon
dioxide is also released, but if plants are grown sustainably, they will absorb CO2 to
offset the amount of CO2 released when they are burned. Thus, there may be no overall
contribution of greenhouse gases. However, unsustainable production of biomass crops
would lead to the degradation of the soils, water resources, forests and other biotic
communities. An example of the impact of unsustainable practices is the contribution
of agricultural chemicals from farmlands throughout the Midwest to the “dead zone” in
the Gulf of Mexico, via the Mississippi River.
5.9.1.2.2 Open-looped geothermal systems could pollute the water in pond or well
outlets. Closed loop systems are preferred.
5.9.1.2.3 Landfills produce methane and give off methane, which is a greenhouse gas.
Thus, it is better to capture and utilize the methane rather than simply release it into the
environment.
5.9.1.2.4 Manufacturing solar PV cells involves the generation of some hazardous
materials, which can be handled and contained to protect the workers and environment.
5.9.1.2.5 Wind power’s most controversial negative impacts are noise and the impact of
early wind turbines on bird and bat populations. Some people object to having turbines
sited near their property. The manufacture of wind generation technology also creates
some air emissions.
5.9.2 Renewable. Energy is obtained from sources that are virtually inexhaustible when
managed properly.
By definition, oil, natural gas, coal and uranium for nuclear power are finite,
nonrenewable resources. The world may never run out of them, but they will become
too expensive to extract. Minnesota has none of these resources, so we must import
them from long distances and at great expense. As global demand exceeds supplies in
the years ahead, they will become more expensive and difficult to obtain on a regular
basis or when needed at predictable prices.
By definition, solar, wind, geothermal, sustainably produced biomass and biogas are all
renewable resources. We have them in great abundance in our region and state. If
managed properly, they will provide energy as long as life endures on this planet.
June 2005
41
Energy systems can be developed to insure that our electricity needs can be met from a
mix of these renewable energy resources, i.e., disperse wind generators at many sites to
take advantage of where the wind might be blowing that day, mix wind with biomass
plants or biogas facilities and so on.
5.9.3 Safe. Energy technologies, production sites and transmission systems are not
targets that would create widespread chaos if they were attacked or broke down; they
are not too complex, big or dangerous to manage; they do not harm or threaten the
current or future health of people, ecosystems and the planet.
5.9.3.1 Nonrenewable Resources
5.9.3.1.1 Coal, oil and natural gas. As we have seen in the previous paragraphs, burning
coal, oil, and natural gas pollute the environment, cause serious health problems for
people and destabilize global ecological systems. Global warming is causing glaciers to
melt, sea levels to rise, currents to become warmer, thousands of heat-related deaths,
more frequent and violent storms, floods and drought cycles around the globe. In our
opinion, these things alone make burning fossil fuels unsafe. There are also safety
concerns regarding potential terrorist attacks along pipelines and at liquid natural gas
terminals (discussed more in Section 5.9.4, Reliability).
5.9.3.1.2 Nuclear waste is the most toxic substance known and there is no way to store it
safely. In addition, nuclear plants in the U.S. and around the world are aging. Both
nuclear power plants and nuclear waste facilities are targets for terrorists. Insurance
companies in the U.S. have consistently refused to insure nuclear facilities. A major
failure at a nuclear power plant and the release of massive quantities of radioactive
materials would be a catastrophic accident that could injure or kill thousands of people,
cause enormous environmental damage and create severe consequences for hundreds
of thousands of years. The nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and
several other serious malfunctions in nuclear plants around the world illustrate that
these systems are not fail-safe.
Big centralized power plants, elaborate transmission systems that carry power around
the country and transportation systems that carry supplies to power plants and wastes
away from power plants are very vulnerable to terrorist attacks or being shut down
because of disruptions of various types including malfunctions, lack of fuel, water or
other needed inputs.
5.9.3.2 Renewable Resources, such as local, decentralized wind, solar, sustainably
produced biomass and biogas, don’t cause global warming. They don’t require large
June 2005
42
grid systems. They do not encourage terrorist attacks. They rely on a variety of local
energy resources that can be managed such that they are dependable. They do not emit
toxic chemicals or toxins that harm human health.
5.9.4 Reliable. We can depend on getting energy and supplies when we need them,
taking into consideration where they are located, how they are delivered, who controls
them, if they will be subject to price volatility resulting from increasing global demand
on diminishing finite resources; we can depend on the availability of required ancillary
inputs, such as water.
5.9.4.1 Nonrenewable Resources
5.9.4.1.1 Coal. The U.S. has 25 percent of known coal reserves and the largest share of
the world’s recoverable coal. The former Soviet Union has 23 percent; China has 12
percent; Australia, India, Germany and South Africa combined have 29 percent. Within
the U.S., supplies are evenly divided between low-sulfur coal in the West, mediumsulfur coal in the West and Appalachia and high-sulfur coal in the Midwest and
Appalachia. Most bituminous coal comes from the Appalachian Basin and the Midwest,
while western coals are mostly sub-bituminous. This means it takes almost twice as
much western coal to provide the same amount of energy as coal from the East.
Transportation of coal within the U.S. is primarily by barge and rail, and transportation
costs comprise a high percentage of the cost of coal. Railroads have been increasing
their rates to ship coal, and there are often not enough cars to transport coal within the
U.S. Terrorists could attack rail lines, bridges, coal facilities and large coal-fired plants
in the future, which would make both supplies and prices unstable. A 500 MW coal
plant uses 2.2 billion gallons of water per year for cooling and steam production. Much
of that can be recycled; however, the western states have been experiencing drought the
last several years, which has impacted water availability. Droughts may impact
Minnesota and affect Minnesota power plants in the future. Droughts in Canada and
the Pacific Northwest curtailed production from hydroelectric plants. Minnesota buys
20 percent of its electricity from outside the state, and much of that comes from
Manitoba Hydro in Canada.
5.9.4.1.2 Natural Gas. Most of the natural gas used in the U.S. currently comes from
domestic supplies and Canada and is transported through natural gas pipelines. These
supplies are being depleted, and we will need to import increasing amounts of natural
gas in the future from other sources. Seventy-five of the known reserves for natural gas
are located in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Russia,
Iran and Qatar have about 60 percent of the world’s natural gas supplies. Many of the
world’s natural gas reserves are located in isolated pockets away from pipelines and
June 2005
43
developed infrastructure; a further complication in the supply chain is the need to
liquefy natural gas to transport it long distance. Qatar is setting up the facilities and
infrastructure to produce and ship liquefied natural gas (LNG) from one city – Ras
Laffan. The world currently doesn’t have enough ships built to transport large
quantities of LNG, and Japan, Korea and Taiwan have made long-term lease
arrangements for the few ships that are available. 24 In addition there are only four
terminals in the U.S. that can accept LNG. According to the Department of Energy,
“The major challenge regarding the future of LNG in the U.S. is not the availability of
terminals (a need that is slowly being met), rather it is the reliability of supply.” 25 The
plant in Qatar, freighters carrying LNG and ports where LNG is unloaded in the U.S.
are all viable terrorist targets and demonstrate that reliable supplies could be shut down
at one of several points.
5.9.4.1.3 Oil. The U.S. imports more than 60 percent of our oil needs. In 2003, we
imported approximately 11.1 million barrels of oil per day for a cost of over $200,000
per minute. In March 2005 US oil imports came from, in order of quantity, from
Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, Angola, Iraq, Russia, the United
Kingdom, and Algeria. 26 In the future, as oil reserves are depleted around the world,
more of the world’s oil supplies will become concentrated in the Middle East. Already
five Persian Gulf nations control two-thirds of the world’s proven oil reserves, but as
these nations gain an ever increasing share of the market and further concentrate oil
resources, the chance of supply disruption also increases. 27 China has recently become
the world’s second largest importer of oil and has been making long-term contracts
around the world to buy oil in the future. Many people think that global oil production
has peaked and from now on supplies will decrease as demand for oil increases. There
is a shortage of refining capacity for oil in the U.S., which has put a strain on U.S.
supplies of petroleum products. Prices for crude oil have doubled since 2001, which
will negatively impact the economy at some point. When oil prices quadrupled in the
1970s, the U.S. experienced double-digit unemployment and double-digit inflation.
Since January 2000, there have been 105 reported grid failures in the U.S.; 11 of those
impacted more than half a million people, which indicates that electricity being sent
through large complex grid systems is not all that reliable. We believe a more reliable
system is based on smaller, decentralized distributed generation projects using local
24
Duffin, Murray. 2004. “The Energy Challenge 2004 -- Natural Gas.” Retrieved from:
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=828 on June 10, 2005.
25
US Department of Energy: Energy Information Administration. 2004. “International Energy Outlook 2004.”
Retrieved from: www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/special_topics.html on June 10, 2005.
26
American Petroleum Institute. 2005. “Estimated Crude and Products Imports to the US from Leading Supplier
Countries.” Retrieved from http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/USImports.pdf on June 14, 2005.
27
__. 2005. “The Real Trouble with Oil.” Economist. Vol. 375, No. 8424. April 30, 2005 – May 6, 2005.
June 2005
44
renewable energy resources and located as near as possible to the people who are using
it. 28
5.9.4.2 Renewable Resources
5.9.4.2.1 Wind. Some people are concerned that the winds don’t blow all the time and
there isn’t a good way to store the energy. In our area where the winds are good, wind
is available at different speeds over 95 percent of the time. The annual rate of wind
occurrence is now well understood at all areas of Southeast Minnesota. One day ahead
wind occurrence can now be predicted for generation scheduling within 20 percent of
actual generation, a similar accuracy used to predict current loads. 29 Along the wind
turbine supply chain, steel can be a concern, as can transmission.
5.9.4.2.2 Solar. The primary reliability concern with solar is that the sun doesn’t shine
all the time.
5.9.4.2.3 Biomass. If we don’t have enough rain or water for irrigation, we won’t be
able to grow biomass.
5.9.5 Affordable. The actual cost of the energy resource is practical after full cost
accounting methods are applied, i.e., subsidies are taken out and external
environmental, health and security costs are factored in.
5.9.5.1 External Costs. Some costs attributed to energy production are not paid for by
utilities that produce or sell energy or their customers; thus, their per kilowatt hour cost
does not reflect the “true” cost of doing business. Some examples of “external” costs of
production not being paid by the utilities include human health problems caused by air
pollution from burning coal and oil; damage to the land from coal mining and to the
miners from black lung disease; environmental degradation and property damage
caused by global warming, acid rain and water pollution; and national security costs,
such as protecting foreign sources of oil in the Middle East.
The chart below estimates the per kilowatt-hour external costs of select health and
environmental impacts that utility companies do not pay. It does not include estimates
from insurance companies for property damage caused by more frequent and intense
storms attributable to global warming, which some believe were $55 billion in 2002, $60
billion in 2003 and over $100 billion in 2004. Nor does it include costs of approximately
28
Casten, Thomas R. and Brennan Downes, 2004. “Optimizing Power.” Retrieved from:
http://www.earthscan.co.uk/news/article/mps/uan/247/v/4/sp/ on June 10, 2005.
29
Windlogics. http://www.windlogics.com/forecasting.html.
June 2005
45
$60 billion a year to keep troops in the Middle East during peace time to protect our
access to oil, the net $7 billion dollars spent for the 1991 Gulf War or the billions
currently being spent on the war in Iraq – so far around $30 billion for deployment and
$5 billion a month. 30
The external costs for solar photovoltaics and wind are quite small because their impact
on the environment and health are negligible. The external costs for coal are the
highest. External costs for nuclear, coal and natural gas would have been much higher
if they had included government subsidies. We were not able to find a per kilowatthour charge that included this.
Table 7: Costs of Electricity With and Without External Costs31
Electricity
Generatin External
Total
g
Source
Costs
Costs
Costs
(U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour)
Coal/Lignite
4.3 - 4.8
Natural Gas (new) 3.4 - 5.0
Nuclear
10.0 - 14.0
Biomass
7.0 - 9.0
Hydropower
2.4 - 7.7
Photovoltaics
24 - 48
Wind
3 -5
2.3 - 16.9
1.1 - 4.5
0.2 - 0.8
0.2 - 3.4
0 - 1.1
0.7
0.1 - 0.3
6.6 - 21.7
4.5 - 9.5
10.2 - 14.8
7.2 - 12.4
2.4 - 8.8
24.7 - 48.7
3.1 - 5.3
Notes: Generating costs are for the U.S. and/or Europe. External costs are
environmental and health costs for 15 counties in Europe and are converted to
U.S. cents from eurocents at the 2003 average exchange rates of U.S. $ = 0.8854
Euros.
Casten and Downes identified an additional external cost for electricity generation.
They estimated power outage costs of 105 reported grid failures in the U.S. since
January 2000 to be $80 billion to $123 billion a year, which adds 29 to 45 percent to the
cost of U.S. power. 32
5.9.5.2 Government Subsidies, Research and Development, Tax Breaks, Liability Insurance. It
is difficult to assess the true costs of different energy technologies because the oil, gas,
30
Lovins, Amory. 2003. U.S. Security Energy Facts. (p2). Retrieved from:
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/EnergySecurity/S03-04_USESFtext.pdf.
31
Sawin, Janet L. May 2004. "Mainstreaming Renewable Energy in the 21st Century." Worldwatch Institute. p 13.
Retrieved from: http://www.earthscan.co.uk/news/article.asp?UAN=25&v=1&sp=332124698508342383258.
32
Casten, Thomas R. and Brennan Downes, 2004. “Optimizing Power.” Retrieved from:
http://www.earthscan.co.uk/news/article/mps/uan/247/v/4/sp/ on June 10, 2005.
June 2005
46
coal and nuclear industries are so heavily subsidized by government policies. These
subsidies distort the global economy, artificially lower energy pric es and hold back the
development of renewables.
Many different sources cite different levels of subsidies and government spending on
energy resources, but the common theme depicted in each of these studies is that
energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies are not receiving the same level of
support as their more conventional fossil fuel and nuclear counterparts. The following
depict a few examples.
R & D. According to the Green Scissors Campaign, the federal government spent $111.5
billion on energy research and development between 1948 and 1998. Sixty percent of
this -- or $66 billion -- was spent on civilian nuclear energy research and 23 percent was
directed to fossil fuel energy research. 33
Subsidies Globally. In a report called “The Price of Power”, the New Economics
Foundation estimated that annual global fossil fuel subsidies (coal, oil and gas) were
$235 billion a year. 34
U.S. Tax Breaks. In “Energy Subsidies: How Do Energy Subsidies Distort the Energy
Market?” the authors found that from 1999-2003 the oil and gas industries received tax
breaks of $11 billion.
In a 1993 study called “Federal Energy Subsidies: Energy, Environmental, and Fiscal
Impacts,” author Douglas N. Koplow reported that in 1989 subsidies to the energy
sector were $36 billion -$21 billion to fossil fuels, $11 billion to nuclear, $1 billion to
renewables, $1 billion to energy efficiency and $600 million to hydro. He said the
pattern of federal subsidies in 1989 promoted poor energy policy for several reasons:
“First, it represented a radical tilt toward energy supply and away from
energy efficiency. End-use efficiency received only $1 worth of subsidies
for every $35 received by energy supply.
Second, this pattern favors mature, conventional energy resources – fossil
fuels, fission-nuclear, and hydroelectric – by more than eight to one ($32.3
billion to $3.8 billion) over emerging energy resources such as solar or
33
Green Peace. 2001. “Bush-Cheney National Energy Policy Delivers Another Blow To Earth.” Retrieved from:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/bush-cheney-national-energy-po on June 12, 2005.
34
New Economics Foundation. 2004. “The Price of Power.” Retrieved from:
www.neweconomics.org/gen/news_pop.aspxwww.neweconomics.org/gen/news_pop.aspx.
June 2005
47
wind technologies. It may be appropriate to subsidize emerging energy
resources, but mature resources should stand the test of the market.
When this test is applied to subsidies in 1989, the pattern appears to be
almost completely backward. In other words, the mature, conventional
energy sources received almost 90 percent of the subsidies.
This pattern of subsidies also represents poor environmental policy
because it encourages the use of polluting and environmentally -risky
energy sources. Fifty-eight percent of all subsidies ($21.1 billion) directly
promote the use of fossil fuels – over 18 times more than subsidizes
efficiency and 23 times more than subsidizes emerging renewable
technologies. Given the growing concern in this country about global
warming, acid rain, and other fossil-fuel related pollution problems, this
imbalance is unwarranted…” 35
In addition to these subsidies and targeted funding programs, the tax code also
institutionalizes fuel preferences. One of the major cost differences between fossil fuel
generation and fuel free wind and solar generation is the tax deduction for fuel
consumed in generation. Natural gas now gets about 1.8cents/kwh tax deduction based
on a typical Investor Owned Utility cost. This is a loss to Federal and state revenue that
is permanent in the tax code.
All of this is not to indicate that renewable energy technologies do not get subsidies.
They do. Renewable energy technologies are, however, not as mature as their fossil fuel
and nuclear counterparts.
Liability Insurance. The Price-Anderson Act offers another massive subsidy for the
nuclear industry by limiting the liability of the nuclear industry in case of a nuclear
accident in the U.S. Not having to pay for liability insurance to cover the full costs of
accidents saves the nuclear industry billions of dollars and distorts the “real” cost of
nuclear power.
5.9.5.3 Difference in Cost between Distributed Generation and Central Generation – Dollar
Costs and Environmental Costs. In “Optimizing Power,” Casten and Downes evaluated
the costs of generating projected U.S. load growth to 2020 with decentralized generation
and centralized generation. They found that full reliance on decentralized generation
would be 39 percent less expensive than centralized generation (avoiding $326 billion in
35
American Wind Energy Association. 2000. “Energy Subsidies: How do Energy Subsidies Distort the Energy
Market.” Includes excerpts from the 1993 Alliance to Save Energy Report. Retrieved from:
http://www.awea.org/faq/subsidi.html on June 10, 2005.
June 2005
48
capital by 2020), reduce incremental power costs by 36 percent ($53 billion) and reduce
emissions as follows: NOx by 58 percent, SO2 by 94 percent, CO2 by 49 percent and
particulates by 43 percent. Power generated near the user avoids the costs of
transmission and distribution systems and reduces line losses. 36
5.9.6 Difference in Costs Based on Efficiency of Technologies. The efficiency today in
most power plants is approximately 33 percent. Thus, two-thirds of the input energy is
being wasted. This is not cost -effective or efficient. Combined heat and power (CHP)
achieve 65 to 95 percent net electrical efficiency by recycling normally wasted heat and
by avoiding transmission and distribution losses. These systems that recover as much
energy as possible from a given resource are far more affordable, and we believe that
new generation in our area should strive to incorporate combined heat and power so as
to reach these high efficiency levels.
36
Casten, Thomas R. and Brennan Downes, 2004. “Optimizing Power.” Retrieved from:
http://www.earthscan.co.uk/news/article/mps/uan/247/v/4/sp/ on June 10, 2005.
June 2005
49
SECTION 6 ENERGY USE IN MINNESOTA
Graph 1: Minnesota Energy Sources
Renewable
0.50%
Hydro
3.60%
Other
0.70%
To gain a clear picture of how energy is being used in SE/SC
Minnesota in different forms and by different sectors, it is
Nuclear
necessary to look at state energy data. Electric consumption
8.00%
data was the only energy consumption data we could find
Petroleum
that separated information by county. Thus, we are
40.30%
Coal
including information about statewide energy use by
22.10%
fuel type, cost, sector, and amount consumed in our
report. Most of the data is for year 2000, but it still
provides a reasonable baseline for energy usage. For
Natural Gas
reference purposes, in 2000 the cost of a barrel of oil
21.30%
Wood
fluctuated between $21 and $35 a barrel. In April 2005, the
3.50%
cost of a barrel of oil is around $56 – more than double the $21
price. When reviewing the fuel costs through the rest of this section, please keep this
cost increase in mind.
SECTION 6.1 MN Energy Use in 2000 by Type, Amount, Cost and Percent of Energy
Consumed. In 2000, Minnesotans used 1,688 trillion BTUs of energy for a cost of
$12,223.5 million. This energy was derived from fuels as shown in Graph 1: Minnesota
Energy Sources. More than 92 percent of the state’s fuel came from nonrenewable
energy resources located outside the state. $6,722 million left the state to buy petroleum
products; $1,954 million left the state to buy natural gas; $434 million left the state to
buy coal; $43 million was used to buy wood and wood waste products; and almost
$3,477 million left the state to buy 20 percent of the electricity used in the state. That
works out to $2,485 per person in Minnesota that left the state to purchase energy in
2000, and this is before the rise in oil prices mentioned above. In 2000, the cost of a
barrel of oil fluctuated between $21 and $35 a barrel.
June 2005
50
Table 8: Minnesota Energy Use in 2000 by Fuel Type37
Fuel Type
Consumed
Amount
Petroleum
Natural Gas
Coal
Nuclear Fuel
Wood & Waste
Total Primary
Other Renew
Hydroelectric
Electricity
Less Fuel
TOTAL
125,560,000
354.4
20,700,000
13.00
60.4
Barrels
Billion Cu Ft
Short Tons
Billion KWH
Trillion BTU
7.9
63.6
Trillion BTU
Trillion BTU
Trillion BTU
Trillion BTU
680.30
359.70
373.80
135.20
60.40
1,609.40
7.90
63.60
%
40.3
21.3
22.1
8.0
3.5
Cost
Million $
6,722.00
1,954.00
434.00
60.00
43.00
9,213.00
1,688.00
.5
3.6
3,477.00
-499.00
12,223.5
SECTION 6.2 MN Energy Use in 2000 by Sector
Graph 2: Minnesota Energy Use by Sector
Industrial
36.00%
Graph 2 shows how much energy was used by each sector in
Minnesota in 2000, the percentage of state energy
Residential
consumption, and the cost. Types of fuel, costs, and
20.00%
percentages of use by sector in Minnesota in 2000 are
described in subsequent sections as follows: Residential,
Section 7.4; Transportation, Section 7.5, Commercial,
Section 7.6; Industrial, Section 7.7.
Transportation
31.00%
Commercial
13.00%
Table 9: MN Energy Use by Sector (2000)38
Sector
Cost
Million $
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Transportation
TOTAL
2,683.70
1,447.40
2,543.20
5,549.20
12,223.50
Energy Used Per Cent
Trillion BTU Energy Used
345.70
221.20
603.80
517.30
1,688.00
20
13
36
31
100
37
US DOE: Energy Information Administration: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/. Note: Totals don’t add up due to
rounding; costs for fuels used to generate electricity were subtracted (-499) so they wouldn’t be counted twice.
38
US Department of Energy: Energy Information Administration: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/.
June 2005
51
SECTION 6.3 MN Energy Use in 2000 for Petroleum, Natural Gas and Electricity. It’s
important to focus on three aspects of our state energy picture: petroleum, natural gas
and electricity (Graph 3).
Graph 3: Comparative Use of Energy by Sector
100%
90%
80%
70%
Petroleum
60%
50%
Residential
Transportation
Industrial
Electricity Loss
Electricity
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Electricity Loss
Electricity
0%
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Natural Gas
Electricity Loss
10%
Electricity
20%
Petroleum
30%
Natural Gas
40%
Commercial
6.3.1 Petroleum. Forty percent of the energy consumed in Minnesota in 2000 was
derived from imported crude oil and petroleum products for a cost of $6.7 billion.
Minnesota petroleum use contributed to end sector energy consumption broke out as
follows: 96 percent of the energy used for transportation; 22 percent for industrial; 10
percent for residential; and 4.6 percent for commercial. Almost 14.5 million gallons of
petroleum products (344,000 barrels) were used in Minnesota EACH DAY in the year
2000, as follows, totaling over five billion gallons per year.
Table 10: Petroleum Products Used in Minnesota39
BARRELS/
Day
MOTOR GASOLINE
DISTILLAGE FUEL
JET FUEL
RESIDUAL FUEL
LPG
ALL OTHER
TOTAL
39
167,000
69,000
36,000
3,000
27,000
42,000
344,000
GALLONS/
Day
7,014,000
2,898,000
1,512,000
126,000
1,134,000
1,764,000
14,448,000
BARRELS/
Year
60,955,000
25,185,000
13,140,000
1,095,000
9,855,000
15,330,000
125,560,000
GALLONS/
Year
2,560,110,000
1,057,770,000
551,880,000
45,990,000
413,910,000
643,860,000
5,273,520,000
US Department of Energy: Energy Information Administration: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/.
June 2005
52
6.3.2 Natural Gas. Natural gas accounted for 21.3 percent of the energy used in
Minnesota in 2000. In the same year it contributed to end sector energy use in
Minnesota as follows: commercial (43 percent;), residential (38 percent), industrial (17
percent) and transportation (4 percent).
6.3.3 Electricity. In 2000, Minnesota used approximately 60 million MWh of electricity.
Eighty percent of the electricity used in the state was being generated within the state,
while 20 percent had to be purchased from outside the state for a cost of almost $3.5
billion. In 2001, Minnesota’s electrical mix was being generated from the following
sources: 66 percent coal, 24 percent nuclear, 3 percent renewables, 2 percent
hydroelectric, 2 percent natural gas, 3 percent other. Over 92 percent of the electricity
was being produced with nonrenewable resources from outside the state. The other 8
percent was being generated with renewable energy resources, including hydroelectric
energy generated at Manitoba Hydro in Canada and various renewable energy projects
around the state.
6.3.3.1 Projected Growth Rates in Electrical Consumption. In the CAPX 2020 Report, the
following electricity generating companies operating in Minnesota predicted the
following annual growth rates in electricity consumption: Alliant Energy (1.6 percent),
Xcel Energy (2.68 percent), MN Power (1.7 percent), SMMPA/RPU (2.7 percent), Great
River Energy (3.05 percent), Otter Tail Power (2.7 percent) and Dairyland Power Coop
(2.6 percent), for an average annual increase of 2.49 percent. 40
6.3.3.2 Minnesota Electricity Rates in 2000 by sector were as follows. Electricity prices are
different for different sectors because of volume of purchases, length of contracts, time
of usage and other service options.
Table 11: Minnesota Electricity Rates in 2000 by Sector 41
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Average
Cents/kWh
Lowest
Cents/kWh
Highest
Cents/kWh
U.S. Average
Cents/kWh
7.5
6.4
4.6
4.4
3.7
2.7
14.3
8.7
7.8
8.2
7.4
4.6
40
(CapX 2020) Capital Expenditures by the Year 2020. A Vision for Transmission Infrastructure Investments for
Minnesota. p.12. Retrieved from: http://www.capx2020.com/Images/CapX2005_13.pdf on May 27, 2005.
41
US Department of Energy: Energy Information Administration. 2001. “Prices and Expenditures.” Retrieved
from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/main_mn.html on June 12, 2005.
June 2005
53
6.3.3.3 Percentage of Minnesota’s Electricity Coming from Renewable Resources in 2003 and
the Potential for Renewable Energy to Provide for 17 Times Our Needs for Electricity in the
Future. According to Mike Bull from the Minnesota Department of Commerce
Renewable Energy Division, renewables provided 11 percent of Minnesota’s electricity
in 2003. This renewable energy came from: hydro (74.1 percent - mostly from Manitoba
Hydro in Canada), wind (11.4 percent ), biomass (3.2 percent), RDF (garbage) (11
percent) and other (0.3 percent). 42
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that Minnesota has the capability of
producing more than 17 times the electricity used in 2001 from renewable energy
resources, as follows:
Table 12: Minnesota’s Renewable Energy Potential43
% of 2001
(billion
Resource
Electricity
kWh)
Sales
Wind
991.3
1,644%
Solar PV
55.3
92%
Bioenergy
30.3
50%
Landfill Gas
0.3
1%
TOTAL
1,077.2
1,787%
6.3.3.4 Minnesota’s Renewable Electricity Programs. Several state programs are fostering
the development of renewable energy projects to produce an increasing amount of the
state’s electricity. These include a 10 percent Renewable Energy Objective by 2015,
green pricing programs, net metering, solar and wind incentives and Xcel’s renewable
energy mandate. All of these programs are described briefly below.
6.3.3.4.1 Minnesota 10 Percent Renewable Energy Objective by 2015. Minnesota Statute
requires that each electric utility make a good faith effort to generate or procure
sufficient renewable energy such that one percent of the utility’s total retail electric sales
is generated by eligible renewable energy technologies. This percentage then increases
one percent per year until 2015 when utilities are required to make a good faith effort to
have a 10 percent renewable energy mix. 44
42
Bull, Mike. 2005. “Minnesota: America’s Renewable Energy Capitol.” February 2005, Renewable Energy in the
Upper Midwest, Grand Forks ND, p.5.
43
Union of Concerned Scientists. 2003. “Renewing Minnesota.” Retrieved from www.ucsusa.org in September
2004.
44
Minnesota Statutes 2004. Chapter 216B. Retrieved from
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/216B/1691.html on May 27, 2005.
June 2005
54
Eligible technologies include solar, wind, hydroelectric with a capacity of less than 60
MW, hydrogen (provided that after January 1, 2010, the hydrogen is generated from
solar, wind or small hydro) or biomass. 45
6.3.3.4.2 Green Pricing Programs. All power companies are now providing an optional
service called green pricing, wh ich allows customers to pay a small premium to
purchase electricity generated from clean, renewable ("green") energy sources. The
premium covers the increased costs incurred by the power provider when adding
renewable energy to its power generation mix. We encourage readers to contact their
local utility for more specific information about each utility’s green pricing program.
6.3.3.4.3 Xcel Mandate. Xcel Energy, as an electric utility owning a nuclear generation
facility in Minnesota, is required to generate or purchase electricity from renewable
resources to account for one percent of its total retail sales by 2005. This required
percentage of renewables will then increase by one percent per year until 2015, when it
is required to have 10 percent of total retail sales. Beyond this standard for percent of
retail sales, Xcel Energy, as a nuclear power generation utility, is also required to deploy
an additional 1,125 MW of wind. The last 300 MW of this mandate must be installed by
2010 and require that 100 MW of this mandate be fulfilled via wind projects with
nameplate capacities of 2 MW or less. Xcel Energy is also mandated to deploy 125 MW
of installed biomass capacity.46
In addition, Xcel Energy created the Renewable Development Fund (RDF) in May 1999
as an outcome of 1994 Minnesota legislation concerning spent fuel storage at the Prairie
Island nuclear power plant. 47 In May 2003, Minnesota extended nuclear wast e storage
at Xcel Energy's Prairie Island plant, and increased the amount Xcel must pay toward
the development of renewable-energy sources. As a result, Xcel now must pay $16
million into the RDF annually, for as long as the Prairie Island plant is in operation.
(Prior to this legislation, Xcel was required to contribute $8.5 million each year). The
2003 legislation mandates that up to $6 million annually must be allocated to fund
renewable-energy production incentives. Of this annual amount, $4,500,000 will fund
production incentives for wind energy, and approximately $1,500,000 will fund
production incentives for eligible on-farm biogas recovery facilities. 48
45
Ibid.
Ibid.
47
This information was taken from the Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE). For more
information, please visit:
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=MN09R&state=MN&CurrentPageID=1.
Retrieved June 13, 2005.
48
Ibid.
46
June 2005
55
In 2001 the Xcel Energy RDF program selected a total of 19 research projects, during
two phases, to receive nearly $16 million in funding. 49 In August 2004, 25 proposed
renewable-energy projects featuring hydroelectric, biomass, wind, solar and biofuel
technologies were selected by the Renewable Development Board to receive more than
$22 million in funding; all selected projects are subject to final approval by the
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. 50
During the 2003 Minnesota Legislative Session the University of Minnesota Initiative for
Renewable Energy and the Environment (IREE) was awarded $10 million dollars from
Xcel Energy’s Renewable Development Fund. They were also awarded 5% of Xcel’s
CIP obligation annually for the next five years (estimated at $1.7 - $2.0 million dollars
each year). 51
6.3.3.4.4 Small Wind Production Incentive: 1.5 cents/kWh for 200 MW wind. In 1996,
the State of Minnesota passed an incentive that paid the owners of small wind
generators (under 2 MW) 1.5 cents per kWh sold to a utility. This incentive had a 100
MW cap on it. This cap was reached in 2002. In 2003, the legislature funded another
100 MW from Xcel Energy’s Renewable Development Fund (RDF). This additional 100
MW was fully subscribed by November 2003.
The legislation stated that the generators had to be on-line within 18 months of listing
with the state “queue” of projects eligible to receive the state incentive. Most of the
projects in the second 100 MW didn’t get built during the allotted time. In May 2005,
the state legislature amended the rules of the Small Wind Production Incentive so that
projects that missed their deadline, as well as projects that joined the queue after the
second 200 MW was subscribed, could receive 1-cent/kWh. This is only true for projects
that entered the queue before the end of 2004. Future expansion of this program
appears unlikely as of May 2005.
6.3.3.4.5 Renewable Incentives – Rebates, Tax Credits, Sales Tax Waivers, etc. There are
numerous incentives available for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. For
the most current information on these incentives, we recommend that readers visit the
49
Ibid.
Ibid.
51
For more information, visit: http://www.moea.state.mn.us/p2/forum/040129hemmingson.pdf. Retrieved June 13,
2005.
50
June 2005
56
Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (www.dsireusa.org). A summary of a
few of the incentives as of May 2005 include: 52
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Federal Production Tax Incentive $0.015/kWh tax incentive adjusted for inflation
(currently $0.018/kWh)
Accelerated depreciation
LCMR Community wind rebates (2 active @ $150,000; 2 anticipated @ $200,000)
Net metering (retail & average retail rates) for sub 40 kW systems
Low-interest loan programs available to farmers developing renewable energy
projects through the MN Department of Agriculture's Rural Finance Authority
State sales tax exemption (Wind & Photovoltaics)
State property tax exemption
State production tax exemption for projects sited in Job Opportunity Building
Zones (JOBZ)
USDA 9006 funding (competitive) - $23 million FY04; MN has been successful at
receiving significant portion in both years offered
USDA Value Added Grant Program - $13.2 million FY04
6.3.3.4.6 Programs to Encourage Conservation or Using Energy More Efficiently and
Productively are located in Section 8.2. These include utility Conservation
Improvement Programs (CIP), Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) and Green
Mortgages. Minnesota’s Sustainable Building Guidelines, also referred to as Buildings,
Benchmarks and Beyond (B3) encourage greater efficiency by requiring publicly funded
buildings to exceed the existing energy efficiency guidelines by 30 percent. 53
52
Minnesota Department of Commerce. 2004. “Minnesota’s Leadership in Renewable Energy.” Retrieved from:
http://www.state.mn.us/mn/externalDocs/Commerce/Renewable_Energy_Objective_Report_020305041245_REOC
omplete-NoH1-13.pdf on May 27, 2005.
53
Center for Sustainable Building Research. 2004. “The State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines.”
Retrieved from: http://www.csbr.umn.edu/b3/summary.html on May 2, 2005.
June 2005
57
SECTION 7 ENERGY USE IN SE/SC CERT AREA
Other than records for electricity consumption, the Minnesota Department of
Commerce and federal Department of Energy don’t keep statistics on energy use by
sector (residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation) by county. This has
made it difficult to obtain accurate figures or even estimate total energy use in the
region. For reference purposes, the SE/SC CERT 15-county region comprises
approximately 12 percent of the population of the state, as well as approximately 12
percent of the households in the state, and 9.1 percent of the landmass of the state. This
section includes information on energy users, power providers, electricity production
and use in the region, Minnesota fuel usage by sector in 2000 and estimates, where
possible, on how much energy is being used in the region by sector and fuel type.
Section 7.1
Largest Energy Users
A chart listing the major fuel users in the region and the amounts of various fuels they
used in 2001 is located in the Appendix, Chart 8. The largest users of natural gas, fuel
oil, coal and coke are listed below, along with the largest consumers of all forms of
energy overall.
Natural Gas
The largest users of natural gas (over 100,000 million BTUs) were ADM and CHS
Oilseed Processing (Mankato), Al-Corn Clean Fuel (Claremont), McNeilus Truck & Mfg
(Dodge Center), Corn Plus (Winnebago), Pro-Corn LLC (Preston), Agra Resources Coop
dba EXOL (Albert Lea), Land O’Lakes (Pine Island), ADM (Red Wing), Dairy Farmers
of America, Inc (Zumbrota), Unimin Minnesota Corp. (Kasota), Le Sueur, Inc (Le
Sueur), Unimim Minnesota Corp. (Le Sueur), Austin Utilities NE Power Station and
Hormel Foods Corp (Austin), Associated Milk Producers, Crenlo Inc Plant 2, IBM,
Mayo Medical Center Quest International, Rochester Public Utilities Silver Lake Plant,
Seneca Food Corp (Rochester), Carleton College and Malt-O-Meal Plant 2 (Northfield),
Crown Cork & Seal and Owatonna Public Utilities (Owatonna), Federal Mogul Corp
Powertrain Systems and Lakeside Foods (Plainview), Brown Printing Company
(Waseca) and Froedtert Malt (Winona).
Fuel Oil
The largest users of fuel oil (over 100,000 million BTUs) were CHS Oilseed Processing
(Mankato), ADM (Red Wing), Hormel Foods (Austin), Associated Milk Producers,
Mayo Medical Center (Rochester) and Minnesota Correctional Facilities (Faribault).
June 2005
58
Coal and Coke
The largest users of coal and coke (over 100,000 million BTUs) were ADM (Mankato)
USG Interiors (Red Wing), Austin Utilities NE Power Station (Austin) and Rochester
Public Utilities Silver Lake Plant (Rochester).
Overall Fuel Users
Overall, the entities that used the most natural gas, coal, coke and fuel oil in our area
(over 500,000 million BTUs) were ADM and CHS Oilseed Processing (Mankato), AlCorn Clean Fuel (Claremont), Corn Plus (Winnebago), Pro-Corn LLC (Preston), Agra
Resources (Albert Lea), USG Interiors (Red Wing), Austin Utilities NE Power Station
and Hormel Foods (Austin), Mayo Medical Center and Rochester Public Utilities Silver
Lake Plant (Rochester). 54
Section 7.2 Natural Gas Providers. The following companies are providing natural
gas in our area: Center Point Energy (Minnegasco), Aquila Networks (People’s), Alliant
Energy, Xcel Energy, Greater Minnesota Gas Company, Owatonna Public Utilities and
Alliant Energy. They are listed in the Appendix on Chart 9, along with the electricity
providers.
Section 7.3
Electricity
7.3.1 Regional and County Consumption of Electricity. In 2000, 6,319,734 MWH of
electricity were consumed in the SE/SC region. The county breakouts with percentages
consumed by county are shown below. Blue Earth and Olmsted Counties combine to
account for 33 percent of the electricity consumed in the region in 2000.
54
“Major Fuel Users and Amount of Fuel Used in 2001” by Shalini Gupta, ME3.
June 2005
59
Table 13: Electric Consumption per County in the SE/SC CERT
Region and Percent of Total Consumption 200055
County
BLUE EARTH
DODGE
FARIBAULT
FILLMORE
FREEBORN
GOODHUE
HOUSTON
LE SUEUR
MOWER
OLMSTED
RICE
STEELE
WABASHA
WASECA
WINONA
TOTAL
MWH
% Region
723,929
11.46%
148,264
2.35%
225,267
3.56%
148,002
2.34%
409,980
6.49%
489,413
7.74%
146,215
2.31%
270,334
4.28%
394,730
6.25%
1,372,514
21.72%
588,238
9.31%
430,218
6.81%
221,536
3.51%
224,953
3.56%
526,141
8.33%
6,319,734 100.00%
7.3.2 Major Companies that Generate, Transmit and Distribute Electricity. Electric
utilities in Minnesota are owned and operated by investors (IOUs), cooperatives (coops), municipalities (munis) and/or non-utility companies. Different entities generate,
transmit and distribute electricity. Distribution to end-users is provided by each utility
category as follows: IOUs (37 percent), co-ops (24 percent) and municipal utilities (39
percent). The major energy players in our region are the following:
55
•
Six Wholesalers: Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC), Great River Energy
(GRE), Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (SMMPA), Alliant Energy,
Xcel Energy and Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (CMMPA).
•
Four Generating and Transmission Organizations: Southern Minnesota
Municipal Power Agency (SMMPA) , Dairyland Power Cooperative, Great River
Energy and Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (CMMPA).
Minnesota Department of Commerce, 2000. The 2000 Minnesota Utility Data Book.
June 2005
60
•
Six Utilities that Own Transmission Facilities: Great River Energy, Dairyland
Power Cooperative, Interstate Power and Light Company, Rochester Public
Utilities, SMMPA and Excel Energy.
•
Twenty-seven Munis: (16 Non-SMMPA, including CMMPA): Blue Earth,
Caledonia, Eitzen, Harmony, Janesville, Kasota, Kasson, Kenyon, Lake Crystal,
Lanesboro, LeSueur, Mabel, Rushford, Spring Grove, St. Charles, Whalen. (11
SMMPA): Austin, Blooming Prairie, Lake City, New Prague, Owatonna, Preston,
Rochester, Spring Valley, St. Peter, Waseca, Wells.
•
Eight Co-ops: Freeborn Mower, Peoples, Tri-County Electric, BENCO, Goodhue,
Minnesota Valley, Steele-Waseca, and Dakota.
•
Two IOUs: Alliant, Xcel.
Chart 10 in the Appendix shows the regional power provider’ service territories. Chart
11 in the Appendix shows how much electricity the municipalities and cooperatives in
the region are providing to various customers by sector, i.e., industrial, commercial,
farm, non-farm residential, and number of customers in each category. We were not
able to find out this information for the 37 percent of the electricity being distributed by
IOUs in the region.
7.3.3 Power Plants in the Region: Coal, Nuclear, Natural Gas, Gas and Oil. Power
generators located in the SE/SC CERT region are located at Montgomery, Austin, Blue
Earth, Janesville, Kenyon, Lake Crystal, Lanesboro, Rochester, Blooming Prairie, New
Prague, Owatonna, Preston, Spring Valley, Waseca, Wells, Key City, Prairie Island, Red
Wing, West Faribault, Dexter and Mankato. Chart 12 of the Appendix lists the names of
the power facilities located in the region, along with fuel source, type of generator,
nameplate capacity and year the facility was built. The SE/SC CERT region has two of
the state’s coal-fired power plants: Austin Utilities Northeast Plant in Austin and the
Rochester Public Utility Silver Lake Plant in Rochester. The Prairie Island Nuclear Plant
is located near Red Wing.
7.3.4 Renewable Energy Facilities and Projects in the Region. A chart listing the
renewable energy projects identified in the region as of June 2004, including solar
homes and smaller wind generators, is in the Appendix in Chart 13. The region has
three hydroelectric dams at Lanesboro, Lake Zumbro and Mankato, three Waste-ToEnergy projects at Rochester, Red Wing and Mankato, Waste Water Treatment Plants at
Rochester and Owatonna that collect and utilize their own biogas for both heat and
electric resources and several larger wind turbines and wind farms at Dodge Center,
June 2005
61
Adams, Rochester, Northfield and Owatonna. There are two large geothermal facilities:
the school at Grand Meadow and the correctional facility in Steele County.
7.3.5 Plans to Build or Expand Area Power Plants and Larger Wind Farms. Plans for
building or expanding new power plants or undertaking serious energy
conservation/efficiency programs in our region that we could identify as of May 2005
include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Faribault Energy Park, LLC proposes to build, own and operate a 250 MW
combined-cycle, natural gas fired plant 2.5 miles north of Faribault, Rice County.
Mankato, Calpine Project plans to install two 320 MW natural gas fueled
combustion turbines.
Cannon Falls, Invenergy, a power plant developer from Chicago, has a contract
with Xcel Energy to deliver 350 MW of peak power from a natural gas-fired
power plant.
Rochester’s Silver Lake Plant has increased its capacity utilization significantly as
natural gas prices have escalated. Its energy output up to its 100 MW capacity is
wholesaled to the Minnesota Municipal Power Association for use by ring
suburbs on the south side of the Twin Cities. The MMPA contract is being
stepped down to free up capacity for Mayo steam sales and future local
utilization of Silver Lake Power Plant generated power.
In May 2005 we learned about a proposal from Simon Industries to locate a 325
MW natural gas peaking plant for Blooming Grove Township in Waseca County.
The Olmsted County Waste to Energy facility announced in May 2005 that it
would be adding a third boiler and doubling its operation.
Rochester Public Utilities (RPU) is planning its energy resources for the next
thirty years, 2005 - 2034. It hired Burns & McDonnell as consultants to
identify the lowest cost and optimal way to meet the energy and power needs of
RPU’s customers. Burns & McDonnell concluded that the energy mix that
created both the lowest customer bills and the lowest customer rates was an
intensive focus on energy efficiency and load management. Burns & McDonnell
recommended that RPU’s various customer classes save $577 million worth of
electricity over the next thirty years. By doing so, they would delay the
construction of two natural gas combustion turbines by two years and the
construction of a coal-fired baseload power plant by five years. In addition, the
baseload plant would only need to be half the size that it would be without an
intensive energy efficiency effort. 56
56
Rochester Public Utilities. 2005. “Discussion of Phase II and Phase III, RPU Public Meeting, March 29,
2005.” Retrieved from: http://www.rpu.org/pdfs/032905_Infrastructure_Plan_Phase2&3.pdf on June 10, 2005.
June 2005
62
•
Additional wind projects being discussed for the SE/SC Region include a
minimum of 400 MW from Zilkha Wind Energy and 500 MW from another
developer for Mower County, 80 MW for the Northfield area, a 100 MW project
in Steele County, a 100 MW project in Goodhue County, a 40 MW project in
Olmsted County and another 100 MW of distributed projects across the region –
for a total of 1,320 MW.
7.3.6 Transmission Lines and Substations. The region’s transmission system consists of
345 kV, 161 kV, 115 kV and 69 kV lines (Chart 14 in the Appendix). According to the
2003 MN Biennial Transmission Projects Report:
The 345 kV system is used to import power to the SE Planning Zone for
lower voltage load service from generation stations outside of the area.
The 345 kV system also allows the seasonal and economic exchange of
power from Minnesota to the east and south from large generations
stations that are located within and outside of the zone. The 161 kV and
115 kV systems are used to carry power from the 345 kV system and
from local generation sites to the major load centers within the zone.
From the regional load centers and smaller local generation sites, 69 kV
lines are used for load service to the outlying areas of the SE Planning
Zone. 57
A list of approximately 159 substations located on 69kV transmission lines in our region
by county is in the Appendix, Chart 15. This list will be helpful in locating potential
sites of distributed generation renewable energy projects that might be connected to the
grid at or near these substations.
57
Rochester Public Utilities. 2003. “2003 MN Biennial Transmission Projects Report,” p. 131-132. Retrieved
from: http://www.rpu.org/pdfs/032905_Infrastructure_Plan_Phase2&3.pdf.
June 2005
63
Section 7.4 Residential Energy Use
Energy use in homes generally breaks out as follows:
§
§
§
§
44 percent heating and cooling
33 percent lighting
14 percent hot water heating
9 percent refrigeration
Graph 4: Sources of Residential
Energy Use
Wood
2.00%
Renewable
0.15%
Petroleum
9.99%
Electricity Loss
31.95%
The following chart shows the different types, amounts
and costs of residential energy use in Minnesota in 2000.
The numbers of households in the 15-county SE/SC
CERT area comprise approximately 12 percent of the state
totals. Thus, to obtain estimates of total residential energy
use in our area by fuel type, we took 12 percent of the state totals
residential energy use (Table 14).
Natural Gas
37.9%
Electricity
17.97%
for
Table 14: Residential Ener gy Use in Minnesota (2000)58
Residential Residential SE Region
Residential Residential
Quantity
Amount
Residential
Trillion
Million $
Amount
BTU
(12% of state)
FUEL TYPE
Coal
Natural Gas
Distillate Fuel
Kerosene
LPG
Total
Petroleum
Wood
Geothermal
Solar
Electricity
Elect Losses
TOTAL
58
Short Ton
Billion Cu Ft
Barrels
Barrels
Barrels
Barrels
SE Region
Residential
Million $
(12% of
state)
1000
120
2,260,000
33,000
5,436,000
7,730,000
15.48
271,200
3960
652,320
927,480
131.4
13.2
0.2
19.6
33.0
923.2
116.8
1.8
230.3
348.9
110.78
14.02
0.22
27.64
41.87
Cords
409,000
49,080
11.5
1.38
Million
KWH
Million
KWH
18,629.0
2,235.48
8.2
0.2
0.3
63.6
1,400.1
168.01
2,683.7
322.04
31,941.0
109.0
345.7
US Department of Energy: Energy Information Administration. Retrieved from: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states /.
June 2005
64
Section 7.5
Transportation Sector
Graph 5: Sources of Transportation Energy
Natural Gas
4.00%
This table below shows how much energy, what kind of
energy and the total costs of that energy that were used in
Minnesota transportation in 2000. Petroleum products
accounted for 96 percent of fuels used in the
transportation sector, with mot or gas use at 61 percent,
followed by distillate fuel use at 19 percent and jet fuel
use at 15 percent.
Petroleum
96.00%
Table 15: Transportation Energy Use in Minnesota (2000)59
Transportation Transport Transport
Transport
Quantity
Amount
Trillion
Per Cent
Million $
BTU
FUEL TYPE
Natural Gas
Billion Cu Ft
21.00
21.40
4%
(s)
Aviation Gas 1,000 Barrels
136.00
0.70
.1%
7.2
Distillate Fuel 1,000 Barrels
17,191.00
100.10
19%
1,093.2
Jet Fuel
1,000 Barrels
13,301.00
75.40
15%
492.2
Lubricants
1,000 Barrels
831.00
5.00
1%
90.6
Motor Gas
1,000 Barrels
60,074.00
313.00
61%
3,857.8
Residual Fuel 1,000 Barrels
270.00
1.70
.3%
7.8
LPG
1,000 Barrels
7.00
(s)
0.3
Total
1,000 Barrels
91,809.00
496.00
96%
5,549.1
Petroleum
Ethanol
1,000 Barrels
5,589.00
19.80
4%
**
TOTAL
517.30
5,549.2
**The ethanol was blended into gasoline, so the cost is not figured separately. (s) value less than .05 million nominal dollars.
There were 578,027 registered vehicles in the SE/SC CERT area in 2003. These vehicles
included the following: 361,024 passenger cars, 154,376 pickup trucks, 1,720 buses,
59
US Department of Energy: Energy Information Administration. Retrieved from: www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/.
June 2005
65
26,571 other trucks, 22,651 motorcycles, 5,378 recreational vehicles, 1,372 mopeds and
4,575 other vehicles. 60
According to the Energy Information Annual Energy Review 2002, in 2001 passenger
cars used an average of approximately 547 gallons of gasoline per year; vans, pickup
trucks and sport utility vehicles used on average 633 gallons per year; trucks used on
average 4,491 gallons per year; and miscellaneous vehicles combined together used 692
gallons per year. 61 Using these figures and the data on registered vehicles, we
calculated that fuel uses in our region for VEHICLES ONLY totaled almost 416 million
gallons of liquid fuel in 2003. If the category “other trucks and buses” can be assumed
to be diesel fuel, the region used approximately 122 million gallons of diesel and 294
million gallons of gasoline. None of these figures include oil for lubrication, etc.
We were not able to estimate fuel figures for airplanes, trains, barges or other forms of
transportation for our region.
60
Minnesota Department of Safety. Transportation Roadway Data Section Retrieved from:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/tda/html/roadwaydata.html .
61
US Department of Energy: Energy Information Administration. 2002. “Annual Energy Review.” p.61.
June 2005
66
Section 7.6
Commercial Energy Use
Graph 6: Sources of Commercial Energy in Minnesota
Wood
0.50%
Coal
0.05%
Petroleum
4.59%
Commercial energy is the energy used in hospitals, schools,
offices and the service sector. Data on commercial energy use
in Minnesota in 2000 is listed below. As you can see in
Electricity Loss
Table 17, the commercial sector used primarily electricity
32.95%
and natural gas. We were not able to estimate
Natural Gas
42.94%
commercial energy use for the SE/SC region at this time.
Commercial use of electricity being provided by the coops and munis in our region (67 percent of the electricity)
are shown on Chart 11 in the Appendix. One of the largest
Electricity
18.97%
users of energy in our area is a commercial user: the Mayo
Clinic. Our region has approximately 20 hospitals and 300
schools that fall under this sector.
June 2005
67
Table 16: Commercial Energy used in Minnesota (2000)62
Commercial Commercial Commercial
FUEL TYPE
Quantity
Amount
Trillion
BTU
Coal
1,000 Short
5.0
0.1
Tons
Natural Gas
Billion Cu Feet
95.0
96.0
Distillate Fuel 1,000 Barrels
875.0
5.1
Kerosene
1,000 Barrels
55.0
0.3
LPG
1,000 Barrels
959.0
3.5
Lubricants
1,000 Barrels
Motor
1,000 Barrels
50.0
0.3
Gasoline
Residual Fuel 1,000 Barrels
167.0
1.0
Other
1,000 Barrels
Total
1,000 Barrels
2,106.0
10.2
Petroleum
Wood
1,000 Cords
50.0
1.0
Hydroelectric Million KWH
Geothermal
0.0
Other
Electricity
Million KWH
12,311.0
42.0
Net Energy
149.2
Elect Losses
Million KWH
21,107.0
72.0
TOTAL
221.2
Per Cent
Commercial
Million $
.05%
0.1
43.00%
2.00%
.10%
1.60%
566.2
37.0
2.9
40.9
.10%
3.2
.50%
4.4
4.60%
88.2
.50%
1.4
19.00%
67.00%
33.00%
791.5
1,447.4
62
US Department of Energy: Energy Information Administration. Table 3. Commercial Sector Energy Price and
Expenditure Estimates, 1970-2001, Minnesota. Retrieved from:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_prices/com/pr_com_mn.html.
June 2005
68
SECTION 7.7 Industrial Energy Use
Graph 7: Sources of Industrial Energy in Minnesota
Hydro
0.50%
Other
1.20%
Industrial energy is the energy used by manufacturing and
Coal
agriculture. The types, amounts and costs of energy being
Wood 7.02%
Petroleum
used by the industrial sector in Minnesota in 2000 are
8.02%
22.07%
shown in the chart below. Electricity (16 percent),
petroleum (22 percent) and natural gas (17 percent) are
the main energy sources for this sector. The estimates for
Natural
Gas
Electricity Loss
energy use in our region for agriculture and livestock
17.05%
28.08%
production and some agricultural processing follow. We
were not able to estimate the amount of energy by type
Electricity
used for manufacturing in our region. The amount of
16.05%
electricity being supplied by the coops and munis to industrial
users
(67 percent of the electricity being used in the area) is shown on Chart
11 in the Appendix. The largest energy users in our area, most of which are industrial
users, are listed on Chart 6 in the Appendix.
June 2005
69
Table 17: Industrial Energy Use in Minnesota (2000)63
Industrial
Industrial Industrial
FUEL TYPE
Quantity
Amount Trillion
BTU
Coal
1,000 Short
2,091.0
40.4
Tons
Natural Gas
Billion Cu Feet
104.0
105.5
Asphalt/Road 1,000 Barrels
7,420.0
49.2
Distillate Fuel 1,000 Barrels
4,784.0
27.9
Kerosene
1,000 Barrels
4.0
LPG
1,000 Barrels
3,442.0
12.4
Lubricants
1,000 Barrels
338.0
2.0
Motor
1,000 Barrels
996.0
5.2
Gasoline
Residual Fuel 1,000 Barrels
522.0
3.3
Other
1,000 Barrels
5,557.0
33.3
Total
1,000 Barrels
23,062.0
133.4
Petroleum
Wood
1,000 Cords
47.0
Hydroelectric Million KWH
296.0
3.0
Geothermal
Other
7.4
Electricity
Million KWH
28,842.0
98.4
Net Energy
435.0
Elect Losses
Million KWH
49,451
168.7
TOTAL
603.8
Percent
Industrial
Million $
7.0%
63.7
17.0%
8.0%
5.0%
2.0%
.3%
.9%
440.1
216.7
220.9
0.2
147.7
36.8
63.9
.5%
5.5%
22.0%
8.3
31.2
725.7
8.0%
.5%
28.2
1.2%
16.0%
72.0%
28.0%
1,285.6
2,543.3
7.7.1 Agriculture Energy Use. Over the past 30 years, agriculture has consistently
accounted for about 6 percent of the state’s energy use. 64 Unfortunately, the state no
longer breaks out energy use for agriculture in its statistics; rather, agriculture energy
use is included in with Industrial Use in state energy data. Douglas Tiffany, an
agriculture economist working at the University of Minnesota, identified the following
amounts of various forms of energy being used in crop and livestock production in
Minnesota. We used these formulas to estimate the amounts of energy being used to
raise crops and livestock in our region.
63
US Department of Energy: Energy Information Administration. Table 10. Industrial Sector Energy Consumption
Estimates, 1960-2001, Minnesota. Retrieved from:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_use/ind/use_ind_mn.html.
64
Minnesota Energy Data Book – “Energy Trends from 1960-1993”, p. 21.
June 2005
70
Table 18: Energy Used in MN Agriculture and Livestock65
Crop per Acre/
Animal
Diesel
Gallon
Corn
Soybean
Alfalfa
Dairy (15,000#)
Turkey (head)
Swine Finish (lit)
Swine Finish
(head)
Beef Cow (head)
Beef Finish (head)
Gas
Gallon
LP
Gallon
Electricity Natural Gas
kWh
MCF
9.37
7.43
9.80
1.15
0.91
0.81
9.58
0.75
0
35.63
27.50
37.23
34.50
0.10
9.55
1.11
3.00
0.01
1.11
0.11
16.50
0.50
4.06
0.34
600.00
1.24
148.25
12.38
6.37
4.78
0.74
0.46
1.62
1.08
59.25
39.38
3.945
0.199
0.719
The types and amounts of fuel to grow corn, soybeans and alfalfa are summarized
below.
Table 19: Fuel Expended on Major Crops (2000)
2000
Fuel or Energy
Diesel (gal)
Gasoline (gal)
LP (gal)
Electricity (kWh)
Natural Gas MCF
TOTAL CROPS
Corn, Soybeans & Alfalfa
31,043,279
3,644,575
18,257,178
117,003,491
7,666,664.5
7.7.2 Energy Being Used for Crop and Livestock Processing in 2001. The following
chart shows the amount of natural gas, fuel oil, propane, wood/wood wastes and coal
that was used in 2001 by the major crop and livestock processing facilities in the SE/SC
CERT region.
65
Tiffany, Douglas. “Agriculture Energy: Understanding Usage and Anticipating Policy Directions.” Retrieved
from: http://www.misa.umn.edu/programs/EnergyFair81702Rev.ppt#2 on June 12, 2005.
June 2005
71
Table 20: Energy Used in Major Crop Processing Facilities (2001)66
FUEL
CITY
NAME
NAT GAS
PROP
OIL
Million British Thermal Units Consumed in 2001
Mankato
ADM - Mankato
293,720 23,624
Mankato
CHS Oilseed Processing 815,584 397,660
Mankato
Claremont
Al-Corn Clean Fuel
659,976
Blue Earth
Seneca Foods Corp - Blue
36,391
Earth
Winnebago
Corn Plus
879,968
Preston
Pro-Corn LLC
769,365
137
Albert Lea
Agra Resources Coop dba
745,290
EXOL
Pine Island
Land O'Lakes Inc - Pine
202,979 32,258
Island
Red Wing
ADM - Red Wing
105,576 164,659
Zumbrota
Dairy Farmers of America Inc
178,461 22,241
- Zumbrota
Montgomery
Seneca Foods Corp 70,202
Montgomery
New Prague
ConAgra Flour Milling Co 5,397
165
New Prague
Austin
Hormel Foods Corp - Austin 306,985 364,530
Rochester
Associated Milk Producers
119,762 108,061
Inc -Rochester
Rochester
Pace Dairy Foods Co
30,778
Rochester
Seneca Foods Corp 133,198
Rochester
Northfield
Malt-O-Meal Co - Plant 2 342,735
Northfield
Plainview
Lakeside Foods Inc 101,320 15,525
Plainview
Winona
Froedtert Malt - Winona
321,456
WOOD
COAL
1,427,031
2,330
66
“Major Fuel Users and Amount Fuel Used in 2001” Source: PCA Boiler and Fuel Use database. Consolidated by:
Shalini Gupta, ME3.
June 2005
72
7.7.3 Ethanol Production. The chart on the previous page shows that the four ethanol
plants operating in SE/SC MN in 2001 used 3,054,599 million BTUs of natural gas and
137 million BTUs of propane. This does not include the Lake Crystal Plant (50 million
gallons) that began producing ethanol in May 2005.
7.7.4 Soybean Crushing Facilities. The chart on the previous page also shows that in
2001 the two soybean crushing facilities in Mankato used 1,109,304 million BTUs of
natural gas, 421,284 million BTUs of fuel oil and 1,427,031 million BTUs of coal. This
does not include the Glenville soydiesel plant that is expected to begin production in
Summer 2005.
June 2005
73
SECTION 8 ENERGY CONSERVATION, PRODUCTIVITY AND
EFFICIENCY
Our cheapest, safest, cleanest and most available energy resource involves using less
energy and increasing the productivity of the energy we use to do more work.
We use energy in various forms to do work. We think we can reduce energy
consumption in all sectors by at least 20 percent by reducing energy use, using energy
more productively and using energy more efficiently.
We all can take steps to conserve energy and use it more productively in our homes,
schools, churches, businesses, buildings, communities and industries. If we use less
energy and use energy more productively, we will save money, reduce the number of
new power plants that need to be built, be able to retire old cold-fired and nuclear
power plants, reduce pollution and greenhouse gases that harm our health and
environment, reduce our reliance on energy imports from abroad and secure a safer,
healthier future for our children and grandchildren.
Because of energy efficiency programs undertaken during the oil crisis in the mid
1970’s, the U.S. gross national product grew 36 percent between 1973 and 1986 with no
appreciable increase in energy use. As a result of efficiency programs implemented
then, the U.S. saved 13 million barrels of oil each day, didn’t have to build 250 large
power plants that would otherwise have been required and saved $150 billion in energy
costs each year. 67
Amory Lovins says that since 1975, the U.S. has doubled the economic activity wrung
from each barrel of oil. He claims from 1977 to 1985 GDP rose 27 percent, oil use fell 17
percent, net oil imports fell 42 percent and imports from the Persian Gulf fell 87 percent.
The key to this huge savings was Detroit’s 7.6 mile per gallon improvement in new cars
and light trucks, which use 70 percent of oil imports. The overall savings of doubling
the economic activity from each barrel of oil has meant an overall energy savings of
$365 billion in 2000 alone. The Rocky Mountain Institute estimates that the U.S. today
has an overall energy-efficiency potential, mostly in oil and electricity, exceeding
$300 billion per year.68
Section 8.1
Efficiency
Definitions. Energy Productivity, Energy Conservation and Energy
67
Wilson, Alex and John Morrill . 1998. “Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings.” American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Environment: p5.
68
Lovins, Amory. 2003. “U.S. Energy Security FACTS (for a typical year, 2000).”
June 2005
74
8.1.1 Energy productivity for the purpose of this discussion is defined as the amount of
energy used to perform a given task. Examples include miles per gallon of fuel and
kilowatt-hours of electricity per unit of air conditioning. When we increase gas mileage
in a vehicle from 25 miles per gallon to 50 miles per gallon, we can go twice as far with
the same amount of energy. Thus, we increase the productivity of the energy in a
gallon of gas. If we replace an older air conditioner with a newer more efficient model,
we can leave the air conditioner on longer and cool our building longer but still use the
same amount of energy as the older model. In essence, we get more bang for our buck.
We believe one of the most important things we can do in our region to increase
productivity of energy is to find creative ways to use the heat being produced during
electric generation via combined heat and power, or cogeneration, arrangements. We
look forward to fueling such units with renewable resources from our plentiful local
wind, biomass and biogas potential.
8.1.2 Energy conservation is defined as using less energy to accomplish a given task. If
we decide to walk to work every day, rather than drive, we are using less energy to
accomplish a given task, i.e., get to work. Thus, we are conserving energy. If we leave
the air conditioner off and use shade trees, green roofs and blinds to cool our houses,
we accomplish our objective of having a cooler home but use less energy. The task gets
done; we just don’t have to use as much energy to do it.
8.1.3 Energy efficiency combines energy productivity and energy conservation.
Obviously, a combination of increased energy productivity and increased energy
conservation will result in the greatest reduction in overall energy use – energy
efficiency. If we live in the country and need to drive, using the most efficient hybrid
car with the best gas mileage and using it only when absolutely necessary will reduce
overall energy use and be the most efficient use of the energy we do use.
Section 8.2 Embarking on a Campaign to Conserve Energy and Use It More
Productively. After you have decided to implement an energy-savings program in
your home, school or place of work, there are several important things to do.
1. Gather Information. The Minnesota Department of Commerce has a wealth of
information on how to save energy and use it more productively. In addition to fact
sheets and bulletins around particular topics like “lighting,” they have several
comprehensive CD ROMs full of good ideas and information available for the public.
One CD ROM provides specialized Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency
Information. Their web site is www.commerce.state.mn.us. They also have a monthly
tip that outlines energy saving action that any homeowner could utilize, along with a
program called “kids only” to teach elementary and middle school age kids about
June 2005
75
energy and what they can do to utilize energy efficiently. A second outstanding web
site is the Energy Star website: www.energystar.gov. That site has information about
energy efficient products and appliances, home improvement, new energy efficient
home construction and ways different groups can save energy and use renewable
energy, such as businesses, congregations, schools and other institutions. Two excellent
books are “Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings” by Alex Wilson and John
Morrill and “Homemade Money, How To Save Energy Dollars in Your Home” by
Richard Heede and the staff of the Rocky Mountain Institute. There is wonderful
information that you can find about almost any topic on the Internet if you do a
“Google search” – just be sure the source is reliable.
2. Conduct an Energy Audit. You need to know how you use energy and then figure
out what you can do to reduce your energy consumption or increase the productivity of
the energy being used. There are worksheets to do this on your own, but it would be
beneficial to have a trained professional conduct an energy audit. Some power
providers have technicians who conduct energy audit for their customers, either
someone who works for their company or one who has been contracted to do the work.
Energy Services Companies are described at the end of this section.
3. Get Everyone on Board. Be sure that your family members, students, staff or
employees know about the campaign and will participate enthusiastically. This
involves getting them to think about energy and change their behavior, if necessary, by
turning off lights when they leave a room, turning off computers when they are
finished using them, combining errands and reducing the number of trips they take and
carrying out routine maintenance on appliances or machines. These small steps can add
up to big energy savings and savings of dollars.
4. Turn Things Off.69 Although it may seem like a simple measure to take, remember
that every 1,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) that you save by turning things off equals US$70
off your utility bill (assuming average electricity costs of seven cents/kWh).
Lights. Turn off lights when they are not in use. Occupancy sensors can help, but a less
expensive alternative is to train staff and family members to turn off lights when they
leave unoccupied rooms.
Computers. Computers are used intermittently in laboratories and offices and should
employ sleep-mode settings or be shut off when the machines are not in use. The typical
desktop computer, monitor and shared printer draw about 200 watts, with the monitor
69
NSTAR, 2004. “Managing Energy Costs in Office Buildings” Retrieved from:
http://www.nstaronline.com/your_business/energy_advisor/CEA_03.html on June 8, 2005.
June 2005
76
alone drawing about 100 watts. "Smart" power strips with built-in occupancy sensors
are ava ilable to shut off plugged-in devices like printers and monitors when no users
are present. Television sets, entertainment centers and the like use energy when they
are “off” to be ready to come on in an instant when you hit the “on” button. Energy
savings can be realized if plugs for all entertainment equipment are put in a power strip
and turned off at one time when they are not in use.
Air-handling units. There may be large fan systems serving areas unoccupied at
night—such as the cafeteria, educational areas or offices—that can be shut off.
5. Turn Things Down.70 Some equipment cannot be turned off entirely, but turning it
down to minimum levels where possible can save energy.
Room temperature setbacks. Not all rooms in a building are occupied 24 hours a day.
Such rooms should have programmable thermostats that turn temperatures up in the
cooling season and down in the heating season during hours of no occupancy.
6. Do Routine Cleaning and Maintenance.71 Making sure that your HVAC system is
regularly cleaned and serviced can help to prevent costly heating and cooling bills.
Check the economizer. Many air-conditioning systems use a dampered vent called an
economizer to draw in cool outside air when it is available to reduce the need for
mechanically cooled air. If not regularly checked, the linkage on the damper can seize
up or break. An economizer stuck in the fully opened position can add as much as 50
percent to a building's annual energy bill by allowing in hot air during the airconditioning season and cold air during the heating season. About once a year, have a
licensed technician check, clean and lubricate your economizer's linkage, calibrate the
controls and make repairs if necessary.
Check air-conditioning temperatures. With a thermom eter, check the temperature of the
return air going to your air conditioner and then check the temperature of the air
coming out of the register nearest the air-conditioning unit. If the temperature
difference is less than 14° Fahrenheit (F) or more than 22°F, have a licensed technician
inspect your air-conditioning unit.
Change filters. Filters should be changed on a monthly basis; they should be changed
more often than this if you are located next to a highway or construction site where the
air is much dirtier.
70
71
Ibid.
Ibid.
June 2005
77
Check cabinet panels. On a quarterly basis, make sure the panels to your rooftop airconditioning unit are fully attached with all screws in place, and also check to see that
gaskets are intact so no air leaks out of the cabinet. If chilled air leaks out, it can cost
$100 per year in wasted energy per rooftop unit.
Clean condenser coils. Check condenser coils quarterly for debris, natural or otherwise,
that can collect there. Thoroughly wash the coils at the beginning or end of the cooling
season.
Check for airflow. Hold your hand up to air registers to ensure that there is adequate
airflow. If there is little airflow or if you find dirt and dust at the register, have a
technician inspect your unit and duct work.
7. Commissioning.72 Commissioning is a process in which engineers observe a
building and perform a tune-up to ensure that its systems are operating appropriately
and efficiently. Studies have shown that continuously monitoring a building's energy
systems can lead to reductions of 10 to 15 percent in annual energy bills. For the typical
100,000 square foot hospital, that's equal to about $34,000 in savings per year! Savings
typically result from resetting existing controls to reduce HVAC waste while
maintaining or even increasing comfort levels for occupants. Commissioning usually
costs between five and 40 cents per square foot.
8. Upgrade to More Efficient Lighting.73 Take advantage of daylighting where
possible to reduce the need for electric light; proper design is critical to avoid glare and
overheating. If your facility uses T12 fluorescent lamps, relamping with modern T8
lamps and electronic ballasts can reduce your lighting energy consumption by 35
percent. Adding specular reflectors, new lenses and occupancy sensors or timers can
double the savings. Paybacks of one to three years are common. Compact fluorescent
lamps (CFLs) can replace incandescent lamps in many applications, reducing energy
use by two-thirds and saving up to $20 per lamp per year. Light-emitting diode exit
lights that consume only two watts represent a great energy savings over incandescent
fixtures, and they are easier to maintain because of their long service life.
9. Install Occupancy Sensors.74 Many facilities have many rooms that are used
periodically, such as restrooms, storage rooms, break rooms and offices. For work
areas, a combination of occupancy sensors, time switches and local override controls
can accommodate people who arrive early or stay late.
72
Ibid.
Ibid.
74
Ibid.
73
June 2005
78
10. Buy Energy Star appliances, office equipment, lights, appliances, media equipment,
etc. when you are buying new items and think about replacing appliances more than 15
years old with new energy-saving ones. See: www.energystar.gov for a list ing of
appliances and products that have earned the Energy Star label. They may cost a little
more, but using them can reduce energy use from 30 to 50 percent because they are
more efficient to use. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimated that if every
household and business switched to Energy Star appliances in the next 15 years, it
would save $100 billion in energy bills and reduce carbon dioxide emissions equivalent
to taking 17 million cars off the road for each of those years. 75
11. Buy Energy Efficient Windows and Doors. Replace old, single-pane windows.
12. Improve Insulation, Fill Cracks. If you have an attic that is used for storage,
increasing the level of insulation from two to three inches (R5) to eight to 14 inches
(R30) can save $100 to $150 per year for every 1,200 square feet of ceiling area.
13. Replace Inefficient Vehicles with Energy Efficient Cars or Hybrids
8.2.1 Residential Energy Efficiency. Residential energy use comprises 20 percent of the
energy used in Minnesota. Energy use in the home generally breaks out as follows:
heating and cooling (44 percent), lighting (33 percent), heating hot water (14 percent),
and refrigeration (9 percent). Energy efficient homes generally use one-third to onefourth less energy than conventional homes. If your home energy bills are high, you
can cut them by 20 to 30 percent by taking the following steps.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
75
Replace older appliances with Energy Star Appliances, appropriately sized
Replace older furnaces with more efficient ones
Clean and replace air filters
Switch to a solar hot water heater or on-demand water heater
Turn the temperature on your hot water heater down, insulate it with a blanket,
insulate exposed hot water pipes
Replace older windows with energy-efficient ones
Put more insulation in the attic, basements and crawl-ways
Fill in cracks and holes with caulk
Keep thermostats low, add a clock thermostat that sets your thermostat back
automatically at times when you won’t be in a particular part of the house
Generate electric ity on site with a small wind generator or solar panels
Install a geothermal system or air-to-air heat exchanger
Ibid.
June 2005
79
•
•
•
•
•
Plant shade trees around your house
Add a sun room on a south-facing side of the house
Turn lights off when you leave a room
Unplug your TV and other media equipment when they aren’t in use; they use a
lot of electricity to keep the machines ready to turn on in the instant the “on”
button is pushed
Wash your clothes in cold water and hang dry them
Once you’ve completed these energy saving measures, you can also undertake some
renewable energy projects to reduce conventional energy.
Chart 16 in the Appendix illustrates the amount of energy – and money – that can be
saved in different types of homes. A typical older home with a less than 75 percent
efficient furnace, less than R11 insulation in the walls and less than R20 insulation in the
ceilings would use around 120 million BTUs of energy per year. A solar home of the
same size that is super-insulated in the walls and ceiling and had a furnace with greater
than 95 percent efficiency would use around 30 million BTUs.
Section 8.3 Transportation Energy Efficiency. Transportation accounts for 31 percent
of the state’s energy use. Ninety-six percent of the fuel is petroleum based (including
four percent ethanol) and four percent is natural gas. You can reduce the amount of
energy you use for transportation by taking the following steps.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reducing the number of trips you take in your vehicle, combining errands into
one trip
Taking public transportation when possible
Carpooling
Undertaking routine maintenance to keep filters and lubricants clean
Keeping the tire pressure at the correct amount
Buying a smaller more efficient car, such as a hybrid, that gets better mileage
and/or uses biofuels
Traveling at reduced speeds
Section 8.4 Commercial Energy Efficiency. Commercial energy accounts for 13
percent of the state’s energy use. This category includes schools, hospitals, nursing
homes and the service sector. Our area has around 300 schools and 20 hospitals.
Natural gas accounts for 44 percent of the energy used by this sector, followed by
electricity and petroleum products.
June 2005
80
8.4.1 Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Information. The Department of
Commerce has a CD ROM that provides information on ways business and industries
can save energy entitled “Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Information.”
Their web site is www.commerce.state.mn.us.
8.4.2 Schools. The Energy Smart Schools Program (www.energysmartschools.gov) has
prepared a handbook entitled “School Operations and Maintenance: Best Practices for
Controlling Energy Costs.” This 132 page Guidebook for K-12 School System Business
Officers and Facilities Managers offers strategies and opportunities for reducing energy
costs and increasing energy efficiency at existing schools that can reduce energy costs
up to 20 percent.
8.4.3 Hospitals and Nursing Homes. 76 The first six steps hospital and nursing homes
should take are the same as those described in items 4 through 9 in Section 8.2:
• Turn Things Off
• Turn Things Down
• Cleaning and Maintenance
• Commissioning
• Upgrade to More Efficient Lighting
• Install Occupancy Sensors
Two other important steps for hospitals and nursing homes include exploring other
laundering options and considering cogeneration options (described further in the next
section). Laundry systems consume large amounts of energy to heat water. Following
are some options to consider that are more energy efficient.
Use ozone laundering. This method performs better than traditional technology on
some stains—including Betadine and blood—but worse on others. It saves energy,
requires less detergent and uses much less water. Although this technology does have a
different cost structure than the conventional methods (an ozone generator is required
and the system needs more maintenance), a two-year payback period is often possible.
It is important to select a vendor that has an effective maintenance support network.
Reduce temperatures. Hospital laundry can be safely washed at lower temperatures.
The common practice of laundering in water at 160° Fahrenheit (F) is outdated. Modern
detergents and bleaches allow hospital laundry to be effectively washed at 120°F.
76
Ibid.
June 2005
81
Recycle water and heat. Another efficient laundry system uses a storage tank or pit to
extract the heat energy from the washer's wastewater to preheat incoming raw water.
Additionally, final rinse water can be recovered in a holding tank and used for the first
wash cycle of the next dirty load. Micro-filtration systems remove particles as small as
0.5 microns from laundry wastewater so that the water can be reused. This not only
saves heat energy but also cuts down on your water bill.
8.4.4 Consider Cogeneration and Other Sources of Heat Recovery. Cogeneration
systems provide both heat (for space or water heating) and power. They have more
applications and offer more savings potential for hospitals than for any other class of
commercial building. Some hospitals are installing advanced incineration systems to
destroy medical waste. Capturing and using the waste heat from incinerators can be
cost-effective in some cases. The University of Michigan saved $400,000 in yearly steam
bills by coupling medical waste incinerators with cogeneration.
Sterilization equipment, la undry and kitchen operations can all benefit from heatrecovery systems. Waste heat from boiler exhaust stacks can also be effectively
recovered and used to preheat boiler makeup water. 77
Energy use can be reduced in the commercial and industrial sectors by the following
amounts if the steps indicated are taken:
• zero to five percent by changing the behavior of the occupants, such as
having them turn off lights when they leave a room
• five to 10 percent from better operation and maintenance of building
equipment and schedules
• 10 percent to 15 percent from equipment efficiency improvements
• 15 percent to 25 percent from energy production equipment strategies
Section 8.5 Industrial Energy Efficiency. The Department of Commerce has a CD
ROM that provides information on ways business and industries can save energy
entitled “Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Information.” Their web site is
www.commerce.state.mn.us. The items below identify 20 steps plant managers can take
to make their plants more energy efficient.
Industrial energy accounts for 36 percent of the state’s energy use. Petroleum accounts
for 22 percent of the energy used, followed by electricity and natural gas at 17 percent.
As described above, industries can find major savings by taking steps to change
behavior and upgrade equipment.
77
Ibid.
June 2005
82
The following ideas were taken directly from a brochure from the Department of
Energy entitled “20 Things Industry Plant Managers and Engineers Can Do to Save
Energy.” 78
All Combustion Systems
1. Operate furnaces and boilers at or close to design capacity
2. Reduce excess air used for combustion
3. Clean heat transfer surfaces
4. Reduce radiation losses from openings
5. Use proper furnace or boiler insulation to reduce wall heat losses
6. Adequately insulate air or water-cooled surfaces exposed to the furnace
environment and steam lines leaving the boiler
7. Install air preheat or other heat recovery equipment
Steam Generation Systems
1. Improve water treatment to minimize boiler blow down
2. Optimize deaerator vent rate
3. Repair steam leaks
4. Minimize vented steam
5. Implement effective steam trap maintenance program
6. Use high-pressure condensate to make low-pressure steam
7. Utilize backpressure turbine instead of pressure-reducing or release
valves
8. Optimize condensate recovery
Process Heating Systems
1. Minimize air leakage into the furnace by sealing openings
2. Maintain proper, slightly positive furnace pressure
3. Reduce weight of or eliminate material handling fixtures
4. Modify the furnace system or use a separate heating system to recover
furnace exhaust gas heat
5. Recover part of the furnace exhaust heat for use in lower-temperature
processes.
8.5.1 Energy Savings in Agriculture. Agricultural energy consumption has declined
since the mid-1970s, but numerous opportunities and methods are still available to
further improve agricultural efficiency. Mechanical improvements, such as more
78
Brochure is available at: www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/industry/20ways.html?print.
June 2005
83
efficient pumps and motors and use of diesel rather than gasoline-powered tractors,
offer great opportunities. Livestock operations can see major benefits from making
their buildings more efficient with the conversion to more energy-efficient lighting and
more efficient heating and cooling systems. Efficiency can also be maintained by
ensuring that all equipment, from tractors to grain driers to irrigation engines, is in
good working condition. Farmers should ensure that tires are properly inflated, air
filters, fans and screens are cleaned or replaced and all moving parts are well
lubricated.
Precision farming could also help minimize waste, increase outputs and minimize
environmental impacts often associated with over-application of chemicals because it
tailors field management to site specific conditions rather than a whole field average. 79
Nutrient management practices that incorporate soil tests as means of determining
optimal timing and rates for fertilizer application also allow farmers to tailor their onfarm management to current local conditions thereby decreasing field inputs, saving the
farmer money and avoiding fertilizer run-off.
Conservation tillage practices may offer the greatest room for improvement.
Conservation tillage is a farming practice that allows plant residue or st ubble to remain
on the surface of the field, rather than being plowed into the soil. No-till practices that
leave the prior year’s entire crop residue on the field can save the equivalent of 3.5
gallons of diesel fuel per acre over conventional tillage methods. While this method
may not be realistic in Northwestern Minnesota, where farmers generally need to do
some tilling to speed spring soil warming, mulch till practices may be an option and
would still result in savings of 2.5 gallons of diesel fuel per acre over conventional
methods. 80
Farmers are also well equipped to substitute renewable fuels and supplies into their
energy mix. Some changes that farmers could literally make today include using
biofuel substitutes like E85 and biodiesel instead of gasoline and diesel in on-farm
vehicles, trucks and tractors. Other changes might require a little more time, but are
also readily available options. Wind energy presents farmers with a means of offsetting
their own electric use and/or developing an additional income-generating use of their
lands. Biogas from anaerobic digestions is a way that dairy farmers can either offset
their heating fuels needs or, if paired with a generator, offset some of their electric
requirements. Biomass from perennials or agricultural residues is another potential
79
Ryan, Barry and Douglas G. Tiffany. 1998. Minnesota Agricultural Energy Use and the Incidence of a Carbon
Tax. Retrieved on April 24, 2005 from http://www.apec.umn.edu/staff/dtiffany/ILSRcarbontax.pdf.
80
Ibid, p.37-38.
June 2005
84
feedstock for heating, electricity and ethanol. Solar technologies, such as solar water
heating, could cut down heating needs in barns by supplying pre-heated water.
SECTION 8.6 Conservation Improvement Program
As part of the Conservation Improvement Program (CIP), all of Minnesota’s energy
utilities are required to set aside a percentage of their revenues to be used in projects
that will reduce electric and natural gas consumption. Accordingly, Great River
Energy, SMMPA, Dairyland Power Cooperative and Alliant Energy put aside 1.5
percent of their revenues a year for their CIP energy efficiency programs. Because it
operates nuclear facilities in the state, Xcel is required to put aside two percent of its
gross revenues for conservation purposes. Some of the types of services and rebates
Xcel and Alliant Energy provide to their customers are outlined below. People who
receive electricity from cooperatives and municipalities should check with their local
power providers to see what kind of incentives and programs they offer to promote
energy conservation and efficiency.
Xcel Energy provides information for its customers to assess their energy use and ideas
on how they can reduce it and use energy more efficiently. To encourage customers to
use compact florescent light bulbs (CFL) Xcel provides $0.50 coupons to offset the cost
of recycling the CFL bulbs. More information about Xcel Energy and its programs can
be found on its website at http://www.xcelenergy.com.
Alliant Energy provides its customers with an online questionnaire to help them assess
their energy usage. Alliant processes the questionnaire and sends the customer a
personalized report that highlights opportunities for that customer to save energy.
Alliant also provides rebate incentives for their customers who purchase high-efficiency
furnaces, central air conditioners, efficient lighting, washers and efficient replacement
windows. 81
Section 8.7 Energy Services Companies (ESCO)
Private companies offer services to businesses and industries where they visit your
enterprise, assess how energy is being used, recommend energy efficiency
improvements and install the upgraded equipment. They receive payment from the
amount of money the business saved by implementing the recommendations for so
many years. Once the contract is fulfilled, the economic savings go directly to the
customer. 82
81
For more information visit Alliant’s website at:
http://www.alliantenergy.com/stellent/groups/public/documents/pub/au_env_ec_index.hcsp.
82
For more information, go to:
http://www.energyusernews.com/CDA/Article_Information/Fundamentals_Item/0%2C2637%2C8260%2C00.html.
June 2005
85
Section 8.8 Green Mortgages
Fannie Mae is promoting “green” mortgages through its energy-efficient mortgage
(EEM) program. To qualify for the program, homeowners must either buy a new
energy-efficient home or commit to upgrades of an existing building as recommended
by a certified HERS (Home Energy Rating System) inspector. The projected savings
from energy efficiency are considered part of the borrower’s income and can help
homebuyers qualify for larger mortgages. Such factors like window efficiency, heating
and cooling efficiency, wall-to-wall ratios, insulation levels, local climate and the solar
orientation of the home determine a home’s HER rating. The cost of the energy
improvements can be included in the homeowner’s mortgage but cannot exceed 15
percent of the home’s values. A borrower with a new home can qualify for an EEM if
the house was built according to guidelines set by the Energy Star Builder Option
Program (BOP).83
Section 8.9 Building Codes
The Building Code Division of the Minnesota Department of Administration is
responsible for establishing the minimum efficiencies of residential, multifamily and
commercial buildings built in Minnesota. Homeowners, architects, engineers and
builders are required to complete paperwork so the local building inspectors can see
that the design will meet the minimum structural, energy efficiency, electrical and
HVAC requirements. Local inspectors visit the construction site to verify that the
minimum requirements are being installed per the design plans submitted.
Home/building owners need to be aware that these are the absolute minimum
requirements. With today’s energy costs and building material choices available, the
minimum is not good enough. The consumer believes they are getting the best building
possible, since it meets the Minnesota building code requirements. However, for
another five percent investment, the consumer can have a building that is much more
efficient, healthier and durable and should last for 75-100 years. There is less chance for
moisture intrusion from wind driven rain or interior air leaks that cause mold and rapid
deterioration problems, better control of room temperatures and humidity throughout
the whole building, and better indoor air quality.
A 1990’s study by the Minnesota Dept. of Commerce reports that an estimated 15 to 20
percent of new homes will have failures in the building envelope, indoor air quality
and/or mechanical systems due to design errors and improper installation. In addition,
83
Scheer, Roddy. “Borrowing Power: Financing Energy Efficiency Through ‘Green Mortgages’.” Retrieved from:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2005-05/msg00264.php.
June 2005
86
building owners are not educated on how to operate and maintain the home. Instead
they are being informed that they are now the proud owners of a maintenance free
home. Today’s homes and material choices can fail and cost tens of thousands of
dollars to repair/rebuild.
Houses can also be built today that are net zero energy homes. With the installation of
solar electric systems, the house’s annual electric bill can be close to zero. One can sell
an equivalent amount of electricity to the utility as what is being used. This can be a
real benefit to the utility during the peak summer electricity loads. When the sun is
shining, and when air conditioning requirements are the highest, the solar electric
system is producing its maximum output.
High performance homes using natural products, long life products, durable products,
renewable energy products and more sustainable products can be designed and built to
greatly out perform the minimum building code built house with an on average
additional investment of five percent. These houses will have a higher resale
value, lower insurance costs and can be eligible for an energy efficient mortgage.
June 2005
87
SECTION 9: RENEWBLE ENERGY RESOURCE INVENTORY AND
ASSESSMENT FOR THE SE/SC CERT REGION
This section summarizes our findings of the assessment and inventory of renewable
energy resources in our 15-county SE/SC CERT region and estimates, where possible,
the contribution we believe they can make toward providing for the energy needs in
our region and export energy to other areas. We are confident that we have the
renew able energy resources in our region that, when coupled with wise energy use,
can meet our energy needs in different forms.
The clean renewable energy resources we have identified for our region include solar
energy, which falls everywhere; geothermal energy that can capture and utilize the
warmth of the earth almost everywhere; abundant wind resources showing 55 percent
of our area has winds that can be commercially developed; biogas potential from
livestock, food processing plants, sanitary landfills, waste water treatment plants and
stab ponds distributed throughout the region; biomass from energy crops and residues
from crops throughout our area, from urban wood waste and from the forests and
forest products industries; combined heat and power/cogeneration from various
sources; and biofuels.
For some of our findings, we are simply listing the resources we have been able to
identify. We have not estimated their potential for generating electricity or producing
biofuels and hope that we will be able to find the technical assistance to evaluate the
data in the future. Chart 13 in the Appendix lists the renewable energy projects
identified in our region as of June 2004 by type, size and location.
Section 9.1 Wind Resources and Potential for SE/SC MN
Wind energy resources have national, regional, local and site-specific variation and can
vary greatly from location to location. Wind resources can be used with both large
wind turbines for utility applications and with small wind turbines for on-site
generation. Below are estimates for the resource potential of large and small wind
resources in SE/SC MN.
9.1.1 Assessment of wind from smaller turbines. In his report entitled “Distributed
Wind Production Capability in Minnesota,” Mike Michaud identified 91,775 potential
homestead sites in the SE/SC CERT region capable of hosting a 10 kW wind turbine.
Development of all of these sites would result in an annual energy production
capability equal to 34 percent of the total energy consumed in the region. While the
development of every residential household is unlikely, the magnitude of the energy
June 2005
88
produced in this scenario points out that many distributed resources, even this small,
can in aggregate significantly affect future load serving needs in the region (Chart 17,
Appendix). 84
9.1.2 Assessment of wind from larger wind turbines. The following analysis of wind
from larger wind turbines was provided by SE/SC CERT team members Jeff CookCoyle and Lee Dilley. The wind energy resources in the SE/SC region are such that the
newer wind turbines, designed for lower class wind regimes, can be installed
successfully in many parts of the SE/SC CERT region. As shown in the following chart,
55 percent of the 15-county SE/SC CERT region has good wind resources that could
be developed commercially for a total maximum capacity of 17,549 MW. We are
using a conservative estimate of 80 acres per MW. This number will not get larger as
turbines grow in size. As wind turbines grow, the spacing between them will grow as
well. The chart below shows the counties in the SE/SC CERT region and the percent of
good wind, the acres that could be developed as wind farms and the MW wind capacity
we estimate per county.
Table 21: Wind Potential by County -- SE/SC CERT
County
Blue
Earth
Dodge
Faribault
Fillmore
Freeborn
Goodhue
Houston
Le Sueur
Mower
Olmsted
Rice
Steele
Wabasha
Waseca
Winona
Total
84
Acres in
County
Unusable
Acres
Available % Good
Acres
Wind
Wind Farm
MW
Development
Capacity
Acres
489,696
71,436
418,260
15%
62,739
392
281,135
461,618
551,478
461,959
498,672
363,909
303,018
455,034
418,409
329,809
276,540
351,373
276,910
410,296
5,929,856
23,051
32,237
125,873
44,971
127,804
164,802
58,945
30,752
72,463
64,594
26,243
115,621
27,698
173,791
1,160,281
258,084
429,381
425,605
416,988
370,868
199,107
244,073
424,282
345,946
265,215
250,297
235,752
249,212
236,505
4,769,575
92%
99%
50%
98%
55%
10%
1%
97%
60%
35%
92%
20%
70%
30%
0.5493333
237,437
425,087
212,803
408,648
203,977
19,911
2,441
411,554
207,568
92,825
230,273
47,150
174,448
70,952
2,807,813
1,484
2,657
1,330
2,554
1,275
124
15
2,572
1,297
580
1,439
295
1,090
443
17547
Mike Michaud. 2004. “Distributed Wind Production Capability in Minnesota.”
June 2005
89
Mower County has the best wind resource located closest to the Twin Cities load center.
We could easily envision over 1,000 MW of development there if transmission were
available to the Twin Cities. About 12 MW of wind projects are already installed in
Mower County. Additional wind projects being discussed for Mower County include a
minimum of 400 MW from Zilkha Wind Energy and 500 MW being proposed by other
developers. Wind projects being proposed in other places of the SE/SC CERT region
include an 80 MW project for the Northfield area, a 100 MW project in Steele County, a
100 MW project in Goodhue County, a 40 MW project in Olmsted County and another
100 MW of distributed projects across the region. The wind projects in the MISO
interconnection request queue are indicators of the desire for generation projects in the
SE/SC region.
The SE/SC CERT believes that 1,675 MW of wind could be developed and utilized
with existing markets and transmission systems in the next ten years in the region, as
follows.
1.
475 MW for regional consumption. Experts believe that wind can provide up
to 15 percent of the electrical capacity in a region. Based on electricity
consumption of 6,319,734 MWH in 2000, the region can carry 475 MW of
wind production for regional consumption.
2. 800 MW of wind energy could be produced in the region and sent to the Twin
Cities. Significant south-north transmission capacity exists presently from
Mankato and Mower County to the Twin Cities.
3. 400 MW of wind energy could be produced to send eastward to
Milwaukee/Chicago. Wind on the Wires predicts that 1,200 MW of wind
energy development will take place in Iowa, south of the SE/SC CERT area to
serve the Milwaukee/Chicago metropolitan area. Our area could provide an
additional amount to add to that.
The following chart lists 21 potential sites for large wind and wind/biomass projects
and their interconnection points to the grid that could be developed in the next 10
years in the SE/SC CERT region to provide an additional 2,100 MW of electricity in
the region. The list doesn’t include facilities that have already entered into commercial
operation. The chart lists both capacity (MW) and annual energy production (GWh). It
includes both conventional wind energy generating stations (35 percent capacity
factors) and wind energy combined with biomass (70 percent capacity factor). It is our
belief that it will become technically and economically feasible to combine the
operations of wind energy and a “filling” generation resource before 2015.
June 2005
90
Table 22: Possible Renewable Energy Generation Sites in SE/SC
Interconnection Points and Delivery Points that Could Be Established 2005-2015
High side
Voltage
Existing
Substations
161
161
161
161
161
69
161
161
161
345
345
161
161
161
161
161
161
New
Substations
161
161
161
345
345
Total
Interconnection
Point
County
MW
GWh
Fuel
Delivery Point
Hayward
Winnebago
Al-Corn
West Faribault
Rochester
Lewiston
Austin
Albert Lea
Ethanol
Harmony
Adams
Pleasant Valley
Cannon Falls
Wabaco
Harmony
Twin Lakes
Adams
Harmony
Freeborn
Faribault
Steele
Rice
Olmsted
Winona
Mower
Freeborn
100
100
200
100
100
50
50
100
300
600
900
600
600
300
300
600
Wind
Wind, Biomass
Wind, Biomass
Wind, Biomass
Wind, Biomass
Wind, Biomass
Wind, Biomass
Wind, Biomass
Hayward
Dickinson
Prairie Island
Black Dog
Rochester
Prairie Island
Austin
Prairie Island
Fillmore
Mower
Mower
Goodhue
Olmsted
Fillmore
Freeborn
Mower
Houston
200
200
100
50
10
10
10
10
10
600
600
300
150
30
30
30
30
30
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Prairie Island
Prairie Island
Pilot Knob
Prairie Island
Wabaco
Harmony
Hayward
Adams
Harmony
Rice Lake
Blue Earth
Grand Meadow
Dexter
Goodhue
Steele
Faribault
Mower
Mower
Goodhue
150
150
100
200
150
2100
450
450
300
600
450
8100
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Prairie Island
Dickinson
Prairie Island
Prairie Island
Prairie Island
Please address any questions about this analysis to Jeff Cook-Coyle at [email protected] or Lee Dilley at
[email protected]. They prepared the analysis of potential for larger wind projects for our region and
this chart .
9.1.3 Potential for Future Wind Development if Transmission Were Available. If all
17,549 MW of wind energy capacity in the 15 counties in SE/SC Minnesota were
developed, it would provide approximately 10 percent of the energy for Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan, plus the Dakotas, Iowa and Nebraska.
While this may be highly desirable, it isn't realistic. If the region were to provide 10
percent of Minnesota's generation, it would produce 2,500 MW of wind energy. This
June 2005
91
seems like a much more realistic target. However, there isn't transmission capacity to
get all of this energy from the wind areas in our region up to the Twin Cities loads.
Section 9.2
Solar
“In 15 hours the sun delivers as much energy to the Midwest as its inhabitants consume
in a year.” 85 “Minnesota has more annual solar energy potential than Houston, TX and
nearly as much as Miami, FL.” 86
There are many ways to use solar energy that generally fall into two categories: passive
and active. The number of homes/buildings that can profitably utilize solar
applications is somewhat limited by solar access/shading, building orientation,
topography, restrictions in building covenants, landlord/renter interests and space
limitations. Ideally, building codes would be modified to require the use of solar
energy for water and space heating wherever feasible. Prices of solar panels, solar
shingles and solar hot water heaters would drop if volume of sales rose. For utilityscale solar projects, a square kilometer of PV panels would provide between 20 and 60
MW of electricity.
9.2.1 Passive solar design uses a building’s orientation, materials and structure to
capture the sun’s energy, store it and releases it when it is needed after dark in the cool
months and to provide ventilation and shade to cool the building in the hottest months.
A building can be built into a hill or underground to use the earth for insulation; a
sunroom can be built on a south-facing wall to capture the heat of the sun and move it
into the main structure; and planting trees around a structure can provide shade and
protect a building from the intensity of the sun.
An elaboration on passive solar design implements the concept of Seasonal Thermal
Energy Storage to capture and store energy through the spring, summer and fall for use
during the winter. Massive earth storage is coupled to the building as an energy
source/sink. A more modest amount of windows and the absence of window shading
enable the energy to be collected without overheating the space.
9.2.2 Active solar energy can be used in two important ways. First, the rays of the sun
can provide hot water through a solar hot water heating system. The sun heats a fluid
that is flowing through the solar panels to a heat exchanger in the home. That heat is
used to heat hot water that is then stored in the home. Second, the rays of the sun can
85
Union of Concerned Scientists. 1993. “Powering the Midwest, Executive Summary.” p. 6.
Pawlisch, Melissa, Carl Nelson, Lola Schoenrich. 2003. “Designing a Clean Energy Future: A Resource
Manual.” p. 61. Retrieved from: www.cleanenergyresourceteams.org.
86
June 2005
92
generate electricity through the use of photovoltaic cells or panels made from
semiconductor materials. The electricity can be used directly, stored in batteries for use
when the sun is not providing power or moved onto the grid and sold to utilities.
9.2.2.1 Potential of Solar Hot Water Heaters. Heating water accounts for approximately 14
percent of residential energy use. In 2000, residential household energy use in
Minnesota was 345.7 trillion BTUs. The households in our region comprise
approximately 10 percent of state households. If each house in our region installed a
solar hot water heater and saved 14 percent of its home energy use by replacing their
current water heater, our region would save approximately 4.84 trillion BTUs per
year.
A Heliodyne HX Freeze-Proof Solar Hot Water System for cold climates costs between
$2,580 and $3,580 depending on the size of the system. This does not include the cost of
the copper tubing, a 50- to 120-gallon water heater tank or installation fees.
Homeowners could reduce this cost considerably by making their own solar panels and
installing the system themselves.
In the past, solar domestic hot water (DHW) systems using cheap fuel oil or natural gas
didn’t make financial sense. However, since natural gas and oil prices have
skyrocketed and will continue to escalate dramatically in the near future because of
depletion of resources in the U.S. and Canada, solar domestic hot water heating is going
to make financial sense for many more homeowners.
9.2.2.2 Potential of PV Solar. Solar PV panels can be placed on tops of buildings or on
racks on the ground – in large or small-scale arrangements. We didn’t try to assess the
potential of locating large-scale solar projects in our region. However, if all of the
houses and commercial structures in SE/SC Minnesota were to install solar PV panels, it
is estimated that they could generate around 1170 MW of electricity. Of this, homes
would account for 688 MW and commercial/industrial facilities would add another 484
MW. It is not likely that all of the homes and businesses in the region would install
solar panels, so a conservative estimate of developing 3.5 percent of the potential by
2025 would give 24 MW for homes and 17 MW for businesses – for a total of 41 MW. 87
87
These figures were derived from the following study: “PV Grid Connected Market Potential under a Cost
Breakthrough Scenario”, by Maya Chaudhari, Lisa Frantzisa and Dr. Tom E. Hoff for the Energy Foundation,
http://www.ef.org/documents/EF-Final-Final2.pdf, September 2004. The authors based their calculations on
Minnesota having 2,078,775 residential customers and 231,313 commercial customers in 2001. The authors
concluded that overall roof space available for PV installations in Minnesota in 2010 is around 671 million sq. ft for
residential and 472 million sq. ft. for commercial. This leads to a technical market potential of 6,883 MW
(residential) and 4,843 MW (commercial) for the entire state. SE/SC MN has around 10% of the total households in
June 2005
93
Section 9.3
Biomass
9.3.1 Definition of Biomass. For our purposes, we consider biomass to be plants and
plant residues – trees, grasses, crops and all the byproducts or residues left after they
are harvested and processed. Included in this definition is urban wood waste, such as
wood from houses that have been torn down or left over after the construction of new
buildings. As plants grow, they capture and store solar energy and that energy is
released when the plant material is burned or converted into biofuels. Municipal solid
waste is also a form of biomass. Estimates are that 70 percent of municipal trash
consists of paper based products, yard wastes and wood, which produce energy when
burned. 88 Refuse-derived fuel can be burned directly or co-fired in coal plants to reduce
coal emissions.
9.3.2 Ways Biomass Can Be Used as an Energy Source. Biomass, such as wood, can be
burned directly in stoves and furnaces of various sizes. There are a number of efficient
furnaces on the market that burn pellets made from different biomass sources, such as
wood chips, sawdust and switchgrass. Although we don’t advocate burning food for
fuel, some people in our region are buying furnaces which burn corn to heat their
homes and buildings.
There are three primary ways to convert biomass into electricity. The first is direct
combustion, where the biomass is burned to create steam that runs a turbine to generate
electricity. The second is to convert the biomass into a liquid or gas fuel that can be
burned in a combust ion turbine, i.e., gasification. The third is to extract oil from the
crop seed and use it to power a diesel engine that drives a generator. Some diesel
engines can burn the raw oil without coking problems, other engines require a blend of
vegetable oil and petroleum diesel or the conversion of the raw vegetable oil to an ester
form prior to use (a simple DIYS process). The latter is low tech, simple and suitable for
distributed power generation on farms.
Research is being conducted to develop the most effective and efficient ways to use
biomass to replace or reduce the use of fossil fuels. A power plant that burns whole,
fast-growing poplars was being planned for our region but was not able to move
forward. Chipped wood and sawdust from a variety of sources and switchgrass are
being co-fired with coal in different ratios in coal-fired plants. Researchers have had
success combining 15 percent switchgrass with coal. However, when it is burned,
the state; and we estimated 10% of the commercial users. Thus, we estimated that SE/SC MN has the potential for
having 688.3 MW of solar potential for residences and 484.3 MW for commercial.
88
Franklin Associates. 1992. “Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in The United States: 1992 Update,
Prairie Village, Kansas.”
June 2005
94
switchgrass leaves four to ten percent ash, which has been causing problems for the coal
plants. An alternative method of co-firing that is being tried is burning the switchgrass
separately in between periods when coal is burned, rather than mixing the two.
In Little Falls, Minnesota, the Central Minnesota Ethanol Coop is planning a wood
waste gasification facility as an alternative to using natural gas for heat. By using finely
chipped hardwood as fuel, the plant will be able to better control its fuel costs by
eliminating the need for natural gas. They estimate that the biomass-derived energy
will generate 50 to 75 percent of the plant’s own electricity requirements. This use of
biomass holds great promise for our area because of the large amounts of natural gas
being used by our five and soon to be six ethanol plants. The ethanol plants in our area
and the amounts of natural gas they are using can be found in Table 20.
9.3.3 Resource Base in SE/SC MN to Produce Biomass Sustainably and Potential
Biomass Resources. According to the latest Land Use Census in 1990, 94 percent of the
approximately six million acre area in our 15-county region (5,640,000 acres) was being
used to grow crops, trees or grasses and would be available to grow energy crops or
provide forest and crop residues for biomass energy. Thus, our region currently has
extraordinary biomass resources and the potential to produce biomass for energy
production along with current crops. This should bode well for the future, if there is
enough water to grow the crops, the land remains productive and in sufficient
quantities and the crops can be grown sustainably without petroleum, petrochemicals,
and natural gas inputs. We believe it is essential to be growing and harvesting biomass
sustainably, so that the resource will continue to produce more biomass after it has been
harvested. Switchgrass is currently receiving a great deal of attention as a biomass
resource for the future. We don’t believe that growing hundreds of acres of switchgrass
as a monoculture crop is sustainable. Switchgrass requires heavy annual inputs of
fertilizer comparable to corn, and a monoculture cropping system invites the buildup of
diseases and pests in the soil, which lead to a loss of productivity in our soils. It is also
not sustainable to clear-cut forests or take every blade of corn stover from the fields.
Several studies are now being conducted to evaluate the state’s biomass resources. The
Institute for Local Self-Reliance did a comprehensive study of the state’s biomass
resources in 1997. A summary of that study for the counties in our SE/SC CERT region
is located in the Appendix at Chart 18. We added current crop yields from 2002 to that
chart. An assessment of biomass resources in our area compiled by Marie Walsh from
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 2003 is in the Appendix at Chart 19. These can be
compared by resource to the ILSR assessment.
June 2005
95
Evaluating the potential of all the biomass resources we have identified in our area to
produce electricity or biofuels is a complex task and the data presented here, showing
various types of biomass resources at different prices per ton, are based on varying
assumptions. As prices for oil and natural gas skyrocket and the costs to produce these
forms of biomass increase, the figures for their prices will change drastically. Thus, we
question the wisdom of making decisions based on them. We do have two estimates of
biomass potential to produce biofuels, electricity and heat based on corn stover and
urban wood waste, which are below. We will simply include the resources we have
identified and hope to find technical help to assess their potential later and return to
this section when the other estimates of biomass resources are completed.
9.3.3.1 Farmland in SE/SC MN and Potential Biomass Resources. According to the 2002
Agriculture Census, our 15-county area has 4,847,642 acres of farmland. Of this,
3,640,700 acres or just over 75 percent was planted to corn, soybeans, alfalfa/hay, oats
and wheat. The other 25 percent, or 1,206,942 acres, have huge potential for growing
energy crops sustainably.
Table 23: Major Crops
Crop
Corn
Soybeans
Alfalfa./Hay
Oats
Wheat
Total:
Acres
Yield
289,843,940
1,799,100
bu
1,362,400 72,600,900 bu
414,600 1,565,900 tons
61,600
4,703,700 bu
3,000
133,600 bu
3,640,700
9.3.3.1.1 Major Crops Planted on 3,640,700 Acres and Their Crop Residues – 75 percent
Farmland. Based on the ratios used by ILSR in its earlier assessment, we estimate that
in 2002 our region produced 8,652,810 tons of crop residue and hay as follows: corn
(6,637,426 tons), soybeans (239,583 tons), hay (1,656,900 tons), oats (112,889 tons) and
wheat (6,012 tons). According to an analysis done by David Morris of the Institute for
Local Self-Reliance, if half the corn stover in the 15-county SE/SC CERT region were
used, it alone could provide over 202 million gallons of ethanol per year and the leftover cellulose from making the ethanol could be burned to produce up to 2.1 billion
kWh of electricity each year (27.9 trillion BTUs). We estimate that the region currently
uses around 300 million gallons of gasoline and 122 million gallons of diesel fuel for
transportation. The ethanol from half the corn stover would provide approximately 67
percent of the gasoline currently used in the region and 37 percent of the electricity
currently consumed in our region.
June 2005
96
9.3.3.1.2 Farmland Not Being Planted to Corn, Soybeans, Alfalfa Hay, Oats and Wheat –
25 Percent Farmland and Potential Biomass Resources. There is potential to grow
massive amounts of sustainably produced biomass on the 1,206,942 acres of farmland
not being used to produce the major crops outlined above. Researchers are developing
sustainable cropping systems for what are called “Third Crops,” such as fast-growing
trees (poplars and willows), mixes of prairie grasses and legumes, flax, hazelnuts and
other crops that can be grown sustainably on farms in our region. These can be burned
directly or converted into ethanol when the technology is perfected to use cellulose to
produce ethanol.
9.3.3.1.3 CRP Lands. There are approximately 167,000 acres in SE/SC MN that are
currently enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). This is a voluntary setaside program run by U.S. Department of Agriculture. Farmers and/or landowners
receive cost-share funds and a small annual payment to plant grasses and trees or
bushes as permanent cover to protect sensitive areas, such as lands on steep slopes that
are threatened by erosion, marginal pasture lands and wetlands, and take them out of
annual row crop production. The trees, grasses and other woody perennial crops
stabilize the soils and water tables and provide wildlife habitat and diversity to the
landscape. Nationally, there are currently a total of 34,819,557 acres enrolled in various
CRP programs. 89 Although there is a rule that prohibits biomass on CRP land from
being harvested or sold, there is discussion about allowing the trees and grasses on CRP
lands to be harvested for energy production and exemptions have been granted in some
areas to allow this to happen.
9.3.3.2 Forest and Forest Products and Potential Biomass Resources. In 1990, 14 percent of
the land (804,149 acres) in the 15 counties in SE/SC Minnesota was covered with of
forests. 90 The largest forested areas were in the following counties: Winona, Houston,
Fillmore, Goodhue and Wabasha. Wood from the forests can provide biomass for
energy in several ways: (1) forests can be harvested sustainably and the logs can be
burned directly, chipped or pelletized for fuel, (2) forest residues from logging
operations can be collected and burned and (3) mill residues, such as sawdust, can be
collected and burned. Wood and wood waste products provided for 3.5 percent of the
fuel used in the state in 2000 and accounted for 2 percent of the residential heating in
the SE/SC CERT area.
89
USDA, Farm Service Agency Newsroom. 2005. “USDA Celebrates Earth Day 2005.” Retrieved from:
www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/printstory.asp?StoryID=2134.on April 2005.
90
Land Management Information Center. Minnesota Land Use and Cover: 1990s Census of the Land. Retrieved
from http://mapserver.lmic.state.mn.us/landuse/ on August 25, 2004.
June 2005
97
The following table lists the location of the major sawmills and other primary wood
producers in SE/SC MN by county. Some of them produce fuel wood, sawdust and
wood chips that could be used for biomass energy production. Chart 20 in the
Appendix lists the names of the facilities in the SE/SC CERT area and a list of their
products. 91
Table 24: Sawmills and Other Wood Producers
County
Sawmills and Other Primary Wood Producers in SE/SC MN
Blue Earth
Fillmore
Freeborn
Goodhue
Houston
Mower
Olmsted
Rice
Steele
Janesville, North Mankato
Chatfield, Lanesboro, Peterson, Preston (2), Rushford
Alden, Glenville, Oakland
Cannon Falls (2), Goodhue, Red Wing, Wanamingo, Welch
Caledonia, Hokah, Houston
Brownsdale, Walthan
Byron (2), Elgin, Oronoco, Rochester, Stewartville
Kilkenny, Webster
Blooming Prairie, Ellendale, Medford, Owatonna
Kellogg (2), Lake City, Millville, Plainview, Wabasha,
Zumbro Falls
St. Charles, Utica
Wabasha
Winona
Table 25: Sawmill residue by county in the SE/SC CERT Region92
MN County
Blue Earth
Faribault
Fillmore
Freeborn
Goodhue
Houston
Olmsted
Steele
Wabasha
Total
Bark
0
0
5,130
0
1,425
5,796
86
0
257
12,694
Sawmill survey 2001 data (green tons)
Bark mixed with Slabs/edgings
Sawdust and
Total Residues
Slabs/edgings
with Chips
Shavings
( green tons)
38
0
16
54
48
0
20
67
10,792
14,070
12,597
42,589
19
0
8
27
50
3,350
1,970
6,795
764
10,945
6,683
24,188
61
201
131
479
96
0
128
223
1,439
603
944
3,243
13,307
29,169
22,497
77,665
91
2002 Minnesota Primary Forest Products Directory.
Data provided by Keith Butcher, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources based on 2001 Sawmill Survey of
Available Sawmill Wood Residue.
92
June 2005
98
9.3.3.4 Urban Wood Waste. Urban wood waste that can be used for fuel comes from trees
that are cut down or trimmed for maintenance and wood products that are disposed of
during construction or demolition of structures. It has been estimated that urban wood
wastes in the SE/SC Region alone could produce significant resources for electricity and
heat.
9.3.3.5 Waste to Energy Facilities. Our region currently has three waste-to-energy
facilities in Rochester (4,200 kW), Mankato (24,750 kW) and Red Wing (22,770 kW). The
Olmsted County Waste to Energy facility announced in May 2005 that it would be
adding a third boiler and double its capacity. We didn’t assess potential for increasing
the size of these facilities or adding new ones.
Section 9.4
Biogas
When liquid manure, sewage or other organic wastes or organic materials are placed in
a container (biogas digester) with no oxygen, bacteria break down the materials and
create biogas through a process called anaerobic digestion. The biogas contains from 55
to 70 percent methane, which can be burned directly or used to run diesel generators to
produce electricity after it has been “cleaned.” There are several sources of materials in
the SE/SC region that could be used to produce biogas: wastes from food processing
facilities, waste water treatment facilities, biosolids from stab ponds, landfill gas and
animal manure – dairy and beef cows, swine, poultry. In addition to generating
electricity, experiments are being conducted at the Haubenschild 800-cow dairy in
Princeton, MN, to use biogas from their successful biogas digester to charge a fuel cell.
Fuel cells that use renewably -derived local fuel sources hold great promise in the
medium or long term horizon for on-site electricity and heat production. At the
moment, they are too expensive to be used.
9.4.1 Livestock Manure. In 2002, there were 9,345 registered feedlots in our region
(Chart 3 in the Appendix). Livestock totals for our region by animal and county can be
found on Chart 21 in the Appendix. Using these totals, we estimate that over 75 million
pounds of manure are being generated by the livestock in the 15 counties in SE/SC
Minnesota per day. This manure could be collected and used to generate electricity for
on-farm use or to sell to the local utility. The heat generated in the process could be
used on the farm directly or to support other activities, such as heating a greenhouse.
In the digestion process, the weed seeds and pathogens in the original manure are
destroyed. However, all of the nutrients in the original manure remain. That residue
can be turned into bedding material, composted and sold, or put directly back on the
land to enrich the soil.
June 2005
99
Through anaerobic digestion something considered a waste is turned into three
valuable resources: electricity, heat and a nutrient-rich residue. In addition, anaerobic
digestion contains the waste streams of larger concentrations of animals and processing
plants and can help reduce problems, such as odor, flies and air and water pollution.
Although we understand the benefits of biogas digesters, many of us are opposed to
large concentrations of animals for a variety of reasons. The SE/SC CERT does not
advocate constructing large CAFO’s (concentrated animal feedlot operations) to
generate electricity.
According to a report, “Minnesota’s Potential for Electricity Production Using Manure
Biogas Resources,” the numbers of animals it takes to make a project economically
viable depend on the financial incentives, tax credits, power purchase agreement, grants
and other incentives a farmer receives. In general, the authors of the report believed it
took at least 500 dairy cows for an operation to break even and more than 800 cows for
a project to be economically viable. They estimated that it would take more than 12,000
swine for a digester to be economically feasible. 93
Dairyland Power Cooperative has developed a creative “cookie cutter model” to
establish biogas digesters on dairy farms with 800 to 1,000 cows in its service area in
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Michigan. There are three partners in the project: (1)
the farmer who has the farm, cows, manure and owns the digester, (2) Dairyland Power
and its member cooperatives that own the electricity generation set and buys the
electricity and (3) a company called Microgy Cogeneration Systems that works with the
farmer and builds and manages the digester from its operations in Colorado and
Europe. Dairyland Power in essence offers a Power Purchase Agreement to buy the
electricity, which enables the farmer to pay off the $1,000,000 digester in 10 years. A
digester of this size will produce 775 kW of electricity 24 hours a day, seven days a
week and provide electricity for approximately 600 average-sized homes.
Microgy indicated that they are currently working on developing a similar “cookie
cutter model” to use manure from hogs to generate electricity but couldn’t estimate
how many hogs would be necessary to create enough manure for the model at this
point.
We have feedlot information from the year 2002 by animal type, size and location by
township, range and section that is available to estimate how many of these model
93
Minnesota Department of Commerce State Energy Office. 2003. “Minnesota’s Potential
for Electricity Production Using Manure Biogas Resources.” p. iii. Retrieved from:
http://www.state.mn.us/mn/externalDocs/MN_Biogas_Potential_Report_041003013143_biogasfinal2.pdf..
June 2005
100
digesters could be established throughout the SE/SC MN region. Rather than just
relying on one operation to have the necessary numbers of animals, i.e., 800 to 1,000
dairy cows, 1,600 to 2,000 beef cows or 12,000 hogs, central digesters could be built
within a township and manure from several different farms could be brought into a
central digester. We think the potential for creating dozens of centralized digesters in
our area is quite large and will analyze that potential at some point. The numbers we
have include all sizes of animals per farm, but for this analysis we are just counting
“big” dairy, “big” hogs and steers. We are not counting numbers of animals
categorized as little dairy, dairy heifer, dairy calf, beef heifer, beef cow-calf, beef calf,
medium swine or little swine, even though there are thousands of these animals in our
area that are producing manure. We will need technical help to analyze this
information.
From a quick analysis of the feedlot permits in the 15 counties in SE/SC MN, there are
16 dairies with approximately 25,525 cows where one of the Microgy digesters could
be located. If 1,000 cows produce 775 kW of electricity, these 16 dairies with 25,525
cows could produce 19,782 kW or 19.8 MW capacity per year.
Table 26: Dairies in SE/SC Region
Dairy Size
> 2000 cows
1,285 – 1,426 cows
1,000 – 1,070 cows
800 – 999
June 2005
Number of Cows per Farm
One with 4,160; one with 3,480; one with 2,400; one with
2,140
One with 1,415; one with 1,315; one with 1,426; one with
1,285
Two with 1,067; one with 1,070; one with 1,000
Two with 999; one with 900, one with 800
101
Section 9.4.2 Agricultural Processors. There are several crop and livestock processors
in the SE/SC Region, which are listed in Table 20. The waste stream of many of these
processors could be used to produce biogas to heat and provide fuel for their plants and
use the “waste” heat for entirely different purposes, such as heating a greenhouse to
produce food. In addition to providing useful energy, anaerobic digestion can serve
another important function of treating organic wastes at food processing plants before
they are released into the environment. Six food processors in our region have waste
water treatment facilities: Seneca Foods at Blue Earth, Land O’Lakes at Pine Island,
Seneca Foods at Montgomery, AMPI and Seneca Foods in Rochester and Lakeside
Foods Inc in Owatonna.
Section 9.4.3 Wastewater Treatment Plants. A chart listing waste water treatment
plants, stab ponds and amounts of and disposition of biosolids by county is located in
the Appendix in Charts 22 and 23. The potential of these resources for producing
energy has yet to be assessed.
9.4.3.1 Waste Water Treatment Plants with Biosolids Applications are located at the
following locations: Blue Earth County (Amboy, Lake Crystal, Madison Lake, Mankato,
St. Clair), Dodge County (Dodge Center, Hayfield, Mantorville, West Concord),
Faribault County (Blue Earth, Blue Earth-Seneca Foods, Winnebago), Fillmore County
(Canton, Chatfield, Fountain, Harmony, Lanesboro, Mabel, Preston, Rushford, Spring
Valley), Freeborn County (Albert Lea, Emmons), Goodhue County (Cannon Falls,
Goodhue, Kenyon, Pine Island, Pine Island-Land O’Lakes, Red Wing, Zumbrota, St.
Charles), Houston County (Brownsville, Caledonia, Hokah, Houston, LaCrescent,
Spring Grove), Le Sueur County (Le Center, Le Sueur Cheese Pretreatment Facility,
Montgomery, Montgomery-Seneca Foods, Waterville), Mower County (Austin, AustinHormel), Olmsted County (Byron, Rochester, Rochester-AMPI and Seneca Foods,
Stewartville), Rice County (Faribault, Morristown), Steele County (Blooming Prairie,
Medford, Owatonna, Owatonna-Lakeside Foods Inc), Wabasha County (Lake City,
Plainview-Elgin), Waseca County (New Richland, Waseca), Winona County (Lewiston,
Winona).
9.4.3.2 Waste Water Treatment Plants with Stab Ponds are located at the following sites:
Blue Earth County (Good Thunder, Madison Lake, Mapleton, Pemberton), Faribault
County (Bricelyn, Delevan, Elmore, Frost, Kiester, Wells), Freeborn County (Alden,
Clarks Grove, Freeborn, Geneva, Glenville, Hartland, Hollandale, Oakland, Twin
Lakes), Houston County (Eitzen), Le Sueur County (Elysian, Kilkenny, St. Peter,
Waterville), Mower County (Dexter, Elkton, Grand Meadow, Lansing, LeRoy, Lyle,
Racine, Rose Creek, Sargeant, Waltham), Olmsted County (Rochester), Steele County
June 2005
102
(Ellendale, Medford, Owatonna), Wabasha County (Kellogg, Zumbro Falls), Winona
County (Lewiston, Rollingstone, Stockton, Utica).
9.4.3.3 Waste Water Treatment Plants Generating Electricity & Using Digesters for Heat.
Two waste water treatment plants in our region are generating electricity – Owatonna
and Rochester. The plant is Rochester has two generators – one 400 kW generator and
one 1,000 kW generator.
Municipal waste water treatments plants at Rochester, Austin, Albert Lea, Blue Earth,
Mankato, Fairbault, Red Wing, Pine Island, New Richland, Harmony, Hokah and
Owatonna are using the anaerobic digestion of biosolids for heating the digesters. All
but Blue Earth are using the heat for their buildings. Six of the plants are flaring excess
gas.
9.4.4 Open and Closed Sanitary Landfills. Municipal solid waste contains organic
materials that produce a variety of gases when they are dumped, compacted and
covered in landfills. Anaerobic bacteria thrive in the oxygen-free environment and
break down the organic materials, producing carbon dioxide and methane. Carbon
dioxide leaches out of the landfill because it is soluble in water. Methane, which is less
soluble in water and lighter than air, is likely to migrate out of the landfill. Landfill gas
energy facilities capture the methane (the principal component of natural gas) and
combust it for energy. The potential to generate electricity from landfill gas in our
region has yet to be assessed.
9.4.4.1 Open Sanitary Landfills. There are four open landfills in our 15-county area:
Ponderosa Sanitary Landfill in Blue Earth County, Kalmar Sanitary Landfill in Olmsted
County, Rice County Sanitary Landfill and Steele County Sanitary Landfill. They are
described more fully in the chart below.
Table 27: Open Landfills
Facility
Location
Capacity Filled
Rice Cty SLF
Steele Cty SLF
Ponderosa SLF
Olmsted Cty
SLF
Dundas
Blooming Prairie
Mankato
60/100 acres
40/70 acres
290/416 acres
Rochester
160 acres
June 2005
Waste
Volume
2.8 mill cu yds
1.3 mill cu yds
2.0 mill cu yds
1.3 mill cu
yds
Methane
No
No
Flaring
No
103
Table 28: Closed Sanitary Landfills
Acres
Filled/Total
Waste in
Volume
14.7/40
13.7/17
11/23
23.2/40
240,000 cu yd
100,000 cu yd
328,000 cu yd
785,000 cu yd
12/123
200,000 cu yd
1.77 million cu
yd
90,000 cu yd
303,000 cu yd
130,411 cu yd
1.35 million cu
yd
178,000 cu yd
234,000 cu yd
50,000 cu yd
2.8 million cu
yd
272,000 cu yd
400,000 cu yd
50,000 cu yd
County
Facility
City
Blue Earth:
Dodge:
Faribault:
Hansen SLF
City of Mankato
Dodge County SLF
Faribault. Cty SLF
Fillmore:
Ironwood SLF
Mankato
Mankato
St. Peter
Blue Earth
Spring
Valley
Freeborn
Goodhue
Houston
Le Sueur
Albert Lea SLF
Goodhue Coop SLF
Houston Cty SLF
Sun Prairie SLF
Albert Lea
27/36
Goodhue
5.5/85
Houston
5.7/30
Montgomery 20/80
Le Sueur
Le Sueur
Mower
Mower
Tellijohn SLF
MN San Serv SLF
Red Rock
Adams SLF
Le Sueur
St. Peter
Austin
Adams
35/80
2/3 acres
Olmsted
Wabasha
Waseca
Winona
Olmsted Cty SLF
Wabasha Cty SLF
Waseca Cty SLF
Geisler’s SLF
Rochester
Wabasha
Waseca
Stockton
51.1/290
8/8.3
24.3/133
6/10 acres
Section 9.5
27.5/80
Hydroelectric
Hydroelectricity was the first large-scale source of energy and electricity in our region.
Hydro-powered dams ran numerous grain mills and municipal power stations.
Hydroelectric facilities in our region include Rochester Public Utility’s 2,680 kW plant
on the Zumbro River, Lanesboro Public Utility’s 240 kW plant at Lanesboro and
Rapidan’s 3,400 kW plant at Mankato.
We didn’t include any new hydroelectric facilities in our assessment. However, we are
intrigued with new technologies being developed that use the natural flow of rivers to
generate electricity on a flow-through basis, so that large hydroelectric dams and
reservoirs aren’t needed. Since there are a large number of rivers in our area, this
technology holds potential for the future. If electricity supplies tighten dramatically in
the future, this resource may prove to be useful again, as long as it doesn’t adversely
impact the river and its ecosystems.
June 2005
104
Section 9.6
Cogener ation or Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
When electricity is produced, large amounts of heat are also produced. Cogeneration,
or combined heat and power (CHP), allows the waste heat to be used for some other
useful purpose, like hot water heating, space heating, heating a greenhouse or some
other thermal application. Using the heat increases the productivity of the energy used
in the power plant from a relatively low efficiency of 30 percent to one as high as 90
percent. Fuels commonly used in cogeneration include natural gas, oil, diesel fuel,
propane, coal, wood, wood-waste and biomass.
9.6.1 Potential for CHP in the SE/SC CERT Region. The potential for CHP in our area
has not been assessed. We think there is large potential for CHP in communities that
have processing plants and a municipal utility which has an electricity generating
facility. The processing plant can make use of the heat being generated, and the
municipal utility is likely to have skilled staff available to manage the operation. The
following chart shows which communities have munis and/or electrical generation
capability and/or crop and livestock processing plants in the SE/SC CERT area.
Municipal Utility
Austin
Blooming Prairie
Blue Earth
Janesville
Kenyon
Lake Crystal
Lanesboro
New Prague
Owatonna
Preston
Rochester
Spring Valley
Waseca
Wells
Caledonia
Harmony
Lake City
LeSueur
St. Charles
June 2005
Electrical Generation
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Processing Plant(s)
Meat, Grain
Grain
Fat, Grain, Fruit/Veg
Grain, Ethanol
Fruit/Veg
Ethanol
Dairy, Grain
Dairy, Fruit/Veg, Grain
Dairy, Ethanol
Dairy, Fruit/Veg
Diary, Meat
Dairy, Fruit/Veg, Grain
Meat, Grain, Fruit/Veg
Fruit/Veg
Dairy, Grain
Grain
Dairy,Fat, Fruit/Veg,Grain
Meat
105
The following communities have municipal power agencies, but to our knowledge
don’t have generation facilities or crop or livestock processors: Whalen, Eitzen, Kasota,
Kasson, Mabel, Rushford, Spring Grove and St. Peter.
9.6.2 Two Examples of CHP/Cogeneration Projects in Rochester. According to
“Opportunities to Expand Cogeneration in Minnesota,” Rochester has two cogeneration
projects – one in operation and one being developed in May 2005. First, Rochester
Public Utilities is planning to supply electrical and thermal energy to the Mayo Clinic
and a portion of the Kahler Hotel. The system should supply all of the heating and
cooling needs for the five million square foot hospital campus, as well as one-half of the
approximately 20 MW electrical load. A coal fired boiler will supply 800 psig steam to
three turbines. Low pressure steam at 10 psig will be used for space heating. The
largest of the three turbine generators is a 6.6 MW backpressure turbine, while the other
two are extraction turbines with condensers. Second, Olmsted County operates a
cogeneration/district heating system with a 3 MW refuse-fired plant that came on line in
1987. They sell excess power to the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency and
thermal energy to the city district heating system.
9.6.3 Example of a Possible Commercial CHP Project in Rochester. There is a large
commercial laundry located south of Menards South in Rochester. The facility could
generate power with natural gas, use waste heat to heat water and power a heat pump
to recover energy from waste water to aid in drying the laundered fabrics. In a
commercial operation, power could also be used to create a modest vacuum to
accelerate the drying of the fabrics. A similar application exists in the maple sugar
industry where sap is batch heated under vacuum to accelerate the evaporation process.
An energy transfer/desiccant wheel could be powered by waste heat and be used to pull
moisture from inbound dryer air.
9.6.4 Example of Utilization of CHP on Farms. A farmer could use a biodiesel powered
generator to generate electricity and use the waste heat from the engine to heat water
and space. Massive Earth Seasonal Thermal Energy Storage could store heat for winter
space heating of living and shop space. It might also be adapted for crop drying in the
fall. Low cost units would probably not be acceptable to grid interconnection
(synchronization, power factor, harmonics, etc.), so an either-or switch between line and
local power would have to be utilized. As time-of-day metering is implemented by
utilities, on-site power generation during peak demand periods could save energy costs
substantially. As mentioned previously, heat from the process of turning manure into
biogas and generating electricity can be used on the farm to heat buildings or water.
June 2005
106
Section 9.7 Geothermal Ground Source Heat Pumps, Geothermal Water Source
Heat Pumps and Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers. We were unable to find a recent,
comprehensive assessment of the potential for ground, water or air source heat pumps
in Minnesota. A study by the EPA found that ground source heat pumps are the most
energy efficient and environmentally clean heating and cooling system available, and
they are 72 percent more efficient than electric heating and cooling systems. 94
Depending on the existing heating and cooling systems that are replaced, installing a
geothermal energy system can save homeowners and businesses between 25 and 50
percent of their annual energy costs. Taking information from the Geo-Heat Center and
assuming that five percent of the households in the SE/SC CERT area installed heat
pump systems over the next 20 years, we calculate the potential for using heat from the
earth in the region at 250 billion Btu/year. 95
9.7.1 Air to Air Heat Exchangers. An air to air heat exchanger takes air from one source
and transfers the heat in the air to another source through a contained fluid. In the
winter, a heat pump takes heat from outside air and brings it inside the home. When
the outside air temperature drops below 25 to 30 degrees Fahrenheit, the air source heat
pump uses electric resistance heat. In the summer, the heat pump reverses the process.
It cools the house by transporting heat from inside the home to the outside. Electric
resistant heating is very expensive and inefficient from a total system perspective
because of the huge losses between the energy source in the ground and delivery to the
end users.
9.7.2 Closed Loop Geothermal Heating and Cooling Systems. Geothermal heating and
cooling systems work a little differently. They use the seasonal average 50 degree
temperature of the soil six feet or more beneath the earth’s surface to heat and cool
buildings and heat water. Tubes that are coiled into loops are buried beneath the frost
line. The tubes can be placed horizontally or vertically in boreholes or wells, depending
on space limitations. A heat transfer fluid circulates through the tubes. During the
winter, heat energy is conducted from the ground (the heat source) to the fluid and then
to the geothermal unit in the home. In the home the heat can be distributed through
either a conventional duct system or hydronic radiant heat system. During the summer,
94
Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved September 2004 from:
www.uscusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy/page.cfm?pageID=81.
95
Geo-Heat Center. Retrieved from: http://geoheat.oit.edu/. Using a coefficient of operation (COP) of 3.0 and 1,000
full-load hours per year in the heating mode, a 12 kW (3.4 ton) heat pump unit removes approximately 27.2 million Btu/yr from
the ground.
June 2005
107
the process is reversed to cool the house. Heat is removed from the home and
transferred to the loop fluid. As the warm fluid travels through the pipe in the earth, it
is cooled. In the cooling mode, the earth serves as a “heat sink,” a place to deposit the
heat removed from the home. A hot water heater can be added to the geothermal
systems to replace conventional electric or gas hot water heaters.
9.7.3 Open Loop Geothermal Heating and Cooling Systems. Open loop geothermal
systems have outlets in wells, lakes, or streams and work in a similar fashion as
described above.
Legislation is pending and will most likely be passed in Minnesota in 2005 that would
provide geothermal energy equipment with a sales tax exemption.
9.7.4 Larger Geothermal Systems in Our Region. Steele County installed a geothermal
system in its recently constructed detention center. County officials believe that the
geothermal system will pay for itself by 2007 through the energy savings. 96 The school
in Grand Meadow also has a large geothermal system.
9.7.5 Geothermal Power Plants and Systems Can Be Established On a Community
Scale. A consortium including Environment Canada and a number of other
organizations recently announced a pilot program near Calgary, Alberta, to build 52
homes, put solar panels on the garages and collect and store energy throughout the year
in a shared earth storage area using boreholes. Their goal is to demonstrate the viability
of seasonal thermal energy storage for space and water heating of a group of homes.
SECTION 9.8 Biofuels and New Technologies for Transportation (Hybrids).
We are concerned about the sustainability of using corn and soybeans to produce
biofuels over the long term; however, they are important transitional liquid fuels until
new technologies, such as fuel cells and producing ethanol from cellulose, are perfected
and commercially available.
9.8.1 Using Biofuels. Ethanol from corn and biodiesel are the two alternative
transportation fuels available to Minnesota customers in May 2005. A number of
passenger vehicles - called Flexible Fuel Vehicles - are equipped to run on alternative
fuels. Several Ford, Daimler Chrysler, and General Motors vehicles are equipped to run
on E85 and diesel cars like the VW Jetta can easily be converted to using biodiesel.
96
Mary Overlee Olson – Steele County Recycling Coordinator, 507-444-7476
June 2005
108
9.8.2 Ethanol. All gasoline in Minnesota is mixed with a 10 percent blend of ethanol,
and the legislature passed a mandate in May 2005 that fuel must contain 20 percent
ethanol blends. Under the legislation, a new E20 mandate would take effect in 2013
unless ethanol has already replaced 20 percent of the state’s motor vehicle fuel by 2010.
The rule would expire at the end of 2010 if Minnesota is not granted federal approval to
use E20 gasoline blends. Ethanol is also available in an 85 percent blend (E85) that is
sold at select gas stations across the state. The stations in our region that we identified
as of April 2005 are listed in the Appendix at Chart 23. Ethanol is being produced at
five plants in the SE/SC Region, and a new plant is being constructed at Janesville.
9.8.3 Biodiesel. Biodiesel fuel is made from vegetable oil or animal fats and is usable in
any unmodified diesel engine. Most U.S. biodiesel is made from soybean oil. Biodiesel,
where available, is generally provided in either two percent (B2) or 20 percent (B20)
blends. Minnesota law requires that diesel fuel sold in Minnesota contain two percent
biodiesel after June 20,2005, when eight million gallons of biodiesel are being produced
in the state.
Diesel off-road equipment, buses, trucks and passenger vehicles, such as VW Jetta and
Passat, TDIs and diesel pickups, may burn biodiesel blended at any percentage with
regular petroleum diesel or even straight (“B100”) biodiesel. The other opportunity for
using biofuels in transportation is with buses and with tax-exempt vehicles. Currently
the Department of Commerce is running a B20 School Bus Demonstration project at
three school districts to test the viability of using B20 in winter months. The overall
results from this project show that for at least nine months of the year, avoiding the
three coldest months, B20 is viable fuel for school buses and may actually be viable on
all but the very coldest days. Another example is the use of biodiesel in the entire City
of Brooklyn Park fleet, where over 100 vehicles are using a B20 blend. The same sort of
program could be used at city and county fleets throughout the SE/SC Region
Combustion of B100 yields no net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, since the
carbon dioxide released during combustion is equal to the carbon dioxide taken out of
the atmosphere to grow the soybeans. The lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions of B100,
taking into account all fossil fuel inputs in the soybean growing, harvesting,
transportation and biodiesel production process, total about 22 percent that of
petroleum diesel according to a recent study by the U.S. Department of Energy and
USDA.
Farm Country Co-op of Wanamingo is one of the few retailers in the region selling B100
at this time. That biodiesel is being made from animal wastes. B100 should become
more readily available when new Minnesota biodiesel facilities begin production later
June 2005
109
in 2005. Blended biodiesel may be purchased at a number of retail facilities in
southeastern and south central Minnesota (see
http://www.mnsoybean.org/Biodiesel/Retailers.cfm for a relatively comprehensive list).
SoyMor is building a 25 million gallon soydiesel plant in Glenville, with production
planned to begin in the spring/summer of 2005. There is discussion about building
another biodiesel plant in our region in Eyota.
9.8.3.1 Electric applications for Biofuels. There is also great potential for using biodiesel as
a substitute for petroleum-based diesel in diesel generators used to generate electricity.
Converting diesel generators to use a 20 percent biodiesel blend, would reduce air
emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and particulates.
9.8.3.2 Homescale Production of Biofuels. The production of biofuels requires growing,
storage and processing space that puts it out of reach for the majority of Minnesota
residents. However, for the rural residents, it is possible to raise oil crops, press the oil,
and process it to fuel tractors, trucks, cars and generate electricity. Diesel engines do
not have to be modified to use biodiesel, in fact they last longer because of the increased
lubricity of the fuel. Small stills can be purchased to process used vegetable cooking oil
from restaurants.
SECTION 9.9 Alternative Cars and Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) 97
9.9.1 How Hybrids Are Different from Traditional Vehicles. Hybrids offer fuel economy
and emissions benefits because they operate differently than conventional gasolinefueled cars. In a gasoline vehicle, the heat energy obtained by burning gasoline powers
the engine, which drives the transmission that turns the wheels. In an electric vehicle,
a set of batteries provides electricity to a motor, which drives the wheels.
9.9.2 There are different types of hybrid vehicles, depending on the ways the engine
motor, generator and battery are combined. Three basic hybrid configurations are the
series, parallel and split (or through-the-road) designs.
1. Series. The engine never directly powers the car. Instead, the engine drives the
generator, and the generator can either charge the batteries or power an electric motor
that drives the wheels.
97
US Department of Energy. “Technology Snapshot”. Retrieved from:
www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tech/TechSnapPrius1_5_01b.pdf.
June 2005
110
2. Parallel. The engine connects to the transmission, as does the electric motor. Thus,
both the engine and the generator/motor can supply power to the wheels, switching
back and forth as driving conditions vary. This configuration may run battery-only in
town, engine plus battery/motor while accelerating and engine-only while cruising at
constant speed.
3. Split. The engine drives one axle and the electric motor drives the other. There is no
connection between the engine and the motor except “through the road.”
The Toyota Prius combines features of both a series and parallel hybrid electric vehicle,
and it is the world’s first mass-produced HEV. The Prius is a breakthrough in many
ways, combining an efficient gasoline fueled internal combustion engine with a clean,
quiet electric motor powered by a battery. Like other HEVs, the Prius has many
innovative features.
•
•
•
•
•
Regenerative braking: The motor recovers energy from the brakes when they
slow down or stop the vehicle and uses it to recharge the battery.
Lighter, smaller engine: To improve efficiency, the Prius engine is sized to
accommodate its average power load, not its peak load. Most gasoline engines
are sized for peak power requirements, yet most drivers need peak power only
one percent of the time.
Better fuel efficiency: The Prius consumes less fuel than vehicles powered by
gasoline alone, partly because the engine is turned off when it’s not needed.
Conventional gasoline engines run constantly, regardless of power requirements.
Lower emissions: The Prius reduces regulated tailpipe emissions by up to 90
percent and greenhouse gas emissions by about 50 percent compared with Tier 2
standards.
More aerodynamic: The streamlined Prius exterior (0.29 coefficient of drag)
reduces drag by about 14 percent compared with the typical family sedan.
Other Hybrid cars include the Honda Civic and Ford Escape. Many more hybrid
models are expected to be introduced in the near future, including Toyota and Ford
SUVs.
June 2005
111
SECTION 10. BARRIERS TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Section 10.1 Economic Barriers
Perhaps the major barrier to widespread development of energy efficiency and
renewable energy projects is the difficulty of establishing their cost effectiveness in the
current economic environment. Several factors are at work.
Energy efficiency projects are simple in that just the capital cost and financing of the
project hardware and the value of the energy that is saved are at issue. For renewable
energy projects, three principal factors affect a project’s economic viability. These are
(1) the availability of the renewable energy resource, (2) the capital cost and financing of
the project hardware and (3) the value of the energy that is produced. The availability
of the renewable energy resources is addressed elsewhere in this report and will not be
discussed here.
10.1.1 Raising Capital and Financing. Raising the initial capital cost of the installed
renewable energy system can be a substantial barrier, depending on the technology
type and size of the project. Smaller size projects have a relatively higher capital cost
burden per unit of energy produced than larger projects because of a lack of economies
of scale. Because these emerging renewable technologies are new to the banking and
investment community, they are naturally cautious about providing debt or equity
financing. Educating bankers about the risks and economic performance of various
technology types is one of the barriers that must be overcome. Often there is a need for
developmental capital, which is money necessary for engineering and cost estimates,
system integration studies or even economic performance predictions that create
additional barriers to finding enough initial capital to get a project going. Ideally,
investments in efficiency and renewables should be part of a mortgage. Energy savings
may then be shows to be equivalent to an income generator that will pay off the
mortgage.
10.1.2 Determining the Value of the Electricity To Be Sold. The relative value of the
energy produced is often determined by the avoided fuel cost for what the most
competitive fossil fuel alternative to provide the energy would be. In the case of
electricity, most situations will have the price of obtaining or selling electricity to or
from the grid as the market competition. However, the value assigned typically ignores
the value of the energy when provided during periods of peak loads. The avoided
June 2005
112
demand charge contribution should be recognized in the rate paid for the renewable
energy.
The complex state and federal regulatory structure regarding purchase and sale of
electricity from the grid can make a barrier out of determining the prices one could get
for electricity sold or purchased when an on site generator is present. Often the dollar
value of energy delivered to the grid is substantially lower than the dollar value of
energy purchased. One exception in Minnesota is the case of a renewable generator
rated less than 40 kW, where the selling price of energy produced locally is essentially
the retail purchase price.
Historically, a project developer has either had to accept the utilities “avoided cost”
rates, which have seemed artificially low to some, or individually negotiate a contract
price arrangement with the utility. Negotiating rates and other contract terms and
conditions with the utility adds time and cost to the process. Simply off-setting
normally purchased kWhs with energy produced locally on a kWh equal price basis has
not been an option in Minnesota.
Utility rates for backup power may not properly reflect actual costs. Retail rate
structures in place for providing back up power to a generating facility when the unit is
out of service have had large negative economic impacts on local generation projects.
Recently, Xcel Energy has offered a special tariff (at $0.033 per kWh) available to only
wind energy technologies. Other special retail tariffs may be in development for clean
energy technologies and for community based energy systems. The time it takes for
these items to move through the regulatory approval process will continue the status
quo of pricing for some time yet.
Generally, commercial and industrial customers purchase about two-thirds of the
electricity produced each year. Focused on the bottom line, most commercial and
industrial customers want to purchase the cheapest energy available, rather than more
expensive green energy with long-term benefits, such as environmental protection.
At this time, distributed generation customers can’t easily sell power directly from onsite generation to the utility through a competitive bidding process to a wholesale
marketer or to other retail customers.
The generally low prices available for energy produced create an impression that
renewable energy doesn't save enough money to be worthwhile. Low electricity prices
lead to long simple payback periods. Life cycle costing analyses that factors in the
June 2005
113
probability of increasing costs of grid energy in the future are rarely used to evaluate
project economics.
Creative financing structures that would allow for a positive cash flow in the early years
of a project life are not available from the financial community.
Section 10.2 Regulatory Issues
10.2.1 Siting and Permitting. Getting zoning permits from local governments for wind
turbines solar systems and biogas digesters can be problematic because the standards
for green energy are still developing. Many communities lack wind or solar access
protection ordinances, and thus do not yet know how to deal with requests to build
wind turbines or are currently in the processes of formatting ordinances with regard to
many green energy programs. Wind plants over 5 MW in size must get a siting permit
from the state Environmental Quality Board.
10.2.2 Subsidies. The government subsidizes nuclear and fossil fuel technologies to a
much greater degree than it does renewables, making it all the more difficult to
mainstream renewable energy.
10.2.3 Taxes. Current property tax law in Minnesota assesses an in-lieu of property tax
fee on wind energy projects based on their size. Since the mid-1990s, almost every
single medium to large-scale fossil-fueled energy project has sought and received a
property tax exemption from the state legislature. This is a form of barrier to renewable
energy, since the major renewable energy technology (wind power) pays a form of
property taxes and other conventional technologies don't. The “Biomass Mandate”
energy projects in Minnesota have also received legislative property tax exemptions.
Section 10.3 Institutional Barriers
10.3.1 Monopoly status. Utilities have little incentive to voluntarily buy energy from
distributed generation projects or allow reduced energy purchases from customer-sited
generation. The utilities are in the business of selling electricity, so they will tend to be
adversarial toward efforts to move toward on-site, self-generation of energy. Of course,
they also have to keep the safety of all of their line workers in mind, and this can also
cause utilities to, understandably, put up barriers.
10.3.2 Older Planning Standards. Utility planning for energy and capacity needs
(known as Integrated Resource Planning in Minnesota) is done in isolation from
June 2005
114
distribution system and transmission system planning, and neither generally considers
distributed generation options as a viable planning tool.
10.3.3 New Technology Issues. Emerging technologies are usually met with some
resistance: “Everything works the way it is now.” We have to overcome inertia to
implement change. Resistance from utility and/or building inspector can be simply due
to unfamiliarity with the technology.
10.3.4 Information. Most electricity customers don’t have enough information to make
informed decisions about the type of energy they would prefer to purchase and/or don’t
know how to find a competent contractor or technician to help them sort it out. Among
the potential users of the new technology there can be a general lack of perceived
benefits, a perception that it will cause inconvenience or hardship or that it is just to
hard to try to figure out. This can result in a lack of commitment to make it happen.
10.3.5 Implementation Gap. Even when people are given a choice about the type of
electricity they can purchase and are provided with information about renewable
energy "green pricing programs," they don’t participate. This can result in the public
benefit/free rider dilemma described next.
10.3.6 Free Rider Dilemma. Currently, green energy suffers the free rider dilemma.
Even though most people respond when surveyed that they would be willing to pay
higher electricity bills if the energy they were purchasing was from renewable sources,
many do not to participate in the voluntary programs. People who choose not to buy
into green energy programs still receive the benefit of clean air and water without the
cost.
10.3.7 The Interests of Landlords Run Counter to the Interests of Renters. Building
owners are interested in realizing minimum costs of operating their buildings and
reducing their capital investment/mortgage. The occupants/renters of a building
typically are not part of the initial building design process and have few options
regarding building efficiency and utilization of renewable energy.
Section 10.4 Commercial Barriers
10.4.1 Prospecting. It takes time to locate and evaluate applications for green energy
programs. Wind site evaluation can take a long time, especially for a larger turbine
system, perhaps several years of monitoring. Getting access to sufficient land and/or
associated wind rights can also take substantial time.
June 2005
115
10.4.2 Marketing. New green energy companies have to compete in the current
established energy industry with high level of marketing. This is expensive and
marketing alone raises the cost of this new green energy considerably.
10.4.3 Installation & Upkeep. People must be trained to install, operate maintain and
trouble shoot new technologies. Some renewables operate differently in different
climates, thus training has to be very thorough and specific. This lack of infrastructure
creates a classic “chicken and egg” problem for industry growth.
10.4.4 Assembly Line. Most nonrenewable energy technologies are manufactured in an
assembly line. Mass production could greatly reduce the per item cost. However, there
is not a high enough demand yet for renewable energy products to mass produce them
and realize cost savings from volume production.
Section 10.5 Interconnection Barriers
Minnesota now has developed technical safety and reliability standards for connections
to the distribution system in the entire state, but tariff rates for projects under 10 MW
are still being developed. For small-scale, onsite projects there may be problems getting
an interconnection with the local distribution utility. A lack of historical experience
with the new standards at many utilities could lead to delays in getting a project
completed.
Transmission system interconnection studies and waiting in queue for this analysis do
be done by Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) can be time consuming and
expensive to implement. For medium- or commercial-sized projects, transmission
bottlenecks can limit the potential locations for projects or may require additional
transmission line investments before moving forward.
Potentially financially burdensome liability insurance requirements may be part of the
interconnection process. This may be especially burdensome to smaller-sized projects.
Evolving federal interconnection standards for small generators (less than 20 MW) at
MISO and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) are also a barrier to
interconnection when the energy produced by a project impacts the transmission grid.
The time it takes to get these uniform standards adopted will continue uncertainty for
these type projects.
June 2005
116
CHART 1. Cities and Towns and Population Projections
CERT'S REGION: POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS 2000 & PROJECTIONS 2010 & 2030
POPULATION
2000
# HOUSEHOLDS
2000
POP.
HSEHOLD
POP.
% CHANGE HSEHOLD % CHANGE
ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE
POP
ESTIMATE HSEHOLD
2010
2010
2030
2000-2030
2030
2000-2030
COUNTY
BLUE EARTH
DODGE
FAIRBAULT
FILLMORE
FREEBORN
GOODHUE
HOUSTON
LE SUEUR
MOWER
OLMSTED
RICE
STEELE
WABASHA
WASECA
WINONA
55,941
17,731
16,181
21,122
32,584
44,127
19,718
25,426
38,603
124,277
56,665
33,680
21,610
19,526
49,985
21,062
6,420
6,652
8,228
13,356
16,983
7,633
9,630
15,582
47,807
18,888
12,846
8,277
7,059
18,744
58,810
19,860
15,710
21,820
33,670
47,140
20,780
27,300
39,900
140,510
64,540
36,390
23,270
20,430
52,570
22,420
7,460
6,620
8,660
13,760
19,160
8,560
10,850
16,270
56,490
22,610
14,250
9,360
7,770
20,570
60,910
24,450
16,050
23,780
35,660
52,890
23,060
30,100
42,990
170,530
80,010
40,330
26,090
21,990
56,090
8.9%
37.9%
-0.8%
12.6%
9.4%
19.9%
16.9%
18.4%
11.4%
37.2%
41.2%
19.7%
20.7%
12.6%
12.2%
24,150
9,670
6,950
9,850
14,970
23,050
10,270
12,900
18,350
72,510
29,740
16,690
11,160
9,150
23,380
14.7%
50.6%
4.5%
19.7%
12.1%
35.7%
34.5%
34.0%
17.8%
51.7%
57.5%
29.9%
34.8%
29.6%
24.7%
TOTAL
577,176
219,167
622,700
244,810
704,930
22.1%
292,790
33.6%
Data From:
Minnesota Household Projections 2000-2030, Minnesota State Demographic Center, December 2003
Population Projections for Minnesota Counties, Minnesota State Demographic Center, October 2002
CITIES, TOWNS
> 80,000
> 40,000
20,000 - 30,000
20,000-80,000
1
1
4
6
TOTAL POP
85,806
44,225
93,635
223,666
% POP
14.9%
7.7%
16.2%
38.8%
3
2
4
8
17
51,062
14,652
19,062
27,876
112,652
8.8%
2.5%
3.3%
4.8%
19.5%
2,000 - 2,999
1,000 - 1,999
<999
1-2,999
15
51
311
377
36,875
69,976
134,007
240,858
6.4%
12.1%
23.2%
41.7%
TOTAL
400
577,176
100%
10,000 - 19,999
6,000 - 9,000
4,000 - 5,000
3,000 - 3,999
3,000-19,999
NUMBER
CHART 2: Cities and Towns by Population and Households
CERTS: COUNTIES WITH CITIES AND TOWN BY POPULATION & SIZE
COUNTY
CITIES>8,000
BLUE EARTH MANKATO
N. MANKATO
POP. # HOUSE CITIES 2000-7999
32,427
12,759 LAKE CRYSTAL
11,798
5,046
POP. # HOUSE CITIES 1000-1999
2,420
973 EAGLE LAKE
LIME TWNSHIP
MANKATO TWNS
MAPLETON
RAPIDAN TWNS
S.BEND TWNS
POP. # HOUSE
1,787
663
1,314
511
1,833
636
1,678
656
1,061
409
1,491
559
DODGE
KASSON
DODGE CENTER
4,398
2,226
1,711 HAYFIELD
859 MANTORVILLE
MANTOR. TWNS
1,325
1,054
1,610
519
378
531
FARIBAULT
BLUE EARTH
WELLS
3,621
2,494
1,666 WINNEBAGO
1,097
1,487
705
FILLMORE
SPRING VALLEY
2,518
1,090 CHATFIELD
HARMONY
PRESTON
RUSHFORD
1,257
1,080
1,426
1,096
526
500
616
761
1,065
404
FREEBORN
ALBERT LEA
18,356
8,133
BANCROFT TWN
GOODHUE
RED WING
16,116
6,867 CANNON FALLS
PINE ISLAND
ZUMBROTA
3,795
2,219
2,789
1,611 CANNON F. TWN
856 FLORENCE TWN.
1,191 KENYON
STANTON TWNS
WANAMINGO
1,236
1,450
1,661
1,080
1,007
427
633
719
384
411
HOUSTON
LA CRESCENT
CALEDONIA
4,923
2,965
2,014 HOUSTON
1,286 LA CRESC TWNS
SPRING GROVE
1,020
1,487
1,304
459
531
610
LE SUEUR
LE SUEUR
LE CENTER
LANESBURGH TW
MONTGOMERY
3,919
2,240
2,074
2,794
1,588 NEW PRAGUE
877 KASOTA TWNS
637 WATERVILLE
1,137
1,402
1,487
1,833
540
642
864
AUSTIN TWNSHIP
LANSING TWNS
1,396
1,292
527
514
CHATFIELD
EYOTA
HAVERHILL TWN
HIGH FOR. TWN
KALMAR TWN
NEW HAVEN TWN
SALEM TWNSHIP
1,137
1,644
1,601
1,085
1,196
1,205
1,061
433
614
543
384
431
433
409
MOWER
AUSTIN
23,314
10,261
OLMSTED
ROCHESTER
85,806
35,346 STEWARTVILLE
BYRON
CASCADE TWNS
MARION TWNS
ORONOCO TWNS
ROCHESTER TWN
RICE
FARIBAULT
NORTHFIELD
20,818
16,590
7,668
4,891
BRIDGEW. TWN
CANNON TWNS
FOREST TWNS
LONSDALE
SHIELDS. TWNS
WARSAW TWNS
WEBSTER TWNS
WELLS TWNS
WHEATL. TWNS
1,898
1,212
1,136
1,491
1,153
1,433
1,825
1,743
1,358
643
429
488
577
583
566
615
949
444
STEELE
OWATONNA
22,434
8,940
BLOOMING PRAIR
1,933
774
WABASHA
WASECA
WASECA
8,493
WINONA
WINONA
27,069
5,411
3,500
3,183
6,159
2,239
2,916
2,074
1,206
1,103
2,244
872
1,024
LAKE CITY
PLAINVIEW
WABASHA
4,330
3,190
2,599
1,948 GREENFIELD TW
1,223
1,166
1,254
720
3,563 JANESVILLE
WOODVILLE TWN
2,109
2,273
848 NEW RICHLAND
478
1,197
503
3,373
3,295
1,419 HOMER TWNS
1,276 LEWISTON
ROLLING TWNS
WILSON TWNS
1,472
1,484
1,087
1,152
571
563
461
446
10,666 GOODVIEW
ST. CHARLES
CHART 3. Feedlots
See attached file, Chart 3.
CHART 4. Agriculture and Livestock Processors
CERTS AG AND LIVESTOCK PROCESSORS
COUNTY
NAME OF BUSINESS
LOCATION
BLUE EARTH DICK'S LOCKER
GOOD THUNDER
BLUE EARTH ADM CO
MANKATO
BLUE EARTH HONEYMEAD PRODUCTS CO
MANKATO
BLUE EARTH CENTRAL BI-PRODUCTS RENDERING MANKATO
BLUE EARTH SHARI CANDIES INC
MANKATO
BLUE EARTH HUBBARD PETFOOD
MANKATO
BLUE EARTH BIG GAIN INC
MANKATO
BLUE EARTH CO-OP FEED MILL
MANKATO
BLUE EARTH FEED SERVICE CO
MANKATO
BLUE EARTH HILLTOP MEAT MARKET
MANKATO
BLUE EARTH PIONEER SNACKS
MANKATO
BLUE EARTH CHIP STEAK & PROVISION CO
MANKATO
BLUE EARTH ADM - CRUSHING SOYBEANS
MANKATO
BLUE EARTH CENEX - CRUSHING SOYBEANS
MANKATO
BLUE EARTH PURINA MILLS INC
MAPLETON
DODGE
AL-CORN ETHANOL PLANT
CLAREMONT
DODGE
OWATONNA CANNING CO
DODGE CENTER
DODGE
HUNTTING ELEVATOR CO
HAYFIELD
FARIBAULT GREEN GIANT CO & PILLSBURY CO BLUE EARTH
FARIBAULT PA PA D'S PIZZA WHOLESALE
BLUE EARTH
FARIBAULT CUSTOM FOOD
BLUE EARTH
FARIBAULT BLUE EARTH & FROST ELEVATOR
BLUE EARTH
FARIBAULT BLUE EARTH RENDERING CO
BLUE EARTH
FARIBAULT KIESTER FEED & GRAIN INC
KIESTER
FARIBAULT STOKELY USA INC
WELLS
FARIBAULT GRAIN LAND CO OP
WELLS
FARIBAULT SWIFT ECKRICH INC
WELLS
FARIBAULT CORN PLUS ETHANOL PLANT
WINNEBAGO
FILLMORE GRANGER FARMERS CO-OP
HARMONY
FILLMORE HARMONY AGRI SVC INC
HARMONY
FILLMORE PRO CORN LLC ETHANOL PLANT
PRESTON
FILLMORE WISCONSIN DAIRIES CO-OP
PRESTON
FILLMORE VALLEY CHEESE INC
SPRING VALLEY
FILLMORE SPRING VALLEY FEED SPECIALISTS SPRING VALLEY
FILLMORE BUSTER'S CUSTOM PROCESSING
SPRING VALLEY
FREEBORN AGRA RESOURCES ETHANOL PLANT ALBERT LEA
FREEBORN ALBERT LEA ELEVATOR CO
ALBERT LEA
FREEBORN FREEBORN FOODS CO
ALBERT LEA
FREEBORN JEFF'S FEED & SEED
ALBERT LEA
FREEBORN SEABOARD FARMS-MINNESOTA INC ALBERT LEA
FREEBORN HUDSON FOODS INC
ALBERT LEA
FREEBORN ALDEN CO-OP ELEVATOR
ALDEN
FREEBORN MANSFIELD MEAT MARKET & LOCKER ALDEN
FREEBORN SOYDIESEL PLANT TO BE OPENED
GLENVILLE
GOODHUE MINNESOTA GRAIN PEARLING CO
CANNON FALLS
GOODHUE FARMERS ELEVATOR CO
CANNON FALLS
TYPE
MEAT
FAT
FAT
FAT
Fruit & Veg
GRAIN
GRAIN
GRAIN
GRAIN
MEAT
MEAT
MEAT
SOYBEANS
SOYBEANS
GRAIN
CORN
Fruit & Veg
GRAIN
Fruit & Veg
Fruit & Veg
GRAIN
GRAIN
GRAIN
GRAIN
Fruit & Veg
GRAIN
MEAT
CORN
DAIRY
GRAIN
CORN
DAIRY
DAIRY
DAIRY
MEAT
CORN
GRAIN
GRAIN
GRAIN
MEAT
MEAT
GRAIN
MEAT
OIL SEED
GRAIN
GRAIN
GOODHUE
GOODHUE
GOODHUE
GOODHUE
GOODHUE
GOODHUE
GOODHUE
GOODHUE
HOUSTON
HOUSTON
HOUSTON
LE SUEUR
LE SUEUR
LE SUEUR
LE SUEUR
LE SUEUR
LE SUEUR
LE SUEUR
LE SUEUR
LE SUEUR
LE SUEUR
LE SUEUR
MOWER
MOWER
MOWER
MOWER
MOWER
MOWER
MOWER
MOWER
MOWER
OLMSTED
OLMSTED
OLMSTED
OLMSTED
OLMSTED
OLMSTED
OLMSTED
OLMSTED
RICE
RICE
RICE
RICE
RICE
RICE
RICE
RICE
STEELE
STEELE
STEELE
STEELE
STEELE
STEELE
GOODHUE CANNING CO
LAND O'LAKES INC
PINE ISLAND FARMER'S ELEVATOR
ADM CO - CRUSH SUNFLOWER/FLAX
MAPLE ISLAND INC
WANAMINGO LOCKER SERV
KRUSMARK PROCESSING
MID-AMERICA DAIRYMEN INC
SNO-PAC FOODS INC
HOUSTON-MONEY CREEK CO-OP
RIDGEWAY FOODS INC
LE CENTER MEAT MARKET
LE SUEUR CHEESE CO
MIDLAND SOYA
GREEN GIANT CO
HUBBARD MILLING CO
HIGHCROFT CO
LE SUEUR FARMERS ELEVATOR
GREEN GIANT CO & PILLSBURY CO
SCHATZ BROTHERS MEAT MARKET
ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS INC
CONAGRA INC
C & M AUTOMOTIVE
HUNTTING ELEVATOR CO
QUALITY PORK PROCESSOR
HORMEL FOOD CORP
LOL AG CTR
BROWNSDALE MEAT SVC INC
HUNTTING ELEVATOR CO
LE ROY FARMERS CO-OP
HUNTTING ELEVATOR CO
BYRON ELEVATOR CO
KARK RENDERING CO
ALL AMERICAN CO-OP
HUCKSTADT MEAT PROCESSING INC
PACE DAIRY FOOD CO
MARIGOLD FOODS INC
ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS INC
ALL AMERICAN CO-OP
BEATRICE CHEESE INC
LAND O'LAKES INC
JEROME FOODS INC
LONSDALE FEED MILL
VOSEJPKA MEAT PROCESSING
MALT-O-MEAL CO
CANNON VALLEY CO-OP
WATERFORD MEATS & PROCESSING
BIXBY FEED MILL INC
ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS INC
OWATONNA CANNING CO
HARVEST STATES FARMLAND FEED
BENSON QUINN CO
CASHMAN SEED & FERTILIZER INC
KENYON
Fruit & Veg
PINE ISLAND
DAIRY
PINE ISLAND
GRAIN
RED WING
OILSEED
WANAMINGO
DAIRY
WANAMINGO
MEAT
ZUMBRO FALLS
MEAT
ZUMBROTA
DAIRY
CALEDONIA
Fruit & Veg
HOUSTON
DAIRY
HOUSTON
DAIRY
LE CENTER
MEAT
LE SUEUR
DAIRY
LE SUEUR
FAT
LE SUEUR
Fruit & Veg
LE SUEUR
GRAIN
LE SUEUR
GRAIN
LE SUEUR
GRAIN
MONTGOMERY
Fruit & Veg
MONTGOMERY
MEAT
NEW PRAGUE
DAIRY
NEW PRAGUE
GRAIN
ADAMS
GRAIN
AUSTIN
GRAIN
AUSTIN
MEAT
AUSTIN
MEAT
BROWNSDALE
GRAIN
BROWNSDALE
MEAT
GRAND MEADOW GRAIN
LE ROY
GRAIN
LYLE
GRAIN
BYRON
GRAIN
CHATFIELD
FAT
CHATFIELD
GRAIN
CHATFIELD
MEAT
ROCHESTER
DAIRY
ROCHESTER
DAIRY
ROCHESTER
DAIRY
STEWARTVILLE
GRAIN
FARIBAULT
DAIRY
FARIBAULT
DAIRY
FARIBAULT
MEAT
LONSDALE
GRAIN
LONSDALE
MEAT
NORTHFIELD
GRAIN
NORTHFIELD
GRAIN
NORTHFIELD
MEAT
BLOOMING PRAIRIE GRAIN
OWATONNA
DAIRY
OWATONNA
Fruit & Veg
OWATONNA
GRAIN
OWATONNA
GRAIN
OWATONNA
GRAIN
STEELE
WABASHA
WABASHA
WABASHA
WABASHA
WABASHA
WABASHA
WASECA
WASECA
WASECA
WASECA
WASECA
WASECA
WASECA
WASECA
WINONA
WINONA
WINONA
WINONA
WINONA
WINONA
WINONA
WINONA
WINONA
WILDUNG ALFALFA MILL
OWATONNA
CARGILL FLOUR MILLING DIV
LAKE CITY
DUNCANS INC
LAKE CITY
FARMERS ELEVATOR CO
LAKE CITY
INDEPENDENT GRAIN & FEED CO
LAKE CITY
LAKESIDE FOODS INC
PLAINVIEW
CON AGRA FLOUR MILLING CO
WABASHA
SOUTHERN VALLEY CO-OP
JANESVILLE
CARGILL INC
NEW RICHLAND
HUNTING ELEVATOR CO
NEW RICHLAND
MATAWAN GRAIN & FEED INC
WALDORF
WASECA FOOD & STORAGE
WASECA
KRAFT GENERAL FOODS
WASECA
SOUTH CENTRAL FEDERATED FEEDS WASECA
SOUTHERN VALLEY CO-OP
WASECA
LEWISTON FEED & PRODUCE
LEWISTON
NORTH STAR FOODS INC
ST CHARLES
AG SPECIALISTS
ST CHARLES
PRAIRIE LAND CO-OP
WINDOM
ADM GROWMARK
WINONA
BAY STATE MILLING CO
WINONA
SECOND LOOK
WINONA
WATKINS INC
WINONA
LEDEBUHR MEAT PROCESSING
WINONA
GRAIN
GRAIN
GRAIN
GRAIN
GRAIN
Fruit & Veg
GRAIN
GRAIN
GRAIN
GRAIN
GRAIN
DAIRY
Fruit & Veg
GRAIN
GRAIN
GRAIN
MEAT
MEAT
GRAIN
GRAIN
GRAIN
GRAIN
GRAIN
MEAT
CHART 5. Soybeans and Corn Consumed in Area
CERTS 2000: CORN GROWN, CONSUMED, PROCESSED BY COUNTY
CORN
COUNTY
BLUE EARTH
DODGE
FARIBAULT
FILLMORE
FREEBORN
GOODHUE
HOUSTON
LE SUEUR
MOWER
OLMSTED
RICE
STEELE
WABASHA
WASECA
WINONA
TOTAL
BU CORN
PRODUCED
2002
30,099,600
18,060,000
33,667,200
24,252,600
30,249,900
21,386,000
8,316,600
14,023,800
31,087,800
16,699,600
1,243,340
17,064,800
11,939,200
19,388,700
12,364,800
289,843,940
LIVESTOCK County Level
Corn Equivalents
Consumed (bushels) 1
7,752,430
3,409,515
2,551,329
10,251,831
6,165,588
9,160,096
4,891,049
4,446,529
7,777,329
4,754,968
10,326,939
5,183,763
5,406,662
7,482,618
8,886,297
98,446,943
Bushels Used
in Ethanol
Production
11,111,111
16,296,296
14,814,814
14,074,074
56,296,295
Bushels
Remaining
22,347,170
3,539,374
14,819,575
-814,045
10,010,238
12,225,904
3,425,551
9,577,271
23,310,471
11,944,632
-9,083,599
11,881,037
6,532,538
11,906,082
3,478,503
135,100,702
1 Filling the Livestock Feed Troughs of Minesota, Douglas G. Tiffany and Jerry Fruin, 2001
CERTS 2000: SOYBEANS GROWN, CONSUMED, PROCESSED BY COUNTY
BU SOY
PRODUCED
2002
COUNTY
BLUE EARTH
DODGE
FARIBAULT
FILLMORE
FREEBORN
GOODHUE
HOUSTON
LE SUEUR
MOWER
OLMSTED
RICE
STEELE
WABASHA
WASECA
WINONA
TOTAL
TONS of SOYBEANs
PRODUCED
2002
8,232,000
4,763,200
8,355,000
4,936,800
7,894,800
4,580,000
1,204,800
4,051,200
8,729,100
3,796,000
3,350,000
4,320,000
1,960,000
5,002,400
1,425,600
72,600,900
LIVESTOCK County Level
Soybean Equivalents
Consumed (tons) 1
246,960
142,896
250,650
148,104
236,844
137,400
36,144
121,536
261,873
113,880
100,500
129,600
58,800
150,072
42,768
2,178,027
1 Filling the Livestock Feed Troughs of Minesota, Douglas G. Tiffany and Jerry Fruin, 2001
Soybean Crushing Potential Tons:
Soybeans Available Tons:
Deficit Tons Soybeans For Crushing
Facilities at Maximum Capacity
2,700,000
1,564,717
1,135,283
50,331
22,272
17,077
62,469
37,558
56,148
26,998
24,728
44,998
27,255
79,788
31,357
33,269
44,917
54,145
613,310
Tons
Remaining
196,629
120,624
233,573
85,635
199,286
81,252
9,146
96,808
216,875
86,625
20,712
98,243
25,531
105,155
-11,377
1,564,717
CHART 6. Gyles Randall Statement on Corn-Soybean Rotation Not Sustainable
COMMENTARY:
Intensive corn-soybean agriculture is not sustainable
By Gyles Randall, University of Minnesota soil scientist
9/27/01
Present-day corn and soybean production in southern Minnesota does not appear to
be sustainable from economic, environmental, ecological and sociological
perspectives. Let's examine these four factors:
1. Economics is a primary determinant as to whether an agricultural production system is
sustainable-to the producer, the agricultural infrastructure and the surrounding community.
Global competition, primarily from Argentina, Brazil, and China, will put extreme pressure
on the U.S. corn and soybean market.
Visitors to Brazil say there are over 200 million acres of relatively flat land outside of the
Amazon River Basin available to be cleared for crop production. This is more than the total
acreage of corn and soybeans in the U.S. (about 140 million acres).
Due to low prices, federal assistance with loan deficiency payments (LDPs) has been the
primary source of profit for most corn and soybean producers the last two years. Some
have said that without them we would have witnessed the largest bankruptcy ever in
American agriculture.
Unfortunately, LDPs have stimulated all-out field edge to field edge production, since the
farmer is rewarded based on number of bushels produced. Although economically good for
the producer, this government policy has come at the expense of soil and water stewardship
and has created severe long-term consequences.
Coupled with global competition and taxpayers questioning government payments to
produce crops they see as not essential to food in grocery stores and restaurants, the
economic picture for current corn-soybean production becomes bleak.
2. Environmental factors have become more prominent in recent years when determining
the sustainability of crop production systems. In my travels throughout south central and
southeastern Minnesota, I've never seen as much erosion as in the last few years. We've
had some intense rains, but we've also converted the landscape to a crop production system
(corn and soybeans) that is extremely susceptible to soil erosion.
We must question the sustainability of the corn-soybean rotation from an environmental
perspective. This is due to more soil erosion, greater and more "flash flood" runoff water
compared to cropping systems containing alfalfa and grass perennials, and more loss of
nitrate-nitrogen to ground and surface waters.
3. Ecological factors must be considered when evaluating sustainability. More and diverse
plant and wildlife is considered highly favorable in a rural ecosystem and presents an
aesthetically pleasing quality, which is gaining value in American society. But the current
corn-soybean cropping system provides little opportunity for animal and plant diversity on
the landscape.
CHART 6. Gyles Randall Statement on Corn-Soybean Rotation Not Sustainable
(continued)
Transportation of corn and soybeans to New Orleans for overseas shipment is another
ecological challenge. The judicial branch recently denied attempts by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to reconstruct the lock and dam system to better accommodate barge traffic for
grain shipment. My guess is that corn and soybean agriculture will not win this ecological
debate.
4. Sociological impacts are also seen as side effects of present-day corn and soybean
agriculture. As farms get larger to support profitable corn and soybean production, we have
fewer farms and farm families. Rural populations decline, student numbers in schools
dwindle and church membership shrinks. Producers often bypass the local community to
purchase inputs at larger regional outlets where prices are cheaper due to volume
purchases.
And as more production contracts are developed between agribusiness and the farmer, the
farmer will gradually assume the role of "custom operator" or "indentured servant" and lose
the freedom to manage. These trends will likely continue regardless of the cropping system,
but the corn-soybean rotation has speeded the process.
What does this all mean? Present-day corn and soybean production systems with little
livestock in the enterprise do not appear sustainable. We will need substantial changes in
federal farm policy, cropping systems and usage of crops produced on the farm to sustain a
healthy environment and rural community.
Gyles Randall is a soil scientist and professor at the University of Minnesota Southern
Research and Outreach Center, Waseca. He can be reached at 507-835-3620, or
[email protected]. This commentary was distributed by the University of Minnesota
Extension Service.
-30-
CHART 6. Gyles Randall Statement on Corn-Soybean Rotation Not Sustainable
(continued)
These photos graphically
illustrate the effects of
intensive corn-soybean
farming on water quality.
They were taken at a spot
where the Root River
drains into the Mississippi
River in southeast
Minnesota. The Root is
recognized nationally as a
premier trout stream. But
in these photos, which
were taken Aug. 20,
1999, by Jeff Janvrin of
the Wisconsin
Department of Natural
Resources, the Root is so
laden with eroded soil
that it appears chocolate
brown against the
relatively blue waters of
the Mississippi (which is
no pristine stream itself).
Parts of the Root flow
through intensivelyfarmed corn and soybean
country in southern
Minnesota.
CHART 7: Energy to Raise Corn and Soybeans – SE/SC MN CERT Region
ENERGY USED TO PRODUCE CORN AND SOYBEANS IN MN AND SE MN CERTS**
CORN
DIESEL/ACRE/GAL
ACRES MN
DIESEL MN
CERTS ACRES
DIESEL CERTS
SOYBEANS
MINNESOTA
9.37
7,100,000
66,527,000
1,799,100
16,857,567
7.43
7,600,000
56,468,000
1,362,400
10,122,632
122,995,000
GAS/ACRE/GAL
ACRES MN
GAS MN
CERTS ACRES
GAS CERTS
1.15
7,100,000
8,165,000
1,799,100
2,068,965
0.91
7,600,000
6,916,000
1,362,400
1,239,784
15,081,000
LP/ACRE
ACRES MN
LP/MN
CERTS ACRES
LP CERTS
9.58
7,100,000
68,018,000
1,799,100
17,235,378
0.75
7,600,000
5,700,000
1,362,400
1,021,800
73,718,000
35.63
7,100,000
252,973,000
1,799,100
64,101,933
27.50
7,600,000
209,000,000
1,362,400
37,466,000
461,973,000
3.945
7,100,000
28,009,500
1,799,100
7,097,450
0.199
7,600,000
1,512,400
1,362,400
271,118
29,521,900
ELECTRICITY/ACRE
ACRES MN
ELECTRICITY MN
CERTS ACRES
ELECTRICITY CERTS
NAT GAS/ACRE*
ACRES MN
NAT GAS MN
CERTS ACRES
NAT GAS CERTS
SE MN CERTS
26,980,199
3,308,749
18,257,178
101,567,933
7,368,567
**SE CERTS: Blue Earth, Faribault, Freeborn, LeSueur, Rice, Steele, Waseca, Dodge,
Fillmore, Goodhue, Houston, Mower, Olmsted, Wabasha, Winona
* - Natural Gas figures represent thousand cubic feet of natural used per acre in fertilizer for each
crop type.
Figures from Doug Tiffany -- University of Minnesota - power point presentation at
www.misa.umn.edu under programs, Endowed Chair, power point
CHART 8: Major Energy Users
Major Fuel Users and amount fuel used in 2001
Source: PCA Boiler and Fuel Use database
Consolidated by: Shalini Gupta, ME3 [email protected]
COUNTY
CITY
NAME
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Blue
Earth
Earth
Earth
Earth
Earth
Earth
Earth
Earth
Earth
Annual
NATURAL FUEL
LPG/
WOOD
GAS
OIL
PROP WOOD Coal
Coke
Million British Thermal Units Consumed in 2001
Lake Crystal Crysteel Manufacturing Inc
Mankato
ADM - Mankato
Mankato
Associated Finishing Inc
Mankato
CHS Oilseed Processing - Mankato
Mankato
Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc - Mankato
Mankato
Dotson Co Inc
Mankato
Minnesota Elevator Inc
Mankato
NSP dba Xcel Energy - Key City/ Wilmarth
North Mankato
Taylor Corp Campus
4,019
293,720
22,842
815,584
29,678
3,290
21
41,737
19,532
Dodge
Dodge
Claremont Al-Corn Clean Fuel
Dodge CenterMcNeilus Truck & Manufacturing Inc
659,976
131,563
Faribault
Faribault
Faribault
Faribault
Faribault
Faribault
Blue Earth
Blue Earth
Blue Earth
Blue Earth
Wells
Winnebago
1,408
15,626
36,391
4,647
1,614
879,968
Fillmore
Fillmore
Fillmore
Fillmore
Fillmore
Chatfield
Strongwell - Chatfield Division
Chatfield
Tuohy Furniture Corp - Chatfield
Preston
Pro-Corn LLC
Spring Valley BP Products North America -Spring Valley
Spring Valley Spring Valley Utilities
2,416
3,793
769,365
31
2,128
Freeborn
Freeborn
Freeborn
Freeborn
Albert
Albert
Albert
Albert
745,290
7,669
9,951
49,807
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Cannon FallsBergquist Co - Cannon Falls
Kenyon
Foldcraft Co
Pine Island Land O'Lakes Inc - Pine Island
Red Wing
ADM - Red Wing
Red Wing
Minnesota Correctional Facility-Red Wing
Red Wing
Minnesota State College - SE Technical
Red Wing
NSP dba Xcel Energy - Red Wing
Red Wing
Red Wing Solid Waste Boiler Facility
Red Wing
SB Foot Tanning Co
Red Wing
USG Interiors Inc - Red Wing
Welch
NSP dba Xcel Energy - Prairie Island
Zumbrota
Dairy Farmers of America Inc - Zumbrota
Houston
Spring Grove Northern Engraving Corp
Le
Le
Le
Le
Le
Le
Le
Le
Kasota
Le Sueur
Le Sueur
Le Sueur
Le Sueur
Montgomery
New Prague
New Prague
Unimin Minnesota Corp - Kasota Plant
DAVISCO International Inc - Le Sueur
Le Sueur Inc
Minnesota Valley Health Center
Unimin Minnesota Corp - Le Sueur
Seneca Foods Corp - Montgomery
ConAgra Flour Milling Co - New Prague
New Prague Water - Light - Power & Bldg
115,958
79,876
246,042
7,669
162,218
70,202
5,397
1,028
Mower
Mower
Mower
Mower
Austin
Austin
Austin
Austin
Austin Utilities - 4th Ave Plant
Austin Utilities - NE Power Station
Hormel Foods Corp - Austin
Riverland Community College
56,530
101,186
306,985
34,243
Olmsted
Olmsted
Olmsted
Olmsted
Olmsted
Olmsted
Olmsted
Olmsted
Olmsted
Rochester
Rochester
Rochester
Rochester
Rochester
Rochester
Rochester
Rochester
Rochester
Associated Milk Producers Inc -Rochester 119,762
Crenlo Inc - Plant 2
127,359
IBM - Rochester
323,316
Mayo Medical Center - Rochester
1,947,875
Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility
10,989
Pace Dairy Foods Co
30,778
Quest International
147,210
Rochester Public Utilities - Silver Lake
273,962
Seneca Foods Corp - Rochester
133,198
Sueur
Sueur
Sueur
Sueur
Sueur
Sueur
Sueur
Sueur
Lea
Lea
Lea
Lea
Blue Earth Area Schools
Blue Earth Light & Water
Seneca Foods Corp - Blue Earth
St Luke's Lutheran Care Center
Wells Public Utilities
Corn Plus
Agra Resources Coop dba EXOL
Alliance Pipeline - Albert Lea 25-A
ISD 241 - SW Jr High & Sibley Elementary
Streater Inc
76,288
2,087
202,979
105,576
38,982
4,184
29,401
6,446
12,901
21,691
178,461
23,624
(MWh)
4,019
1,744,375
22,842
1,213,245
29,678
3,290
21
41,737
19,532
1,427,031
397,660
659,976
131,563
226
3,926
1,634
19,552
36,391
4,663
1,614
879,968
17
2,416
15,595
769,502
31
2,128
11,802
137
745,290
7,669
9,951
49,807
9,185
32,258
164,659
69
48
523
627,520
25
22,241
30,449
344
30,794
186
116,144
79,876
246,042
7,719
162,944
70,202
5,562
1,028
50
725
165
1,405,844
364,530
226
76,288
11,271
235,237
270,235
38,982
4,253
29,449
6,446
13,424
649,211
25
200,702
2,330
108,061
13,532
19,160
203,229
1,498
2,289,091
56,530
1,507,030
673,845
34,469
227,823
140,891
342,476
2,151,104
12,487
30,778
147,210
2,563,053
133,198
CHART 8: Major Energy Users (continued)
Major Fuel Users and amount fuel used in 2001
Annual
Electrcity
Generation
Source: PCA Boiler and Fuel Use database
Consolidated by: Shalini Gupta, ME3 [email protected]
COUNTY
CITY
NAME
NATURAL FUEL
LPG/
WOOD
GAS
OIL
PROP WOOD Coal
Coke
Million British Thermal Units Consumed in 2001
Catholic Charities Covenant Academy MN
3,505
Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc - Faribault
70,099
2,310
Minn Correctional Facility - Faribault
85,118
102,074
Carleton College
149,852
Malt-O-Meal Co - Plant 2 - Northfield
342,735
McLane Minnesota Inc
1,480
3,162
Northfield Acquisition Co - East & West
77,100
100
Northfield Hospital - Rice County
13,179
Rice
Rice
Rice
Rice
Rice
Rice
Rice
Rice
Faribault
Faribault
Faribault
Northfield
Northfield
Northfield
Northfield
Northfield
Steele
Steele
Steele
Steele
Bloom PrairieBlooming Prairie Public Utilities
Owatonna Crown Cork & Seal Co Inc - Owatonna
Owatonna Owatonna Public Utilities - Power Plant
Owatonna Truth Hardware Paint Plant - Owatonna
109,924
122,805
70,829
Wabasha
Wabasha
Wabasha
Wabasha
Lake City
Lake City
Lake City
Plainview
Federal-Mogul Corp Powertrain Systems
Hearth & Home Technologies of Lake City
Valley Craft Inc
Lakeside Foods Inc - Plainview
116,164
75,394
11,421
101,320
Waseca
Waseca
Janesville
Waseca
Janesville Municipal Utilities
Brown Printing Co - Waseca Division
11,483
156,667
Winona
Winona
Winona
Winona
Winona
Winona
Winona
Winona
Winona
Winona
Winona
Winona
Winona
Winona
Winona
Winona
Badger Equipment Co
Badger Foundry Co
Bay State Milling Co
Cytec Engineered Materials Inc
Froedtert Malt - Winona
ISD 861 - Winona High School
St Mary's University
Ticona Celstran Inc
236
39,917
9,920
87,873
321,456
1,214
1,975
15,525
941
1,634
770
3,505
72,409
187,192
149,852
342,735
4,642
77,200
13,179
1,214
109,924
122,805
70,829
1,401
70,665
82
(MWh)
118,139
75,394
11,421
116,845
11,483
157,608
236
41,551
9,920
87,873
321,456
1,401
71,434
82
CHART 9: Natural Gas and Electricity Providers
County
Blue Earth
Blue Earth
Blue Earth
Blue Earth
Blue Earth
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Dodge
Faribault
Faribault
Faribault
Fillmore
Fillmore
Fillmore
Fillmore
Fillmore
Freeborn
Freeborn
Freeborn
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Houston
Houston
Houston
Houston
Houston
Houston
Houston
Le Sueur
Le Sueur
Le Sueur
Le Sueur
Le Sueur
Le Sueur
Le Sueur
Le Sueur
Olmsted
Olmsted
Olmsted
Olmsted
Olmsted
Olmsted
Olmsted
Olmsted
Rice
Rice
Rice
Steele
Steele
Steele
Steele
Steele
Steele
Steele
Wabasha
Wabasha
Wabasha
Wabasha
Wabasha
Waseca
Waseca
Waseca
Waseca
Winona
Winona
Winona
Community_Name
Mankato
Mankato
Mankato
N. Mankato
N. Mankato
Dodge Center
Hayfield
Hayfield
Mantorville
Mantorville
Blue Earth
Wells
Winnebago
Chatfield
Harmony
Rushford
Rushford
Spring Valley
Albert Lea
Albert Lea
Albert Lea
Cannon Falls
Cannon Falls
Kenyon
Pine Island
Red Wing
Wanamingo
Zumbrota
Zumbrota
Caledonia
Caledonia
Houston
La Crescent
La Crescent
Spring Grove
Spring Grove
Le Center
Le Sueur
Montgomery
Montgomery
Montgomery
Montgomery
Montgomery
Montgomery
Byron
Byron
Eyota
Eyota
Rochester
Rochester
Stewartville
Stewartville
Faribault
Faribault
Northfield
Blooming Prairie
Blooming Prairie
Medford
Medford
Owatonna
Owatonna
Owatonna
Lake City
Lake City
Lake City
Plainview
Wabasha
Janesville
New Richland
Waseca
Waseca
Goodview
Lewiston
Winona
Electric Utility_Name
BENCO Electric
Dakota Electric Association
Xcel Energy (NSP)
BENCO Electric
Xcel Energy (NSP)
Xcel Energy (NSP)
People's Cooperative Services
Xcel Energy (NSP)
People's Cooperative Services
Xcel Energy (NSP)
Blue Earth Light and Water Office
Wells Public Utilities
Alliant Energy
Alliant Energy
City of Harmony
Rushford Municipal
Tri-County Electric Cooperative
Spring Valley Public Utilities Comm.
Alliant Energy
Dakota Electric Association
Freeborn-Mower Cooperative Services
Dakota Electric Association
Xcel Energy (NSP)
Kenyon Municipal Utilities
Xcel Energy (NSP)
Xcel Energy (NSP)
Xcel Energy (NSP)
Goodhue County Cooperative Electric Association
Xcel Energy (NSP)
Caledonia Mun Light & Power Dept.
Tri-County Electric Cooperative
Tri-County Electric Cooperative
Tri-County Electric Cooperative
Xcel Energy (NSP)
City of Spring Grove
Xcel Energy (NSP)
Alliant Energy
Le Sueur Municipal Utilities
Alliant Energy
Alliant Energy
Alliant Energy
Minnesota Valley Electic Cooperative
Minnesota Valley Electic Cooperative
Minnesota Valley Electic Cooperative
People's Cooperative Services
Xcel Energy (NSP)
Alliant Energy
People's Cooperative Services
People's Cooperative Services
Rochester Public Utilities
Alliant Energy
People's Cooperative Services
Steele-Waseca Cooperative
Xcel Energy (NSP)
Xcel Energy (NSP)
Blooming Prairie Municipal Utilities
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power
Alliant Energy
Steele-Waseca Cooperative
Alliant Energy
Owatonna Public Utilities
Steele-Waseca Cooperative
Lake City Water & Light
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power
Xcel Energy (NSP)
Alliant Energy
Xcel Energy (NSP)
Janesville Municipal
Xcel Energy (NSP)
Waseca Utility
Xcel Energy (NSP)
Xcel Energy (NSP)
Alliant Energy
Xcel Energy (NSP)
Gas Utility_Name
CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Alliant Energy
Alliant Energy
Alliant Energy
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Xcel Energy
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Xcel Energy
Xcel Energy
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Alliant Energy
CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
Greater Minnesota Gas, Inc
CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
Alliant Energy
Greater Minnesota Gas, Inc
CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
Alliant Energy
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Xcel Energy
Xcel Energy
Xcel Energy
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
Owatonna Pub. Utilities
Owatonna Pub. Utilities
Owatonna Pub. Utilities
Xcel Energy
Xcel Energy
Xcel Energy
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
Xcel Energy
CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
Aquila Networks (Peoples)
CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco
Xcel Energy
Alliant Energy
Xcel Energy
CHART 10: Co-ops, Munis and Power Providers in the 15 County SE/SC CERT Region
Legend:
Olive -- Alliant Energy
Purple -- Dairyland Power Cooperative
Turquoise -- Xcel Energy
Coral -- Great River Energy
White -- Munis and Others
CHART 11: Munis and Coops and Customers by Sector, Power Consumption
SE/SC CERTS: ELECTRICITY CONSUMED, POWER PROVIDERS, NO. CUSTOMERS 2001
*info withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data
# NONNON-FARM
COMMERNUMBER
FARM
FARM
RESIDENT NUMBER
CIAL
NUMBER INDUSTRIAL TOTAL
DAIRYLAND
FARMS
MWH
RESID.
MWH
COMM.
MWH
INDUST MWH
CUSTOMER
Freeborn Mower
5,688
103,609
0
0
57
23,557
4
24,924
5,749
Peoples
3,500
47,086
10,345
137,201
231
23,439
0
0
14,076
Tri-Co Elect
10,027
167,536
1,701
1,554
352
28,525
2
14,044
12,082
TOTAL DAIRY
19,215
318,231
12,046
138,755
640
75,521
6
38,968
31,907
GREAT RIVER
BENCO
Dakota -- part
Goodhue Coop
Minn Valley
Steele Waseca
TOTAL G.RIV
5,700
na
2,284
0
6,879
14,863
MUNIS
NON-SMMPA
Blue Earth P&L
Caledonia Mun
Eitzen
Harmony
Janesville
Kasota
Kasson
Kenyon
Lake Crystal
Lanesboro
LeSueur
Mabel
Rushford
Spring Grove
St. Charles
Whalen
TOT NON-SMMPA
# FARM
MUNIS SMMPA
Austin
Blooming Prairie
Lake City
New Prague
Owatonna
Preston
Rochester
Spring Valley
St. Peter
Waseca
Wells
TOTAL SMMPA
# FARM
696
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
703
TOTAL ALL
80,572
na
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
182
0
0
6
0
0
214
34,995
50,967
0
99,483
231,022
MWH
0
87
0
0
0
0
0
0
180
0
2,389
0
0
226
0
0
2,882
558,361
71,451
na
1,824
23,181
599
31,051
#NF RESID
1,667
1,297
121
607
937
324
1,878
752
986
441
1,585
384
743
610
1,381
50
13,763
MWH
# NF RESID
6,069
9,500
0
805
48
2,535
0
1,754
0
9,182
109
658
0
37,196
0
1,236
0
3,195
0
3,569
0
1,136
6,226
70,766
TOTAL INV OWN
TOTAL
2000 ELECT USE
BLUE EARTH
DODGE
FARIBAULT
FILLMORE
FREEBORN
GOODHUE
HOUSTON
LE SUEUR
MOWER
OLMSTEAD
RICE
STEELE
WABASHA
WASECA
WINONA
TOTAL
5,447
na
127,626
546
na
21,491
270,564
1,592
365,098
MWH
13,816
9,568
1,181
4,050
11,665
3,500
14,636
5,923
8,099
2,689
12,152
2,389
6,381
3,890
10,607
203
110,749
144
2,361
426
3,477
# COMM
332
165
26
166
133
0
245
103
175
80
254
92
97
136
173
6
2,183
MWH
# COMM
67,309
1,513
6,414
188
18,025
340
14,043
253
72,395
868
5,019
188
281,644
3,952
8,365
189
23,292
397
26,464
503
8,224
197
531,194
8,588
1,145,796
80,696
na
14,888
0
na
2,613
181,099
34,119
298,527
MWH
6,611
3,946
477
4,498
4,421
0
11,203
1,594
7,566
3,012
13,471
2,702
3,416
4,724
4,778
173
72,592
6
0
4
10
# INDUST
56
67
4
6
0
0
0
22
0
0
57
0
20
5
13
0
250
MWH
# INDUST
*
1
14,978
0
15,908
6
25,947
31
63,334
63
*
13
605,628
2
9,234
0
30,284
3
35,185
0
16,000
0
816,498
119
1,263,138
0
na
385
11,693
na
730
0
44,100
44,830
MWH
32,409
7,800
336
83
0
0
0
7,293
0
0
73,656
0
5,163
5,474
9,218
0
141,432
MWH
*
0
74,571
16,221
209,520
*
242,010
0
23,658
0
0
565,980
791,210
TOTAL
MWH
152,090
207,726
211,659
571,475
232,719
na
4,258
25,542
7,908
49,401
TOT CUST
2,055
1,537
151
779
1,070
324
2,123
877
1,179
521
2,078
476
860
757
1,567
56
16,410
75,801
451,663
179,294
939,477
TOT MWH
52,836
21,401
1,994
8,631
16,086
3,500
25,839
14,810
15,845
5,701
101,668
5,091
14,960
14,314
24,603
376
327,655
TOT CUST TOT MWH
11,710
301,397
993
21,392
2,883
108,552
2,038
56,211
10,113
345,249
864
12,631
41,150
1,129,282
1,425
17,599
3,595
77,234
4,072
61,649
1,333
24,224
80,176
2,155,420
177,894
3,994,027
63%
2,325,707
37%
6,319,734 100%
MWH
723,929
148,264
225,267
148,002
409,980
489,413
146,215
270,334
394,730
1,372,514
588,238
430,218
221,536
224,953
526,141
6,319,734
CHART 12. Power Plants Fuel Types
POWER PLANTS CERT'S REGION 2000
Capacity
Summer
MWH
22.200
Capacity
Winter
MWH
Year Inst.
County
27.400
1974 LeSueur
Mower
9.000
1935 Mower
7.500
1946 Mower
12.100
1955 Mower
5.000
1961 Mower
31.500
1971 Mower
Faribault
1.500
1960 Faribault
1.600
1993 Faribault
1.600
1993 Faribault
1.600
1993 Faribault
1.800
1995 Faribault
Waseca
1.365
1972 Waseca
1.100
1964 Waseca
0.675
1955 Waseca
1.825
1998 Waseca
Goodhue
1.825
1997 Goodhue
1.825
1997 Goodhue
1.825
1997 Goodhue
Blue Earth
0.700
1952 Blue Earth
2.100
1971 Blue Earth
1.300
1955 Blue Earth
1.800
1999 Blue Earth
Fillmore
1.000
1968 Fillmore
0.230
1923 Fillmore
Olmsted
40.000
1974 Olmsted
Wabasha
1.000
1984 Wabasha
1.000
1984 Wabasha
9.000
1949 Olmsted
14.000
1953 Olmsted
23.000
1962 Olmsted
58.000
1969 Olmsted
Utility
Alliant Montgomery Gas Turbine
Austin Utilities
DT Plant
Unit 2
DT Plant
Unit 3
DT Plant
Unit 4
DT Plant
Unit 5
Northeast Plant
Blue Earth Light & Power
Unit 1
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit 5
Unit 6
Janesville Municipal Utilities
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Kenyon Municipal Utility
Unit 5
Unit 6
Unit 7
Lake Crystal Municipal Utility
Unit 1
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit 5
Lanesboro Public Utilities
Power Plant Diesel Unit 2
Hydroelectric Plant
Rochester Public Utilities
Cascade Creek
Unit 1
Lake Zumbro Hydroelectric
Unit 1
Unit 2
Silver Lake Steam
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Southern MN Mun Power Agency
Blooming Prairie Plant
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
New Prague Power Plant
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit 6
Owatonna Downtown Unit 5
Unit 6
Owatonna West Sub Unit 7
Preston Municipal Plant
Unit 4
Unit 5
Unit 6
Spring Valley Plant
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Steele Waseca Coop Electric
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Wells Public Utilities
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit 5
Xcel Energy
Key City Gas Turbine Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Prairie Island Nuclear Unit 1
Unit 2
Red Wing Steam
Unit 1
Unit 2
West Faribault Jet Engine
Unit 2
Unit 3
Wilmarth Steam
Unit 1
Unit 2
Type of Facility
Gas Turbine
Fuel
Oil #2
Steam
Steam
Steam
Gas Turbine
Steam
Gas/oil # 2
Gas/oil # 2
Gas/oil # 2
Gas/oil # 2
Coal/gas
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
#2/Gas
#2
#2
#2
#2
1.500
1.600
1.600
1.600
1.800
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
#2/Gas
#2/Gas
#2/Gas
#2
1.300
1.100
0.675
1.825
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Oil #2
Oil #2
Oil #2
1.825
1.825
1.825
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Gas/oil # 2
Gas/oil # 2
Gas/oil # 2
Oil #2
0.700
2.100
1.300
1.800
Int Combustion
Hydro
Diesel
Water
1.000
0.230
Gas Turbine
Oil #2
28.000
Hydro
Hydro
Steam
Steam
Steam
Steam
Water
Water
Coal/gas
Coal/gas
Coal/gas
Coal/gas
1.500
1.500
9.000
14.000
23.000
58.000
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Oil #2/Gas
Oil #2/Gas
Oil #2/Gas
1.500
1.300
0.400
1.500
1.300
0.400
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Steam
Steam
Gas Turbine
Gas/oil # 2
Gas/oil # 2
Gas/oil # 2
Gas/oil # 2
Gas
Gas
Gas
4.900
2.600
3.800
6.400
4.900
2.600
3.800
6.400
21.200
14.600
21.200
19.400
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Oil #2/Gas
Oil #2/Gas
Oil #2/Gas
Gas/oil # 2
Gas/oil # 2
Gas/oil # 2
0.700
1.100
2.100
0.900
0.900
2.000
0.700
1.100
2.100
0.900
0.900
2.000
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Int Combustion
Wind
Wind
Wind
Wind
Oil #2/Gas
Oil #2/Gas
Oil #2/Gas
Oil #2/Gas
Oil #2/Gas
0.004
0.018
0.025
0.035
1.400
1.500
1.000
2.300
2.200
0.004
0.018
0.025
0.035
1.400
1.500
1.000
2.300
2.200
Gas Turbine
Gas Turbine
Gas Turbine
Gas Turbine
Nuclear
Nuclear
Steam
Steam
Gas/oil # 2
Gas/oil # 2
Gas/oil # 2
Gas/oil # 2
Uranium
Uranium
RDF/Gas
RDF/Gas
15.500
16.200
16.100
16.800
525.000
524.000
10.800
10.500
19.500
19.500
19.500
19.500
546.000
545.000
11.600
11.300
1969
1969
1969
1969
1973
1974
1949
1949
Gas Turbine
Gas Turbine
Steam
Steam
Gas
Gas
RDF/Gas
RDF/Gas
0.000
0.000
10.600
11.400
1,555.752
1965
1965
1948
1951
Great River Pleasant Dexter
Combustion
Natural Gas
Nat Gas
16.600
13.800
10.100
10.800
1,506.987
420
Source:
Department of Commerce, The Minnesota Utility Data Book,
June 2002, pages 51-74
9.000
7.500
12.100
5.000
31.500
Steele
1957 Steele
1975 Steele
1975 Steele
LeSueur
1975 LeSueur
1963 LeSueur
1967 LeSueur
1981 LeSueur
1957 Steele
1969 Steele
1982 Steele
Fillmore
1949 Fillmore
1954 Fillmore
1974 Fillmore
1952 Fillmore
1952 Fillmore
1960 Fillmore
Steele
1984 Steele
1984 Steele
1996 Steele
1997 Steele
1953 Faribault
1957 Faribault
1950 Faribault
1966 Faribault
1975 Faribault
Blue Earth
Blue Earth
Blue Earth
Blue Earth
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Goodhue
Rice
Rice
Rice
Blue Earth
Blue Earth
Mower
CHART 13. Renewable Energy Projects
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS IN OUR CERTS AREA
Renewable Energy Operating Facilities by Technology in the 15 County CERTS AREA: Blue
Earth, Dodge, Fairbault, Fillmore, Freeborn, Goodhue, Le Sueur, Mower, Olmsted, Rice, Steele,
Wabasha, Waseca, Winona 6/2004
Technology
Location
Owner
Fuel Type
Plant Name
Capacity (kW)
Biomass
ROCHESTER
OLMSTEAD
COUNTY PUBLIC
WORKS
Municipal Solid Waste
(Incl Industrial,
Medical)
OLMSTEAD COUNTY W-T-EFACILITY
Biomass
RED WING
NORTHERN
STATES POWER
CO
Municipal Solid Waste
(Incl Industrial,
Medical)
RED WING
22,770.0
Biomass
MANKATO
NORTHERN
STATES POWER
CO
Municipal Solid Waste
(Incl Industrial,
Medical)
WILLMARTH
24,750.0
ROCHESTER
PUBLIC UTILS
DEPT
Water
LAKE ZUMBRO HYDRO
Water
LANESBORO
4,200.0
Hydro
Rochester
Hydro
LANESBORO
LANESBORO
PUBLIC UTILITY
Hydro
MANKATO
RAPIDAN
REDEVELOPMENT Water
LTD.
RAPIDAN
Photovoltaic
Northfield
-- Left Empty --
Solar
Ciernia House
2.5
Photovoltaic
Red Wing
Util/Homeowner
Solar
Red Wing Residential
2.0
Photovoltaic
LaCrescent
Stankevitz, Alan
Solar
Residential
4.2
Wind
Dodge Center -- Left Empty --
Wind
-- Left Empty --
Wind
ZUMBROTA
BACH, JOHN
Wind
BACH, JOHN
10.0
Wind
NORTHFIELD
BRIEBELL, LLOYD Wind
BRIEBEL, LLOYD
10.0
Wind
WASECA
JONES, DOUG
Wind
DOUG JONES
10.0
Wind
MABLE
SWENSON,
GARRY
Wind
GARRY SWENSON
38.0
-- Left Empty --
Wind
Garwin McNeilus Windfarm
Wind
2,680.0
240.0
3,400.0
9,000.0
1,800.0
Wind
FAIRBAULT
WUNDERLICH,
GARY
Wind
GARY WUNDERLICH
35.0
Wind
SPRING
VALLEY
GUNDERSON,
DENNIS
Wind
GUNDERSON, DENNIS
10.0
Wind
BYRON
HARRISON
Wind
HARRISON
10.0
Wind
MANKATO
TACHNEY, JAMES Wind
JAMES TACHNEY
20.0
Wind
ZUMBROTA
OLSON, LARRY
Wind
LARRY OLSON
10.0
Wind
PRESTON
MAUST, ROBERT
Wind
MAUST, ROBERT
10.0
Wind
LONSDALE
KNAPPER, PAUL
Wind
PAUL KNAPPER
17.5
Wind
BLOOMING
PRARIRE
VOGT, PETER
Wind
PETER VOGT
35.0
Wind
DODGE
CENTER
NASH, RANDY
Wind
RANDY NASH
25.0
Wind
RED WING
RED WING
ENERGY CENTER
Wind
FRONTENAC
HEDLIN, ROBERT Wind
ROBERT HEDLIN
10.0
Wind
PINE ISLAND
SANFORD, DON
Wind
SANFORD, DON
10.0
Wind
Northfield
-- Left Empty --
Wind
Scotia Wind Farm
20.0
Wind
DUNDAS
SHERMAN,
LLOYD
Wind
SHERMAN, LLOYD
18.0
Wind
ROCHESTER
NORTHERN
ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY
Wind
SMMPA TURBINE
Wind
MONTGOMERY
STANGLER,
WILLIAM
Wind
STANGLER, WILLIAM
10.0
Wind
LAKE CITY
SCHWEN, STEVE
Wind
STEVE SCHWEN
10.0
Geothermal
Grand
Meadow
Grand Meadow
School
Geothermal
-
-
Geothermal
Owatonna
Steele County Jail Geothermal
-
-
Wind
RED WING HI 61 @ 19
Renewable Energy Projects (continued)
Municipal Wastewater Plants with Anaerobic Digestion of Biosolids
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Rochester Water Reclamation, Rochester – also produces electricity (400 kW and 1000 kW
turbines)
Austin Waste Water Treatment Facility, Austin
Albert Lea Wastewater Treatment, Albert Lea
Blue Earth Waste Water Treatment Facility,
Blue Earth
Mankato Wastewater Treatment, Mankato
Faribault Wastewater Treatment, Faribault
Red Wing Municipal Wastewater, Red Wing
Pine Island Facility, Pine Island
New Richland Facility, New Richland
Harmony Facility, Harmony
Hokah Facility, Hokah
Owatonna Wastewater Treatment, Owatonna – also produces electricity
Biofuels:
Ethanol Plant
Ethanol Plant
Ethanol Plant
Ethanol Plant
Preston
Albert Lea
Winnebago
Claremont
30-40 million gal/yr
30-40 million gal/yr
30-40 million gal/yr
15-30 million gal/yr
2.0
900.0
CHART 14: Transmission Line Map
CHART 15. Substations
SUBSTATIONS BY COUNTY IN SE/SC CERT AREA
Map Electric Transmission Lines and Substations 60 kV or Larger - www:lmic.state.mn.us
GOODHUE (20)
Prairie Island
Burnsville
Spring Creek
Red Wing
Frontenac
Belvidere Mills
Goodhue
Wells Creek
Zumbrota
Lena
Pine Island
Cherry Grove
Kenyon
Ner/Kenyon
Hader
S. Cannon Falls
Cannon Falls Dist
Cannon Falls Tran
Byllesby
Vasa
FILLMORE (14)
Rushford (2)
Riceford
Peterson
Henrytown
Canton
Dsub (2)
Granger
Fountain
Spring Valley
Cherry Grove
Alliant Sub
Other Sub
BLUE EARTH (21) FREEBORN (11)
Mn Lake
Corning
Danville
Freeborn
Mapleton
Alden
Sterling Center
Mansfield
Willow Creek
Twin Lakes
St. Clair
Glenville
Decoria
Riceland
Garden City
Lerdal
Rapidan
Hayward
Century
Other Sub
Pohl
Other Sub
Butternut
Sibley Park
Eastwood
Eagle Lake
Johnson
Willmarth
Dome Pipeline
Butternut
Jamestown
Other Sub
RICE (16)
Veseli
Circle Lake
Northfield
Dundas
Valley Grove
Faribault (2)
French Lake
Fair Park
W. Faribault
S. Faribault
Nerstrand
Walcott
Warsaw
Morristown
Other Sub
LE SUEUR (9)
New Prague
Other Sub (2)
Montgomery
St. Thomas
Lake Emily
Cleveland
Elysian
Waterville
HOUSTON (8)
La Crescent
DSUB
Houston
Brownsville
Caledonia Mun
Caledonia Mun
Caledonia Mun
Spring Grove
MOWER (7)
Taopi
Adams
Rose Creek
London
Sargeant
Brownsdale
Austin NE SUB
FARIBAULT (6)
Clark
Easton
Blue Earth
Bricelyn
Winnebago
Other Sub
WABASHA (6)
Peoples
Wabaco
Zumbro Falls
Mazeppa
Lake City
Wabasha
STEELE (8)
Merton
Owatonna
W. Owatonna (2)
Pratt
River Point
Bixby
Blooming Prairie
WASECA (6)
Other Sub
Meriden
Loon Lake
Waseca Sub
Matawan
St. Olaf Lake
OLMSTED (14)
Byron (2)
Maple Leaf
Other (4)
Willow Creek
Bamber Valley
Silver Lake
Crosstown
Northern Hills
IBM
Zumbro River
WINONA (9)
Winona
East Winona
Goodview
Altura
Stockton
St. Charles
Lewsiton
Wilson
Witoka
DODGE (4)
Kasson (2)
Claremont
Other Sub
CHART 16. Conservation Chart for Houses
The Advantages of Energy Conservation
Rich Huelskamp
Based on
2000 sq.ft.
Annual
Approx.
Mbtu
Btu/Sqft
Older home
<R11 walls, 7 ACH, <R20 ceilings, <75% eff. furnace
R11 walls, 3 ACH, R35 ceilings, <80% eff. Furnace
Newer home
R19 wall, 1.5 ACH, R40 ceiling, 80% eff. Furnace
Energy Star home
R 25 walls, <1.0 ACH, >R40 ceilings, >85% eff. Furnace
<10% window area
Solar home
R25 walls, <.5 ACH, R50 ceilings, >90% eff. Furnace
>10% window area
>R25 walls, <.3 ACH, >R50 ceilings, >95% eff. Furnace
>10% window area
Peak
Furnace
Input
Btu/hr
$20
Energy costs per Mbtu
$15
$10
Energy costs per year
$1,800
$1,200
$1,500
$1,000
$5
120
100
70,000
60,000
140,000
120,000
$2,400
$2,000
$600
$500
70
50,000
100,000
$1,400
$1,050
$700
$350
50
30,000
80,000
$1,000
$750
$500
$250
40
20,000
60,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
30
15,000
40,000
$600
$450
$300
$150
CHART 17: Small Wind Potential – Mike Michaud
Total Production by County from 10 kW turbines placed at all rural sites
Annual MW-hrs
Produced
191112
Total MW-hrs
Consumed
723929
% From Wind
Dodge
108950
148264
73
Faribault
134400
225267
60
Fillmore
192072
148002
130
Freeborn
148992
409980
36
Goodhue
195202
489413
40
Houston
91242
146215
62
Le Sueur
140059
270334
52
Mower
150693
394730
38
Olmsted
211173
1372514
15
Rice
136925
588238
23
Steele
105595
430218
25
Wabasha
114788
221536
52
Waseca
85711
224953
38
Winona
145737
526141
28
Blue Earth
26
CHART 18. Updates ILSR Biomass charts, Ethanol from Corn Stover
See attached file, Chart 18.
CHART 19. Biomass Estimates – Oak Ridge National Laboratory
County Level Estimates of Biomass Resource Curves, April 2003
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Marie Walsh 2003
Note: Data suitable for pre-feasibility, screening studies for individual firms, but not for developing a
business plan. Data suitable for economic and policy analysis at a regional/national level. General
methodology used is the same as is described in the Biomass Feedstock Availability Data.
TOTAL Energy Crop Quantities (dry tons) at Selected Prices
County Data
County
<$12.50/dt
Blue Earth
Dodge
Faribault
Fillmore
Freeborn
Goodhue
Houston
Le Sueur
Mower
Olmsted
Rice
Steele
Wabasha
Waseca
Winona
<$15.00/dt
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<$20.00/dt
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<$25.00/dt
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<$30.00/dt
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6060
0
6060
0
6060
0
0
6060
0
0
6060
6060
0
6060
0
42423
<$35.00/dt
6060
36372
6060
36372
6060
36372
36372
6060
36372
36372
6060
6060
36372
6060
36372
333399
<$40.00/dt
6060
36372
6060
36372
6060
36372
36372
6060
36372
36372
6060
6060
36372
6060
36372
333399
<$45.00/dt
6060
38930
6060
38930
6060
38930
38930
6060
38930
38930
6060
6060
38930
6060
38930
353860
<$50.00/dt
6060
38930
6060
38930
6060
38930
38930
6060
38930
38930
6060
6060
38930
6060
38930
353860
TOTAL Forest Residue Quantities (dry tons) at Selected Prices
County Data
County
Blue Earth
Dodge
Faribault
Fillmore
Freeborn
Goodhue
Houston
Le Sueur
Mower
Olmsted
Rice
Steele
Wabasha
Waseca
Winona
<$12.50/dt
2
1
2
33
0
22
69
2
1
9
11
0
31
0
41
224
<$15.00/dt
2
1
2
33
0
22
69
2
1
9
11
0
31
0
41
224
<$20.00/dt
2
1
2
37
0
25
78
2
1
10
12
0
35
1
49
255
<$25.00/dt
234
135
190
3896
25
2612
8277
240
68
1112
1257
12
3684
55
5055
26851
<$30.00/dt
1021
591
833
17040
108
11423
36203
1048
296
4865
5497
54
16118
242
22121
117458
<$35.00/dt
1465
848
1195
24444
154
16386
51934
1504
424
6978
7887
77
23149
347
31802
168595
<$40.00/dt
1700
984
1387
28358
179
19010
60250
1744
492
8096
9147
89
26819
403
36800
195459
<$45.00/dt
1780
1031
1452
29703
187
19911
63107
1827
515
8480
9580
94
28075
422
38504
204667
<$50.00/dt
1785
1033
1456
29774
188
19959
63258
1832
517
8500
9603
94
28148
423
38610
205180
CHART 19. Biomass Estimates – Oak Ridge National Laboratory (continued)
TOTAL Mill Residue Quantities (dry tons) at Selected Prices
County Data
County
<$12.50/dt
Blue Earth
Dodge
Faribault
Fillmore
Freeborn
Goodhue
Houston
Le Sueur
Mower
Olmsted
Rice
Steele
Wabasha
Waseca
Winona
<$15.00/dt
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<$20.00/dt
0
0
0
655
0
252
1209
0
0
0
0
0
201
0
0
2318
<$25.00/dt
0
0
0
1242
0
448
2382
0
0
0
0
0
397
0
0
4469
0
0
0
3695
0
1406
6448
0
0
0
0
0
935
0
0
12484
<$30.00/dt
0
0
0
5872
0
2440
10803
0
0
0
0
0
1969
0
0
21085
<$35.00/dt
0
0
0
6552
0
2695
12014
0
0
0
0
0
2150
0
0
23412
<$40.00/dt
0
0
0
7386
0
3005
13512
0
0
0
0
0
2375
0
0
26278
<$45.00/dt
0
0
0
8325
0
3336
15284
0
0
0
0
0
2653
0
0
29598
<$50.00/dt
0
0
0
8678
0
3471
15884
0
0
0
0
0
2736
0
0
30768
TOTAL Urban Wood Waste (dry tons) at Selected Prices
County Data
County
Blue Earth
Dodge
Faribault
Fillmore
Freeborn
Goodhue
Houston
Le Sueur
Mower
Olmsted
Rice
Steele
Wabasha
Waseca
Winona
$12.50/dt
$15.00/dt
1037
335
313
398
607
835
375
490
715
2293
1059
617
407
357
920
10759
$20.00/dt
2075
670
626
797
1213
1670
751
981
1431
4586
2118
1235
814
715
1840
21519
$25.00/dt
10373
3350
3128
3983
6066
8350
3753
4903
7154
22928
10588
6173
4070
3574
9201
107594
13831
4466
4171
5311
8088
11134
5003
6537
9538
30571
14117
8231
5427
4765
12268
143459
$30.00/dt
17289
5583
5214
6639
10110
13917
6254
8172
11923
38214
17646
10289
6784
5956
15335
179324
$35.00/dt
17289
5583
5214
6639
10110
13917
6254
8172
11923
38214
17646
10289
6784
5956
15335
179324
$40.00/dt
17289
5583
5214
6639
10110
13917
6254
8172
11923
38214
17646
10289
6784
5956
15335
179324
$45.00/dt
17289
5583
5214
6639
10110
13917
6254
8172
11923
38214
17646
10289
6784
5956
15335
179324
$50.00/dt
17289
5583
5214
6639
10110
13917
6254
8172
11923
38214
17646
10289
6784
5956
15335
179324
TOTAL Agricultural Residue Quantities (dry tons) at Selected Prices
County Data
County
Blue Earth
Dodge
Faribault
Fillmore
Freeborn
Goodhue
Houston
Le Sueur
Mower
Olmsted
Rice
Steele
Wabasha
Waseca
Winona
$12.50/dt
$15.00/dt
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$20.00/dt
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$25.00/dt
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
256927
121333
285001
160130
229476
140001
32529
100497
207595
172166
111625
122349
87198
169134
76561
2272521
$30.00/dt
307741
183090
349364
160130
292567
193340
41223
148826
300932
172166
132989
180102
113778
199757
76561
2852566
$35.00/dt
307741
183090
349364
188486
292567
193340
41223
148826
300932
172166
132989
180102
113778
199757
76561
2880921
$40.00/dt
307741
183090
349364
188486
292567
193340
41223
148826
300932
172166
132989
180102
113778
199757
76561
2880921
$45.00/dt
307741
183090
349364
188486
292567
193340
41223
148826
300932
172166
132989
180102
113778
199757
76561
2880921
$50.00/dt
307741
183090
349364
188486
292567
193340
41223
148826
300932
172166
132989
180102
113778
199757
76561
2880921
CHART 20. Forest Products Industries
Sawmill & Other
Primary Wood Producers SE/SC MN
2002 Minnesota Primary Forest Products, DNR, August 2002
Blue Earth
Janesville
Custom Woodworks
Blue Earth
North Mankato
Kerry Koestler
Fillmore
Chatfield
Tuohy Furniture Corp
Fillmore
Lanesboro
Clair Hartlevig
Fillmore
Peterson
Lynn Mattson
Fillmore
Preston
Root River Hardwood
Fillmore
Preston
Scotland Sawmill
Fillmore
Rushford
Ellefson Sawmill
Freeborn
Alden
Richard Babcock
Freeborn
Glenville
Dennis Baseman
Freeborn
Oakland
Len's Wood Prod.
Goodhue
Cannon Falls
Johnson Logging Inc
Goodhue
Cannon Falls
Northern Hardsoods Inc
Goodhue
Goodhue
Mark Bode
Goodhue
Red Wing
Hi Park Hardwoods
Goodhue
Wanamingo
Robert Benson
Goodhue
Welch
Jurgen Nemcek
Houston
Caledonia
Staggemeyer Stave Co
Houston
Hokah
Tri State Forest Prod
Houston
Houston
Crystal Val Hardwood
Mower
Brownsdale
Phil Hatten
Mower
Walthan
Ben Christians
Olmsted
Byron
Mike Logan
Olmsted
Byron
Nepstad Sawmill
Olmsted
Elgin
Edgewood Lumber
Olmsted
Oronoco
Shady Haven Tree Farm
Olmsted
Rochester
Hathaway Tree Service
Olmsted
Stewartville
John Payne
Rice
Kilkenny
Roger Madden
Rice
Webster
Wilmot's Woodworking
Steele
Blooming Prairie Gary Carlson
Steele
Ellendale
Richards Wood Prod.
Steele
Medford
Svenby's Milling
Steele
Owatonna
William Pieper
Wabasha
Kellog
Axley Brothers Inc
Wabasha
Kellog
G & G Logging
Wabasha
Lake City
Richard Schuman
Wabasha
Millville
Village Mill
Wabasha
Plainview
Jeff Kolb
Wabasha
Wabasha
Village Mill
Wabasha
Zumbro Falls
Dorance Gerken
Winona
St. Charles
Pete Jilk
Winona
Utica
Claude Patzner
Sawmill & Dry Kiln
Shaving Mill
Dry Kiln Facility
Sawmill/planer/shavings
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Dry Kiln
Sawmill & Chipper
Dry Kiln Facility
Sawmill & Other PP
Dry Kiln Facility
Dry Kiln Facility
Sawmill & Dry Kiln
Sawmill & Chipper
Sawmill & Chipper
Sawmill/DryKiln/Chipper
Sawmill & Dry Kiln
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Dry Kiln
Sawmill & Dry Kiln
Sawmill & Dry Kiln
Whole Tree Chippers
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Dry Kiln
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill - posts, etc
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Other PP
Sawmill & Other PP
fuel products
shavings
2.0 MBF Dehum
Steam 150.0 MBF
shavings
saw dust
fuel wood
fuel wood/shavings
fuel products
Solar 0.0 MBF
fuelwood, sawdust
Dehum 600.0 MBF
Steam 0.5 MBF
Dehum 1.0 MBF
Dehum 2.0 MBF
chips
sawdust/shavings Dehum 3.0 MBF
Dehum 1.0 MBF
fuel prod/shavings Dehum 3.0 MBF
Dehum 3.0 MBF
shavings
Dehum 2.0 MBF
Dehum 6.0 MBF
fuelwood
fuel prod/sawdust
fuel prod/shavings
CHART 21. Livestock
CERT'S LIVESTOCK INFORMATION BY COUNTY AND REGION
2002, 2003, 2004
ALL
FEEDLOTS DAIRIES ALL HOGS
CATTLE
2002
2004
2003
2003
COUNTY
BLUE EARTH
487
22
416,000
14,000
DODGE
448
49
125,000
23,000
FARIBAULT
522
12
203,000
12,500
FILLMORE
1,468
172
122,000
77,000
FREEBORN
284
24
240,000
15,500
GOODHUE
1,028
196
102,000
68,000
HOUSTON
540
122
24,000
58,500
LE SUEUR
322
42
78,000
18,000
MOWER
811
58
225,000
25,500
OLMSTED
631
126
46,000
50,500
RICE
490
121
97,000
28,000
STEELE
579
77
100,000
20,000
WABASHA
667
195
22,000
62,500
WASECA
320
30
180,000
14,000
WINONA
757
248
41,000
85,000
TOTAL
9,354
PCA
1,494
DEPT AG
2,021,000
DEPT AG
572,000
DEPT AG
BEEF
COWS
2003
MILK
COWS
2003
OTHER
CATTLE
2003
CHICKENS
2002
1,200
6,300
2,500
12,600
1,500
21,000
9,600
3,700
5,100
8,900
8,600
4,700
17,200
2,600
25,500
11,400
14,800
8,900
46,300
11,800
40,500
38,900
12,100
17,000
31,800
17,000
14,000
37,300
10,000
51,700
2,000
500
800
2,400
1,300
2,800
1,000
1,400
1,300
1,400
1,000
800
1,100
1,600
2,200
141
57,760
17,259
627,272
40,552
223,151
2,847
99,484
156,000
503,204
485,000
403,823
249,315
217,327
275,823
137
543,700
17,231
20,754
40,552
12,235
598
28,878
27,970
502,150
1,326,000
96,000
248,199
1,663
7,549
77,500
DEPT AG
131,000
DEPT AG
363,500
DEPT AG
21,600
DEPT AG
3,358,958
PCA
2,873,616
PCA
All Cattle, Cattle on Feed, and All Breeding Sheep & Lambs January l Inventory by County and District, Minnesota,
Dairy: Farm Numbers by County and District, Minnesota, January 2004
TURKEY
2002
1,400
1,900
1,100
18,100
2,200
6,500
10,000
2,200
3,400
9,800
2,400
1,300
8,000
1,400
7,800
Minnesota Ag Statistics: www.nass.usda.gov/mn
Hogs and Pigs…by County and District, Minnesot, 2002-2003
SHEEP &
LAMBS
2003
2003-04
CHART 22. WWTP, Biosolids, Stab Ponds
CERT COUNTIES WWTP, STAB PONDS, OPEN &
CLOSED LANDFILLS
County
Name
Location
Solids Type
Appl/Prod.
Quanity
BLUE EARTH Amboy WWTP
Amboy
Biosolids
Application
BLUE EARTH Amboy WWTP
Amboy
Biosolids
Production
10.05
BLUE EARTH Amboy WWTP
Amboy
Biosolids
Production
BLUE EARTH Lake Crystal WWTP
Lake Crystal
Biosolids
Production
BLUE EARTH Lake Crystal WWTP
Lake Crystal
Biosolids
BLUE EARTH Lake Crystal WWTP
Lake Crystal
Biosolids
BLUE EARTH Madison Lake WWTP
Madison Lake
BLUE EARTH Madison Lake WWTP
BLUE EARTH Madison Lake WWTP
Units
Disposal
10.01 Dry Tons To 18.2 acres
Dry Tons
Applied
36000
Gallons
Applied
16.8
Dry Tons
Applied
Application
16.82
Dry Tons To 11.6 acres
Production
144000
Gallons
Applied
Biosolids
Production
10.1
Dry Tons
Applied
Madison Lake
Biosolids
Application
19.36
Dry Tons To 17.6 acres
Madison Lake
Biosolids
Production
154600
Gallons
Applied
BLUE EARTH Mankato WWTP
Mankato
Biosolids
Production
270.2
Dry Tons
Transferred
BLUE EARTH Mankato WWTP
Mankato
Biosolids
Application
806.4
Dry Tons To 303.0 acres
BLUE EARTH Mankato WWTP
Mankato
Biosolids
Production
815.7
Dry Tons
BLUE EARTH Mankato WWTP
Mankato
Biosolids
Production
4606
Wet Tons
Applied
BLUE EARTH Hillcrest Health Care Center
Mankato
Biosolids
Production
4000
Gallons
Transferred
BLUE EARTH Knollwood Park WWTP
Mankato
Biosolids
Production
16000
Dry Tons
Transferred
BLUE EARTH Midwest Electric Products Inc Mankato
Biosolids
Production
6400
Gallons
Transferred
BLUE EARTH St Clair WWTP
St. Clair
Biosolids
Application
7
BLUE EARTH St Clair WWTP
St. Clair
Biosolids
Production
7.4
Dry Tons
Applied
BLUE EARTH St Clair WWTP
St. Clair
Biosolids
Production
78000
Gallons
Applied
Location
Stab Pond
Facility Class Design Flow
Name
BLUE EARTH Good Thunder WWTP
D
0.06
BLUE EARTH Washington Park Association Madison Lake
Stab Pond
D
0.01
BLUE EARTH Mapleton WWTP
Mapleton
Stab Pond
D
0.406
BLUE EARTH Pemberton WWTP
Pemberton
Stab Pond
D
0.053
Location
Open Landfill
Name
Good Thunder Stab Pond
BLUE EARTH Ponderosa Sanitary Landfill
Name
Applied
Dry Tons To 10.0 acres
Size
Open Landfill
Location
Closed SLF
BLUE EARTH Hansen
Mankato
Closed Landfill
14.7 acres/40 240,000 cu yd
Size
Stored Waste
Closed
BLUE EARTH City Of Mankato SLF
Mankato
Closed Landfill
13.7/17
100,000 cu yd
1973
County
Name
Location
Solids Type
Appl/Prod.
Quanity
Units
DODGE
Dodge Center WWTP
Dodge Center
Biosolids
Application
50.44
Dry Tons To 64.0 acres
DODGE
Dodge Center WWTP
Dodge Center
Biosolids
Production
50.8
Dry Tons
Applied
DODGE
Dodge Center WWTP
Dodge Center
Biosolids
Production
582000
Gallons
Applied
DODGE
Hayfield WWTP
Hayfield
Biosolids
Production
20.68
Dry Tons
Applied
DODGE
Hayfield WWTP
Hayfield
Biosolids
Application
20.855
Dry Tons To 21.5 acres
DODGE
Hayfield WWTP
Hayfield
Biosolids
Production
533.7
Wet Tons
DODGE
Hayfield WWTP
Hayfield
Biosolids
Production
128000
Gallons
Applied
DODGE
Mantorville WWTP
Mantorville
Biosolids
Application
2.4
Dry Tons
To 8.0 acres
DODGE
Mantorville WWTP
Mantorville
Biosolids
Production
2.5
Dry Tons
Applied
DODGE
Mantorville WWTP
Mantorville
Biosolids
Production
39600
Gallons
Applied
DODGE
West Concord WWTP
West Concord Biosolids
Production
24848
Gallons
Transferred
1993
Disposal
Applied
Closed Sanitary Landfill
Location
Closed Landfill
Stored Waste
Closed
DODGE
Dodge County SLF
St. Peter
Closed Landfill
11/23 acres
328,000 cu yds
1994
County
Name
Location
Solids Type
Appl/Prod.
Quanity
Units
Disposal
FARIBAULT
Blue Earth WWTP
Blue Earth
Biosolids
Production
106.5
Dry Tons
Applied
FARIBAULT
Blue Earth WWTP
Blue Earth
Biosolids
Application
109.12
Dry Tons To 72.0 acres
FARIBAULT
Blue Earth
Biosolids
Production
777000
Gallons
Applied
Blue Earth
Spray
Application
2601982
Gallons
To 106.0 acres
Blue Earth
Industrial
Production
1.3
Gallons
Applied
FARIBAULT
Blue Earth WWTP
Seneca Foods Corp - Blue
Earth 2
Seneca Foods Corp - Blue
Earth 2
Seneca Foods Corp - Blue
Earth 2
Blue Earth
Industrial
Production
450
Wet Tons
Applied
FARIBAULT
Winnebago WWTP
Winnebago
Biosolids
Production
48
Dry Tons
Applied
FARIBAULT
Winnebago WWTP
Winnebago
Biosolids
Application
48.28
FARIBAULT
Winnebago WWTP
Winnebago
Biosolids
Production
257400
FARIBAULT
FARIBAULT
Size
Name
Location
Stab Pond
Facility Class Design Flow
FARIBAULT
Bricelyn WWTP
Bricelyn
Stab Pond
D
0.067
FARIBAULT
Delavan WWTF
Delavan
Stab Pond
D
0.0276
FARIBAULT
Elmore WWTP
Elmore
Stab Pond
D
0.126
FARIBAULT
Frost WWTP
Frost
Stab Pond
D
0.048
FARIBAULT
Kiester WWTP
Kiester
Wells Easton Minnesota Lake
WWTP
Wells
Stab Pond
D
0.09
Stab Pond
D
1.088
Name
Location
Closed SLF
FARIBAULT
Faribault County SLF
Blue Earth
Closed Landfill
County
Name
Location
Solids Type
Appl/Prod.
FILLMORE
Canton WWTP
Canton
Biosolids
Application
FILLMORE
Canton WWTP
Canton
Biosolids
FILLMORE
Chatfield WWTP
Chatfield
Biosolids
FILLMORE
Chatfield WWTP
Chatfield
Biosolids
FILLMORE
Chatfield WWTP
Chatfield
Biosolids
FILLMORE
Fountain WWTP
Fountain
FILLMORE
Fountain WWTP
FILLMORE
Fountain WWTP
FILLMORE
FARIBAULT
Dry Tons To 22.0 acres
Gallons
Applied
Size
Stored Waste
Closed
23.2/40
785,000 cu yds
1990
Quanity
Units
Disposal
4.483
Dry Tons
To 5.9 acres
Production
4.52
Dry Tons
Applied
Application
165.6
Dry Tons To 18.0 acres
Production
165.93
Dry Tons
Applied
Production
248900
Gallons
Applied
Biosolids
Production
4.08
Dry Tons
Applied
Fountain
Biosolids
Application
4.095
Dry Tons
To 4.5 acres
Fountain
Biosolids
Production
217.26
Wet Tons
Applied
Fountain WWTP
Fountain
Biosolids
Production
52100
Gallons
Applied
FILLMORE
Harmony WWTP
Harmony
Biosolids
Application
30.16
Dry Tons To 13.0 acres
FILLMORE
Harmony WWTP
Harmony
Biosolids
Production
30.2
Dry Tons
FILLMORE
Harmony WWTP
Harmony
Biosolids
Production
98000
Gallons
Applied
FILLMORE
Lanesboro WWTP
Lanesboro
Biosolids
Application
10.5
Dry Tons
To 5.0 acres
FILLMORE
Lanesboro WWTP
Lanesboro
Biosolids
Production
10.5
Dry Tons
Applied
FILLMORE
Lanesboro WWTP
Lanesboro
Biosolids
Production
40200
Gallons
Applied
FILLMORE
Mabel WWTP
Mabel
Biosolids
Production
80400
Gallons
Transferred
FILLMORE
Preston WWTP
Preston
Biosolids
Production
35
Dry Tons
Applied
FILLMORE
Preston WWTP
Preston
Biosolids
Application
35.105
FILLMORE
Preston WWTP
Preston
Biosolids
Production
220000
FILLMORE
Rushford WWTP
Rushford
Biosolids
Application
47.4
Dry Tons To 48.0 acres
FILLMORE
Rushford WWTP
Rushford
Biosolids
Production
48.99
Dry Tons
Applied
FILLMORE
Rushford WWTP
Rushford
Biosolids
Production
435500
Gallons
Applied
FILLMORE
Spring Valley WWTP
Spring Valley
Biosolids
Production
14.08
Dry Tons
Applied
FILLMORE
Spring Valley WWTP
Spring Valley
Biosolids
Application
14.098
Dry Tons To 10.6 acres
FILLMORE
Spring Valley WWTP
Spring Valley
Biosolids
Production
153600
Applied
Dry Tons To 29.5 acres
Gallons
Gallons
Applied
Applied
Name
Location
Closed SLF
Size
FILLMORE
Ironwood SLF
Spring Valley
Closed Landfill
13/123 acres
200,000 cu yd
1980
County
Name
Location
Solids Type
Appl/Prod.
Quanity
Units
Disposal
FREEBORN
Albert Lea WWTP
Albert Lea
Biosolids
Production
902
Dry Tons
Applied
FREEBORN
Albert Lea WWTP
Albert Lea
Biosolids
Application
1063.5
FREEBORN
Albert Lea WWTP
Albert Lea
Biosolids
Production
5509000
Gallons
Applied
FREEBORN
Emmons WWTP
Emmons
Biosolids
Production
6.73
Dry Tons
Transferred
Name
Location
Stab Pond
Facility Class Design Flow
FREEBORN
Alden WWTP
Alden
Stab Pond
D
0.159
FREEBORN
Clarks Grove WWTP
Clarks Grove
Stab Pond
D
0.1164
FREEBORN
Freeborn WWTP
Freeborn
Stab Pond
D
0.0356
FREEBORN
Geneva WWTP
Geneva
Stab Pond
D
0.069
FREEBORN
Glenville
Stab Pond
D
0.13
FREEBORN
Glenville WWTP
MNDOT Albert Lea Travel
Information Ctr
Glenville
Stab Pond
D
0.0097
FREEBORN
Hartland WWTP
Hartland
Stab Pond
D
0.045
FREEBORN
Hollandale
Stab Pond
D
0.0427
FREEBORN
Hollandale WWTP
Oakland Sanitary District
WWTP
Oakland
Stab Pond
D
0.0121
FREEBORN
Twin Lakes WWTP
Twin Lakes
Stab Pond
D
0.03
Stored Waste
Closed
Dry Tons To 601.0 acres
Name
Location
Closed SLF
FREEBORN
Albert Lea SLF
Albert Lea
Closed landfill
27/36 acres
1.77 mil cu yds
1993
County
Name
Location
Solids Type
Appl/Prod.
Quanity
Units
GOODHUE
Cannon Falls WWTP
Cannon Falls
Biosolids
Application
14.7
Dry Tons To 30.0 acres
GOODHUE
Cannon Falls WWTP
Cannon Falls
Biosolids
Production
14.7
Dry Tons
GOODHUE
Cannon Falls WWTP
Cannon Falls
Biosolids
Production
252500
Gallons
Applied
GOODHUE
Goodhue WWTP
Goodhue
Biosolids
Application
3.71
Dry Tons
To 5.3 acres
GOODHUE
Goodhue WWTP
Goodhue
Biosolids
Production
19.6
Dry Tons
Applied
GOODHUE
Goodhue WWTP
Goodhue
Biosolids
Production
25
Wet Tons
Applied
GOODHUE
Goodhue WWTP
Goodhue
Biosolids
Production
12000
Gallons
Applied
GOODHUE
Kenyon WWTP
Kenyon
Biosolids
Production
8.4
Dry Tons
Applied
GOODHUE
Kenyon WWTP
Kenyon
Biosolids
Application
8.8
Dry Tons To 11.0 acres
GOODHUE
Kenyon WWTP
Kenyon
Biosolids
Production
104000
GOODHUE
Land O'Lakes - Pine Island
Pine Island
Industrial
Application
48.06
GOODHUE
Land O'Lakes - Pine Island
Pine Island
Industrial
Production
124
Wet Tons
Transferred
GOODHUE
Land O'Lakes - Pine Island
Pine Island
Industrial
Production
491
Wet Tons
Applied
GOODHUE
Pine Island WWTP
Pine Island
Biosolids
Application
66.631
Dry Tons To 34.5 acres
GOODHUE
Pine Island WWTP
Pine Island
Biosolids
Production
66.69
Dry Tons
Applied
GOODHUE
Pine Island
Biosolids
Production
488000
Gallons
Applied
GOODHUE
Pine Island WWTP
Red Wing - Bench Street
Plant
Red Wing
Biosolids
Production
4100
Dry Tons
Transferred
GOODHUE
Red Wing WWTP
Red Wing
Biosolids
Application
293.4
Dry Tons To 135.0 acres
GOODHUE
Red Wing WWTP
Red Wing
Biosolids
Production
294
Dry Tons
Applied
GOODHUE
Red Wing WWTP
Red Wing
Biosolids
Production
1199700
Gallons
Applied
GOODHUE
Zumbrota WWTP
Zumbrota
Biosolids
Application
75.6
Dry Tons To 36.0 acres
GOODHUE
Zumbrota WWTP
Zumbrota
Biosolids
Production
75.6
Dry Tons
Applied
GOODHUE
Zumbrota WWTP
Zumbro Ridge Est. Mobile
Home Park
Zumbrota
Biosolids
Production
348900
Gallons
Applied
Biosolids
Production
62000
Gallons
Transferred
GOODHUE
Size
Stored Waste
Closed
Gallons
Disposal
Applied
Applied
Dry Tons To 90.0 acres
Name
Location
Closed SLF
GOODHUE
Goodhue Coop SLF
Goodhue
Closed landfill
5.5/85
90,000 cu yd
1983
County
Name
Location
Solids Type
Appl/Prod.
Quanity
Units
HOUSTON
Brownsville WWTP
Brownsville
Biosolids
Application
1.7
Dry Tons To 10.0 acres
HOUSTON
Brownsville WWTP
Brownsville
Biosolids
Production
1.7
Dry Tons
Applied
HOUSTON
Brownsville WWTP
Brownsville
Biosolids
Production
80000
Gallons
Applied
HOUSTON
Caledonia WWTP
Caledonia
Biosolids
Production
43.2
Dry Tons
Applied
HOUSTON
Caledonia WWTP
Caledonia
Biosolids
Application
43.244
HOUSTON
Caledonia WWTP
Caledonia
Biosolids
Production
1159
HOUSTON
Caledonia WWTP
Caledonia
Biosolids
Production
HOUSTON
Hokah WWTP
Hokah
Biosolids
Production
HOUSTON
Hokah WWTP
Hokah
Biosolids
Application
HOUSTON
Hokah WWTP
Hokah
Biosolids
Production
60000
HOUSTON
Houston WWTP
Houston
Biosolids
Application
13.252
HOUSTON
Houston WWTP
Houston
Biosolids
Production
13.3
Dry Tons
Applied
HOUSTON
Houston WWTP
Houston
Biosolids
Production
255763
Gallons
Applied
HOUSTON
La Crescent WWTP
LaCrescent
Biosolids
Application
28.31
HOUSTON
La Crescent WWTP
LaCrescent
Biosolids
Production
31
Dry Tons
Applied
HOUSTON
La Crescent WWTP
LaCrescent
Biosolids
Production
136500
Gallons
Applied
HOUSTON
Spring Grove WWTP
Spring Grove
Biosolids
Production
6.07
Dry Tons
Applied
HOUSTON
Spring Grove WWTP
Spring Grove
Biosolids
Application
60.7
Dry Tons To 10.0 acres
HOUSTON
Spring Grove WWTP
Spring Grove
Biosolids
Production
50250
Name
Location
Stab Pond
Facility Class Design Flow
Eitzen WWTP
Eitzen
Stab Pond
D
HOUSTON
Size
Stored Waste
Closed
Disposal
Dry Tons To 56.9 acres
Wet Tons
Applied
278000
Gallons
Applied
2.39
Dry Tons
Applied
2.401
Dry Tons
To 5.6 acres
Gallons
Applied
Dry Tons To 41.4 acres
Dry Tons To 19.0 acres
Gallons
Applied
0.024
Name
Location
Closed SLF
HOUSTON
Houston County SLF
Houston
Closed landfill
5.7/30
County
Name
Location
Solids Type
Appl/Prod.
Quanity
LE SUEUR
Le Center WWTP
Le Center
Biosolids
Application
120
LE SUEUR
Le Center WWTP
Le Center
Biosolids
Production
120
Dry Tons
Applied
LE SUEUR
Le Center
Biosolids
Production
397
Wet Tons
Applied
Le Sueur
Industrial
Application
1801420.5
Gallons
To 188.5 acres
LE SUEUR
Le Center WWTP
Le Sueur Cheese
Pretreatment Fac
Le Sueur Cheese
Pretreatment Fac
Le Sueur
Industrial
Production
1801440
Gallons
Applied
LE SUEUR
Montgomery WWTP
Montgomery
Biosolids
Production
51.48
Dry Tons
Applied
LE SUEUR
Montgomery WWTP
Montgomery
Biosolids
Application
52.3
Dry Tons To 50.0 acres
LE SUEUR
Montgomery
Biosolids
Production
837600
Montgomery
Industrial
Application
35077.65
Montgomery
Industrial
Production
35080
Wet Tons
Applied
Montgomery
Industrial
Application
5856715
Gallons
To 397.0 acres
LE SUEUR
Montgomery WWTP
Seneca Foods Corp Montgomery
Seneca Foods Corp Montgomery
Seneca Foods Corp Montgomery
Seneca Foods Corp Montgomery
Montgomery
Industrial
Production
5896158
Gallons
Applied
LE SUEUR
Waterville WWTP
Waterville
Biosolids
Production
11.79
Dry Tons
Applied
LE SUEUR
Waterville WWTP
Waterville
Biosolids
Application
11.8
Dry Tons
To 2.0 acres
LE SUEUR
Waterville WWTP
Waterville
Biosolids
Production
33.68
Wet Tons
Applied
LE SUEUR
LE SUEUR
LE SUEUR
LE SUEUR
Size
Stored Waste
Closed
303,000 cu yd
1983
Name
Location
Stab Pond
Facility Class Design Flow
LE SUEUR
Elysian WWTP
Elysian
Stab Pond
D
0.0186
LE SUEUR
Kilkenny WWTP
Kilkenny
Stab Pond
D
0.0228
LE SUEUR
St Peter WWTP
St. Peter
Stab Pond
D
4
LE SUEUR
MDNR Sakatah State Park
Waterville
Stab Pond
D
0.0036
Units
Disposal
Dry Tons To 12.5 acres
Gallons
Applied
Dry Tons To 435.0 acres
Name
Location
Closed SLF
LE SUEUR
Sun Prairie SLF
Montgomery
Closed landrill
LE SUEUR
Tellijohn SLF
Le Sueur
Closed landrill
LE SUEUR
MN Sanitation Services SLF St. Peter
Closed landrill
County
Name
Size
Stored Waste
Closed
20/80
130,411 cu yds
1992
27.5/80
1.25 mill cu yd
1993
Jul-78 178,000 cu yd
1979
Location
Solids Type
Appl/Prod.
Quanity
Units
Disposal
MOWER
Austin WWTP
Austin
Biosolids
Production
629
Dry Tons
Applied
MOWER
Austin WWTP
Austin
Biosolids
Application
629.4
MOWER
Austin WWTP
Austin
Biosolids
Production
3496000
Gallons
Applied
MOWER
Hormel Foods Corp - Type IV Austin
Industrial
Production
8746
Dry Tons
MOWER
Hormel Foods Corp - Type IV Austin
Industrial
Application
8746.31
Dry Tons
Applied
To 2,864.0
acres
Name
Location
Stab Pond
Facility Class Design Flow
MOWER
Dexter WWTP
Dexter
Stab Pond
D
0.0454
MOWER
Haven Hutterian Brethren
Dexter
Stab Pond
D
0.0112
MOWER
Elkton WWTP
Elkton
Stab Pond
D
0.017
MOWER
Grand Meadow Stab Pond
D
0.12
MOWER
Grand Meadow WWTP
Lansing Township WWT
Improvements
Lansing
Stab Pond
D
0.026
MOWER
Leroy WWTP
Le Roy
Stab Pond
D
0.12
MOWER
Lyle WWTP
Lyle
Stab Pond
D
0.1774
MOWER
Racine WWTP
Racine
Stab Pond
D
0.039
MOWER
Rose Creek WWTP
Rose Creek
Stab Pond
D
0.065
MOWER
Sargeant WWTP
Sargeant
Stab Pond
D
0.0106
MOWER
Waltham WWTP
Waltham
Stab Pond
D
0.027
Name
Location
Closed SLF
MOWER
Red Rock
Austin
Closed landfill
MOWER
Adams SLF
Adams
Closed landfill
Location
Solids Type
Appl/Prod.
County
Name
Size
Dry Tons To 280.0 acres
Stored Waste
Closed
35/80 acres
234,000 cu yd
1980
2/3 acres
50,000 cu yd
1981
Quanity
Units
Disposal
Applied
OLMSTED
Byron WWTP
Byron
Biosolids
Production
92.4
Dry Tons
OLMSTED
Byron WWTP
Byron
Biosolids
Application
104.4
Dry Tons To 47.0 acres
OLMSTED
Byron WWTP
Byron
Biosolids
Production
506800
Gallons
Applied
OLMSTED
AMPI - Rochester - General
Rochester
Industrial
Application
2947522.98
Gallons
To 789.0 acres
OLMSTED
Rochester
Industrial
Production
2955263.01
Gallons
Rochester
Biosolids
Application
2730.51
Dry Tons
Applied
To 2,012.0
acres
Rochester
Biosolids
Production
2731.19
Dry Tons
Applied
Rochester
Biosolids
Production
13366600
Gallons
Applied
Rochester
Industrial
Production
87
Dry Tons
Applied
OLMSTED
AMPI - Rochester - General
Roch WWTP/Water
Reclamation Pl
Roch WWTP/Water
Reclamation Pl
Roch WWTP/Water
Reclamation Pl
Seneca Foods Corp Rochester
Seneca Foods Corp Rochester
Rochester
Industrial
Application
87.5
Dry Tons To 35.0 acres
OLMSTED
Stewartville WWTP
Stewartville
Biosolids
Application
75.98
Dry Tons To 103.3 acres
OLMSTED
Stewartville WWTP
Stewartville
Biosolids
Production
77.88
Dry Tons
Applied
OLMSTED
Stewartville WWTP
Stewartville
Biosolids
Production
934500
Gallons
Applied
Name
Location
Stab Pond
Facility Class Design Flow
Hallmark Terrace Inc
Rochester
Stab Pond
D
Name
Location
Open Landfill
OLMSTED
OLMSTED
OLMSTED
OLMSTED
OLMSTED
OLMSTED
OLMSTED
Kalmar Sanitary Landfill
0.018
Size
Open Landfill
Name
Location
Closed SLF
Olmsted County SLF
Rochester
Closed landfill
Size
Stored Waste
Closed
51.1/290
2.8 mil cu yd
1993
County
Name
City
Solids Type
Appl/Prod.
Quanity
Units
Disposal
RICE
Faribault WWTP
Faribault
Biosolids
Application
741.542
RICE
Faribault WWTP
Faribault
Biosolids
Production
742.3
Dry Tons
Applied
RICE
Faribault WWTP
Faribault
Biosolids
Production
3971500
Gallons
Applied
RICE
Morristown WWTP
Morristown
Biosolids
Application
13.5
Dry Tons
To 5.0 acres
RICE
Morristown WWTP
Morristown
Biosolids
Production
13.5
Dry Tons
Applied
RICE
Morristown WWTP
Morristown
Biosolids
Production
107800
Gallons
Applied
Name
Location
Open Landfill
Dry Tons To 326.1 acres
Size
RICE
Rice County Sanitary Landfill
County
Name
City
Solids Type
Appl/Prod.
Quanity
Units
Disposal
STEELE
Blooming Prairie WWTP
Bloom Prairie
Biosolids
Application
9.6
Dry Tons
To 8.0 acres
STEELE
Blooming Prairie WWTP
Bloom Prairie
Biosolids
Production
9.6
Dry Tons
Applied
STEELE
Blooming Prairie WWTP
Bloom Prairie
Biosolids
Production
164000
Gallons
Applied
STEELE
Medford WWTP
Medford
Biosolids
Application
21
Dry Tons To 10.0 acres
STEELE
Medford WWTP
Medford
Biosolids
Production
21
Dry Tons
Applied
STEELE
Medford
Biosolids
Production
141000
Gallons
Applied
Owatonna
Industrial
Application
0
Owatonna
Industrial
Application
2885.938
STEELE
Medford WWTP
Lakeside Foods Inc Owatonna Plant
Lakeside Foods Inc Owatonna Plant
Lakeside Foods Inc Owatonna Plant
Owatonna
Industrial
Production
9837
Dry Tons
Applied
STEELE
Owatonna WWTP
Owatonna
Biosolids
Production
102
Dry Tons
Transferred
STEELE
Owatonna WWTP
Owatonna
Biosolids
Production
361
Dry Tons
Applied
STEELE
Owatonna WWTP
Owatonna
Biosolids
Application
361.4
STEELE
Owatonna WWTP
Owatonna
Biosolids
Production
2845000
STEELE
STEELE
Open Landfill
To 0.0 acres
Dry Tons To 692.2 acres
Dry Tons To 253.0 acres
Gallons
Applied
Quanity
Units
Disposal
Name
Location
Stab Pond
Facility Class Design Flow
STEELE
Ellendale WWTP
Ellendale
Stab Pond
D
0.1003
STEELE
Medford
Stab Pond
D
0.0218
STEELE
Lazy U Mobile Home Park
MNDOT Straight River Rest
Area
Owatonna
Stab Pond
D
0.0093
Location
Open Landfill
STEELE
Name
Steele County Sanitary
Landfill
County
Name
City
Solids Type
Appl/Prod.
WABASHA
Lake City WWTP
Lake City
Biosolids
Production
166.1
Dry Tons
Transferred
WABASHA
Lake City WWTP
Plainview -Elgin San Dist
WWTP
Plainview -Elgin San Dist
WWTP
Plainview -Elgin San Dist
WWTP
Lake City
Biosolids
Production
2567336
Gallons
Transferred
Biosolids
Production
63
Dry Tons
Applied
Biosolids
Application
63.108
Biosolids
Production
346000
Name
Location
Stab Pond
Facility Class Design Flow
WABASHA
Kellogg WWTP
Kellogg
Stab Pond
D
0.06
WABASHA
Zumbro Falls WWTP
Zumbro Falls
Stab Pond
D
0.0297
WABASHA
WABASHA
WABASHA
Size
Open Landfill
Name
Location
Closed SLF
WABASHA
Wabasha County SLF
Wabasha
Closed landfill
8/8.3
Size
County
Name
City
Solids Type
WASECA
New Richland WWTP
New Richland
WASECA
New Richland WWTP
New Richland
WASECA
New Richland WWTP
New Richland
Stored Waste
Dry Tons To 33.5 acres
Gallons
Applied
Closed
272,000 cu yds
1989
Appl/Prod.
Quanity
Units
Disposal
Biosolids
Production
11.52
Dry Tons
Applied
Biosolids
Application
12
Biosolids
Production
93000
Dry Tons To 15.0 acres
Gallons
Applied
WASECA
Waseca WWTP
Waseca
Biosolids
Application
105.099
Dry Tons To 97.9 acres
WASECA
Waseca WWTP
Waseca
Biosolids
Production
105.1
Dry Tons
Applied
WASECA
Waseca WWTP
Waseca
Biosolids
Production
1294678
Gallons
Applied
Name
Location
Closed SLF
Size
Stored Waste
Closed
WASECA
Waseca County SLF
Waseca
Closed landfill
24.3/133
400,000 cu yd
1994
County
Name
City
Solids Type
Appl/Prod.
Quanity
WINONA
Lewiston WWTP
Lewiston
Biosolids
Application
15.375
Dry Tons To 102.5 acres
WINONA
Lewiston WWTP
Lewiston
Biosolids
Production
15.46
Dry Tons
Applied
WINONA
Lewiston WWTP
Lewis ton
Biosolids
Production
639250
Gallons
Applied
WINONA
Winona WWTP
Winona
Biosolids
Application
502.99
WINONA
Winona WWTP
Winona
Biosolids
Production
503
Dry Tons
Applied
WINONA
Winona WWTP
Winona
Biosolids
Production
3185
Wet Tons
Applied
Name
Location
Units
Disposal
Dry Tons To 280.0 acres
Stab Pond
Facility Class Design Flow
WINONA
MNDOT Enterprise Rest Area Lewiston
Stab Pond
D
0.0026
WINONA
Rollingstone WWTP
Rollingstone
Stab Pond
D
0.101
WINONA
Stockton WWTP
Stockton
Stab Pond
D
0.07
WINONA
Utica WWTP
Utica
Stab Pond
D
0.04
Name
Location
Closed SLF
Stored Waste
Closed
Geisler's SLF
Stockton
Closed Landfill
6/10 acres
50,000 cu yds
1977
Solids Type
Appl/Prod.
Quanity
Units
Disposal
Biosolids
Production
10000
Gallons
Transferred
Biosolids
Production
52.8
Dry Tons
Applied
Biosolids
Application
123.007
Biosolids
Production
1341500
WINONA
Size
will find out the following info to add Tuesday
Name
Location
St George Community WW
System
Whitewater River Poll Control
Fac
Whitewater River Poll Control
Fac
Whitewater River Poll Control
Fac
Dry Tons To 153.1 acres
Gallons
Applied
CHART 23. E-85 Stations
E85 Fuel Sites as of April 2005:
Station
Freeborn County Coop
Cenex
Address
302 E Clark St
City
Albert Lea
Status
Open
Freeborn County Coop
Cenex
Freeborn County Coop
Cenex
Severson's Conoco
125 Northstar Rd
Alden
Open
21604 State Highway
56
1401 4th St NW
Austin
Open
Austin
Open
Cenex
347 Hwy 218S
Ampride Express
714 E 14th St
Farm Country Coop Cenex 1217 5 th St. N.
Bloom Prairie Open
Blue Earth
Open
Cannon Falls Open
Saver Stop
Seversons Conoco
100 Twilite St.
303 S. Lakeshore Dr.
La Crescent
Lake City
Open
Open
Kwik Trip #334
Market Place Shell
Holiday #60
1271 N River Dr
100 10th Ave SE
100 Water St.
Mankato
New Prague
Northfield
Open
Open
Open
Central Coop Cenex
Kwik Trip
Meadowland Cenex
712 N. Cedar
4120 Hwy 52N
Hwy 68E
Owatonna
Rochester
Wabasso
Open
Open
Open
Farm Country Coop Cenex 900 3 rd Avenue
Sportman Stop
1818 N State St
Wanami ngo
Waseca
Open
Open
Corn Plus - Ethanol Plant
ProLube Express
Severson's Food Plus
Conoco
Winnebago
Winona
Winona
Open
Open
Open
711 6th Ave SE
1656 W Service Dr
50 Riverview Dr