City of Grand Forks - Print Friendly Form

Committee Minutes

ALTERNATIVE AND RENEWABLE ENGERGY SUBCOMMITTEE

MEETING MINUTES

January 10, 2008
4:30 p.m.

Attendance:
Judel Buls – Subcommittee Chair
Debrah Pflughoeft-Hassett – EERC
Don Tucker – Grand Forks Wastewater Treatment Superintendent
Todd Matelski – Grand Forks Wastewater Treatment Operations
Pete Haga – City of Grand Forks
Melanie Parvey-Bibey – City of Grand Forks
Hazel Fetters-Sletten – City of Grand Forks
Michael Mann – University of North Dakota
Brian Poykko – Obermiller Nelson
Tina Jensen – JLG Architects
Jib Wilson – EERC
Bradley Stevens – EERC
Kirk Jackson – EERC

This months meeting was held at the EERC, where several recent projects the EERC is working on regarding alternative and renewable energy sources were discussed. In particular, the following topics were presented:

1) Wind Energy
2) Landfill Methane for Microturbine Use
3) Hydrogen Fuel Technologies

WIND ENERGY

Three areas of interest were identified, related to wind energy including municipal projects, commercial/industrial entities, and residential uses.

Based on location, the wastewater treatment plant, a new water treatment plant (if constructed), and opportunities for the existing and potentially a new industrial park were noted as sites where wind energy, in terms of a utility sized turbine, could be applied. It was noted that installing turbines closer to urban areas reduces turbine efficiency, and further, a map was provided of wind resources in the State, which indicated that while the City of Grand Forks area has potential for wind energy development, there are other areas in the region that have a greater resource potential than the immediate area.

The EERC is currently planning a Small Wind Turbine Training Center, which will be located on City property, currently owned by the water utility, located west of I-90 and south of Demers Avenue, near the City’s water system clearwell. Two turbines will be installed at this site and will be available for training purposes to educational institutions, local residents that may be considering small wind turbine installation, and technicians for wind turbine equipment, as needed. A discussion regarding the potential for training that would result in a technical certification ensued. While this would be possible, there was some concern that a dedicated technical field for small wind turbine operation and maintenance may not be economically profitable at this point due to the limited number of installations across the State.

Other notable topics included the economic advantages related to selling generated power back to the grid and differences that exist from State to State in terms of the extent of those economic advantages, Green Tags/Renewable Energy Credits, and Renewable Energy Bonds.

It was noted that North Dakota does not allow for sell back of alternative energy sources to the grid at a comparable rate to that of purchase. In fact, the sell-back rate was $0.02 /kW versus $0.04 to $0.06/kW, respectively. This makes over-generation less of a benefit when considering alternative energy sources in North Dakota, as compared to other States.

In terms of Green Tags, Renewable Energy Credits, and Renewable Energy Bonds, discussion involved how these programs work, how they are regulated, and how they compared to actual renewable energy development. These were considered some of the viable options for supporting renewable energy development that the City could pursue, in lieu of developing its own wind turbine farm.

The presentation is attached to the email for more information.

LANDFILL METHANE GAS

A preliminary study was done at the City’s existing landfill to estimate the amount of methane gas that is released to the atmosphere and determine what the advantages of capturing this gas and using it as an energy source would be for the City. The following conclusions were drawn from the study:

1) The City’s landfill produces a very large amount of methane gas each year that has a large carbon footprint and contributes to greenhouse gas
2) The City’s landfill was not constructed with methane gas capture components, and has also not been constructed in a manner to optimize the capture of that gas, even if infrastructure is installed to capture the gas.
3) A significant upfront capital investment to build a facility capable of capturing, transmitting, cleaning, and converting the methane gas to energy is required. The project noted that for the range of gas capture possible at the Grand Forks Landfill, the economics may not support construction of a cogeneration facility, however, the EERC may have some ideas to offset some of these costs. Estimates were presented at $2 to $3 million dollars, potentially more.
4) Potential sources for utilization of the energy produced include the City’s Baling Facility, the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the Airport.
5) Some heat generation is also possible, which could offset natural gas purchase and heating costs at the City’s Baling Facility and Wastewater Treatment Plant as well.
6) The preliminary study suggests that, depending on how the City chooses to use the energy, there would be different economic benefits, with an estimated range from as little as $25,000 per year up to $650,000 per year.
7) Finally, even if the City chooses not to pursue a project for capturing the gas and using it to offset energy costs at its municipal facilities, it is recommended that capturing the gas and burning it be completed to reduce carbon emissions and be responsible to the environment.
8) The methane gas source is a finite energy source. It could last for as little as 10 additional years, or as long as 25 to 30 years.
9) Based on several assumptions regarding availability of gas, capital expenses, operation and maintenance expenses, and the ability to utilize or sell-back assumed fractions of the energy produced, it was estimated that the City could see economic benefit from such a system in 9 to 10 years.

Since it was noted that the potential exists for economic benefit to installing such a facility, discussion about the next step for studying this project followed. The following was suggested:

1) A next phase would involve installation of the infrastructure to properly extract the methane gas from the landfill, measure it, and obtain a much more reliable estimate of total gas generated on an annual basis. The project could include as estimated 24 wells across the landfill, at an estimated cost of $20,000 per well, as well as a year’s worth of data collection.
2) The next phase could then include data interpretation, layout and preliminary design of a facility to convert the gas to energy, and an estimated cost and implementation timeline for such a project.
3) If construction of a facility is both economically and environmentally beneficial, the City could then determine how to move forward with a project.
4) If it appears that the project does not provide economic benefit, the City could either abandon the project in its entirety or add the infrastructure to flame the gas, which would be a small cost since the wells would have already been installed at this point to collect the gas. This would be a much more environmentally friendly option than leaving the landfill to off-gas on its own.

The presentation is attached for further information.

HYDROGEN FUEL TECHNOLOGIES

The EERC also made a presentation on Hydrogen fuel technologies. The primary take aways from this presentation included:

1) Hydrogen technologies are available today and although there are some economic barriers to hydrogen energy, there are applications that could provide a considerable return on investment, if planned correctly.
2) One application noted was powering utility fleets. Storage of hydrogen and access to refueling is currently prohibitive for widespread and immediate incorporation into the general transportation market. However, because utility fleets typically do not have large ranges and the vehicles must return to a bulk refueling area, investment in this type of technology could pay off in the end.
3) There are environmental benefits to hydrogen fuel including, high efficiency and reliability, zero/near zero emissions, a wide range of domestic resources available to generate it, some of which are more economical than others, and many of which are renewable, and reduced air pollution, to name a few.
4) There are also several barriers to widespread application of this technology. Some of those noted in the presentation are summarized here. For facility powering purposes, the comparable cost of current energy sources is much more economical than hydrogen. For vehicle powering, although gas prices are rising, the widespread distribution and installation of refueling infrastructure is currently cost prohibitive. Furthermore, there are currently no codes or standards for these types of fueling systems, which makes it difficult for market development to move forward.
5) A discussion on the safety considerations regarding hydrogen fuel also took place. It was demonstrated that hydrogen fuel is actually a safer alternative than current fuels for automotive applications.

The group considered whether further study of fleet conversion to hydrogen fueled vehicles could be a potential recommendation for future study by the City. There are currently hydrogen fueled vehicles operating in Minot, ND in conjunction with EERC related efforts. A brochure on hydrogen production and utilization was provided. This brochure is attached to the email with these minutes, along with the presentation.

NEXT MEETING

The next meeting was not scheduled as more than half of the attendees had to leave before the meeting was complete. A meeting time will be determined at the next group meeting, on January 17^th, at 6:00 p.m . at City Hall. Topics for the next meeting will include a presentation by EERC staff on Solar Power possibilities, and a review of information that various project team members suggested they could provide at the first meeting. In addition, the group will make an effort to compile some preliminary recommendations that would support the initiatives identified by the Mayor, and determine a direction for subsequent efforts.

Respectfully Submitted:

Judel Buls, Subcommittee Chair