The Mesaba Energy Project - Report Example

Topic: The Mesaba Energy Project The Mesaba Energy Project is a 603 megawatt Integrated gasification combined-cycle (IGCC) power plant, locatedon the Iron Range. After getting sanction from the US department of energy to begin construction by January 2008, it will be the cleanest coal plant in service by 2011. Coal is the factual measure of the United States energy strength, as one quarter of the world’s coal reserves are available in the United States. There are many coal fired electricity generating plants in America but the Mesaba energy project is using an innovative low-cost environmental compliance technology, namely IGCC that would remove not only air and water pollutants but would capture the CO2 from entering the atmosphere (Mesaba Energy Project – Fact Sheet). There has been a lot of commotion on the viability of the Mesaba energy project. Instead of bringing any benefits of technology, is the project going to make the life of people of Minnesota more vulnerable? There are arguments and counter-arguments against the Mesaba energy project. It is very important to reach a conclusion after checking the pros and cons of the project. It is being said that the Mesaba energy project, based on IGCC technology, would be cleaner than traditional energy-generating coal plants in performance, efficiency and emissions. Again, when we talk of innovative technology, some in-depth knowledge of the working of the gasification process is must because that is going to form basis for advocating the Mesaba energy project, located in north Minnesota. Gasification is a chemical process by which carbonic materials like coal, petroleum coke, biomass, etc. are transformed to a synthesis gas (syngas) through partial oxidation with air, oxygen, and steam by requirement (http://www.clean-energy.us/facts/gasification.htm). The ConocoPhillips E-Gas technology is the basis of gasification process – to convert coal into synthesis gas and clean the gas of impurities before burning. This technology (IGCC) is less pollutant to produce electricity from coal. It is not new, but the application is new – combining gasification technology with well-known combined-cycle technology. This gas is burned to turn generators and produce electricity. Typical coal-burning power plants release mercury, sulfur, nitrogen oxides, and lots of carbon dioxide (http://www.excelsiorenergy.com/igcc/index.html). Mesaba energy project should be favored, as it is practical than other energy sources like nuclear energy, natural gas, biomass, solar and wind energy. Nuclear energy produces dangerous radioactive waste; natural gas is becoming increasingly scarce and more costly. Biomass, solar and wind sources are attractive, but can’t provide sufficient energy the country requires. There are other lots of reasons favoring the Mesaba energy project. According to climatologist Daniel Schrag, coal produces more carbon dioxide per unit of energy than any other natural source. Its burning to produce electricity is harmful for the climate. But he is sure that gasification can trap CO2 and keep it from entering the atmosphere. Coal gasification technology is better in all aspects than traditional power plants (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/08/30/energygasification/). It is also cheaper and easier to capture carbon dioxide in a gasification plant after extracting energy from coal and injecting it into a geological reservoir. Sequestration is the process to capture CO2 from entering into the atmosphere. CO2 is compressed and piped into sediment under deep water, to remain intact in oil wells and aquifers (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/08/30/energygasification/). Opponents of the Mesaba energy project argue that there is no sea-shore or oil well to bury the CO2 near the Iron Range. But the Excelsior energy company reports state that the company has already submitted its project of laying pipeline below the road so that pipeline laying work gets completed by the time it reaches its next stage. Already, it is happening in North Dakota, outside the town of Beulah, where carbon dioxide is being pumped into oil wells at its finishing trip in Saskatchewan. The sequestration process comes with the added benefit of pushing the last oil out of the wells, as carbon dioxide is pumped into oil wells, letting the carbon dioxide remained trapped below the ground. Another argument given against the Mesaba energy project is that instead of using coal to produce electricity, it is well worth the idea to explore other resources of producing energy like solar, wind and biomass; using coal should be the last alternative and before even that, it is argued that we should control our consumption of energy so that there remains no scope of polluting the environment. But it seems impractical to control our consumption. Coal is such a cheap source of energy that the additional cost of compressing the carbon underground won’t tilt the cost balance in favor of wind and solar energy. It has worked in North Dakota; it will certainly work in Minnesota. We should not ignore other resources but the nation’s needs can’t be left solely on renewable resources. Coal gasification is the best method of using coal to produce electricity (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/08/30/energygasification/). The climatic effect is not the only consideration while speaking in favor of the Mesaba energy project. It should be welcomed by the people of Minnesota because of many other reasons. According to the study conducted in October 2006 by the University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD) Labovitz School of Business and Economic Research on “The Economic Impact of Constructing and Operating An Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Power Generation Facility on the Iron Range”, it will bring huge employment opportunities. The project is going to create full time, part time and temporary construction jobs, peaking at 1,555. Job creation is not the only quick benefit; expenditure of Mesaba One’s capital on construction costs will affect consumer spending positively, creating around two thousand full-time, part-time, and temporary jobs in other sectors. Likewise, the project will create 107 permanent jobs after it begins operations. Other sectors of the economy will be benefited indirectly in the typical years of operations of Mesaba One by generating more employment opportunities numbering 143. Although the Mesaba construction syndicate belongs to non-local businesses, most of the jobs would be given through local union halls. Local construction workers are highly skilled; they would be company’s preferred choice to non-locals (http://www.excelsiorenergy.com/mesaba/benefits_frame.html). A comparison of Mesaba energy project’s emission levels to recently sanctioned, utility-scale, SCPC coal plants namely NRG Cajun in Louisiana, Mid American in Lowa, and Elm Road in Wisconsin show that Mesaba energy project mercury emissions are expected to be half of the mercury emissions from the Elm Road SCPC plant in Wisconsin, and a decrease of two-thirds to seven-eighths in the mercury emissions from the other recently permitted SCPC plants in Iowa and Louisiana.  This is an accomplishment of the IGCC technology. Comparing the Mesaba energy project to some of the cleanest coal fueled power plants, one fact emerges that Mesaba project’s emissions of different categories of pollutant are either equal or less than those plants tested on combustible technology although applying maximum controls (http://www.excelsiorenergy.com/mesaba/environmental_frame.html). Not that only the people of Minnesota are in favor of Mesaba energy project, legislators of the area are also supporting the plant irrespective of their party affiliations because it is a model of cutting edge clean coal technology, which is good for environment and economy (http://www.timberjay.com/current.php?article=2548). Further, demand of energy is going to increase in future. If such energy projects are not sanctioned, Xcel Energy’s demand for natural gas will increase, competing with local natural resource economy, depending on natural gas for power. Result would be increased operating costs for local industries, making it hard to compete in world market for taconite pellets and paper. Coal is the only option left for the businesses and people of Minnesota to be in competition and save the business on rising operating costs. The project should also be welcomed for creating $1 million in real estate taxes to Itasca County – a result of project construction and operation. No new transmission lines will be laid down to the Twin Cities. To gain cost-efficiency, existing power lines will be upgraded to provide stability to the regional grid. Some critics of the Mesaba energy project offer wind energy as a better alternative – a more logical solution. But when the wind doesn’t blow, it must have another resource to replace. Wind energy plants always perform below capacity, like the Buffalo Ridge wind farm. Customers were charged high rate per mw, which was not marketing wise policy (http://www.grandrapidsmn.com/placed/index.php?story_id=221996). Another issue of contention against Mesaba energy project is the issue of “highly technical jobs”, which, it is argued, would be filled not by the people of Itasca County but outsiders. Aren’t the people of Itasca County wise enough to let these “highly technical jobs” go to others and accept less technical jobs. There is no fact in the argument that all economic benefits will be taken away by the investors. Local residents are protesting against the project because they have been misguided about the high cost in tariff rates. It is propagated that energy from the Mesaba project will be costly than traditional sources. The fact is that it will be equal to the conventional coal plants due to Mesaba’s increased efficiency, elasticity of approach in using different fuels, clean environmental profile, federal motivations and other benefits. It is said that Xcel Energy is compelled to enter into an agreement to buy power from Excelsior Energy through the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. It is not truth. New base load additions are required. In case, Xcel Energy decides not to purchase from the Mesaba project, it will be “more nuclear waste, more mercury and particulate matter emissions, and an old coal plant… possibly capture carbon dioxide from.” Actually, it is market competition, and innovation, which is compelling other utilities to oppose the Mesaba project. The blame game won’t help. Had it been the case, Judges had not issued orders favoring Mesaba, approving the contract for the sale of electricity to Xcel Energy. It is in line with the mood of the legislature in 2003. The company has been successful in convincing the court on meeting the necessary criterion (Excelsior Energy Mesaba Messenger November 2006). The Mesaba energy project is not an experiment that creates doubts in the mind of common man. The IGCC technology that will be employed in the project has already been tested and found successful in the Wabash River ConocoPhillips’ IGCC plant in Indiana. It will provide opportunity to Mesaba energy plant to improvise on the Wabash plant by equipping the plant with extra gasifier train. This change will increase its reliability level from Wabash’s high 80 % to 90% (Mesaba Messenger: Nov. 2006:3) In no way, the latest technology will put the Mesaba energy project behind other conventional coal plants. Other chemicals produced by the plant will be used by industries, like hydrogen could possibly be used as a fuel for cars and trucks. Actually, the Mesaba energy project is a preferred choice not just in the economic term of creating more jobs but more than that producing cleaner electricity and accepting innovations in life. Works cited “Benefits to Minnesota.” 28 March 2007. . “Coal.” 28 March 2007. . “Environmental Profile.” 28 March 2007. . “Gasification may turn coal into clean fuel.” Bob Kelleher. Minnesota Public Radio. 20 September 2006. 28 March 2007. . “Gasification Technology R&D: Program Performance Goal.” 28 March 2007. . “Gasification: the arguments.” Stephanie Hemphill. Minnesota Public Radio. 21 November 2003. 28 March 2007. . “Judges Issue Order Favorable to Mesaba.” Excelsior Energy Mesaba Messenger November 2006. 28 March 2007 . Mesaba Energy Project – Fact sheet Excelsior Energy. 28 March 2007 . “Mesaba Energy Project Selected as Cutting Edge National IGCC Prototype,” Excelsior Energy Mesaba Messenger March 2007. 28 March 2007 . “Mesaba Project Faces Opposition in own Industry.” Than Tibbetts. Herald Review. 27 November 2006. 08:18:43 AM. 28 March 2007. . “Qualities of the Mesaba Energy Project.” 28 March 2007 . Sen, Tom Bakk. “Coal Gasification Provides A Solution.” Timberjay Time 1 April 2001 17:3528 March 2007. . “Wind Energy Is Not 100 Percent Reliable, Not A Logical Solution.” Herald-Review. 7 July 2006. 03:54:16 PM. 28 March 2007. . “What is Gasification?” 28 March 2007. . Read More