Biomass Feasibility Project Final Report - Xcel Energy

Learning more about the energy potential and costs of wastes. This idea goes to the very reason
for this study – to present in a flexible, easy-to-use electronic format, BioPET, how much biowaste
is generated, how much energy it contains, how much it costs delivered, and how much it is
worth converted into electric power. Not only should this tool simplify an assessment of
particular feedstocks, it (in conjunction with gopher) should help prevent an over-investment in biopower
capacity that would demand more biomass than Minnesota can supply without harming
its other industries or its ecosystems.
Problems in Securing Long-Term Biomass Fuel Supplies
Difficulties in securing fuel supplies contributed to the failure of the EPS/Beck project, which
couldn’t amass enough land for plantations, and the NGPP project, because Itasca Power
couldn’t find enough wood waste to fuel the plant. Some realized projects also may have
concerns about supply. The Laurentian Energy Authority asked for and received a subsidy from
the state for fuel supplies, and District Energy St. Paul has made a concerted effort to expand its
control over municipal transfer stations (City of Albertville, 2006; City of St. Louis Park, 2007).
A recent study of alternatives for the Rock-Tenn recycling paper mill, which is losing its long-time
steam host, Xcel Energy’s High Bridge power plant due to a conversion to natural gas, suggests
that nearly all biomass fuels in the Twin Cities Metro area are committed to other uses, including
fuel for existing bio-power facilities. The study found that biomass fuels for Rock Tenn would be
expensive and complicated. No single feedstock is in the area is abundant enough to fuel the
mill (Nelson, 2007).
Responses to Limited Biomass Fuels
Response is the right word. Solution would not be. There has been some well intentioned but
futile speculation about biomass alternatives. The bio-power developer will have to look long
and hard at fuel supply, not just in the context of current availability but also in the context of
contingencies that might affect future supply. Since concerted development of dedicated
energy crops is uncertain, we have to work with what exists. So the only way to mitigate fuel
resource risk is study. Beginning with resources like BioPET and gopher is a necessary first step.
Information Gaps
Investors may lack the technical knowledge to understand a new technology. Confronted with
the unknown, they naturally retreat to areas they are familiar with. Studies have found that the
inexperience of potential investors has proven to be a serious obstacle to the development of
bioenergy facilities (Itron, 2004).
Limited expertise and resources have challenged the adoption of anaerobic digester (AD)
biogas power systems on dairy farms. While many farmers may have enough manure to support
an AD system tied to generating equipment, they may not have the expertise or the time to
operate it (DOC, 2003a).
While the size of Minnesota’s biomass resources is known (see Chapter II), the impact that new
bio-power facilities would have on their availability and price is difficult to model. There are few
bio-power facilities in the Upper Midwest on which to base supply curves.
This lack of information is a particular concern because demand for many biomass feedstocks is
inelastic. Substantial new demand for biomass materials could dramatically increase biomass
Identifying Effective Biomass Strategies: Page 141
Quantifying Minnesota’s Resources and Evaluating Future Opportunities