CC_Minutes_2007_1015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

e la r i €~ ci ee~i onday, coo er , 2 7 age and efficiencies if any; risks and unknowns of new technologies; potential long- term heat saturation of ground reducing geothermal effectiveness; and long-term Master Plan for the City Hall campus. Further discussion included energy savings to be realized; potential for expanding the geothermal field; future cost of wells; use of waste heat; integration of the sys- tem; state mandates for meeting 25 x 25 goals that by 2025, 25% of alI electricity in l~'IN be generated from renewable sources; right-of--way issues for the geother- mal field; overall field placement and location issues to fit the future Master Plan; maintenance for geothermal versus conventional and impacts to existing staff and a different skill set, with geothermal a simpler technology, with some uncertain- ties. Mr. Brokke reviewed the next steps requested of the City Council if they were in- terested in pursuing geothermal technology, with the need for a conductivity test- ing, estimated to be approximately $10,000; the resulting time table, as well as time constraints based on outstanding and needed repairs of the four (4) compo- nents mentioned earlier. Mr. Tullberg addressed more detailed information on the geothermal system compared to the current system and difference in direct and indirect systems. Additional discussion included type of materials for piping (stainless steel or car- bon versus plastic or polystyrene}; proper specifications and training of staff as vi- tal start-up procedures impacting the value and efficiency of the proposed geo- thermal system; ice quality addressed through a thermal storage buffer or device; Councilmember Roe spoke in support of pursuing conductivity testing for the geothermal technology and phasing it into the system. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of pursuing the technology and opined the need to get on a different path to increase recognition and reduce environmental issues; and the positive payback on the initial investment indicated at 6 - 12 years. Councilmember Pust, further opined that this was an ideal leadership op- portunity for the City to pursue to make a difference environmentally, and lead by example. Further discussion included annual energy costs; year-round ice maintenance; and revenue sources. Councilmember Ihlan opined that her long-term environmental concern was whether the City could continue to justify an indoor area, given the amount of en- ergy required, and whether it was sustainable both economically and environmen- tally. Councilmember Ihlan further opined that if it was to continue, the geother- mal technology made more sense, to use currently wasted energy and be more ef- ficient and greener, not just from a utility bill standpoint, but from the City's car- bon footprint.