EPA/600/R-08/023
October 2007
Converting Limbo Lands to
Energy-Generating Stations:
Renewable Energy Technologies on
Underused, Formerly Contaminated Sites
By:
Gail Mosey, Donna Heimiller, Douglas Dahle, Laura Vimmerstedt, and Liz Brady-Sabeff
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401
Under Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337
Through EPA IAGNO. DW89930254010
NREL/TP-640-41522
For:
George Huffman, EPA Project Manager
Sustainable Technology Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development
funded the research described here under IAG DW89939897-01-0 through the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE) Contract DE-AC09-96EW96405. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer
and administrative review and has been cleared for publication as an EPA document. Reference
herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement or
recommendation. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or
reflect those of the EPA or DOE, or any agency thereof.
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency
strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human
activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate,
EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental
problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological
resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation of
technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threatens human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is
on methods and their cost effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water,
and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of
contaminated sites, sediments, and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution;
and restoration of ecosystems. The NRMRL collaborates with both public and private-sector
partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging
problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems by developing and
promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing scientific and
engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing the technical
support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and
strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the
user community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
Abstract
This report addresses the potential for using "Limbo Lands" as sites for renewable energy
generating stations. Limbo Lands are considered as underused, formerly contaminated sites, and
include former Superfund sites, landfills, brownfields, abandoned mine lands, former industrial
sites, and certain government installations.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) conducted this study for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
Sustainable Technology Division (NRMRL-STD). The objective of this report, which provides a
geographic screening of potential sites, is to address Limbo Lands that are ready for
redevelopment and their feasibility with renewable energy technologies (RETs).
The report discusses reasons for considering RETs (and which ones) as a redevelopment option
on Limbo Lands, describes the geographic screening process, identifies high-potential limbo land
sites for RET redevelopment, includes discussion of two specific types of Limbo Lands:
brownfields and abandoned mine lands, and provides conclusions and recommendations.
IV
-------
Contents
Page
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Contents v
Figures vi
Tables viii
Acronyms ix
Acknowledgments x
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 NREL Experience in Renewable Energy Site Evaluation 2
1.2 Report Organization 2
2.0 Reasons for Considering RETs as a Redevelopment Option on Limbo Lands 3
3.0 Process for Geographic Screening of Limbo Lands to Identify
High-Potential Sites for Redevelopment with RETs 3
3.1 Limbo Lands Under Consideration in this Report 4
3.2 Site Readiness for Redevelopment 4
3.3 Application of Land-Use Exclusions 6
4.0 Identification of High-Potential Limbo Lands for Redevelopment
Using RETs 7
4.1 Wind Power Considerations and Resource Availability 7
4.1.1 Land Exclusions for Wind 8
4.1.2 Screening Criteria for Wind 8
4.1.3 Large-Wind RET High-Potential Site Identification 9
4.1.4 Small-Wind RET High-Potential Site Identification 11
4.2 Solar Power 13
4.2.1 CSP Resource Availability 13
4.2.2 CSP RET High-Potential Site Identification 14
4.2.3 Photovoltaic Resource 16
4.2.4 PV RET High-Potential Sites 16
4.3 Biomass 17
4.3.1 Growing Biomass 17
4.3.2 Producing Ethanol with a Dry Mill Corn Ethanol Plant 18
4.3.3 GeneratingBiopower 18
4.3.4 Screening Criteria for Biomass 19
4.3.5 Growing Corn as a Feedstock for Dry Mill Corn Ethanol
Plant High-Potential Sites 20
4.3.6 Dry Mill Corn Ethanol Plant or Biopower Plant
High-Potential Sites 22
-------
Contents (cont'd)
Page
5.0 Other Types of Limbo Lands - Brownfields and Abandoned Mine Lands 24
5.1 Brownfi elds 24
5.1.1 Florida Brownfields 25
5.1.2 PV in Florida 26
5.1.3 Biomass in Florida 27
5.2 Abandoned Mine Lands 30
6.0 Recommendations and Conclusions 31
Appendix A - An Assessment of RET Potential at a Former Mine in
Beatty, Nevada 32
Appendix B - PV and CSP Screening Criteria for BLM and USFS
Evaluation by NREL 34
Appendix C - Wind Screening Criteria for Evaluation for BLM and USFS
by NREL 35
Figures
Page
Figure 1: Map of sites listed as "construction complete" or "deleted" in the
NPLasof July 15, 2005 5
Figure 2: Map of sites that meet land exclusions bulleted under Section 3.3 7
Figure 3: Wind resource map 8
Figure 4: Sites that meet preliminary screening criteria for large wind 10
Figure 5: Final large wind sites 10
Figure 6: Sites that meet preliminary screening criteria for small wind 11
Figure 7: Final sites for small wind 12
Figure 8: Concentrating solar power (CSP) resource availability 13
Figure 9: Sites that meet preliminary screening criteria for CSP 15
VI
-------
Figures (cont'd)
Page
Figure 10: Final sites for C SP 15
Figure 11: Photovoltaic (PV) resource availability with potential sites 16
Figure 12: Biomass crop residues availability, with ethanol biorefineries and
biopower plants that exist or are under construction 17
Figure 13: All biomass residue resource availability, with biorefineries and
biopower plants that exist or are under construction 19
Figure 14: Sites that meet preliminary screening criteria for growing corn as
a feedstock for biofuels, with biorefineries that exist or are under construction 21
Figure 15: Final sites for growing corn as a feedstock for biofuels, with
biorefineries that exist or are under construction 21
Figure 16: Sites remaining after applying preliminary screening criteria for
dry mill corn ethanol and biopower plants, with biorefmery and biopower
plants that exist or are under construction 23
Figure 17: Final sites for dry mill corn ethanol and/or biopower plants, with
biorefmery and biopower plants that exist or are under construction 24
Figure 18: Brownfields in Florida 25
Figure 19: PV resource availability in Florida, with all brownfield sites 26
Figure 20: Agricultural biomass resource availability in Florida, with all
brownfield sites 27
Figure 21: Biomass residue availability of all residues in Florida, with all
brownfield sites 28
Figure 22: Fligh-potential brownfields for biopower plant and dry mill corn
ethanol plant 29
Figure 23: Abandoned mine land (AML) locations 30
VII
-------
Tables
Page
Table 1: Screening Criteria for Siting Wind on Limbo Lands 9
Table 2: Screening Criteria for Siting CSP on Limbo Lands 14
Table 3: Land Considerations and Screening Criteria for Siting Biomass
Operations on Limbo Lands 20
Table B-l: Screening Screening Criteria Developed by NREL for PV and
CSP Resources for Evaluations Conducted on Behalf of BLM and USFS 34
Table C-l: Screening Criteria Developed by NREL for Wind Resource
for Evaluations Conducted on Behalf of BLM and USFS 35
VIM
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AML - abandoned mine land
BLM - Bureau of Land Management
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CSP - concentrating solar power
DOD - (U.S.) Department of Defense
DOE - (U.S.) Department of Energy
DOI-OSM - Department of Interior's Office of Surface Mining
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
GAP - Gap Analysis Program
GIS - Geographic Information Systems
NPL - National Priority List
NREL - National Renewable Energy Laboratory
NRMRL-STD - National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Sustainable Technology
Division
OSWER - Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PV - photovoltaics
RETs - renewable energy technologies
USFS-U.S. Forest Service
IX
-------
Acknowledgments
This document was prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
Sustainable Technologies Division (NRML-STD). Gail Mosey would like to thank Michelle
Kubik for her editing contribution.
-------
1.0 Introduction
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) conducted this study for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Risk Management Research Laboratory,
Sustainable Technology Division (NRMRL-STD), to address the potential for using "Limbo
Lands" as sites for renewable energy generating stations. Limbo Lands are considered as
underused, formerly contaminated sites, and include former Superfund sites, landfills,
brownfields,1 abandoned mine lands, former industrial sites, and certain government
installations.
NRMRL-STD seeks to advance the use of renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies
on Limbo Lands. Their goals include advancing cleaner technologies, reducing the
environmental impacts of energy systems, and improving management of environmentally
challenging lands. To support these goals, NRMRL-STD has selected energy-related
development of environmentally challenging sites as a priority topic for investigation. Potential
environmental benefits can include less waste, emissions, and depletion of fossil fuels;
advancement of clean and high efficiency technology; and more efficient land use.
The objective of this report, which provides a geographic screening of potential sites, is to
address Limbo Lands that are ready for redevelopment and their feasibility with renewable
energy technologies (RETs). This can be determined by resource availability, land-use criteria,
and access to other infrastructure (e.g., roads, transmission lines). Further technical and financial
analysis of these preliminarily selected sites will be needed to determine the optimal sites for
development of projects.
There are many issues that must be addressed when considering renewable energy as a
redevelopment option, and appropriate resource siting is only one. The decision to site RETs on
Limbo Lands does not necessarily address the entire redevelopment issue. Other issues not
considered in this report include reasons for a renewable energy developer to choose a Limbo
Land site, ownership of the site, societal advantages, and the availability or lack of incentives for
the developer.
Various types of RETs can be considered as viable options for redevelopment of Limbo
Lands. The RETs2 considered here generally meet the criteria of being cost-competitive.
These technologies include:
1 EPA states that, ".. .brownfield site means real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be
complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant." Definition
Source: The Brownfields Site definition is found in Public Law 107-118 (H.R. 2869) - "Small Business Liability
Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act" signed into law January 11, 2002.
2 For additional information about each RET, see www.nrel.gov.
-------
Wind, including small3 and large wind,4
Solar power technologies, including concentrating solar power (CSP) and photovoltaics
(PV), and
Biomass, including growing biomass, a biofuels plant, and a biopower plant.
1.1 NREL Experience in Renewable Energy Site Evaluation
NREL has conducted - or is now conducting - several evaluations of lands most suitable for
select RETs, such as wind and solar. These projects have given NREL the opportunity to
develop a methodology to identify the sites with the greatest RET potential. The screening
criteria to identify top sites, developed through NREL's experience, provide a foundation for the
criteria used to assess RETs and their potential in Limbo Lands redevelopment.
NREL recently supported the evaluation of a former mine site in Beatty, Nevada. Further
discussion of this evaluation can be found in Appendix A.
With respect to full-scale assessment of opportunities for siting renewable energy on federal
lands, NREL has performed renewable energy evaluations for the Bureau of Land Management5
(BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service6 (USFS), and has evaluation projects underway for the U.S.
Department of Defense (DOD) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). For each of these
evaluations, NREL worked with the agencies sponsoring the assessment to develop criteria for
selecting the most desirable land areas for potential renewable energy project development.
These criteria are presented in Appendices B and C. The goal of these evaluations was not to
locate sites for specific projects, but rather to provide federal land managers with an
understanding of the renewable resource on their lands, and to highlight regions with highest
potential for near-term development, as well as long-term management strategies. Some of these
strategies have included successful promotion of appropriate federal lands as renewable energy
project sites.
1.2 Report Organization
This report is organized into six sections. Section 2 discusses reasons for considering RETs as a
redevelopment option on Limbo Lands, and the RETs under consideration in this report.
Section 3 describes the geographic screening process. Section 4 identifies high-potential Limbo
Land sites for RET redevelopment. Section 5 addresses two specific types of Limbo Lands:
brownfields and abandoned mine lands. Section 6 includes conclusions and recommendations.
3 Small wind uses Class 3 wind, which has a wind power of 300-400 W/m2, wind speed at 50 m of 6.4 - 7.0 m/s or
14.3-15.7mph.
4 Large wind uses Class 4 wind and greater, which has a wind power of at least 400 W/m2, wind speed at 50 m of at
least 7.0 m/s or 15.7 mph.
5 "Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on Public Lands." (2003). 95 pp.; NREL Report No. TP-550-
33530; DOE/GO-102003-1704. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33530.pdf
6 "Assessing the Potential for Renewable Energy on National Forest System Lands. " (2005). 124pp.; NREL Report
No. BK-710-36759. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/36759.pdf
-------
2.0 Reasons for Considering RETs as a Redevelopment Option on
Limbo Lands
The development of Limbo Lands comes with a variety of goals, and the reasons for considering
RETs as a redevelopment option are discussed here. EPA's Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) states7 the reasoning behind citing energy-generating facilities
on revitalized lands as follows:
"Revitalized properties present opportunities for meeting the land needs of the
hundreds of new energy facilities anticipated to be developed in the coming
decades. Through focused site screening and identification, interagency
coordination, and partnerships with the utility sector and communities, EPA
OSWER can help restore contaminated lands while helping to further domestic
energy security."
RETs, in particular, may be considered for reuse applications. EPA OSWER further states that
reasons8 for pursuing renewable energy projects may include:
Taking stress off undeveloped lands (greenfields) for construction of new energy
facilities;
Using existing transmission capacity and infrastructure of formerly developed lands;
Providing economically viable reuse to sites with significant cleanup costs or low real
estate development demand; and
Spurring needed investment in both urban and rural communities, and creating jobs.
3.0 Process for Geographic Screening of Limbo Lands to Identify
High-Potential Sites for Redevelopment with RETs
The geographic screening for identifying Limbo Land redevelopment using RETs is a multistage
process and depends, to some extent, on the renewable energy resource being considered. It
generally follows the process outlined below.
Stage I: Identify initial sites for screening process. The first stage is to identify Limbo
Lands for further screening, whether they are former Superfund sites, abandoned mine
lands, brownfields, or some other type of Limbo Land. The sites are then mapped using
Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Ideally, for optimal site identification, data for
each site would include GIS coordinates (or data that can be translated into coordinates
such as latitude and longitude or address), parcel size, and some indication of the status
of cleanup at the site.
Stage II: Eliminate sites based on land exclusions, then on minimum parcel size.
The next stage is to exclude sites that are located in areas that would preclude
redevelopment such as wetlands, national parks, and national conservation areas. The
7 Domestic Energy Development on Revitalized Lands, Ed Chu, EPA OSWER, Draft - December 2005.
8 Ibid.
-------
sites that remain after land-use exclusions are screened for parcel size because most
RETs considered here require a minimum size to be viable.
Stage III: Consider the renewable energy resource and the remaining RET-specific
screening criteria and identify high-potential sites. Limbo Lands that remain after
applying land exclusions and minimum parcel size evaluations are screened for quality of
the renewable resource and infrastructure considerations.
3.1 Limbo Lands under Consideration in this Report
To determine potential Limbo Lands for RET redevelopment, a data source is necessary to
identify initial sites for further screening. Ideal information for mapping and screening the sites
are geographic coordinates such as latitude and longitude, parcel size, and status of cleanup.
Status of cleanup is an important factor for this screening because this report considers only
lands that are ready or nearly ready for redevelopment.
This study uses the National Priority List (NPL),9 developed and maintained by the EPA. EPA
describes the NPL as, ".. .the list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States and
its territories. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites
warrant further investigation."10 The NPL includes the necessary information for mapping and
screening the sites: geographic coordinates of latitude and longitude, parcel size, and NPL status,
which is an indication of readiness for reuse. Data from the NPL can be accessed through the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) database in the Envirofacts Data Warehouse sponsored by EPA.
3.2 Site Readiness for Redevelopment
For purposes of this screening, we consider sites in the NPL that are classified as "Construction
Complete" or "Deleted" because these sites are generally ready for redevelopment. Sites qualify
for Construction Complete11 when any necessary physical construction is complete or EPA has
determined that reuse should not involve construction, or the site qualifies for deletion (but has
not yet gone through the process of being deleted) from the NPL. Those sites identified as
Construction Complete in this study that have not met final cleanup levels, or that have
restrictions on construction, may need to be further reviewed for feasibility if they are being
considered for redevelopment with renewable energy power generation. Sites qualify for
9 July 2005 version is used for this report.
1 ° http ://www. epa. gov/superfund/sites/npl/index. htm
11 EPA has developed the construction completions list (CCL) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to
better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities. Sites qualify when any necessary physical
construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; or EPA has
determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction; or the site
qualifies for deletion from the NPL. Source: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/ccl.htm
-------
deletion12 when EPA determines that no further response is required to protect human health or
the environment.
There are 874 sites on the NPL that are listed as Construction Complete (272 sites) or Deleted
(602 sites), as shown in Figure 1. These are the sites13 that are further screened in this report for
suitability of including RETs as part of the redevelopment strategy.
Non-Federal Superfund Sites Listed as "Deleted"
or "Construction Complete" from the NPL
874 Sites
Deleted (602 Sites)
A Construction Completed (272 Sites)
Acreage
unknown
1-50
50 - 500
500 - 5000
>5000
Urbanized Areas
Federal Lands
NPL data current as of 15 July 2005.
Figure 1: Map of sites listed as "construction complete" or "deleted" in the NPL as of July 15,
2005.
12 EPA may delete a final NPL site if it determines that no further response is required to protect human health or the
environment. Under Section 300.425(e) of the National Contingency Plan (55 FR 8845, March 8, 1990), a site may
be deleted where no further response is appropriate if EPA determines that one of the following criteria has been
met: EPA, in conjunction with the state, has determined that responsible or other parties have implemented all
appropriate response action required; EPA, in consultation with the state, has determined that all appropriate
Superfund-financed responses under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) have been implemented and that no further response by responsible parties is appropriate; or a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the
environment and, therefore, remedial measures are not appropriate. Source:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/npl_hrs/nploffhtm
13 For all sites in the NPL listed as "construction complete" or "deleted," distance to transmission breaks down as
follows: <5 miles, 792 sites; 5-10 miles, 60 sites; 10-20 miles, 19 sites; 20-33 miles, 3 sites. No site was greater
than 33 miles from transmission. Further, it is interesting to note that all sites in the NPL were within 10 miles of a
road. This becomes significant in later sections of the report when screening criteria is applied.
-------
3.3 Application of Land-Use Exclusions
Certain Limbo Lands are excluded due to their location in an area that makes RET
redevelopment infeasible, such as urban areas for a large wind farm, or in environmentally
sensitive or land-preservation areas, such as wetlands and wilderness study areas. In general, the
land-use exclusions listed below are applied across all the RETs14 considered in this report:
100% exclusion for urban areas, airports, water, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, and
wilderness study areas.
100% exclusion of federal lands with any type of special designation such as national
parks, national preserves, national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness
areas, etc.
All excluded areas above, except for water bodies, are expanded by 3km15 along their
perimeter.
Seven hundred and thirty-seven sites remain for consideration after applying the land-use
exclusions outlined above (see Figure 2).
14 PV is not limited by these exclusions because it can conceivably be placed on certain excluded lands such as in an
urban setting and an airport, and could potentially be used in buildings on federal lands.
15 The exception to this additional screening criterion is for growing biomass.
-------
Potential Limbo Land Sites for Consideration for
Renewable Energy Technology Redevelopment
Sites remaining after land exclusions have been applied. Sites are listed
as 'construction completed' or 'deleted' from the NPL (July 2005).
737 Sites
Deleted (229 Sites)
A Construction Completed (508 Sites)
Urbanized Areas
Federal Lands
Figure 2: Map of sites that meet land exclusions bulleted under Section 3.3.
4.0 Identification of High-Potential Limbo Lands for Redevelopment
Using RETs
RET-specific screening criteria can now be applied to those lands that meet site readiness and
land-use exclusions. Identified below are high-potential sites for wind, solar, and biomass.
4.1 Wind Power Considerations and Resource Availability
Wind power can be well-suited to Limbo Lands, due to the widespread availability of the
resource and the flexibility in the size and number of turbines that can be installed. Wind
turbines can be described by the class of the resource they use to operate. Small wind turbines
operate with Class 3 wind, range in size from 50 to 750 kilowatts, and are typically used for non-
grid-connected, distributed generation. Large wind or utility-scale turbines use Class 4 or higher
wind, typically range in size from 750 kilowatts to 2.5 megawatts, and are used for grid-
connected generation. While small wind turbines theoretically could be grid-connected, and a
single large wind turbine could be installed and used for remote power generation, such
configurations would not be the least-cost option. For this study, we assume that small wind
-------
turbines are installed singly and used for remote power generation, while large wind turbines are
installed in multiples and are grid-connected.
The quality of the wind resource varies across the United States. In general, the higher quality
wind resource is in the western half of the United States, with some good quality resource around
the northern and central Appalachian range and near the Great Lakes. A wind resource map is
presented in Figure 3.
Wind Resources in the United States
Wind Resource
Power Resource
Class Potential
Wind resource information from
the "Wind Energy Resource Atlas
of the United States" 1987
Fair
| Good
| Excellent
I Outstanding
| Superb
Figure 3: Wind resource map.
4.1.1 Land Exclusions for Wind
In addition to the above land-use exclusions, wind is also subject to a 3 km buffer around all
excluded lands, except water bodies. Three hundred and nine sites remain for further screening
once the 3 km buffer has been applied.
4.1.2 Screening Criteria for Wind
Screening criteria for small and large wind is presented in Table 1. In addition to land-use
exclusions, developers need to consider parcel size, slope, resource, and distance to road and
transmission. The screening criteria for small wind are somewhat less stringent than that for
-------
large wind, due to the intended application of the wind power for Limbo Lands redevelopment.
Large wind is intended for larger-scale, grid-connected power generation applications and, thus,
should have a footprint of at least 50 acres and be within 25 miles to transmission and graded
roads. Small wind is intended, in this report, for remote non-grid-connected applications because
it is economically feasible to install a single small-wind turbine to meet on-site power
requirements. The small-wind criteria for minimum parcel size and distance to transmission and
road are not strict measures; rather, they are designed as guidelines for Limbo Land sites where
grid connection is infeasible due to a remote location or undesirable because the site only
requires power for on-site needs. Small-wind screening may also be more uncertain than that for
large wind because small wind may be impacted by microclimates that may improve or decrease
the wind resource.
Table 1: Screening Criteria for Siting Wind on Limbo Lands
Criteria
Large Wind
Small Wind
Land Considerations
Minimum Parcel Size
Slope
>= 50 acres
<= 20%
>= 5 acres
<= 20%
Other Considerations
Resource
Distance to Transmission
Distance to Road
>= Class 4
<= 25 miles to 69 - 345 kV lines
<= 25 miles to graded road
>=Class 3
>= 5 miles
>= 5 miles
4.1.3 Large-Wind RET High-Potential Site Identification
To identify those sites with the highest potential for large wind, land considerations and the
remaining criteria are applied to those sites remaining after land-use exclusions have been
applied. After applying minimum parcel size and minimum slope criteria, 105 sites remain, as
shown in Figure 4. The remaining criteria include a minimum of Class 4 resource availability
and a requirement that the site be located within 25 miles to transmission and road. Five sites
meet the remaining screening criteria and can be considered as high-potential sites for large wind
as shown in Figure 5. The sites include:
Mystery Bridge, Evansville, Wyoming (Natrona County)
Arsenic Trioxide site, cities of Lidgerwood, Wyndmere, and Rutland, North Dakota
(Richland, Ransom, and Sargent counties)
Lagrand Sanitary Landfill, Lagrand Township, Minnesota (Douglas County)
Wide Beach Development, Brant, New York (Erie County)
North Sea Municipal Landfill, North Sea, New York (Suffolk County).
-------
Large Wind Site Screening
Sites are listed as 'construction completed' or 'deleted' from the NPL (July 2005)
105 Sites
Deleted (27)
A Construction Completed (78)
Acreage
50 - 500
500 - 5000
>5000
I Urbanized Areas
Federal Lands
Sites remaining after land use, environmental and slope
exclusions, have been applied at least 50 acres in size
(see report exclusion table).
Figure 4: Sites that meet preliminary screening criteria for large wind.
Final Limbo Land Sites for Large Wind
Sites are listed as 'eonstrucJion completed" or 'deleted' from the NPL (July 2005),
5 Sites
Deleted
A Construction Completed
Acreage
50 - 500 Urbanized Areas
500 - 5000 Federal Lands
After land exclusions have been applied (see report
> 5000 exclusion table), these sites have class 4 or belter wind
resource on their lands and are known to be 50 acres
or larger in stze
Figure 5: Final large wind sites.
10
-------
4.1.4 Small-Wind RET High-Potential Site Identification
The requirements for small-wind applications differ somewhat from those for large wind due to
the difference in intended applications. The idea is for a smaller, non-grid-connected wind
turbine to provide power generation requirements on a Limbo Land site with a small footprint
that is remote enough for grid connection to be infeasible. The criteria for small wind include a
parcel size of at least 5 acres and a distance greater than 5 miles from transmission lines, leaving
251 appropriate small wind sites to be screened for resource availability (Figure 6). Five
additional sites remain after applying the Class 3 or greater wind resource criteria and can be
considered as high-potential sites for small wind, as shown in Figure 7. The sites include:
Ritari Post & Pole, Sebeka, Minnesota (Wadena County)
Mid-America Tanning Co, Sergeant Bluff, Iowa (Woodbury County)
Hardage/Criner, Criner, Oklahoma (McClain County)
Velsicol-Chemical Corporation (Marshall Plant), Marshall, Illinois (Clark County)
Sidney Landfill, Sidney, New York (Delaware County).
Small Wind Site Screening
Sites are listed as 'constiuclion completed' or 'deleted' from the NPL (July 2005).
251 Sites
Deleted (72)
A Construction Completed (179)
I Urbanized Areas
Federal Lands
Sites remaining after land exclusions, with slope <= 20%.
and at least 5 acres in size (see report exclusion table).
«1>N?SL
Figure 6: Sites that meet preliminary screening criteria for small wind.
11
-------
Final Limbo Land Sites for Small Wind
Sites are listed as 'construction completed' or 'deleted' from the NPL (July 2005).
5 Small Wind Sites
Deleted (1 Sites)
4 Construction Completed (4 Sites)
Acreage
50 - 500 Urbanized Areas After )and use and enviror,menta| exclusions have been
500 - 5000 Federal Lands applied (see report exclusion table). Ihese additional sites
have class 3 wind resource on their land and are known
to be 5 acres or larger in size.
Figure 7: Final sites for small wind.
12
-------
4.2 Solar Power
Solar technologies are also well-suited to Limbo Land redevelopment because of the availability
of quality resource. Two types of solar power that are most applicable to Limbo Lands reuse are
concentrating solar power (CSP) and photovoltaics (PV).
4.2.1 CSP Resource Availability
Parabolic trough is the type of CSP that is most commercialized and is used for grid-connected
applications, so it is well-suited to Limbo Lands that are within a reasonable distance to existing
transmission and to sites that have a larger footprint to allow for a sufficient-size system for
economic feasibility. As illustrated in Figure 8, the quality of the CSP resource is greatest in the
southwestern United States.
Concentrating Solar Power {CSP) Resource Availability
Direct Normal Resource
Resource Potential
Moderate
Good
BV«iyGo
-------
4.2.2 CSP RET High-Potential Site Identification
The screening criteria used to identify high-potential sites for CSP are presented in Table 2.
These screening criteria are imposed on the sites remaining after land exclusions have been
applied (Figure 2).
Table 2: Screening Criteria for Siting CSP on Limbo Lands
Criteria
CSP
Land Considerations
Minimum Parcel Size
Slope
>= 40 acres
<= 1 %
Other Considerations
Resource
Distance to Transmission
Distance to Road
>= 6.75 kWh/rrvVday annual average solar
irradiance (direct normal)
<= 25 miles to 1 1 5-345 kV lines
<= 25 miles to graded road
Figure 9 illustrates the 210 sites that remain after land-use exclusions, minimum parcel size, and
slope criteria have been applied. Once resource criteria and minimum distance to transmission
and road have been considered, two sites remain and can be considered as high-potential sites for
CSP (see Figure 10). The sites include:
Homestake Mining Company, Milan, New Mexico (Cibola County)
South Valley, Albuquerque, New Mexico (Bernalillo County).
14
-------
Potential Limbo Land Sites for CSP
Sites are listed as 'construction completed' or 'deleted' from the NPL.
210 Sites
Deleted (61 Sites)
Construction Completed (149 Sites)
Acreage
40 - 500
500-5000
>5000
I Urbanized Areas
Federal Lands
Sites remaining after land use and environmental exclusions
have been applied (see report exclusion table), and are at
least 40 acres in size and have a slope of 1% or less.
Figure 9: Sites that meet preliminary screening criteria for CSP.
Final Limbo Land Sites for CSP
Sites are listed as 'construction completed' or 'deleted" from the NPL.
2 Sites
Deleted (0 Sites)
Construction Completed (2 Sites)
I Urbanized Areas
Federal Lands
40 - 500
500-5000
>5000
After land use and environmental exclusions have been
applied (see report exclusion table), these sites have
annual direct normal resource of 6 kVvTv'nr day and are
at least 40 acres in size.
Figure 10: Final sites for CSP.
15
-------
4.2.3 Photovoltaic Resource
PV can be grid-connected or used for on-site power requirements. At this time, on-site PV, as
compared to grid-connected PV, is the more commercialized and financially competitive option
and also has flexible installment options, which make it well-suited for Limbo Land
redevelopment. PV applications include providing power for lighting and smaller electricity
needs, solar hot water for heating water, and solar vent preheat for preheating air coming into a
building. Further, State incentives for PV system purchase and installation can make it a more
financially attractive choice.
The entire United States, with the exception of a portion of the Northwest, has adequate PV
resource quality (Figure 11). Thus, the decision to install a PV system depends on the power
requirements at a particular site as well as site-specific economic considerations, including
available incentives. On-site PV is a particularly attractive alternative for remote Limbo Lands
that are in an area where grid connection is not feasible because of distance or cost.
Final Limbo Land Sites for PV
Sites are listed as 'deleted' or 'construction completed1 (torn the NPL (July 2005)
A y
W Solar resource inform
I (romtJREL (1997) lor
. ^ % I. 3V <;>.J r.'a mi - lj
All Sites Suitable
forPV
874 Sites
Deleted (602 Sites)
A Construction Completed (272 Sites)
Acreage
unknown
1 -50
' 5°-500 4.0-5.0
500 - 5000 50. s.o
>5000 >6.0
Figure 11: Photovoltaic (PV) resource availability with potential sites
4.2.4 PV RET High-Potential Sites
Any Limbo Land site identified in Figure 2 can conceivably be considered as a candidate for PV
because the resource is adequate across most of the United States, and PV does not require grid
connection. Similar to the considerations for small wind, PV is particularly well-suited to Limbo
16
-------
Land sites in remote locations where grid connection is economically infeasible due to distance
to transmission; or unnecessary because the site requires only on-site power generation.
4.3 Biomass
Biomass is a broad category of RET with multiple applications, all of which have varying
suitability to Limbo Lands. For this report, we focus on identifying sites for growing corn as a
feedstock for biofuels, a dry mill corn ethanol plant, and a biopower plant.
4.3.1 Growing Biomass
Certain Limbo Lands may be well-suited for growing biomass to use as a feedstock for
producing biofuels, which help meet transportation fuel needs. Because the most common type
of biofuel for transportation is corn ethanol, this analysis identifies ideal Limbo Lands for
growing corn. Figure 12, which illustrates the agricultural biomass resource availability in the
United States, shows crops in addition to corn. For geographic reference, it also shows ethanol
biorefineries16 and biopower plants that exist or are under construction.
Biomass Resources (Crop Residues)
_ Ethanol Bwrefinery*
D Biopowsr Plant"
Ass ociation Jwv* 2006
- Operating » of 2005.
Halts POlVERtnap May 2005
Figure 12: Biomass crop residues availability, with ethanol biorefineries and biopower plants that
exist or are under construction.
16 A biorefmery is a facility that integrates biomass conversion processes and equipment to produce fuels, power,
and chemicals from biomass.
17
-------
4.3.2 Producing Ethanol with a Dry Mill Corn Ethanol Plant
Corn ethanol can be produced in a dry mill or wet mill facility. A wet mill facility produces
products in addition to ethanol such as feed, fiber, and corn syrup, while a dry mill corn ethanol
plant produces only corn ethanol. A wet mill facility tends to be more expensive and complex to
construct and operate than a dry mill plant; thus, a dry mill corn ethanol plant is considered here
as a potential RET for Limbo Lands. The crop residue resource availability, as shown in Figure
12, is relevant to producing ethanol from corn because these plants typically gather corn as a
feedstock from within a 50-mile radius.
4.3.3 Generating Biopower
Biopower uses biomass to generate electricity through biopower plants, which use direct-fired
systems to burn bioenergy feedstocks to produce steam. Feedstock for power generation can
include urban waste, agricultural, and forestry sources. Figure 13 illustrates the biomass
resource in the United States, including all residues17 that can be used for feedstock (not only
agricultural), as well as ethanol biorefineries and biopower plants that exist or are under
construction.
17 All residues include agricultural residues (crops and animal manure); wood residues (forest, primary mill,
secondary mill, and urban wood); municipal discards (methane emissions from landfills and domestic wastewater
treatment); and dedicated energy crops (on Conservation Reserve Program Lands).
18
-------
Biomass Resources (All Residues)
Ethanol Btorefinery*
n Biopower Plant"
Figure 13: All biomass residue resource availability, with biorefineries and biopower plants that
exist or are under construction.
4.3.4 Screening Criteria for Biomass
Screening criteria that are applied to identify high-potential sites for biomass applications are
presented in Table 3. The three biomass applications addressed in this report share most of the
same land-use exclusions as wind and CSP, so the sites shown in Figure 2 are the baseline sites
for further screening for biomass applications. While it is conceivable to grow corn as a
feedstock on certain excluded lands, it is prudent to eliminate these lands from consideration to
avoid potential land-use conflicts. An exception to the land-use exclusions is that growing
biomass is not subject to the 3 km buffer. The minimum parcel size of 50 acres for a dry mill
corn ethanol or biopower plant supports only the plant with feedstock coming from off-site.
19
-------
Table 3: Land Considerations and Screening Criteria for Siting Biomass Operations on Limbo
Lands
Criteria
Minimum Parcel Size
Resource
Distance to Road
Distance to
Transmission
Growing Corn as a Feedstock
for Biofuels
>= 200 acres
Crop residues >=100,000
tonnes/yr
<= 50 miles
NA
Dry Mill Corn Ethanol Plant or
Biopower Plant
>=50 acres
Dry Mill Corn Ethanol Plant: Crop residues
>=1 00, 000 tonnes/yr
Biopower plant: All residues >=150,000
tonnes/yr
<= 50 miles
<= 50 miles
4.3.5 Growing Corn as a Feedstock for Dry Mill Corn Ethanol Plant High-Potential Sites
After applying land-use exclusions and minimum parcel size, 72 sites remain for further
screening for growing corn as shown in Figure 14. After resource criteria and minimum
distance to road have been applied, seven sites remain (see Figure 15) and can be considered as
high-potential sites for growing corn as a feedstock for a dry mill corn ethanol plant:
Koppers Co. Inc. (Oroville Plant), Oroville, California (Butte County)
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, Oroville, California (Butte County)
Waite Park Wells, Waite Park, Minnesota (Stearns County)
Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill, Dakota County, Minnesota (Dakota County)
Fisher-Calo, La Porte, Indiana (La Porte County)
Bayou Sorrel, Bayou Sorrel, Louisiana (Iberville Parish)
Velsicol Chemical Corporation (Marshall Plant), Marshall, Illinois (Clark County)
20
-------
Potential Limbo Land Sites for Growing Corn
for Ethanol Production
Sites are listed as 'construction completed' or 'deleted'from the NPL(July 2005).
72 Sites
Deleted (21 E
4 Construction Completed (51
Acreage
C 200 - 500
L> 500 - 5000
I >5000
^B Urbanized Areas
Federal Lands
£ Ethane" Biorefirwfy'
Emllng CT under ccmrtrirmem
Source Renewable Fuel*
ass wialiocv June :c-D6
After land use and environmental exclusions have been
applied (see report exclusion taMe). these sites remain
and are at least 200 acres in see
Figure 14: Sites that meet preliminary screening criteria for growing corn as a feedstock for
biofuels, with biorefineries that exist or are under construction.
Final Limbo Land Sites for Growing Corn
for Ethanol Production
Sites are listed as 'construction completed' or 'deleted* from the NPL (July 2005).
7 Sites
Deleted (3 Sites)
A Construction Completed (4 Sites)
Acreage
200 - 500
500-5000
>5000
^H Urbanized Areas
Federal Lands
. Etharol Bwrednery*
Eliding a under con Miucbcr.
Source RerwtfaUe Fudi
Assoaahon June 200
After land use and environmental exclusions have been
applied (see report exclusion table), these sites remain
and are at least 200 aaes in size and have total county
crop residues >= 100 000 tonnes/yr
Figure 15: Final sites for growing corn as a feedstock for biofuels, with biorefineries that exist or
are under construction.
21
-------
4.3.6 Dry Mill Corn Ethanol Plant or Biopower Plant High-Potential Sites
Similar criteria can be applied to a dry mill corn ethanol or biopower plant with the exception of
the resource criteria. A dry mill corn ethanol plant requires minimum agricultural residue
resource availability, while a biopower plant can consider all residues. After applying land-use
exclusions18 and minimum parcel size, 248 sites remain for further screening (see Figure 16).
Once resource criteria and minimum distance to transmission and road have been applied, 17
sites are suitable for a dry mill corn ethanol plant or biopower plant, and 15 additional sites are
suitable for a biopower plant only (see Figure 17) and can be considered as high-potential sites.
These include:
Dry Mill Corn Ethanol Plant or Biopower Plant
Big River Sand Co., Wichita, Kansas (Sedgwick County)
Coalinga Asbestos Mine, Coalinga, California (Fresno County)
Mid-Am erica Tanning Co., Sergeant Bluff, Iowa (Woodbury County)
Northwestern States Portland Cement Co., Mason City, Iowa (Cerro Gordo County)
Bayou Sorrel, Bayou Sorrel, Louisiana (Iberville Parish)
Louisiana-Pacific Corp., Oroville, California (Butte County)
Pine Bend Sanitary Landfill, Dakota County, Minnesota (Dakota County)
Electro-Coatings, Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Linn County)
Galesburg/Koppers Co., Galesburg, Illinois (Knox County)
Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District Lagoons, Blooming Grove, Wisconsin (Dane
County)
NCR Corp. (Millsboro Plant), Millsboro, Delaware (Sussex County)
Pagel's Pit, Rockford, Illinois (Winnebago County)
Verona Well Field, Battle Creek, Michigan (Calhoun County)
Koppers Co. Inc. (Oroville Plant), Oroville, California (Butte County)
Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Marshall Plant), Marshall, Illinois (Clark County)
Waite Park Wells, Waite Park, Minnesota (Stearns County)
Fisher-Calo, La Porte, Indiana (La Porte County)
Biopower Plant only
Alcoa (Vancouver Smelter), Vancouver, Washington (Clark County)
John Deere (Ottumwa Works Landfills), Ottumwa, Iowa (Wapello County)
Lackawanna Refuse, Old Forge, Pennsylvania (Lackawanna County)
Lee's Lane Landfill, Louisville, Kentucky (Jefferson County)
M&T Delisa Landfill, Asbury Park, New Jersey (Monmouth County)
Munisport Landfill, North Miami, Florida (Miami-Dade County)
Petersen Sand & Gravel, Libertyville, Illinois (Lake County)
Saco Tannery Waste Pits, Saco, Maine (York County)
San Fernando Valley (Area 3), Glendale, California (Los Angeles County)
Sand Creek Industrial, Commerce City, Colorado (Adams County)
Southside Sanitary Landfill, Indianapolis, Indiana (Marion County)
18 Land exclusions are applied for purposes of plant-siting considerations. Certain excluded lands can be sources for
biomass residues used as a feedstock for biopower.
22
-------
Taylor Borough Dump, Taylor Borough, Pennsylvania (Lackawanna County)
Times Beach, Times Beach, Missouri (St. Louis County)
Tulalip Landfill, Marysville, Washington (Snohomish County)
York County Solid Waste and Refuse Authority Landfill, Hopewell Township,
Pennsylvania (York County)
Potential Limbo Land Sites for Dry Mill Corn Ethanol
or Biopower Plant
Sites are Irsled as 'construction completed' or 'deleted' from the NPL (July 2005>.
248 Sites
Deleted (70 Sites)
Construction Completed (178 Sites)
Acreage
» 50-500
I 500 - 5000
I >5000
I Urbanized Areas
Federal Lands
Alter land use and environmental exclusions have teen
applied (see report exclusion table), these sues remain
and aje a! least 50 acres In size
Figure 16: Sites remaining after applying preliminary screening criteria for dry mill corn ethanol
and biopower plants, with biorefinery and biopower plants that exist or are under construction.
23
-------
Final Limbo Land Sites for Dry Mill Corn Ethanol
or Biopower Plant
Sites are listed as 'construction completed' c-r 'deleted' from the NPL (July 2005),
32 Sites
Deleted (22 Sites)
Construction Completed (10 Sites)
Acreage
50-500
500-5000
>5000
I Urbanized Areas
Federal Lands
' E*lslinQ cc undH conctnicticm
Sdllce R«ne*Jt4e Fuel?
Jim* 2C06
"Op.nomj»!otS»i. Source.
Ftllls PQ-f/ERmtf. Mlv 3005
: ' '.: a
Alter land use and envlranmewal exclusions have teen
applied (see report exclusion table) these sites remain
and are a! least 50 acres In size and have total county
crop residues o( 100.000 tormes/yr or total residues of
150.000 tonnes^r.
Figure 17: Final sites for dry mill corn ethanol and/or biopower plants, with biorefinery and
biopower plants that exist or are under construction.
5.0 Other Types of Limbo Lands - Brownfields and Abandoned Mine
Lands
There are numerous brownfields and abandoned mine lands throughout the United States.
Resource screening issues associated with each category of Limbo Lands are discussed below.
5.1 Brownfields
Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or underused industrial and commercial facilities where
expansion or reuse is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.
Brownfields data quality varies from State to State and from EPA region to EPA region. Florida
was selected as a case study on brownfields site screening because it has readily available
brownfield data, including data for GIS coordinates and parcel size. High-potential sites can be
determined for other States by using the process set forth for Florida.
24
-------
5.1.1 Florida Brownfields
Brownfields in Florida with the greatest potential for renewable energy reuse are identified in
this section. Overall, 11919 brownfields in Florida were identified (see Figure 18). RETs
considered for Florida are PV and biomass, because the wind resource and the solar resource for
CSP in Florida are not adequate for consideration.
Acreage
Unknown
1-50
50-500
I 500 - 5000
I > 5000
Florida Brownfield Sites
Brcwnfields are abandoned, idled, or underused industrial and
commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is
complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination
73 sites have Btownfield Site Rehabilitation Agreements in
place as of 2004
119 Sites
I Urbanized Areas
Federal Lands
Figure 18: Brownfields in Florida.
19
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/brownfields/default.htm downloaded on 6/28/2006.
25
-------
5.1.2 PV in Florida
All sites in Florida have sufficient resource for PV. The PV resource availability with
brownfield sites is illustrated in Figure 19.
Florida Brownfield Sites for PV
All sites are suitable for PV.
119 Sites
Acreage
Unknown
1-50
50 - 500
» 500 - 5000
>5000
Solar Resource
Tilt = Latitude
Annual kWh/rrf/day
4.0-45
4.5-5.0
5.0-5.5
5.5 - 6.0
6.0-6.5
Solar resource information
from NR EL (1997} for flat
plate collector, tilt = latrtude
Figure 19: PV resource availability in Florida, with all brownfield sites.
26
-------
5.1.3 Biomass in Florida
Florida has ample resources for biomass applications. This analysis considers potential
brownfield sites for a biopower plant, a dry mill corn ethanol plant, and growing corn as a
feedstock for a dry mill corn ethanol plant. Figure 20 illustrates the agricultural biomass
resource availability in Florida with all the brownfield sites, while Figure 21 shows all biomass
residue resource availability.
119 Sites
Acreage
* Unknown
1-50
50 - 500
500-5000
>5000
Florida Brownfield Sites
Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or underused industrial and
commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is
complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination
73 sites have Brownfield Site Rehabilitation Agreements in
place as of 2004.
Biomass Resources
(All Residues)
Thousand
Tonnes/Yr
^B =-500
^H 250 - 500
150-250
100-150
50-100
<50
n Biopcwer Rant*
' Operallng as of 2005 Scutce.
Plans POWERmap. May 2005
Figure 20: Agricultural biomass resource availability in Florida, with all brownfield sites.
27
-------
119 Sites
Acreage
Unknown
1-50
50 - 500
500-5000
>5000
Florida Brownfield Sites
Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or underused industrial and
commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is
complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination
73 sites have Brownfield Site Rehabilitation Agreements in
place as of 2004.
Biomass Resources
(All Residues)
TlTOusarxl
Tonnes/Yr
^H 250 - 500
150-250
100-150
50-100
<50
LI Biopcwer Plant*
' Operating as of 2005 Source:
PH«s POWERnup- May 2005
Figure 21: Biomass residue availability of all residues in Florida, with all brownfield sites.
After land considerations and screening criteria (identified in Table 3) are applied to brownfields
in Florida, 25 sites remain as high-potential sites (see Figure 22) as listed below. All 25 sites
meet the criteria for a biopower plant. Some sites are also suitable for a dry mill corn ethanol
plant, including Belle Glade, former Palm Beach Lakes Golf Course, and Lake Worth (a closed
municipal landfill). Belle Glade is the only site suitable for growing corn as a feedstock for
biofuels, given the added screening criteria of at least 200 acres and that it is within 50 miles of
an existing biorefinery.
28
-------
Florida Brownfield Sites for Biopower Plant
Former Palms Beach Lakes Golf Course1
Belle Glade Brownfield Areaui
Lake Worth Closed Municipal Landfill1
Pompano Beach Northwest Area
US 441/SR 7 Corridor
Liberia/Oakwood Hills Area
Carol City Area
Dade-Opa-Locka Area
Central Miami Area
Miami Area
Opa-Locka Area
Pilot Proj ect Area
Palafox Corridor Redevelopment Area
'Also suitable for a dry mill corn ethanol plant.
"Also suitable for growing corn as a feedstock.
Richmond Heights area
Perrine area
South Miami
South Dade
Homestead CRA area
Redlands/Leisure City area
Beacons Lake Brownfield area
Model City/Brownsville
Sweetwater A Area
Sweetwater B Area
Sweetwater C Area
Quincy Area
PRQJECTAREA
REDEVELOPMENT AREA
Florida Brownfield Sites
for Biopower and Biofuels
Sites are within 50 miles of major roads, and 10 miles of major transmission lines.
These sites have county total biomass residues >= 150,000 tonnes/yr or county total
crop residues >= 100,000 tonnes/yr. and are known to be 50 acres or larger in size.
All 25 sites are suitable for a biopower plant. The following sites are also suitable for
a dry mill corn ethanol plant: Belle Glade, former Palm Beach Lakes Golf Course,
and Lake Worth Closed Municipal Landfill. Belle Glade is the only site identifed as
being suitable for growing corn for biofuels. given the added screening criteria
of >= 200 acres and within 50 miles of an existing biorefinery.
MS BEACH
COURSE
25 Sites
Acreage
50 - 200
200 - 500
500 - 5000
>5000
Biomass Resources
(All Residues)
TTiousand
Tonnes/Yr
^H 250 - 500
^B 160-250
(Hf100-15°
50-100
<50
FO'.IP-M
CAROlCITYAReA
DADE.Q PA-LGCKA ARE.*
CENTRAL MWWIIAMD Ml" "
BEACONS UVKE 6RGv\HFie
StVEEIWATERA. _.
ftlCHMGflO HEIGH1
PERR
HOMESTE*OCR»
REDLANDS1EA5URB
Figure 22: High-potential brownfields for biopower plant and dry mill corn ethanol plant.
29
-------
5.2 Abandoned Mine Lands
Abandoned mine land (AML) data is available through a few sources, two of which are
discussed here. The data mapped in Figure 23 is from an inventory called Abandoned Mine
Lands Inventory System (AMLIS) administered by the Department of Interior's Office of
Surface Mining (DOI-OSM).20 There are more than 39,000 sites included in this inventory.
Limitations associated with this data, such as lack of data on parcel size and status of site release,
do not necessarily lend themselves to the GIS screening process set forth in this report. The
inventory does identify types of problems at the site, such as clogged streams, dangerous
conditions, and hazardous gases, but a more definitive indication of cleanup status is required to
narrow down high-potential sites. Another source for AML data is EPA's AML CERCLIS
Inventory gathered from CERCLIS data and in a limited manner from EPA regional staff.21 This
inventory consists of 562 sites compiled as of 2002 by EPA's AML team.22 A primary
distinction between the two is that AMLIS focuses on abandoned coal mines, while EPA's AML
CERCLIS inventory addresses abandoned hard rock mines.
Abandoned Mine Land Locations
39,048 Locations
Urbanized Areas
Federal Lands
These locations are inventoried by the Department of the Interior's
Office of Surface Mining. The inventory is not complete, and
consists mainly of high priority sites that are eligible for funding
using the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.
Figure 23: Abandoned mine land (AML) locations.
20 http: //www. o smre. gov/aml/inven/zintroin. htm
21 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/aml/tech/appena.pdf
22 http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/aml/amlsite/nonnpl.htm
30
-------
6.0 Recommendations and Conclusions
This study provides a geographic screening of Limbo Lands with high potential for renewable
energy technology redevelopment. RETs considered were wind, solar, and biomass. This
screening process illustrates that there are several ideal sites for each RET. Given the rigorous
geographic screening process for the sites, those sites identified meet the criteria for serious
consideration of redevelopment with RETs. Further investigation of each site is required for
assessment of economic feasibility and community, and developer interest. Assuming there is
interest in a particular site, that site owner could be contacted to pursue the RET redevelopment
opportunity.
Data availability would definitely improve the study. The NPL provides a comprehensive listing
of sites for initial investigation, but does not cover all types of Limbo Lands. It is unlikely that
all types would be presented in one data site, but multiple sources could be combined to conduct
a comprehensive geographic (GIS) screening. For data to be useful for this geographic
screening, it must include parcel size, geographic locator information, and status of cleanup at
the site.
There is excellent potential for RETs to be used as part of the redevelopment strategy for Limbo
Lands. RETs not only can play a role in redevelopment, but can also be used to power
remediation efforts and monitoring requirements. Further study to identify specific renewable
energy applications most suitable to remediation and monitoring activities, and to evaluate
resource considerations, would be required to identify the most promising opportunities.
31
-------
Appendix A - An Assessment of RET Potential at a Former Mine in
Beatty, Nevada
An assessment of a former mine in Beatty, Nevada, is an example of how NREL evaluated a
"Limbo Land" site for potential renewable energy development.
Beatty Economic Development Corporation, which owns 82 acres from the Barrick-Bullfrog
mine closure, wanted to pursue sustainable economic growth opportunities, with a primary
objective of producing and exporting alternative energy from Beatty.
A county grant provided funds for redevelopment guidance, engaging stakeholders, and support
for technical expertise. This resulted in an action plan for the Beatty Mine Scarred Land
Redevelopment project, which included an effort to conduct an alternative energy feasibility
study.
Some of the stakeholders for the project include the Beatty Economic Development Corporation,
the Beatty Town Advisory Board, the Nevada State Energy Office, the EPA Brownfield
Programs, and Beatty residents.
As part of DOE's national laboratory support, NREL provided geographical information system
(GIS) screening for this high-potential site. This evaluation looked at land exclusion, distance to
transmission and major roads, and technology assessment. Using an analysis approach similar to
one done for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), NREL determined that Beatty had a high
potential for solar and wind resources.
One of the proposed technologies was parabolic trough solar power as a resource for an electric-
generation facility. Some of the most attractive features included a high direct normal solar
resource, an already "disturbed" flat land parcel, a viable water resource (steam turbogenerator),
utility demand for renewable energy, and proximity to a transmission grid with good capacity.
NREL recommended consideration of an economic/technical feasibility analysis for a 10-20 MW
solar plant, which would provide local access and export potential. However, there could be
issues for a private developer with the liability for impacts on a contaminated site and the ability
to purchase a long-term power purchase agreement. It was also determined that a developer
would need to address and resolve potential impacts on Air Force training operations in the area.
The analysis also looked at factors such as employment, personal income, and the gross State
product for the concentrating solar power trough facility in Nevada. For instance, NREL
estimated that the construction phase (over two years) could add 250 new jobs in the first year,
with about 200 of those retained each year.
NREL also looked at wind power as a possibility for development. The site has a high wind
resource on ridges around the mine site and would be part of a proactive Bureau of Land
Management wind energy development program on public lands. It also would have proximity to
a transmission grid with good capacity.
32
-------
Issues for wind power development were similar to those for solar power. The application would
require an environmental assessment for development, a project review to see how it would
affect Air Force training operations, and a need to acquire the power purchase agreement.
The NREL analysis recommended considering a 10-20 MW wind farm, which could have
positive economic impacts for employment, sales taxes, and personal income.
33
-------
Appendix B - PV and CSP Screening Criteria for BLM and USFS
Evaluation by NREL
Table B-1: Screening Criteria Developed by NREL for PV and CSP Resources for Evaluations
Conducted on Behalf of BLM and USFS
Criterion
Resource
Slope
Distance to
Transmission
Distance to Road
Minimum Parcel
Size
Land Exclusions
BLM - PV1
>= 5 kWh/m2/day
annual average tilt
= latitude collector
<5%
< 50 miles to 115-
345 kV
transmission lines
NA
NA
National
monuments,
national
conservation areas,
wilderness areas
and wilderness
study areas
BLM - CSPM
>= 5 kWh/m2/day
annual average
direct normal
collector (near term
>= 6 kWh/m2/day)
< 5% (near term
less than 1%)
< 50 miles to 115-
345 kV
transmission lines
< 50 miles to road
or railroad
40 acre
National
monuments,
national
conservation areas,
wilderness areas
and wilderness
study areas
USFS - PV and
CSPMi
>= 5 kWh/m2/day
annual average
(one-axis tracking
for PV and direct
normal for CSP)
< 5% (ideally less
than 1%)
<25 miles of 69-
345 kV lines
< 25 miles to
graded roads
40 acre
Inventoried
Roadless Areas
and Specially
Designated Areas
'Bureau of Land Management - Photovoltaics
"Bureau of Land Management - Concentrating Solar Power
"'U.S. Forest Service - Photovoltaics and Concentrating Solar Power
34
-------
Appendix C - Wind Screening Criteria for Evaluation for BLM and
USFS by NREL
Table C-1: Screening Criteria Developed by NREL for Wind Resource for Evaluations Conducted
on Behalf of BLM and USFS
Criterion
Resource
Slope
Distance to
Transmission
Distance to Road
Distance to Major
Urban Area
Minimum Parcel
Size
Land Exclusions
Wind Electric
Potential
>= class 4, with
occasional class 3
< 20% on high
resolution wind
resource datasets
< 25 miles to 69-
345 kV lines
< 25 miles to
graded roads
> 3 km
Density analysis
after all the 100%
exclusions are
applied (5 km2 of
class 3 or greater
resource within the
surrounding 100
km2)
See Wind Electric
Potential Land
Exclusions
description below
BLM1
>= class 3 annual
average (class 4 +
for near term)
< 20% on high
resolution wind
resource datasets
< 25 miles to 69-
345 kV lines
< 50 miles to
graded roads
National
monuments,
national
conservation areas,
wilderness areas
and wilderness
study areas
USFS"
>= class 3 annual
average (class 4 +
for near term)
< 20% on high
resolution wind
resource datasets
< 25 miles to 69-
345 kV lines
< 25 miles to
graded roads
> 3 km
Inventoried
Roadless Areas
and Specially
Designated Areas
Detailed Land Exclusions
In estimating wind electric potential, in addition to the screening criteria in the above table, the following
land exclusion criteria are applied:
100% exclusion for urban, water and wetlands
100% exclusion of federal lands with any type of special designation such as wilderness,
monument, national battlefield, etc. (not including national grasslands)
50% exclusion of remaining FS and DOD lands
100% of state and private environmentally sensitive lands where that data was available.
(Generally GAP"' land stewardship data is used, with the highest protection level excluded
100%, and the second highest level excluded 50%.)
All 1 00% excluded areas except for water bodies expanded by 3km along perimeter
50% exclusion of non-ridge crest forest
'Bureau of Land Management
"Forest Service
"'Gap Analysis Program
35
------- |