233
Minnesota solar project set to replace retiring coal plant reaches 710 MW
(www.solarpowerworldonline.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2026
233 points (98.7% liked)
Climate
8969 readers
209 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I assume this was I-90 west of Rochester, which is where most of the wind is sited. Sadly it is nowhere near enough and still only produces 25% of the state's electrical needs whereas neighboring South Dakota and Iowa are over 50%.
Solar and wind have very different potentials in the state. Minnesota is at the Northern terminus of the wind corridor which they take advantage of. However, it is one of the worst states for solar irradiance potential.
Sherco solar replaces 2.4 GW base load coal with a planned 910 MW of solar and only 3 GWh of storage. This comes across as insufficient in a snowy winter in a state where conversion to electrical heating is a must.
Eh don't sweat it. Everyone kept talking how Germany is impossible for solar, far too northerly, yadda yadda...
Today we're producing more than 20% of our power with solar.
All of the US, with the exception of Alaska is very much more southern than Germany, even MN.
Yes, Minnesota has more solar potential than Germany. However, German electricity is 2.5x more expensive per kWh than Minnesota due to low efficiency decisions like turning off nuclear. This is having severe consequences to industry and those unable to afford to install and run air conditioning.
Solar in Minnesota is >60% more costly per kWh generated than wind. Yes, building solar in Becker recycles the transmission lines and gives a different covariance, but I am skeptical it is cheaper than simply building 100 more wind turbines and battery storage next to them to transmit in times of low generation.
Wait, aren't those red states? Aren't Republicans famously anti-renewalables? Like didn't Trump try to shut down a ~90% complete wind farm. He's pro-coal right.
So why the huge uptake in renewables in these states against policy? I get that renewables can be the superior choice. But is this yet another case of say one thing, do another?
Yup. The secret is wind is just cheaper in places with strong, near constant resources.
I90
Not a scenic drive. If you have to drive through, after dark, this is a good place for it.
If they want people to switch to electric heating in Minnesota then they need to make electric cheaper. Utility costs for most in Minnesota drop significantly compared to summer because it’s far cheaper to heat with natural gas than it is to cool with electric.
Fixing the public utilities commission would be good too.
Some Minnesota utilities do subsidize electricity prices if you heat with it. All utilities provide strong rebates for installing heat pumps.
Even with all of that, gas is still cheaper. I sat down and figured it out because we replaced our furnace last year.
The folks who benefit most from heat pumps are those that currently use propane or electric resistance heat. However, to qualify for those rebates you have to meet certain requirements on an audit which is often harder the older your home construction is.