Solar fallacy

Solar cannot ‘replace’ coal power.

It is not possible for a solar power plant, however large, to substitute for the round-the-clock electricity provided by a coal-fired power plant. Yet here we are. The Star Tribune ran the July 18 headline: “PUC approves Xcel plan to replace retiring Minnesota coal plant with mega solar farm.”  

The headline is more than a little misleading. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approved a site permit for a new solar farm.  

The new solar farm will be located in Sherburne County, adjacent to the soon-to-be former coal-fired power plant complex known as Sherco in Becker. At its peak, Sherco provided Xcel Energy’s customers with 2,238 megawatts (MW) of electric power.  

At the end of last year, Xcel shut down the No. 2 unit, with a capacity of 680 MW, with the remaining units scheduled for shut down in 2026 and 2030. Ratepayers have already paid for the units being shut down prematurely.  

This third solar project at the site will cover 1,780 acres and bring the total solar capacity at the location to 710 MW — a total investment of $1.1 billion.  

Building a large power plant in Minnesota requires the proposer to obtain a “Certificate of Need” permit, proving that demand exists for the project to justify its construction — usually. However, if politics and policy intersect to enact a green energy mandate that otherwise doesn’t make economic, energy, or stability sense, alternate procedures must be utilized. 

Last year Democrats at the state legislature passed a bill exempting wind and solar projects from the Certificate of Need process. When solar project claims take place on a massive scale, potentially impacting millions of energy customers, consider why the decision on how to replace coal power was not in front of the PUC, merely the suitability of the proposed location for a solar facility. The utility did not have to justify the economics of the project. Utilities have every incentive to overinvest in wind and solar, knowing that costs are automatically recovered from ratepayers regardless of the underlying economics.  

The Star Tribune attempts to address the obvious flaw with the solar project:  

The Sherco solar project near the coal plant will only make up a portion of that energy and will rely on sunny days to produce electricity. But Xcel said the solar farms will reduce carbon emissions by the equivalent of taking more than 92,000 gas cars off the road per year. Plus, they won’t come with the cost of buying fuel.  

[The company says that] Xcel has enough other power sources — including two large nuclear plants and a fleet of natural gas plants — to ensure the company has around-the-clock energy for customers after coal.  

The task of filling the gap will fall to other electric utilities all at a cost to Xcel ratepayers.  

Here’s the kicker: “On Thursday, the PUC added conditions to the Xcel permit to help block the view of the solar farm from nearby homes and the cemetery, including by planting trees and shrubs.”  

Out of sight, out of mind!