Solar cannot “replace” coal power
There is no sense in which a solar power plant, however large, could substitute for the round-the-clock electricity provided by a coal-fired power plant. Yet, here we are.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports under the headline:
PUC approves Xcel plan to replace retiring Minnesota coal plant with mega solar farm
The headline is more than a little misleading. What the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) approved today in St. Paul was a site permit for a new solar farm.
The new solar farm is to be located in Sherburne County, adjacent to the soon-to-be former coal-fired power plant complex known as Sherco, in Becker. The Sherco complex, at its peak production, provided 2,238 MW of electric power to Xcel Energy’s customers.
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, respectively. The units have already been paid for by ratepayers and are 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, on a total investment of $1.1 billion (with a “b”).
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.
Last year, the Democrats passed a bill exempting wind and solar projects from the Certificate of Need process. So, two things:
- The decision on how to replace coal power was not in front of the MPUC, merely the suitability of the proposed location for a solar facility. The utility did not have to justify the economics of the project.
- Therefore, utilities have every incentive to overinvest in wind and solar, knowing that cost recovery will be automatic 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 natural gas plants — to ensure the company has around-the-clock energy for customers after coal.
Truth be told, the task of filling the gap will fall to other electric utilities, mostly located out-of-state. And all at a cost to Xcel ratepayers.
Here’s my favorite part:
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!