Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact

Minnesota Electricity Could Be 100% Renewable, 100% Local

By John Farrell
March 13, 2012 | 14 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Bookmark

A new report released today by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research shows that Minnesota can meet 100% of its electricity needs with in-state wind and solar power, and (with ample energy efficiency investments) at a comparable cost to its existing electricity supply.

The notion that solar and wind energy cannot be the mainstay of an electricity generation system because they are intermittent is incorrect...it is technically and economically feasible to meet the entire 2007 electricity demand of Xcel Energy [in Minnesota] using only renewable energy generation combined with storage technology and energy efficiency improvements...a 100 percent renewable energy-based electricity system for Minnesota increases rates by a mere 1-2 cents per kilowatt hour when sufficient reasonable and economical investments are made in energy efficiency

The renewable energy mix would include approximately 13,000 megawatts of wind power and 4,600 megawatts of distributed solar PV. The expenditures for the new renewable energy, storage (via underground compressed air) and energy efficiency would pump more than $90 billion into the state's economy and create 50,000 jobs.

With the combination of new renewable energy and significant energy efficiency, electricity rates rise slightly but Minnesota ratepayers are held relatively harmless. The following chart from the report illustrates, with some relatively conservative estimates, the cost of wind and solar:

While the Minnesota-specific findings are ground-breaking, the paradigm shift suggested for the electricity system is equally profound:

The conventional notion of a “peak load” needs to be replaced in designing an electricity system with a high proportion of solar and wind energy...The crunch time may be during periods when the wind and solar supply are low relative to demand...“relational system peak.”...Instead of the peak load that drives marginal investments in generation as at present, dealing with the relational system peak will require comprehensive consideration of investments throughout the system – generation, demand, and storage (though not necessarily by utilities in all cases).

The following chart from the report illustrates how wind, solar, other renewables, and storage adjust to meet customer demand during a typical week in July, with both supply and demand being flexible.

This fundamental shift is an issue we've covered before, the challenge of reconciling a centralized electricity system with decentralized renewable energy resources.

Overall, Renewable Minnesota is a stellar report, incredibly thorough in its analysis and profound in its conclusions. It's a must read for energy policy makers everywhere.

This post originally appeared on Energy Self-Reliant States, a resource of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance's New Rules Project.

Image: Stephen Finn via Shutterstock

Green Power, Hydropower, Solar Energy, Wind Power, Energy Efficiency

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

14 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 14

Anonymous

March 13, 2012

This plan relies on a large amount of storage using compressed air. Such energy storage uses methane for air reheating on expansion so it relies partially on fossil fuels--the claim of 100% renewables isn't strictly true. Relying on so much storage isn't a low-cost scenario so we should not expect the future to look much like this scenario.
Steven

Comment
2 of 14

Bob_Wallace

March 14, 2012

Betting against affordable battery grid storage is not recommended for those who are looking to retain their lunch money.

Even if CAES were to be the most affordable storage technology some, perhaps most of the required methane might come from sewage/agriculutral/landfill biogas....

Comment
3 of 14

Patrick-OLeary

March 16, 2012

How would Negawatts fit into this plan?

Futura Solar, along with DCM-A&E, is offering a multiple solar benefit roofing sysem for low profile buildings. This system is a revival of sawtooth roofing with the incorporation of a 2 pass air heater, inspired by the Minnesota Window Heater. In addition to daylighting (northern) this system captures the solar loading and makes its Utility routinely available to the business below the roof. PV, SWH or PV/Thermal (water) can be added to the absorber plate of the air heater.

Light on the shop floor, hot air for commercial process, hot water for commercial process and even electricity, all before spinning the Utility meters. That ought to ease the daytime peak power spike.

Comment
4 of 14

phoenix-woman-63139

March 16, 2012

Steven, the plan provides for many different storage types. Section IV (Energy Storage) mentions hydroelectricity storage and sodium-sulfur battery storage. Compressed air storage is used in the plan as the simplest example of how to address energy storage issues -- it's not necessarily the mandatory or even preferred form.

Comment
5 of 14

rolf-westgard-67277

March 16, 2012

Storage pipe dreams. That $5 millon sodium sulfur battery Excel Energy is testing has a total capacity equal to 18 seconds output from Prairie Island nuclear plant. MN doesn't have hydro for pumped storage, altho the old mine scheme on the Range might be good for something. As the UK is discovering, if you don't include no carbon nuclear, so called renewables don't amount to much.

Comment
6 of 14

Anonymous

March 16, 2012

There isn't much to this study. If is obvious that if you want to assume as much storage as you need then you can provide all the state's electricity from in-state wind. This would only be possible at very high cost though. The cost of storage is very high (and contrary to Bob's remark in comment #2, no one should believe a major breakthrough in battery technology is just around the corner) and the plan relies of a significant amount of curtailment (or "spill" in their terminology) during regions of high production.

Why should MN want to pretend it is an island for the purposes of electricity generation? Renewables would be easier to integrate if one managed them over a multi-state region so that variability could be partially averaged out.
Steven

Comment
7 of 14

JOrLgl

March 16, 2012

North Dakota is going to be so pissed!!

Comment
8 of 14

phoenix-woman-63139

March 16, 2012

Rolf: Got stats to back up your claims? And who's to say that Excel's only using the one battery -- or that costs won't go down as the technology's perfected, much as the costs of solar PV and wind generation have dropped dramatically over the past five years? (Furthermore, with solar or wind, we don't have to worry that earthquakes or flooding will trigger a Fukushima, North Anna or TMI incident -- we came awfully close to seeing a Fukushima at the Ft. Calhoun nuclear plant in Nebraska: http://thecuckingstool.blogspot.com/2011/06/its-beginning-to-look-lot-like.html )

Nuclear and other dirty-energy fans like to rant about the subsidies that go into solar and wind power, but they carefully ignore the billions of subsidies and tax breaks given to coal, oil and nuclear power every year -- as well as the huge "Get Out of Jail Free" card known as the Price-Anderson Act, without which the nuclear industry couldn't operate. It's a sweet deal for an industry if that industry can get the taxpayer to bail it out of its multibillion-dollar disasters.

Comment
9 of 14

phoenix-woman-63139

March 16, 2012

"Why should MN want to pretend it is an island for the purposes of electricity generation?"

Probably because the transmission losses make keeping the energy near where it's generated a better bet than sending it thousands of miles away.

By the way, I've been chatting via e-mail with Scott Brusaw of http://www.solarroadways.com/ and the textured superglass he wants to use for his Solar Road Panel has passed their traction tests (involving vehicles on wet surfaces at 80 mph) like a champ; they're now doing load testing to see if it'll hold up under 18-wheeler traffic. I like the Solar Roadways concept as, rather than using up more arable land or wilderness for solar or wind generation sites, it takes land that's already been developed and gives it an additional use, that of power generation.

Comment
10 of 14

Anonymous

March 16, 2012

Regarding remarks of phoenix-woman-63139 in comment #9:
"Probably because the transmission losses make keeping the energy near where it's generated a better bet than sending it thousands of miles away. "

Average transmission losses are about 7%, this is small compared to the losses for most types of storage. Furthermore, the plan in this report requires large amounts of curtailment--that is a 100% loss. A robust interstate transmission grid is a much more viable plan than the one this study considers.

As for the idea of putting solar cells on roads, this is a strange notion. The materials would cost more, the O&M would cost much more, and anything driving across the road would create shade. We have no shortage of roof space or open land where PV could be placed more cheaply and more conveniently.
Steven

Comment
11 of 14

Bob_Wallace

March 16, 2012

I'm going to suggest that this report is "could be 100% independent" is only an assessment of resources.

In implementation it's likely to make economic sense to cast a wider net for power. Larger grids will almost always mean less storage needs. Storage is a cost best avoided in that it generates no power, even uses small amounts of power.

--

Steven - it seems that battery breakthrough technology is moving from the lab to factory at this moment. Of course, until finished product hits the street and gets a real world test we won't know for sure. But when factories are being built some degree of confidence has been achieved.

Comment
12 of 14

Anonymous

March 17, 2012

Bob,
Regarding comment #11:
"it seems that battery breakthrough technology is moving from the lab to factory at this moment. Of course, until finished product hits the street and gets a real world test we won't know for sure. But when factories are being built some degree of confidence has been achieved."

It is one thing for advanced batteries to have a niche in the market (for example, for frequency regulation) and quite another to expect that you could run the entire state of MN on battery power for many hours. This study suggests that MN should build enough storage so that it could do just that. Storage is expensive and minimizing the need for it is going to be key to expanding the market share of renewables. The future will not look like the model in this study.
Steven

Comment
13 of 14

fsc

March 30, 2012

Why is one hundred percent local so important? The entire idea of the thirteen colonies was to make each one stronger by pooling the resources of each. Sustaining 50 electrical markets makes no sense. If this was logical, why not close the freeway systems and create 50 different markets for anything from oranges to milk to apples. Yet we know that it makes little sense to have cows in New York, or orange trees in Wisconsin.
The best way forward is to create a strong interstate grid. Empower some federal agency to push the interest of America over the individual states, just like the freeway system was pushed on many unwilling communities. Many local businesses opposed the freeways to keep the local population as captive customers. The freeway system gave the country huge opportunities of progress, but some entrenched interests were definitely run over.
I support free trade, as long as it is fair and the field is level. One set of ENFORCED climate laws, and let energy trade as all other resources. We have a huge infrastructure of pipelines for oil; why not wires for electricity?
I am happy that Minnesota COULD, technically speaking, supply all its electricity locally, but taxpayers-slash-consumers will hurt if they actually TRY to do so.

Comment
14 of 14

-24125

April 5, 2012

There is a distinction between distributed storage(Batteries etc) and Bulk Energy Storage( PHS, CAES)the comment that CAES needs fossil fuel is correct today, however Thermal energy storage(TES) is advancing in Germany, where Energy storage due to wind energy disruptions is urgently needed. A 90 MW(e) ACAES(Adiabatic)no fossil fuel, will be demonstrated in 2016 with the aim of 300MW systems that can act as firm power suppliers to the grid.Yes caven(underground) storage is required and available in Germany(German Utilies were pioneers of CAES 300 MW plant at Huntorf)In the case of Monatana such faciliites would need to be developed. If all this is possible Wind Energy could meet daily capacity demands as firm power.

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

John Farrell

Add to my network

About: John Farrell directs the Energy Self-Reliant States and Communities program at ILSR and he focuses on energy policy developments that best expand the benefits o... more »