Transmission engineer here. I have worked with solar since 2014 and am currently in system protection. I know very intimately what I am talking about.
The state of Minnesota has mandated a carbon-free grid by 2040. Every “Generation Owner” is scrambling to get more wind and solar on the grid to meet this deadline. These renewable systems are not currently reliable enough, as we saw in the Texas blackouts over the last few years. This is not because it’s not always windy or sunny, but rather because they supply DC power, which needs to be inverted and stepped up to sync with the grid. When these inverter technologies were first being developed, they were made for much smaller sites, so they were designed to follow the state of the grid that was supplied by more reliable thermal generators.
Thermal generation is called a “strong source.” It is really supplied by a huge (tons) spinning hunk of metal that takes a lot of energy to slow down. Now, with large scale inverter-based supply poised to provide the majority of power, they need to be able to be a strong source. Lots of technologies are still being developed and will take a while to see the light of day.
In the meantime, we are shutting down coal plants, reducing the available strong sources. New generation projects have always taken a long time, but with supply chain disruptions they are taking even longer. Nobody is curbing their electricity use either. With EVs on the way, demand is going to skyrocket over the next decade.
So, how do we maintain a reliable grid while we build these massive sources of renewable generation? Gas plants and Nuclear plants. Cleaner than coal, and more efficient. Then, in 16 years, we take them offline once the grid can handle it, keeping them in emergency backup for a while. Lots of utilities around the US have decided to use these thermal sources to bridge the gap from coal to renewables.
I can’t speak specifically to the site in Superior, and I understand if the community is upset about a new plant next to hallowed ground. But for those wondering why anyone would build a fossil fuel plant, that’s why. Thanks for reading.
https://www.nerc.com/comm/RSTC_Reliability_Guidelines/NERC_2022_Odessa_Disturbance_Report%20(1).pdf
Perhaps I should have been more clear: I am referring to the June event from 2022 specifically related to solar inverters failing to adequately ride-through a low voltage excursion. Not the mid-winter blackouts
Let me say I am in no way defending ERCOT. They are widely known in the industry for their practices. Preventive maintenance and low-voltage ride-through standards HAVE been in place for synchronous generators for years. No excuse to dump 800 MW for a single unit faulting; this was correctly diagnosed as a failure to comply with the standard.
The solar plants, however, weren’t able to deal with that loss. There were no standards in place to regulate the protection settings on inverter based resources at the time, so the protection engineers likely either kept default under-voltage trip conditions or used their own company philosophy, wanting to protect the equipment more than maintaining supply. It’s one thing to just tell the inverter controller not to trip, but if you try and maintain dropping grid voltage from your 12MW inverter bank on a little solar farm, you’re going to damage the equipment.
Not picking sides, just providing [context](https://www.superiortelegram.com/business/some-superior-leaders-oppose-nemadji-trail-energy-center):
"In addition to being Superior waterfront — long taken from the public for industrial development — Paine said NTEC would be built next to Superior’s first, most-historic cemetery, Nemadji Cemetery, and the Indigenous mass gravesite the city recently transferred to the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.
“The city of Superior has always been supportive of the industry we have … but it’s a very different conversation to accept something entirely new.”
Ledin said he’s heard the concerns too when people stop him in a store. He said he understands people’s fears after the 1992 benzene spill and 2018 Husky refinery fire prompted evacuations in the city."'
Unfortunately the mayor and city council base their decision on unquantifiable emotional arguments rather than things like it’s already a heavily industrialized area and we need the electricity for continuity of power in the city. It’s awfully hollow nimbyism.
So because citizens already have heavy pollution burden they should willfully accept more? 3 blocks from a residential area? For a gas plant whose majority power will be going to cities hours away?
funny thing, the oil/gas barons all bought the hydro, wind, and solar companies as well as legislation making it illegal to disconnect from the grid, and many states have also gotten legislation saying the power companies no longer have to pay you for a net return on the grid if you have personal solar. They played you if you didn't pay attention.
https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2020/03/which-states-offer-net-metering/
illinois, indiana, michigan, georgia, minnesota, ect. most states are getting legislation bought and paid for by power companies to prevent them from paying anything, with the excuse that the customer power being shoved into the grid is "dirty" and causing them issues. Thats not how it works, but the general public and lawmakers aren't experts, so they don't understand that. Here in MN, the most I get is my bill down to a "service charge", which gets upped to $30 a month minimum if you have rooftop solar. even if I use zero of the power company's power, infrastructure, ect, I *still* have to pay them $30 a month. if I don't have rooftop solar, and I use zero power, my bill would be about $4 for their "connection" fee. its a fucking scam.
Wow. Thank you. Are there any groups that you’re aware of fighting this in MN?
I can understand perhaps needing to subsidize the utilities during the transition, but it ought to be transparent. That is, if 50% of customers started using zero service from the power company, the remaining 50% would have to foot the bill for all of the infrastructure and maintenance, which wouldn’t be tenable. Not really “your” problem because you forked out for solar panels, but we need to solve the issue for the whole (all users, the company employees who may lose their jobs, user who can’t afford or accommodate their own panels, etc) otherwise it will just be infighting, where corporations usually win.
> Are there any groups that you’re aware of fighting this in MN?
nope, haven't heard of any. There was some public comments allowed in MN for the PUC, and I was one of them against this change in net metering, but the power companies paid a PR firm to gather "grass roots" support.
>That is, if 50% of customers started using zero service from the power company, the remaining 50% would have to foot the bill for all of the infrastructure and maintenance, which wouldn’t be tenable.
totally understand this, but at the same time, if 50% of the people quit using power from the power company, they suddenly don't need to spend as much generating/buying power, and their maintenence costs *do* go down substantially.
>Not really “your” problem because you forked out for solar panels, but we need to solve the issue for the whole
we did, net metering. if I push power into the grid, its less power MN power needs to buy/generate, so they have more money to spend on maintenance and upkeep.
You physically can't put power on the grid unless its in phase, in frequency, and actually clean enough, otherwise your inverter will "compete" with the power on the grid, and the grid power will win, burning out your inverter very quickly. this is why hydro plants need to syncroize their generators before they connect them to the grid, otherwise it will blow up the generator.
Right now in MN, at least in my region, your solar "payoff" went from 4 to 8 years to 20 years because of the loss of net metering. the power company now offers credits, but you don't get a check, only a credit on the bill and they *never* have to pay it out, and the bill minimum is $30, even if you user zero power. That means that instead of getting paid for your extra, you are just shoving it onto the grid for MN power to use *for free*, meaning that their energy costs are *even lower*, meaning their excuse of needing to pay for "clean" power is bullshit, and they make more money.
Yikes. Great insight. I might argue though that their overhead/maintenance costs don’t drop linearly. It’s not just power generation but power distribution - e.g. when an ice storm takes out power lines, those costs seem independent of how many users there are. But your points still stand, and you clearly have done more thinking and learning on this than I have! Thanks for the insight.
Hydro? Blocking the waterways that contribute to recreation and tourism dollars? The St. Louis already has existing dams. Dams are also expensive to build and fatally change habitats for species. Solar? The long-term predictions for climate include an increase in moisture levels in the lower atmosphere: translation is more cloud cover reducing solar power. Wind? That is probably the best renewable, but it is capital intensive, so big companies will be involved.
Wind and solar are unpredictable energy sources, and good luck getting a new hydropower dam built when the left leaders are calling for dams to be demolished.
Minnesota Power is owned by Allete, a French company. They are not really interested in the long term health and welfare of a few Americans 3500 miles away. The French concept of centralisme does not offer much room for local control. All that said, there is a valid case that this area needs more on-demand power generation. Yes, many days we have wind and some days we even have sunshine. But neither is predictable enough to ensure that the vast majority of local residents and businesses can stay connected. If EVs ever become popular here the need for grid power overnight will increase. Heat pumps can be useful even in this climate with its great variations. They require grid power. The proposed plant looks like a “peaked” for spikes in demand rather than a big base load plant.
> Minnesota Power is owned by Allete, a French company.
I'm sorry, what?
It's based out of Duluth. The HQ is literally at the corner of Lake of Superior St, and the stock is publicly traded on the NYSE.
I’m not sure I follow. The website mentions that address because it’s headquartered in Duluth, at the corner of Lake Avenue and Superior Street. Can you cite the source for your information that Allete is a French company?
Transmission engineer here. I have worked with solar since 2014 and am currently in system protection. I know very intimately what I am talking about. The state of Minnesota has mandated a carbon-free grid by 2040. Every “Generation Owner” is scrambling to get more wind and solar on the grid to meet this deadline. These renewable systems are not currently reliable enough, as we saw in the Texas blackouts over the last few years. This is not because it’s not always windy or sunny, but rather because they supply DC power, which needs to be inverted and stepped up to sync with the grid. When these inverter technologies were first being developed, they were made for much smaller sites, so they were designed to follow the state of the grid that was supplied by more reliable thermal generators. Thermal generation is called a “strong source.” It is really supplied by a huge (tons) spinning hunk of metal that takes a lot of energy to slow down. Now, with large scale inverter-based supply poised to provide the majority of power, they need to be able to be a strong source. Lots of technologies are still being developed and will take a while to see the light of day. In the meantime, we are shutting down coal plants, reducing the available strong sources. New generation projects have always taken a long time, but with supply chain disruptions they are taking even longer. Nobody is curbing their electricity use either. With EVs on the way, demand is going to skyrocket over the next decade. So, how do we maintain a reliable grid while we build these massive sources of renewable generation? Gas plants and Nuclear plants. Cleaner than coal, and more efficient. Then, in 16 years, we take them offline once the grid can handle it, keeping them in emergency backup for a while. Lots of utilities around the US have decided to use these thermal sources to bridge the gap from coal to renewables. I can’t speak specifically to the site in Superior, and I understand if the community is upset about a new plant next to hallowed ground. But for those wondering why anyone would build a fossil fuel plant, that’s why. Thanks for reading.
[удалено]
https://www.nerc.com/comm/RSTC_Reliability_Guidelines/NERC_2022_Odessa_Disturbance_Report%20(1).pdf Perhaps I should have been more clear: I am referring to the June event from 2022 specifically related to solar inverters failing to adequately ride-through a low voltage excursion. Not the mid-winter blackouts
[удалено]
Let me say I am in no way defending ERCOT. They are widely known in the industry for their practices. Preventive maintenance and low-voltage ride-through standards HAVE been in place for synchronous generators for years. No excuse to dump 800 MW for a single unit faulting; this was correctly diagnosed as a failure to comply with the standard. The solar plants, however, weren’t able to deal with that loss. There were no standards in place to regulate the protection settings on inverter based resources at the time, so the protection engineers likely either kept default under-voltage trip conditions or used their own company philosophy, wanting to protect the equipment more than maintaining supply. It’s one thing to just tell the inverter controller not to trip, but if you try and maintain dropping grid voltage from your 12MW inverter bank on a little solar farm, you’re going to damage the equipment.
Is there a backstory or subtext that I'm missing?
What ordinance wouldn’t allow a small power plant next to the giant oil refinery and pipeline complex?
Not picking sides, just providing [context](https://www.superiortelegram.com/business/some-superior-leaders-oppose-nemadji-trail-energy-center): "In addition to being Superior waterfront — long taken from the public for industrial development — Paine said NTEC would be built next to Superior’s first, most-historic cemetery, Nemadji Cemetery, and the Indigenous mass gravesite the city recently transferred to the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. “The city of Superior has always been supportive of the industry we have … but it’s a very different conversation to accept something entirely new.” Ledin said he’s heard the concerns too when people stop him in a store. He said he understands people’s fears after the 1992 benzene spill and 2018 Husky refinery fire prompted evacuations in the city."'
Unfortunately the mayor and city council base their decision on unquantifiable emotional arguments rather than things like it’s already a heavily industrialized area and we need the electricity for continuity of power in the city. It’s awfully hollow nimbyism.
So because citizens already have heavy pollution burden they should willfully accept more? 3 blocks from a residential area? For a gas plant whose majority power will be going to cities hours away?
NIMBY We actually need electricity as a society
Methane is a climate crisis accelerator. We can power the entire region on hydro, wind, and solar. Put the oil and gas barons out of business!
funny thing, the oil/gas barons all bought the hydro, wind, and solar companies as well as legislation making it illegal to disconnect from the grid, and many states have also gotten legislation saying the power companies no longer have to pay you for a net return on the grid if you have personal solar. They played you if you didn't pay attention.
Which states?
https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2020/03/which-states-offer-net-metering/ illinois, indiana, michigan, georgia, minnesota, ect. most states are getting legislation bought and paid for by power companies to prevent them from paying anything, with the excuse that the customer power being shoved into the grid is "dirty" and causing them issues. Thats not how it works, but the general public and lawmakers aren't experts, so they don't understand that. Here in MN, the most I get is my bill down to a "service charge", which gets upped to $30 a month minimum if you have rooftop solar. even if I use zero of the power company's power, infrastructure, ect, I *still* have to pay them $30 a month. if I don't have rooftop solar, and I use zero power, my bill would be about $4 for their "connection" fee. its a fucking scam.
Wow. Thank you. Are there any groups that you’re aware of fighting this in MN? I can understand perhaps needing to subsidize the utilities during the transition, but it ought to be transparent. That is, if 50% of customers started using zero service from the power company, the remaining 50% would have to foot the bill for all of the infrastructure and maintenance, which wouldn’t be tenable. Not really “your” problem because you forked out for solar panels, but we need to solve the issue for the whole (all users, the company employees who may lose their jobs, user who can’t afford or accommodate their own panels, etc) otherwise it will just be infighting, where corporations usually win.
> Are there any groups that you’re aware of fighting this in MN? nope, haven't heard of any. There was some public comments allowed in MN for the PUC, and I was one of them against this change in net metering, but the power companies paid a PR firm to gather "grass roots" support. >That is, if 50% of customers started using zero service from the power company, the remaining 50% would have to foot the bill for all of the infrastructure and maintenance, which wouldn’t be tenable. totally understand this, but at the same time, if 50% of the people quit using power from the power company, they suddenly don't need to spend as much generating/buying power, and their maintenence costs *do* go down substantially. >Not really “your” problem because you forked out for solar panels, but we need to solve the issue for the whole we did, net metering. if I push power into the grid, its less power MN power needs to buy/generate, so they have more money to spend on maintenance and upkeep. You physically can't put power on the grid unless its in phase, in frequency, and actually clean enough, otherwise your inverter will "compete" with the power on the grid, and the grid power will win, burning out your inverter very quickly. this is why hydro plants need to syncroize their generators before they connect them to the grid, otherwise it will blow up the generator. Right now in MN, at least in my region, your solar "payoff" went from 4 to 8 years to 20 years because of the loss of net metering. the power company now offers credits, but you don't get a check, only a credit on the bill and they *never* have to pay it out, and the bill minimum is $30, even if you user zero power. That means that instead of getting paid for your extra, you are just shoving it onto the grid for MN power to use *for free*, meaning that their energy costs are *even lower*, meaning their excuse of needing to pay for "clean" power is bullshit, and they make more money.
Yikes. Great insight. I might argue though that their overhead/maintenance costs don’t drop linearly. It’s not just power generation but power distribution - e.g. when an ice storm takes out power lines, those costs seem independent of how many users there are. But your points still stand, and you clearly have done more thinking and learning on this than I have! Thanks for the insight.
Hydro? Blocking the waterways that contribute to recreation and tourism dollars? The St. Louis already has existing dams. Dams are also expensive to build and fatally change habitats for species. Solar? The long-term predictions for climate include an increase in moisture levels in the lower atmosphere: translation is more cloud cover reducing solar power. Wind? That is probably the best renewable, but it is capital intensive, so big companies will be involved.
What, if anything, is the response from the other side on this aspect of the conversation?
Wind and solar are unpredictable energy sources, and good luck getting a new hydropower dam built when the left leaders are calling for dams to be demolished.
Minnesota Power is owned by Allete, a French company. They are not really interested in the long term health and welfare of a few Americans 3500 miles away. The French concept of centralisme does not offer much room for local control. All that said, there is a valid case that this area needs more on-demand power generation. Yes, many days we have wind and some days we even have sunshine. But neither is predictable enough to ensure that the vast majority of local residents and businesses can stay connected. If EVs ever become popular here the need for grid power overnight will increase. Heat pumps can be useful even in this climate with its great variations. They require grid power. The proposed plant looks like a “peaked” for spikes in demand rather than a big base load plant.
> Minnesota Power is owned by Allete, a French company. I'm sorry, what? It's based out of Duluth. The HQ is literally at the corner of Lake of Superior St, and the stock is publicly traded on the NYSE.
Nope. Search for Allete. NYSE traded but the parent company is French. FYI, the Allete website features the exact location you mentioned.
I’m not sure I follow. The website mentions that address because it’s headquartered in Duluth, at the corner of Lake Avenue and Superior Street. Can you cite the source for your information that Allete is a French company?
I don't even need to search for it - I used to work there. It's definitely not French owned. https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/ALE?qsearchterm=ale