Guest “You can’t fix stupid,” by David Middleton
Governor Walz Signs Bill Moving Minnesota to 100 Percent Clean Energy by 2040
February 7, 2023 | EnergyGovernor Tim Walz today signed into law legislation establishing a Minnesota carbon-free electricity standard. With Senate File 4, Minnesota will take steps to lower greenhouse gas emissions, combat the climate crisis, and create new clean energy jobs. The new law ensures Minnesotans will continue to have reliable, affordable, and safe energy resources. Governor Walz signed the bill alongside legislators, labor, and environmental advocates at the St. Paul Regional Labor Center.
[…]
The bill establishes a standard for utilities to supply Minnesota customers with electricity generated or procured from carbon-free resources, beginning at an amount equal to 80% of retail sales for public utility customers in Minnesota in 2030 and increasing every 5 years to reach 100% for all electric utilities by 2040. The bill also requires that, by 2035, an amount equal to at least 55% of an electric utility’s total retail electric sales to customers in Minnesota must be generated or procured from eligible energy technologies.
The bill encourages utilities to locate new energy generating facilities in communities where fossil-fuel-generating plants have been retired or are scheduled for retirement and prioritize projects that maximize local employment, including employment of workers from communities where generation has been retired.
[…]
MN Commerce Department
The bill passed the State Senate on a 34-33, party line vote. All 34 Democrats (DFL) voted for it and all 33 Republicans voted against it.
ST. PAUL, Minn. — The Minnesota Senate overnight passed a bill setting new climate goals for Minnesota. It will require all utilities to offer 100% clean energy by 2040.
Supporters say it’s important to help curb climate change. Opponents argue it’s too costly and unreliable.
[…]
Senate Minority Leader Mark Johnson (R-East Grand Forks) countered that the bill would lead to “higher costs and less reliable energy.”
“Senate Republicans tried to amend the bill with our A+ Energy Plan to keep our affordable, reliable energy available without increasing costs,” Johnson said. “Again, we see a party-line vote on an extreme bill that was rushed through the process.”
CBS Minnesota
While the framers of our Constitution were wise enough to establish safeguards against this sort of “tyranny of the majority” at the Federal level, they allowed the individual States wide latitude in their own self governance. States are free to be stupid, but theoretically not allowed to inflict that stupidity on other States.
Laboratories of Democracy
By Michael S. GreveAmerican Enterprise Institute
March 31, 2001
Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s metaphor of the states as “laboratories” for policy experiments is perhaps the most familiar and clichéd image of federalism. Contrary to common belief, however, Brandeis’s famous dictum had almost nothing to do with federalism and everything to do with his commitment to scientific socialism. That substantive view proved even more influential, in political thought and constitutional jurisprudence, than the metaphor that flowed from it. To this day, it continues to inhibit a truly experimental, federalist politics.
“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system,” Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in 1932, “that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” Conservative and liberal justices have quoted Brandeis’s dictum in some three dozen cases. The metaphor invariably surfaces in any scholarly or public discussion of federalism and is accompanied by emphatic nods of approval. It conveys a pragmatic spirit that naturally appeals to a nation of compulsive tinkerers, and it connotes equally popular sentiments in favor of localism and decentralization.
[…]
AEI
In practice, laboratory failures are contained by State borders about as well as the Wuhan lab constrained ChiCom-19.
Words are funny things
Governor Walz Signs Bill Moving Minnesota to 100 Percent Clean Energy by 2040
MN Commerce Department
Not really…
It will require Minnesota’s electricity to be carbon-free by 2040, with some exceptions.
MPR News
Energy and electricity are not synonyms.
Fossil fuels currently account for about 73% of Minnesota’s energy consumption; while non-hydroelectric renewables, mostly wind, only account for about 7% of energy consumption. This bill doesn’t affect transportation or residential natural gas for heating and hot water (yet).
65% of Minnesota homes currently use natural gas for heating and hot water.
56% of Minnesota’s electricity generation already comes from from “carbon-free” sources.
- Fossil Fuels 44%
- Nuclear 23%
- Hydroelectric 1%
- Non-Hydroelectric Renewables 32%
If Minnesota built four more nuclear power plants, they could probably replace the fossil fuel generation with clean, reliable electricity. However, Democrats (DFL) have already closed off that option.
Carbon–free energy sources are those that don’t release any carbon dioxide, such as solar, wind, hydropower or nuclear. Under the bill, nuclear power is not considered a renewable energy source, but it is carbon free.
Minnesota has two nuclear plants, at Prairie Island and Monticello, owned by Xcel Energy. Xcel has said it plans to continue to operate those plants at least for the next couple of decades to help its carbon-free goals.
Minnesota law currently bans building new nuclear plants in the state. Some Republican lawmakers have argued that the ban should be lifted to allow new nuclear energy production, especially smaller modular technology.
MPR News
So… As it stands right now, Minnesota utilities will have to replace their fossil fuel generation with wind power and its seasonal reliability issues.
Just like in Texas, Minnesota’s wind power generation falls off in summer…
Midcontinent ISO (MISO) faces a capacity shortfall in its North and Central areas, resulting in high risk of energy emergencies during peak summer conditions. Capacity shortfall projections reported in the 2021 LTRA and as far back as the 2018 LTRA have continued. Load serving entities in 4 of 11 zones entered the annual planning resource auction (PRA) in April 2022 without enough owned or contracted capacity to cover their requirements. Across MISO, peak demand projections have increased by 1.7% since last summer due in part to a return to normal demand patterns that have been altered in prior years by the pandemic. However, more impactful is the drop in capacity in the most recent PRA: MISO will have 3,200 MW (2.3%) less generation capacity than in the summer of 2021. System operators in MISO are more likely to need operating mitigations, such as load modifying resources or non-firm imports, to meet reserve requirements under normal peak summer conditions. More extreme temperatures, higher generation outages, or low wind conditions expose the MISO North and Central areas to higher risk of temporary operator-initiated load shedding to maintain system reliability
NERC
And, just as it did in Texas in February 2021, wind power can fail to show up when it’s really cold.
But at least Minnesotans will still be able to heat their homes and have hot water even when the lights go out…
At least, they’ll still be able to heat their homes and have hot water until the State is fully electrified…
As you can see, total household energy use surges in the winter from about 1,000-kilowatt hours (kWh) during summer months to more than 3,500 kWh in January 2020 and nearly 4,500 kWh in January 2022. This means total household energy use in Minnesota increases by 3.5 to 4.5 times in colder months.
This has important implications for policy because extreme environmental groups and progressive politicians want to replace natural gas for home heating, cooking, and water heating with electricity as part of their initiative to “electrify everything.”
However, Minnesota’s current electric grid is woefully inadequate to replace the volumes of natural gas used for home heating, and this will be especially true as reliable coal plants are shut down in the coming years, and Minnesota utilities build wind, solar, and battery storage to replace them.
Attempting to electrify home heating while simultaneously undermining the reliability of the electric grid will cause huge spikes in electricity demand during cold periods, but the power grid may not be able to keep up, resulting in the same rolling blackouts that hit several southern states over the Christmas of 2022, according to Bloomberg.
Unfortunately, Minnesota lawmakers seem keen to repeat the energy mistakes of other areas.
The American Experiment
Minnesota Democrats (DFL) seem to be hell-bent on electrifying everything, while making electricity less reliable and more expensive. As Ron White said:
Why aren’t the utilities fighting this?
“We’re actually excited about being pushed to go faster,” Chris Clark, Xcel’s president in Minnesota, North and South Dakota, said in an interview. “We also recognize, though, that it’s a challenge.”
A big reason why major utilities aren’t opposing the bill is because it includes exemptions and ways they can meet the standard without ditching fossil fuels altogether.
For example, a utility could buy renewable energy credits to offset electricity generated by a natural gas plant.
Also, the bill contains so-called “off ramps.” The state Public Utilities Commission could allow a utility to delay meeting the standard if doing so would have big impacts on electric rates or create reliability issues.
MPR News
So… It’ll basically be greenwashing and virtue signaling if when this law starts to drive up prices and inflict reliability issues.
There’s also the endless subsidies for unreliable energy sources.
The Greatest US President of the 20th Century said it best…
How will this affect the rest of MISO?
Unlike Texas with its own grid operator (ERCOT), Minnesota is part of Midcontinent System Operator, Inc. (MISO).
The Minnesota State Legislature cannot dictate the fuel mix, nor can it interfere with the interstate and international flow of electricity within MISO. North Dakota is already gearing up to sue Minnesota over this law.
North Dakota Industrial Commission moves toward suing Minnesota over carbon-free bill
AMY DALRYMPLE Bismarck Tribune Feb 6, 2023The North Dakota Industrial Commission voiced unanimous support Monday to move toward filing a lawsuit challenging Minnesota’s carbon-free electricity legislation, with North Dakota’s governor arguing the neighboring state is overreaching.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is expected to sign a bill that requires Minnesota utilities to transition to 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040. The bill would prevent North Dakota utilities from exporting power generated from coal and gas to Minnesota. North Dakota exports about 50% of its electricity supply, with the vast majority used in Minnesota, according to the North Dakota Lignite Energy Council.
North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, who chairs the state’s Industrial Commission, said state leaders tried unsuccessfully to urge Minnesota to amend the bill so it would not affect North Dakota utility companies. North Dakota officials will continue to work with Minnesota to attempt to reach an agreement to avoid a lawsuit, Burgum said.
[…]
Bismarck Tribune
North Dakota successfully sued Minnesota over a similar law in the past.
NORTH DAKOTA PREVAILS IN MINNESOTA LAWSUIT AGAIN
August 14, 2018BISMARCK, ND – The seven year battle between North Dakota and the State of Minnesota may now be at an end, with the affirmance of an award of attorney fees imposed against the Minnesota officials named in the suit.
Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem sued Minnesota in 2011 over the restrictions imposed by Minnesota’s Next Generation Energy Act (NGEA). In the lawsuit, the State and co-plaintiffs, North Dakota rural electric utilities and energy companies who serve the needs of consumers in the upper Midwest, alleged that the Minnesota law violated the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution by restricting transmission of electricity generated in North Dakota and consumed in Minnesota unless it met that state’s carbon dioxide emission requirements. If left in place, the law would have restricted North Dakota utilities from selling power into the Midcontinent Independent Transmission System Operator (MISO) market – hurting businesses and customers in both Minnesota and North Dakota.
After the District Court and ultimately the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the position of the state of North Dakota and these rural electric utilities and energy companies that the Minnesota statute was unlawful and awarded attorney fees as prevailing parties, the state of Minnesota appealed the award of attorney fees to the 8th Circuit.
Today, an appellate panel upheld the award to North Dakota for $1.3 million. Added to that amount is the right to pursue recovery of interest at the prevailing federal rate and the costs of pursuing the fee through the courts.
“North Dakota maintained from the beginning that the Minnesota enactment attempting to prohibit importation into Minnesota of energy generated in North Dakota was a violation of the US Constitution and federal law. Our arguments have prevailed every step of the way. Now, I hope that Minnesota will finally pay the bill for the expense they caused us to incur, and end the matter,” Stenehjem said.
Attorney General ND
Maybe Ron White wasn’t the most apt quote for this post.
I wonder whether it is ignorance or nihilism. Greens really hate industrial society, and want some sort of Arcadian socialism, with the peons huddling around burning cow flops to warm themselves.
The head of the UNIPCC is on record saying that the green energy movement, is more about destroying capitalism than saving the environment
But one would have to seriously ask if they have even contemplated what might come next after destroying capitalism?
US capitalism is gone, folks.
Disappeared in 2020 and 2021 with massive government spending and deficits, which caused high inflation in 2021 and 2022.
By my definition, which you may not agree with, socialism begins when total government spending (federal, state and local) exceeds 33% of GDP.
That first happened in 2020 (excluding high WW2 spending that was unique).Also higher in 2021. 2022 was 34.5% of GDP.
I can’t call 34,5% of GDP capitalism.
We don’t have socialized medicine yet, but leftists are pushing for a lot more government control there (and everywhere else).
I can’t take serious a post that makes an exception for the “unique” circumstances of WWII while at the same time ignores the “unique” circumstances of 2020 & 2021. If you are going to allow exceptions for “unique” circumstances, cherry picking which ones “count” does you no favors, and only undermines any credibility you might have otherwise had.
2020 and 2021 were not unique except in the sense that the governments, both federal and state, stuck their foot in where NO ACTIONS would have resulted in far better results.
Amazing how all the front line PRODUCING workers, at grocery stores, etc. were able to continue to work while all the “overhead” workers stayed home and continued to suck at the trough of public funded largess.
No action and the China virus would have run its course in a year.
BUT the democrats learned much from their favorite President, FDR, who’s policies were able to extend a recession into a 10 year depression, as Obama and a Democrat congress turned a recession into a Great Recession with much the same policies.
WWII was essential to bring the US out of FDR’s depression and to break the Federal Reserve’s stranglehold on the economy. As a side benefit, 3 dictatorships were overturned to democracies, Japan, Germany and Italy. BUT the incompetence of FDR at Yalta lead to the creation North Korea, a problem for world even until today.
FDR along side of Wilson have brought the US to where we are today, a very scary place.
The point, which clearly flew over your head by a mile, is that in both cases (WWII and 2020/21) there were “unique” (note the quote marks) reasons behind the increase in spending (a world war and a “war” against a virus). To cherry pick one as “counting” and the other as “not” is bad argumentation no matter how you slice it, Defending such bad argumentation only reflects badly on the defender.
That you don’t think those unique circumstances warranted the actions taken does not negate their existence. Bury your head in the sand to the fact of history all you want, it won’t change that history one iota.
Yeah 2020 is unique in the sense that the globul hoaxdemic decimated rich countries with lots of medical “care” and capable for doing tests while forgetting to kill most poor Africans who had little medical care and not much resources for PCR games.
Yeah I understand:
Give me a break.
A pandemic of the rich and of the tested is not a pandemic.
No real pandemic needs either biological (*) or chemical testing (**) to exist.
(*) microbe culture is a biological test; everybody knows that bacteria can be cultivated and tested in a antibiogram; viruses can also be cultivated, it’s more difficult though.
(**) PCR is a biological process used to do a chemical test, it isn’t a biological test; the molecule tested is one of biological significance. PCR doesn’t detect life.
ian – I think they’ve bought in to the science-fiction utopias they see depicted in, for example, The Hunger Games, and truly believe they will be the well-off living in District 1, being served by the serfs in the subordinate districts.
They obviously have never watched them all the way through to see how it ends.
Either that or they’re just idiots. Both is also possible.
Neither ignorance nor nihilism — profit is the motivation: Corporatism eliminates competition and ensures a means of taxation to support government through tariff and fee collection and government price fixing. The State will use police power to ensure compliance with corporate monopoly and to confiscate property. The compliance of Minnesota’s serfs is well engineered.
FYI Black Rock Energy Partners is a significant partner in MISO wind generattion.
Can’t burn the Cow Flops for heat, that action releases CO2. No, you need to wait for the Cow to drop the flop then gather it while it’s still warm
Or go back to Ye Olde Days and keep your animals in the house for warmth
“you need to wait for the Cow to drop the flop then gather it while it’s still warm”
Maybe that should be the next job for Kamala Harris, who seems to a BS expert?
I’ll write her press release:
“The word salad queen, Kamala Harris, moves into the green energy field, specifically working in fields, collecting brown energy”.
Be no ‘cow flops’ once they get done making everyone eat insects.
Except that they might not want us to have the cows either…
Living in Florida and away from the madness that is engulfing so many other states, is getting better and better everyday.
Maybe so but don’t look now but your state will be under water very very soon. Just sayin. Wink
Wait until the New York Nut Zero fails and one million Nu Yawkas move to Florida … permanently.
Also a million snowbirds escaping from Justin TrueDope’s Cubanada, and their Nut Zero. Not just staying for the winter driving in circles looking for a Timmies to buy a double-double. But staying in Florida all year round.
Where you gonna’ go then, Mr. Smarty Pants?
Tony is building an ark
The thing about Florida, and ALL states east of the Mississippi, almost all of the state is PRIVATE land, not federal controlled. And there is plenty of water.
SO there is a lot of room for population growth. Cow and horse pastures to housing developments. What was there before Disney bought up central Florida?
Now the Nut Zero crowed from NY need to be kept from voting any way possible. 10 year residency requirement for vote for state and local offices?
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as carbon free energy. Wind power has GHG emissions of between 15 and 20 grams CO2 and equivalents per kW-h of power. So no matter how much they want to think of it as carbon free, there is no such thing as a free lunch. All the GHG emissions for wind and solar are up front in manufacturing and instillation with the massive cement blocks used as foundations being one of the more CO2 intense parts, but energy used to mine metals and manufacture blades are also carbon intensive. So if they last 20 years, they have 15 gCO2/kW-h emissions. If their lifetime is cut short, the emissions factor goes up higher quickly. So this is all a shell game.
But it’s free energy.
Just like my lunch today.
No, the wind is free. The cost of converting that free wind into electricity (USABLE energy) is gargantuan.
In India, people use cow dung for open fire cooking; big pollution.
However, the Indian house wives will soon be using coal fired stoves; much less pollution.
The stoves and coal will come from Russia
What to do with the cow dung?
I propose it be dumped onto Minnesota, as an exalted biofuel, EPA-certified CO2 free, because it is renewable, from the Holy Cow, along with all the methane a Holy Cow produces by farting and belching.
Regarding wind being for free, here is my latest take:
WIND AND SOLAR ARE MOLLY-CODDLED UP TO THEIR ARMPITS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-are-molly-coddled-up-to-their-armpits
.
Grossly Excessive Financial Incentives
About 45 to 50% of the “wind, all-in LCOE” (levelized cost of energy) of wind turbine projects consists of various financial in incentives. I have the 20-y spreadsheets.
.
If no financial incentives were available, Owners would have to sell their electricity at almost 2 times the price, c/kWh, they now receive, which would be very bad PR for wind.
.
THE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES ARE THE REASON MANY $BILLIONS OF $DOLLARS ARE MADE AVAILABLE BY RICH PEOPLE WHO ARE PROFITING FROM LUCRATIVE TAX-SHELTERS, SUCH AS WARREN BUFFETT, WHILE LEGALLY SCREWING ALL OTHERS, ALL IN THE NAME OF SLOGAN “SAVING THE PLANET”
.
Wind Output is Variable Almost 100% of the Time
I looked at the hour-to-hour wind output in New England (ISO-NE website) for an entire year, 8766 hours. I was bleary eyed.
I found there ALWAYS was some wind output. It was NEVER zero.
Wind output is variable almost 100% of the time
.
Counteracting Variable Wind Output
.
What makes wind a grid disturber, or very expensive, or very uneconomical (take your pick) is the VARIABLE output, because OTHER generators (likely gas-fired power plants) HAVE to counteract, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, the variable wind outputs, UP TO NEAR ZERO wind output, 24/7/365, year after year.
.
Nearby Grids Counteracting Variable Wind Output
.
By exporting excess electricity, such as to Quebec, via not-yet-existing HV DC lines, NE generators will do less counteracting, but Quebec generators will do more counteracting; there is no free lunch in the real engineering world.
NOTE: Exports from nearby grids may not be available, because they need their electricity for their own users, as happened in 2021, with France not exporting to Germany, Norway not exporting to Germany, nearby states not exporting to California, etc.
.
Cost of Counteracting Variable Wind Output
.
The counteracting costs imposed on the other generators will be an addition to the “all-in LCOE” of the other generators.
Depending on grid conditions/topology, that cost addition is:
.
Less than 5% at up to 5% annual wind penetration,
About 5% at about 10% wind penetration,
About 10% at about 15% wind penetration, etc., as proven in Ireland at 17% wind
.
That cost addition becomes very large at high levels of wind penetration, because more and more of the other generators will be operating less economically, due to:
.
1) Ramping up/down, at about 75% of rated output, to counteract, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, the variable wind outputs; more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more c/kWh
2) Being on hot, synchronous standby, and cold standby; more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more c/kWh
3) Having much more fuel-guzzling cold start and stops; more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more c/kWh
4) Having much more wear and tear, more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more c/kWh.
5) Producing less, but more expensive electricity, due to inefficiently operating, at a lesser capacity factor, with wind on the grid
.
NOTE: The more wind and solar on the grid, the larger the electricity quantities that need to be counteracted, and the greater the cost of the counteracting services, as proven in Germany and Ireland.
SEE URL FOR REST OF ARTICLE
Ask any Electric Utility CFO or accountant. The cost of the FUEL needed to generate Electricity is less than 2% of the companies’ expenses. Over 50% is TAXES Federal, State, County, Municipal, in the form of Property and Income taxes. Wind power will double the amount of Transmission lines needed to deliver Free Wind Energy then that property will be taxed by the governments and added to your tax bill along with the increase in taxes to pay for subsidies and make up for lost property taxes given to farmers tax free Wind Turbine sites.
COME ON DOWN VOTERS, CAN YOU NOT RECOGNIZE SARCASIM WHEN YOU SEE IT????
‘sarcasm’
Barryjo, you forgot the /sarc tag.
And also remember TANSTAFL: There Aint No Such Thing As Free Lunch.
I once asked an alarmist what kind of lubricant is carbon free? He said, “graphite.”
OK, that made me LOL.
AND I believe you!
wrong
carbon free does not mean free of carbon at every step.
who knew politicians were smartr than you.
from the bill
(b) “Carbon-free” means a technology that generates electricity without emitting carbon
dioxide.
you know i used to teach freshman. lesson number 1 i learned in college
i passed it on to them
read the damn text
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF4&version=0&session=ls93&session_year=2023&session_number=0
The “damn text” is quite clear. It says “technology.” It does not say “energy generating machinery…” So try and read the text again. Then you may understand but I doubt it.
Specious sophistry is what your definition is.
I suppose the idiot politicians would then support an electric generation facility that causes just as much carbon dioxide to be “emitted” as using fossil fuel plants would, just so long as it doesn’t generate the “emissions” DURING electric generation.
Sounds like a government “solution” to me.
Yes, you understand what Mosher meant, while Denis and Theo seem to have trouble with satire.
Theo cut to the heart of Mosher’s (or, perhaps, he really doesn’t get it, so, those whom Mosher is defending, then) cunningly misleading writing.
The term “carbon free” and like terms (regardless of how they are defined in the statute) are used to trick the public into voting/demanding that their representatives vote for giving market share by fiat to solar/wind/EV junk.
That is, far from being “carbon free,” these scams use/create millions of tons of “carbon” (See China — where most of that junk is made).
What is this, Mr. Masher, some kind of free form enjambment poetry comment? I thought there were three main kinds of poetry: narrative, dramatic and lyrical. You just invented a fourth type: incoherent.
carbon free does not mean free of carbon at every step.
Then what’s the point, other than to obfuscate the truth?
Either it’s used or it’s not.
Every one duck! It’s a Mosher drive-by!
Oh, hang on, he missed…
…. again
What about capitalization? Did you pass the lack of it on? 😎
In a weird way, you made a good point. Climatariat phrases and buzzwords should never be taken literally.
Did you see all the extra transmission lines in the MISO document. That is to get intermittent wind into the market. What allowance does the 15gCO2/kWh have for the transmission line?
The wind needs 100% backup of dispatchable power. Batteries would add a factor of 10 to the 15g figure. So you are left with gas plant. Does the 15g/kWh allow for the construction and mainenace of the gas plant and the fuel needed when there is no wind.
The wind generators cannot stabilise the grid so you need to run gas plants as synchronous condensers or build synchronous condensers to achieve the rotating inertia. What allowance does the 15gCO2/kWh have for that element?
Wind and solar at this stage of their development are net energy sinks. They are an illusion made possible by China burning HUMUNGOUS amount of coal to make the energy extractors that can never recover the energy that went into their manufacture.
North Dakota should resist this with the utmost effort. The worst thing for a reliable, low cost grid is to bring “free” intermittent energy into the mix. Minnesota is early to the Ponzi. I have not looked at the MISO pricing but I expect intermittent are already harming the finances of reliable, low cost generators.
A generator that cannot provide 90% of capacity better than 95% of scheduled time should not be permitted to connect. They are just wasting existing resources.
How long does a synchronous condenser keep going in a major blackout?
It only needs to supply inertia until the fault clears to prevent the blackout. That is usually less than 50milliseconds at transmission level..
Many years ago, I worked at a facility that needed pure sinewave voltage without spikes, blips and other anomalies. They had a Synchronous Moter driving a generator with a large flywheel to assure stability of the electricity, for the needed equipment.
From working at several nuclear power plants I have learned that the inertia of the Turbine and Generator combined perform the same function. I had to perform the “Acceptance Test” on the generator at two plants. The “Loss of Turbine” test at full rated power showed that voltage delivered to the grid was within specs for several seconds. No way is Wind or Solar + Battery with their inverter created sinewave tracking grid voltage/frequency going to produce this effect at that scale.
Plus they completely ignore the emissions of the fossil fuel plants that back up the worse-than-useless windmills when they’re not working.
Kind of like burning bio-mass only in reverse.
Okay, start diverting the pipelines or cutting them up.
California’s Surging Energy Bills Are Its Own Fault (yahoo.com)
Don’t let them get away with a desperate backup plan like Calif.
Remember to outlaw farming in MN also.
Does the new law proscribe the use of residential “heating” gas for a backyard whole-house generator? If not, buy yours now, not tomorrow, as there likely won’t be any left.
My 12 KW generator and transfer switch cost $5k 16 years ago and I had to pick it up and transport it to my cabin.
Today you can buy a 22 KW generator from Costco at about the same $ delivered to your location.
Anyone in a rural location anywhere in the country who has the funds should be putting one in. I call it cheap insurance since utilities are spending all of their transmission budgets running lines to “renewable” “energy” sites instead of maintaining existing infrastructure.
100 Percent Clean Energy by 2040. That leaves a plenty of time to redefine “clean”, or “energy”, or both. Democratic progress relies on a redefinition of words as necessary.
If burning wood can be called “green” in Europe, then anything could be called green. You could paint coal green and claim that is green coal.
Even Cousteau had ideas on how to solve the population crisis.
‘While the framers of our Constitution were wise enough to establish safeguards against this sort of “tyranny of the majority” at the Federal level, they allowed the individual States wide latitude in their own self governance.’
Well, they were allowed some lattitude until the Warren Court’s (who else) Reynolds v. Sims decision in 1964. After that, representation in both legislative houses within each state were to be allocated proportionately. In other words, large urban centers and university towns that cater to progressives could then run roughshod over suburban and rural interests. For those who think that’s a great idea, note the hypocrisy at the Federal level, where each state still maintains two Senators regardless of population.
There are two Senators for a reason. The Senators were appointed by state legislatures and were supposed to represent the STATE at the federal level, all states being equal in that representation. The people are supposed to be represented by the members of the House and are allotted by population. Two different departments, two different representations. That was one of the checks on the federal government that was written into the Constitution. However, the 17th Amendment changed that so that Senators are now elected by the people, a change that removed the States’ ability to be an additional check on federal overreach. The terms of each side were also different for reason. Two years for those elected directly by the people so that mistakes could be corrected quickly and six years (1/3 up or reelection every two years) to provide stability. The Senate was to be more powerful because it was meant to represent the States. The really sad thing is that when the 17th was passed, they neglected to change the term of Senators so that now we are stuck with mistakes for six years.
That’s also why treaties need to ratified by the Senate but not the House.
The state Governments would need to abide by a Federal treaty.
AND there is no way to recall a Senator. Before the 17th, the state legislatures could remove a senator.
In Nevada, state senators were 1 per county until the SCOTUS ruling noted. Now Clark County, due to the massive % of the state population, can dictate to every county.
Montana, Wyoming, Rhode Island, et al. deserve to have equal power with more populated states. Otherwise, it abrogates “states’ rights,” i.e., federalism requires that each state be given equal power. The House of Representatives, based on population, ameliorates this. We live in a republic, not a pure democracy.
The financial compensation for utilities executives is as astronomical as that of other corporate nabobs, in spite of the fact that their contributions to the business are determined, in the main, by government regulations. A power company could probably be run by a literate high school student.
A power company managed by “a literate high school student” would be run by its regulator.
As they ALL are. The only variable is how much influence the individual corporations have in getting their preferred regulators appointed.
It is just fair to ask what your compensation is for public service you do for the community.
I can tell you what the compensation was for senior reactor operators of nuke plants is.
No, no billion dollar power plants are not run by high school students.
The point it that large utilities are run by the regulator, the executive suite layer could be replaced with their secretaries and improve the bottom line. At some point down the chain technical knowledge is required, but being able to read and follow direction is all that is required to follow a policy mandate from the regulator.
Wind and solar either work or they don’t. If you are going to commit to wind and solar then do it, stop using fossil fuel, hydro and nuclear as a crutch. Grow some cajones and stop your lying and cheating. Minnesota should be disallowed from using or purchasing any energy generated from anything but wind and solar. I would also disallow burning wood.
We desperately need a demonstration of a renewable + storage grid, with online reporting and full transparency. Regrettably, that will not happen. It would be far too embarrassing.
You are right Ed but the green weenies are cowards. It is far easier to lie and cheat than to walk the walk. They disgust me.
There is no ‘clean’ energy as opposed to ‘dirty’ energy, just energy.
The climate-industrial complex continually tamper with the language to further their agenda.
Quoting Orwell: “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought” (Politics and the English Language 1946).
“clean” is their selling hot point. Who wouldn’t be for “clean” anything?
I’d prefer not to be taken to the cleaners by the Greens.
Who wouldn’t be for “clean” anything?
Pink Floyd?
“they wish they all could be…..california…..girls”
Not any longer; Maxine Waters, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, all those on The View ……
I was a long time resident of Manitoba. A key customer for electricity was Minnesota. Generated using hydro. Could they be planning to buy more from Manitoba and in doing so meet their political objective? Yet the power reported as being from water, to me, appears to be grossly under reporting.
Power from Manitoba would be listed as an interconnect.
Minnesota is the land of 1000 lakes because it is FLAT, so has very little hydro of its own.
Unfortunately, it is appearing that we are going to need one (or more?) self-imposed energy disasters before the general public wakes up to the fact that :
a) This net-zero stuff is fantasy
b) It doesn’t matter anyway as these efforts will have no effect on climate
To the second point, how often do you every hear any of the people forcing this on the public ever tout the expected benefits? Exactly Never !
Nailed it, Jeff!
This is a prime example of what happens when you californicate a state.
Minnesota has ALWAYS been liberal. They were a self supporting state that could be magnanimous in their politics.
Their chickens are coming home to roost in Minneapolis/St Paul crime rates, and this 1 vote majority dictating to the 1 vote minority what will be.
2024 will be telling.
The majority of the state population and therefore most of the democrats come from the 7 county Twin Cities area. It wouldn’t be all that surprising to see a lot of other counties leaving Minnesota and joining either of the Dakotas if this kind or activity continues. Not sure if it’s possible, but it would send a pretty clear message.
‘Why aren’t the utilities fighting this?’
Depends if they’re vertically integrated (generation and power delivery) or have been ‘de-regulated’ (power delivery only). If the latter, they will probably benefit from building the transmission lines needed to connect the renewables to the grid.
The stupidity, ignorance, incompetence, malfeasance and overall dumbness of the idiot politicians, media dolts, liberal do gooders and those completely devoid of any education or experience in the global energy, emissions and climate science measured data outcomes is simply mind boggling to behold. What a bunch of colossal losers.
Except for the (probably) large majority that require electricity for the gas heating to function.
Yep… Neither our gas stove, hot water heater nor our ga furnace will work without electricity… Safety features… 😎
David,
Could a battery provide the electricity to make the gas appliances work for a few days to a couple of weeks?
I’ve no idea about gas appliances — since leaving my mother’s kitchen about 56 years ago. Currently, I live about 6 miles from the nearest gas line. A neighbor has a large white propane tank — but, again, I’m clueless about that.
I have done an images search for “painted propane tanks” — have a look.
Propane frequently tops the chart as most expensive fuel.
Some rural households use propane primarily for cooking, but can also be used as a primary heat. Heartbreaking when they’re in clapboard house without insulation.
I lust for using propane for cooking, but it isn’t in the cards.
I also live miles from LNG pipes. I still wouldn’t move back to city environs just to get access to LNG.
If your neighbor has a truly large propane tank, it’s more likely that they are using the propane for their business/farm.
Most households use smaller propane bottles located behind their houses as it is easier for the gas distribution company to disconnect empties and use dollies to wheel the empties back to their truck and full tanks back to the house.
https://upgradedhome.com/propane-tank-cost/
Extra large tanks require truck access to the tank. Plumbing to connect the tank to the house as well as pipe runs inside the house must meet building codes.
Which brinks up the nasty part of owning massive fuel tanks. It doesn’t make sense to partially fill a tank, so you end up having to foot the bill for the entire tank full.
Heaters & hot water heaters used to have continuous pilot lights and all controls were contained in the heater.
Wall thermostats and timer controlled hot water heaters need electricity are usually tied into the household wiring.
If you pay for heater maintenance plans, the technician should be able to identify whether a backup battery can run the equipment. I have some doubt that a battery can operate analog switches, but I do not know.
I was looking at a battery back-up for my boiler, pump and controls. The demand is only a few hundred watts so I was thinking of a couple of truck batteries with a trickle charger and inverter lash-up. That would keep the system going for quite a few hours which, I was hoping, would be enough to get me through any “demand reduction” outages here in the south of the UK. Anything more major would be another story.
However an electrical engineer friend warned me that it is not so straightforward:
“Something to remember for those taking the precaution of a generator. Although your gas boiler (combi mainly) will be plug ended, if you simply plug it into a generator it will NOT work….it will try to start then lockout and put up an error code indicating no flame present. Same will happen if you are using a battery with inverter set up.
The boiler ignition and flame detection system requires the mains earth (ground) system to detect the flame is alight. Portable generators and inverters have “floating earths” (not some Gaia term!) and the boiler will not operate on this. You basically have to create a new earthing system run across the neutral and earth from the generator. I achieve this on my generator (which has 2 socket outlets) by having a plug with the earth and neutral strapped together with a earth wire run into the back box of a mains socket and plug this into socket 2. Works for me but don’t try this at home if you are unsure as you can readily kill yourself! Otherwise get an electrician to fit a manual transfer switch and sort out the earthing.”
It is your choice to NOT tie a generator ground to your house ground. “Floating” is not necessary for the generator operation.
Buy the Lithium batteries, usually ONE will provide the WH of 2 lead acid batteries with 2 to 3 times the life in cycles and years.
Inverters and inverter/chargers for what you are doing are not that expensive. Some also do the transferring, so intercept the circuits at the panel, run them through the inverter/charger, then to the appliances.
A couple of $k or less will do it. But $5k can get you a generator and transfer switch that will come on line in less than 10 seconds and bring your whole house on line. You know, lights, furnace blowers, microwave, wifi, tvs etc.
I have been awakened at night from the sound of the generator coming on. It is quiet for a 16 YO genset, but is close to my bedroom window. I have also slept through it coming on and only knew we lost power by the blinking clocks and other appliances. A whole house UPS is just too expensive at this point to avoid the nuisance of resetting clocks on appliances. Funny that the bedside alarm clock has a battery but the wall mounted double over/micro only has a short term internal battery that only lasts about 10 minutes without power.
Yes, I have had times when the generator battery didn’t start the generator. My fault for keeping the battery heating pad plugged in too late in the spring, and boiling off the electrolyte killing the battery. It is now on a stock tank plug in temperature switch.
The other issue with my genset is keeping the snow from obstructing the ventilation. We have had 10 feet of snow this year, already 125% of mean high snow that maxes in mid April. Global warming you know.
My gas room heater, water heater and wood burning stove all work without electricity. Sadly, my well pump and fridge won’t. Guess I’ll have to invest in a generator if this madness continues.
Don’t wait too long, Commifornia will be banning gas generator sales so other states will follow suit
In addition to low voltage controls, boilers and furnaces need line voltage pumps and blowers, respectively.
We lost power for several weeks at our cabin some years back after a massive 3 day snowstorm. The generator would have cost a bundle in LPG.
Beside our cabin is a water company chlorination building that gets power from a transformer on the main 3 phase line into the development. I am off of a side 240V transmission line 7 poles away from the main line, my connection of the LAST pole. The water guy mentioned an exterior plug on his building and offered my use of same. I ran an extension cord through the wall of my basement and plugged my furnace into the power. No fear of the cabin freezing for the couple of weeks it took for the power company to replace downed poles. The cord is still through the wall in case I need again.
Why so long to restore power? At the time no one on the line to my cabin were year round residents, so it was a low priority. And yes, even the main line went down and had to be repaired. I got a bunch of heavy galvanized hardware left behind in the snow during the repairs that I have used for various little projects over the years. I don’t throw away much.
I live in a cold climate (winter) in an all electric house. But …
I have a modern wood stove with a catalytic combustor. I have trees, a chainsaw, and an ax. Further, I am still capable (for a few years) of making this work. Minnesotans may want to investigate such things. For example, for about 8 years I kept an elderly couple supplied with firewood because, while they too had trees, they could not do the work.
An alternative would be to move south.
Why move south, the “experts” have been telling us for years that the HEAT is moving north!!
This is great. The more climate crash test dummies we have, the more crash tests we will have. We can now add MN to CA to NE to UK to Germany. Terrific. Hastens the first crash.
Jes’ askin’……….don’t gas furnaces require electricity to operate?
The thermostat control which senses temperature and tells the unit to fire up definitely requires electricity
Blower fans on furnaces require quite a bit of electricity. Those blower motors consume enough juice that they are a deterrent to going “off-grid” with solar panels and batteries.
Some, not all. There are plenty of “wall heater” types that use a thermocouple in the pilot flame to generate the necessary current for operation. Home Depot offers one for under a $100.
Great article, charts and memes too. This will be the first article on my recommended list of up to 24 climate science and energy articles on Wednesday. I wish all authors were so thorough on a subject.
Honest Climate Science and Energy
Think about this:
Besides Alaska, I would say that Minnesota is the US state that would MOST benefit from global warming, which has mainly been warmer winters with less snow here in Michigan.
Northern Minnesota is still used for auto industry cold weather testing. In the coldest December week in 2022, US auto engineers were surprised by a loss of 40% to 60% of electric vehicle range in that cold week. I mentioned that in a comment on the prior EV article. I can add that engineers were expecting a 30% to 40% loss of range, so were surprised by the actual 40% to 50% loss of range. These were a variety of current EV models, but I do not have access to the list of brands and models tested.
40% to 60% was actually not a worst case loss of range, although the week was very cold in Northern Minnesota:
… continued at the link below:
Honest Climate Science and Energy: Article Expanded on Wednesday February 15: An inside view of electric vehicles from an engineer who was designing them
Further reading:
First, They Lied About the Range . . . – EPautos – Libertarian Car Talk (ericpetersautos.com)
Quote from above article: “People were not told that their touted ranges were frequently much less-than-advertised and could (and do) plummet by 50 percent or more in cold weather. Or – in the case of electric trucks – when used to do the things trucks are expected to do, such as pull a trailer. Instead they were only told – as in the case of Ford’s F-150 Lightning electric truck – that it could pull a 10,000 pound trailer. Which is true. Just not for long.
Or rather, far. Left out was the relevant fact that if they attempted to actually pull a trailer, they’d be stopping for a lengthy recharge every 80 miles or so. (Detailed truth about this here.)”
“Probably the next truth to drop will be the revelation that EVs aren’t “zero emissions,” after all. As people have been told they are. Wait until they are told the truth about the emitting that happens as a result of all the mining necessary to get the raw materials used to make EVs. And – hoo-boy! – the emitting that occurs at the power plants that generate the massive amounts of high-voltage electricity EVs “burn.”
You have “50” instead of “60” in one spot there.
I meant 40% to 60% both times not 40% to 50%
The comment edit feature should work for an hour for when I type.
I expanded my original article on EV engineers today to include everything I knew.
The 40% to 60% was not a worst case situation.
The very cold EVs were not warmed up with the heater on for ten minutes before driving off in them.
There were no stops for “fast” recharging when the driver would keep the heater on the whole time (over 30 minutes) to stay warm.
The fast charges, even with the best of the fast 480-volt chargers, is not as fast on a very cold day because the driver wants the heater on and the battery pack must be heated too, while the batteries are recharging.
The EVs were charged overnight — not sitting outside, unplugged, where they could lose 2% to 4% of the range each day by just from sitting unplugged in very cold weather.
Didn’t I read that Ford has suspended F-150 Lightening production because of “battery problems’?
Found it: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2023/02/14/ford-pauses-shipping-building-electric-f-150-model-due-to-potential-battery-issue/
The comment is spot on:
Its not just Minnesota Democrats, its the whole of the UK, in the US its also New York… probably a whole lot more.
One common thread is the two things stated in the comment: these are proposals to at the same time destroy reliable electricity supply and double or triple demand.
There is also another common thread: the measures are always being advocated ‘because climate change’ when they can have no effect on climate.
Notice that its never said how much difference any of these schemes will make to global emissions? Or even on US emissions? Or even on Minnesota emissions?
This is because they will have no effect. So we are all being told to pay (and not just in money) for these wild schemes which are impossible to implement except at unfeasible financial and social cost, and which, even if implemented, would not deliver what is being offered as the reason for doing them in the first place.
It is I am afraid a genuine Grade A cultural crisis. When a society decides to devote large percentages of its money and social capital to impossible projects which will not deliver what they are aimed at, while refusing to use the rescources to address real pressing needs, whether of welfare or security.
You can imagine a few sages around the Tower of Babylon, calculating the height of the heavens and the proposed height of the tower, adding up numbers of bricks, and expressing doubts.
“Deniers” cry the builders… Meanwhile their neighbors look on with glee and amazement and accelerate the training of their regiments.
Anyone in North Dakota seen this page?
Sue ’em again! Sue ’em again! Sue ’em again!
“The new law ensures Minnesotans will continue to have reliable, affordable, and safe energy resources.”
The law can’t ensure anything. I suggest that the wealth of those who voted for this law should be put in escrow and if the state doesn’t end up with “reliable, affordable, and safe energy resources” then those who made this problem happen should have to lose their wealth. I bet if this was the deal from the beginning- few would have voted for it.
The only thing a law ensures is more government control.
another abracadabra plan
If we were to eliminate all CO2 that has ever been and ever will be emitted by MN, there would be no measurable impact on temperatures.
Futility aside, isn’t it mind-blowing the the coldest state in the lower 48 wants to help prevent mild warming, and they passed the bill in the middle of winter? A bunch of mind-numbed regressive robots.
I wonder how the Minnesotans For Global Warming feel about this. If you’re going to push global warming alarmism, Minnesota is probably not the most receptive place to do it!
MISO Infographic:
Labels from two pie charts:
Left Chart->Right Chart
Coal->Coal
Gas->Gas
Nuclear->Nuclear
Wind->Renewables
Apples are red, and Oranges are huh?
The vast majority of Minnesota’s renewable generation is wind power… But, yeah, they are inconsistent.
The headline graphic talks about a meme. Sorry to be slow but what is the meme?
ttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meme
Yes, I know what a meme is, but what is the meme in the picture of a helicopter deicing the blade? Or is the deicing the meme? Doesn’t that happen?
You’ve outdone yourself with this article, Mr. Middleton, and that says a lot. I was particularly glad that the “Laboratories of Democracy” fraud was called out, along with the observation that “mistakes” made in one state readily leak into others.
The federal government has abused the “commerce clause” of the Constitution to assume dictatorial power over business in the U.S. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”
The term “regulate” today means what the government has convinced us it means over the last 100 years, give or take: issue rules having the force of law, a.k.a. “regulations.” That is not what it meant to the authors of the Constitution. Back then, the term meant “to make regular”, or consistent. The “commerce clause” was meant in part to prevent states from passing laws to erect trade barriers against one another, or make exclusive deals with other countries or with the Indian tribes. It was never supposed to grant Congress the power to tell individual businesses – or people – what they could or could not do. It was a power to regulate the states.
Today, the federal government doesn’t do the only thing the Constitution actually empowered it to do via the commerce clause, and instead has a massive bureaucracy doing what it was never authorized to do. Just one example: if the federal government did its job, there would be no such thing as laws barring insurance companies from operating across state lines. Just imagine how that one change would transform our lives, for the better. But the people who make up the federal government don’t care about your life, or mine. I know. I was a federal employee for ten years. You’d be horrified if you knew what they think of you.
Well said… 👍👍
When the Constitution was written, regulate meant “to make regular,” hence the Federal government retained the power to regulate commerce between the States and Indian Nations. Since 1824, SCOTUS has incrementally enabled the Federal government to make regulate synonymous with control
I know of “laws barring insurance companies from operating across state lines” Laws kept the gecko out of Massachusetts car insurance for a long time. What’s the [official regulatory] justification for it?.
Photo on link to story “SJW” is Social Justice Warrior. I had to Google it.
Isn’t this the definition of “environmental racism” ?