Post #4631117 · Elektrine

2026-09-06 11:51 UTC

I assume this was I-90 west of Rochester, which is where most of the wind is sited. Sadly it is nowhere near enough and still only produces 25% of the state’s electrical needs whereas neighboring South Dakota and Iowa are over 50%. Solar and wind have very different potentials in the state. Minnesota is at the Northern terminus of the wind corridor which they take advantage of. However, it is one of the worst states for solar irradiance potential. Sherco solar replaces 2.4 GW base load coal with a planned 910 MW of solar and only 3 GWh of storage. This comes across as insufficient in a snowy winter in a state where conversion to electrical heating is a must.

Replies (4)

@Zephorah@discuss.online 2026-09-06 12:24

I90

Open ##4631192
@suigenerix@lemmy.world 2026-09-06 21:54

… South Dakota and Iowa are over 50%. Wait, aren’t those red states? Aren’t Republicans famously anti-renewalables? Like didn’t Trump try to shut down a ~90% complete wind farm. He’s pro-coal right. So why the huge uptake in renewables in these states against policy? I get that renewables can be the superior choice. But is this yet another case of say one thing, do another?

Open ##4632748
@LilB0kChoy@reddthat.com 2026-09-06 22:23

If they want people to switch to electric heating in Minnesota then they need to make electric cheaper. Utility costs for most in Minnesota drop significantly compared to summer because it’s far cheaper to heat with natural gas than it is to cool with electric. Fixing the public utilities commission would be good too.

Open ##4632869
@Enkrod@feddit.org 2026-09-07 11:53

However, it is one of the worst states for solar irradiance potential. Eh don’t sweat it. Everyone kept talking how Germany is impossible for solar, far too northerly, yadda yadda… Today we’re producing more than 20% of our power with solar. All of the US, with the exception of Alaska is very much more southern than Germany, even MN.

Open ##4641032