A flare burns excess natural gas in the Permian Basin in Loving County, Texas.
A flare burns excess natural gas in the Permian Basin in Loving County, Texas. Credit: REUTERS/Angus Mordant

At a time when the presidential election dominates the media, West Coast forest fires and Gulf Coast hurricanes are just the latest reminders that man made climate change is real and cannot be ignored. Yet electric utilities here in Minnesota continue to plunge forward with plans for new fossil gas plants even as falling costs and technological advances for clean sources of energy — like wind and solar — give ratepayers the potential to benefit from lower electric bills while moving the state toward its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to fight climate change.

At this time Xcel Energy is planning an 800 megawatt fossil gas plant in Becker, Minnesota, which will cost over $1 billion and add about 3 million metric tons of carbon to our atmosphere each year. Minnesota Power has a proposal to partner with Dairyland Power to construct the 525 MW Nemadji Trail Energy Center (NTEC) fracked gas plant in Superior, Wisconsin. If built, NTEC would cost ratepayers over $700 million to construct and emit over 1 million tons of carbon each year. Building clean energy, like wind and solar, instead of NTEC and the gas plant in Becker is expected to save Minnesota and Wisconsin customers approximately $600 million. Meanwhile, the Rochester Public Utilities Commission is considering the construction of a new fossil gas plant despite the city’s 2015 resolution to achieve 100% renewable energy by 2031.

These three plans for new fossil gas plants are based on a series of myths about gas versus clean energy as a source of electricity:

Myth: Gas is a clean fuel

Fact: Gas pollutes our air, water and climate

Allan Campbell
[image_caption]Allan Campbell[/image_caption]
Too often, newspapers report on new gas plants saying things like “natural gas power plants produce only half as much greenhouse gas as coal plants.” Such a statement simply is not true. Gas-fired power plants generally produce about half as much carbon dioxide (CO2), but they also produce methane, another greenhouse gas, that over a 20-year span contributes 86 times as much to global warming as CO2. Their methane production is in part a result of methane released during the fracking process, when gas bearing rock formations are fractured (or “fracked”) by high water pressure to free the gas. Thus it’s a misnomer to call this gas “natural,” since the majority of gas in the U.S. is derived from the unnatural process of fracking. Fossil gas, or fracked gas, are more honest names.

While CO2 and methane are the pollutants that do the most harm to our climate, other pollutants that are harmful to human health are released through the mining of sand used in fracking. Mining of silica, a fine sand that is mined in Minnesota for fracking, releases fine particulates that can damage lungs leading to increased risk of lung cancer and other life-threatening diseases. Fine particulates are also a leading cause of asthma. One recent study found that individuals exposed for long periods of time to even low levels of fine particulates are much more likely to die from COVID-19.

Myth: Gas Power Plants are needed because the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow.

Fact: Minnesota can reliably meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals without building new gas plants.

This argument against wind and solar power may have worked a few years back, but rapid developments in battery technology have made it obsolete, as demonstrated by a recent study from the University of California that shows America could safely achieve 90% carbon-free energy as early as 2035 without building any new gas plants. Right here in Minnesota, Great River Energy plans to operate a battery at a power plant in Cambridge that will provide 150 hours of continuous energy capability, compared with the four hours common from traditional lithium-ion batteries. The combination of new battery technology and continued falling costs from solar and wind energy will make new fossil gas plants uncompetitive to run long before the end of their intended 30-plus year life spans.

Myth: Gas delivers cheap electricity.

Fact: Renewable energy delivers cheaper electricity.

With improved technology and economies of scale, the cost of renewable energy generation is plunging rapidly. Bloomberg New Energy Finance reports that the lifetime cost of solar generation fell by 87% and onshore wind by 56% during the 2010s, making solar today the cheapest source of energy over the lifetime of a new facility once construction and fuel costs (zero for solar or wind) are factored in. This means that gas plants being built today are likely to be forced into early retirement by economic forces, leaving rate payers on the hook for paying off their costs.

Myth: Moving away from fossil fuels will cost jobs.

Fact: Moving toward 100% renewable generation could triple the number of energy sector jobs in Minnesota.

A 2018 study commissioned by the McKnight Foundation, “Minnesota’s Smarter Grid Study,” found that state policies leading toward renewable energy would more than triple the number of clean energy jobs, creating 14,000 jobs in wind and 36,000 in solar by 2050. Overall, the average scenario leading to decarbonization of electricity generation would produce approximately 20,000 more full-time jobs than the baseline scenario as new generation infrastructure is built out to meet the needs of electrification of other sectors.

Allan Campbell, of Minneapolis, is a retired financial analyst.

WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?

If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)

Join the Conversation

14 Comments

  1. This is a good, clear statement of some vital facts about how we produce electricity.These facts need to be reiterated again and again, so that more people are informed about our systems, and can fight back against the large investor-based companies who will reap temporary benefits in monetary form while continuing the rapid destruction of our planet’s viability.

  2. None of these “facts” are facts. If we follow this path, half the state won’t have electricity and the other half won’t be able to afford it.

    1. No, that’s completely false. The best thing we can so for the economy is embrace these innovative technologies. Continuing to invest in outdated fossil fuels will cause America to fall further behind.

      1. You mean bankrupt ourselves. Wind and solar each get about 35 billion a year in direct federal subsidies. Without that, the cost of both would be enormous compared to fossil fuels. Neither are reliable. They both require we have a secondary power generation system in place and maintained (gas, coal, nuclear etc). That also adds to the cost of the power generated that everyone likes to ignore.

        The future is in Thorium reactors not wind and solar. Germany found out the hard way as they couldn’t afford the power.

        1. Nope. The subsidies given to fossil fuels dwarf those given to renewables. This is part of the reason Republicans don’t understand economics (and elected a president who knows nothing about business). They are hurting our economy by propping up obsolete technologies while suppressing innovation.

          Germany now gets 40 percent of its electricity of from renewables. Its nuclear power that failed there and is being phased out.

          Your thorium reactors are years, if not decades away from being a viable option.

          1. Still incorrect. Fossil fuels get no direct subsidies. Some get tax breaks (oil namely) but that is not a subsidy. A subsidy is a direct payment from the govt. Wind and Solar both get 30+ billion a year each in direct payments from the feds (not counting any other tax beaks etc).

            Germany gave up and is going back to nuclear and fossil fuels because they can’t afford the costs using only wind and solar.

            Those who push for wind and solar ignore the laws of physics. Batteries are extremely inefficient, solar is ridiculously inefficient, wind as well. When the wind doesn’t blow you have no power. The UK found that out the hard way too. Energy density is what matters and nothing but nuclear comes close to fossil fuels. Wind and solar will never be efficient, cost effective or viable in any of our lifetimes (if ever). The money you spend on them will bankrupt you and your economy will slow to a crawl. Talk about setting us back. Nothing like crippling your own economy while everyone else goes full steam ahead with what actually works.

            1. This is a collection of falsehoods.

              Fossil fuels receive $20 billion in direct subsidies per year, which far exceeds anything for renewables. The only $30 billion figure I could find was historical totals, not annual subsidies.

              https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs.

              Germany isn’t going back to nuclear power. That’s just patently false. But earlier this year it did, for the first time, generate more than half of its electricity from wind and solar. Are you getting Germany mixed up witj another country?

              And you have it backwards on the economics and efficiencies. Taking the subsidies out, solar produces electricity more cheaply than coal. And unlike fossil fuels, solar technology keeps getting more efficient. It is propping up outdated fossil fuels that will hurt the economy and put us behind the rest of the world. But as long as Republicans remain so ignorant about and ignore innovation, we will suffer.

              1. In further reply to Mr Barnes, allowing costs to be externalized also is a subsidy. What are the climate change, pollution and other social costs of fossil fuel use compared to wind and solar? These must be included in the comparative economic accounting.

  3. If renewable energy is so wonderful, why is Excel building gas plants? If renewable really is cleaner and cheaper, you would think that Excel would be using as much of it as they can. They’d make more money and have a better reputation.

    My suspicion is that renewables aren’t as wonderful as the author paints them. We are already seeing issues with old windmill blades and solar panels needing to be recycled and the negative impact of that. Batteries are notoriously difficult to deal with once they are no longer usable.

    1. The reason Xcel wants to build the gas plant is because they would own it. And they would reap the shareholder value from owning an asset. More of our solar and wind developments are being built by others, not by Xcel. So they end up purchasing the electricity being generated from the owners of those developments and don’t get the benefits of owning the asset.

    2. You forgot that those windmills also cause cancer, or at least that’s what your president told us – so add this to the litany of ills renewable energy is responsible for.
      I’m not sure however if the cure for windmill cancer is to drink Clorox, or use a bright light as a cure, maybe you could lend some expertise on this question.

    3. Your suspicion is wrong. Fossil fuels are subsidized far more heavily than renewables. Put them on an equal playing field, and you would see the US making the kinds of gains many other industrialized countries are achieving.

  4. Natural Gas, while needed for a bridge fuel, has many Opportunity Costs not yet worked into it’s pricing. Capitalism is ALWAYS able to take advantage of the Opportunity Cost for Profits. How much money did 3M make on Teflon, comparing to the environmental cost polluting of half of the East Metro Ground Water…Forever!

    Long term, it will be much more expensive to burn gas, considering the cost of global warming, and the environmental cost of Fracking. A lot of commenters here don’t think very long term. 2030 is tomorrow!

  5. Work needs to be done on how to capture and burn methane gas.
    We could burn that until the cows come home.

Leave a comment