Walz sets goal: 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2050

Gov. Tim Walz set an ambitious goal Monday for Minnesota to get 100 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources by 2050, though his plan was short on specifics of how to meet that target.

Walz said his clean proposals would put Minnesota at the forefront of addressing while ensuring "reliable, affordable and sustainable electricity." He said his proposal is different from some other states' approaches because it involves partnering with utilities that have also set ambitious goals for reducing their carbon emissions to zero. He said each utility would have the flexibility to choose how and at what pace it meets the standard.

"We have the capacity to put forward a plan that will change not only Minnesota's future but the world's future," the Democratic governor said at a news conference.

Environmental and climate change groups, several of which were represented at the announcement, welcomed the governor's proposals. Michael Noble, executive director of Fresh Energy, said they're ready to stand with Walz "to ride this vision of a One Minnesota clean energy future."

But Republican leaders said the plan bets on unproven technology that will be risky and expensive.

"Governor Walz's extreme energy proposals would cause Minnesotans' energy bills to skyrocket, force the closure of reliable and cost-effective power plants, and put Minnesota all-in on technology that simply cannot provide the reliable power you need to keep the lights on and heat your home in the winter," said Rep. Chris Swedzinski, of Ghent, the lead Republican on the House energy and climate committee.

Commerce Commissioner Steve Kelley said the proposals would build on the success of Minnesota's Next Generation Energy Act, which passed in 2007 and was signed into law by Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty. That law requires Minnesota utilities to get at least 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. The state largely achieved that goal in 2017 thanks to the growth of wind and solar power.

Minnesota still gets most of electricity from coal-fired plants but its major utilities are in the process of retiring some large, older coal plants and replacing the capacity with natural gas plants, which produce less carbon dioxide than coal , and adding wind and solar farms.

Minnesota's largest electrical utility, Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy, announced a similar goal in January of carbon-free electricity by 2050 through expanded investments in wind and , and keeping its Monticello and Prairie Island , which went on line in the early 1970s, operating until their licenses expire in the 2030s. The company has said smaller reactors could be part of its future mix. Walz's plan would count nuclear as clean energy, Kelley said.

Kelley said the 100 percent standard "sets the destination, but it does not dictate the specific road map for getting there." But he said utilities would need to prioritize clean energy over fossil fuels when setting long-range plans for replacing or creating new generating capacity. He said the proposal would also set higher energy efficiency goals for utilities, but provide them with incentives to develop innovative new programs to help customers switch to cleaner energy. It also calls for more help for low-income households to heat and cool their homes more efficiently.

Explore further

Utilities are starting to invest in big batteries instead of building new power plants

© 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Citation: Walz sets goal: 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2050 (2019, March 4) retrieved 16 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-03-walz-goal-percent-carbon-free-electricity.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 04, 2019
A huge dilemma we face in the energy debate - is the decision to close plants that are producing cheap but dirty power - due to the fact that their capital cost has been paid off. Early closure will prove costly. Hopefully the fall in cost of renewables will soon reach the point where it is cheaper to build new - than to continue operating legacy plants. Not there yet.

Mar 05, 2019
...producing cheap but dirty power...
Intermittent renewables(bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers) are not cheap, and are as dirty as fossil fuels because they are backed up 80% of time by coal/oil/gas/fracking.
"Intermittent sources like all wind and all solar need firm backup to 100% of their capacity. So, if you have to build the firm backup anyway, what do you need wind and solar for? Nothing."

"Minnesota is blowing billions on wind power ... the result is HIGHER electricity rates and dubious CO2 reductions"

The only virtually cheap, clean, ecologically friendly, is carbon-free nuclear.
Solar and wind are a fraud, trillion-dollar fiascos at reducing emissions and dependence on fossil fuels; the only purpose of their existence is to steal taxpayers' money and favor the coal and gas(fracking) industries.

Mar 05, 2019
"But Republican leaders said the plan bets on unproven technology that will be risky and expensive."

Well, that's it. Shut down all the science labs and let's go back to living in caves since research is risky and expensive.

Old men acting emo is even more silly than over-dramatic teenagers.

Mar 05, 2019
"...unproven technology..."
"Wind and solar are proven technologies. They've proven they can't replace coal and natural gas as a primary energy source."

...science labs...research is risky and expensive...
Insanity: trying in large-scale something that doesn't work satisfactorily(technically/economically) even in small-scale, over and over again, no matter how many birds &bats will be slaughtered, natural landscapes & wildlife habitats destroyed; all in name of a "green" ideology.
"If energy policy were based on reason and engineering, 97% of the solar panels / wind turbines out there wouldn't even exist."

' "Defining"insanity", repeating a massively flawed(corrupt)energy scheme which has failed everywhere unless your objective is actually to destroy prosperity..'

Mar 05, 2019
Look, nuclear has its high points but a race to the bottom by actively smearing all other technologies to street preach your favorite isn't going to change the current situation. There's no such thing as clean energy. It's just a "choose your poison" deal. Some poison the air, some poison landfills and rivers, some poison exclusion zones because a few morons put the back-up generators in the basement. It just so happens that not poisoning the air is the primary current requirement.

Time for a break. I'm going out to run under the giant fusion reactor that's constantly trying to kill me with radiation.

Mar 05, 2019
Liar liar
The only virtually cheap, clean, ecologically friendly, is carbon-free nuclear
Except that the latest real world numbers we have to check that claim - is 12.5 cents Kwh for Hinkley Point. No wonder the Brits are scuttling their nuke plans - and turning to cheap/clean wind and solar. Every day there is multiple articles about cheap renewables - https://cleantech...%A2-kwh/

How does 3.9 cents Kwh compare to your 12.5 cents Willie? Build a lot of storage for the extra 8 cents you know. And look - another manufacturing giant - committing to 100% renewables - https://cleantech...s-re100/

Can you show us a manufacturing giant that is committing to 100% nukes Willie liar?

Mar 08, 2019
...There's no such thing as clean energy...
"Cleaner energy" is a joke. Wind and solar tech is made with aluminum, steel, concrete, gallium arsenide, plastic, neodymium and other rare earths etc. etc. They are expensive and unreliable. Without massive subsidies and tax breaks they would not exist.

"The difference between nuclear & solar exclusion zones is that life thrives in the former while *all life must die* in the latter."

Mar 08, 2019
...constantly trying to kill me with radiation...
"Exposure to solar radiation kills as many as 18,000 Americans per year."
"There are no examples of members of the general public in the west who have died due to exposure to radiation from civilian nuclear power in the last 50 years".
"The report, Global Burden of Disease of Solar Ultraviolet Radiation estimates that up to 60,000 deaths a year worldwide are caused by too much exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR). Of those 60,000 deaths, an estimated 48,000 are caused by malignant melanomas, and 12,000 by skin carcinomas."
"It's now also recognised by UNSCEAR that wind and solar energy are resulting in significant radiation exposure."

Mar 08, 2019
"Minnesota Madness: Big Freeze Exposes Wind & Solar's Deadly Flaw – Hopeless Intermittency" - Feb 13, 2019

...3.9 cents Kwh...
"Batteries not included" so it's coal that will prevent Indians from freezing to death at night or on cloudy/windless days.
"India Using Coal to Achieve Universal Household Electrification" - Fev 2019

"Unreliable: Adding Capacity Does Little To Solve Germany's Green-Energy Power Gaps" - Mar 6, 2019
"More installed capacity, yet less output!"

"Fossil Fuel companies love renewable energy because renewables necessitate a symbiotic business model where renewables depend on fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels renewables are useless to modern societies."

Mar 08, 2019
Except that the latest real world numbers we have to check that claim - is 12.5 cents Kwh for Hinkley Point.

And that is uninsured costs. All powerplants need to be insured - EXCEPT nuclear powerplants. No insurance company will touch them because none has the wherewithal to cover the cost of an accident. (The premiums would also be astronomical if any did)

The insurance premium (i.e. the full cost of a cleanup plus ancillary damages times the risk of an accident) is 'silently' covered by the taxpayer.

Ask the Japanese taxpayer what the *their* price per kWh is after inclusion of all their money spent on Fukushima.

Mar 08, 2019
Without fossil fuels renewables are useless to modern societies
Complete lie. An electron is an electron. The fact that we still use fossil fuels - does not invalidate wind and solar - any more than it invalidates nukes. The 33% of electricity (that is generated - not capacity) in the U.K. is of course just as useful as the less than 20% generated by nukes. And do you want to talk about the lies, and the promised lack of subsidies - that then became a world of disinformation - and actual subsidies? Such abuse of tax payer trust.... https://www.iisd....at-cost/

Mar 10, 2019
...An electron is an electron...
It is possible to power whole countries with hydro/geothermal/biomass without solar and wind, but is almost impossible (at least economically) to power a small region(>10,000 inhabitants, off-the-grid) only with solar and wind without cheap coal/oil/gas to compensate intermittencies.
...The 33% of electricity (that is generated - not capacity) in the U.K...
U.K. grid is mostly powered by fossil fuels.
RE charlatans have only as showcase countries/states powered majoritarily by coal/oil/gas/fracking "greenwashed" by intermittent renewables.

In the fight against Climate Change, carbon-free nuclear is worth the price.
Unlike solar and wind(trillion-dollar fiascos), carbon-free nuclear is an incontestable success in terms of reducing emissions and dependence on fossil fuels.
"Japanese LNG imports to fall off with nuclear restart" - Mar 4, 2019

Mar 10, 2019
Intermittencies of solar/wind can be easily overcame with energy storage in the form of cheap suspended concrete tower columns connected to crane pulleys with differential gears that run turbines. Look it up on youtube, if you don't know about it you're behind are current trends. Also the idea behind this can also be done in the sea with buoys in order to save real estate.

Mar 10, 2019

for example, a suspended one ton concrete block has 9,806 newtons of force saved in potential energy. Same concept applies with a buoy suspended under water. There is potential energy that can be tapped mechanically that doesn't require expensive battery plants for storage. It is merely how you place and arrange these forces.

Mar 10, 2019
Willie liar
but is almost impossible...
Well - almost impossible in not the same as impossible - is it? We keep telling you Willie - it is early days for the transition. But we do have early adopters to show us what is possible. Sweden is on target for 100% renewable energy by 2040 - so seems you are a liar Willie. https://www.wefor...is-year/

Mar 11, 2019
...cheap suspended concrete tower...
...100% renewable energy by 2040...
Trillions of dollars spent globally, around a terawatt(~1000GW) of installed-capacity at cost of huge ecological impacts/environmental damages, and the RE "snake oil salesmen" have almost nothing to present in terms of reducing emissions,
then they try to fool the public: "100% renewable is possible by 2040",
then in 2040: "100% renewable is possible by 2110"
then in 2110: "100% renewable is possible by 2300" ... all in order to continue stealing trillions and trillions of dollars from taxpayers to continue destroying natural landscapes and wildlife habitats, massacring birds and bats.

"Climate change: The massive CO2 emitter you may not know about: Concrete" - Dec 2018
"The dilute nature of water, sunlight & wind means that ~5,000 times more land & 10 - 15 times more concrete, cement, steel & glass, are required than for nuclear"

Mar 11, 2019
around a terawatt(~1000GW) of installed-capacity at cost of huge ecological impacts/environmental damages, and the nuclear "snake oil salesmen" have almost nothing to present in terms of reducing emissions
Which is why it is time to tell the nuclear snake oil - unicorn fart liars to move over - and let the renewables (the ones that actually do have a track record in terms of seeing C02 levels drop) - do the heavy lifting. Want to see the lies they have been spreading to the Brits about nuclear? https://www.iisd....at-cost/

Mar 14, 2019
Take a look at solar/wind-powered countries/states(Germany, Denmark, South Australia, California, Minnesota, etc.) and then compare with carbon-free nuclear-powered ones(France, Sweden, Ontario) and see the difference.

These countries/states are subsidizing solar/wind for decades at what cost?
At cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and huge ecological impacts with almost nothing to show at reducing emissions and dependence on coal/oil/gas/fracking.
Solar and wind are scams, a fraud that continues stealing taxpayers' money and destroying the environment.

"Wind and solar are terrible for the environment. You can't claim to be a conservationist if you are okay will bulldozing and intruding on ecosystem for minimal energy collection. Nuclear is the most eco-friendly option. Always has been and always will."

"Nuclear is less costly than you think" - Jan 27, 2019

Mar 14, 2019
These countries/states are subsidizing solar/wind
And the whole nuclear industry has been subsidized for decades - with nothing to show for Carbon reduction - which is why we have to let the technology that has proven itself in terms of carbon reduction - and provision of cheap power - step in and do the heavy lifting for you.


Mar 15, 2019
Unlike biomass and wind & solar; Hydro and carbon-free nuclear have a lot to show for carbon reduction. http://electricitymap.org

Of course, the green sociopaths prefer don't see it; they prefer to continue lying and lying to themselves like there's no tomorrow, believing in their own lies like beasts that eats their own vomit/feces, and stealing billions and billions of dollars from taxpayers, destroying the environmental with their ecologically hypocritical energy solutions(bird-choppers/land-intensive monstrosities backed up by coal/oil/gas/fracking to compensate intermittencies) for almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions and dependence on fossil fuels.

Mar 15, 2019
Unlike biomass and wind & solar...
Liar. Wind and solar are doing a lot to reduce C02. https://cleantech...vidends/

Mar 16, 2019
CleanTechnica again and again. You have nothing to show except propagandist articles written by green sociopaths with vested interests.
Coal/gas-fired backup plants, manufacturing/mining/maintenance processes, are never taken into account by the green sociopaths.
"As long as renewables rely on fossil fuel backup, it is dishonest to not include that in the renewables carbon footprint"
"It should be obvious that wind turbines are not manufactured in wind-powered factories, nor are solar panels assembled in sun-powered workshops. But proponents of renewable energy sources never talk about the carbon footprints of manufacturing, distributing and installing the equipment needed to use them. And no one, to our knowledge, has figured out how to dispose of solar panels safely once their useful lives end—they can't just be dumped in the local landfill."

Mar 16, 2019
CleanTechnica again and again
You cite Breitbart, and Daily Mail. Cleantechnica is a great web site - it presents a wealth of fantastic information. The fact that you don't like the facts - will not stop me presenting the facts. Wind and solar reduce C02 levels. Despite 70 years of deployment of nukes - C02 levels go up and up. Now we are deploying renewables - C02 levels are responding.

Mar 17, 2019
...The fact that you don't like the facts...
Just compare solar/wind-powered countries/states(Germany, Denmark, South Australia, California, Minnesota) with carbon-free nuclear-powered ones(France, Sweden, Ontario).
"The ones that went with nuclear and hydro decarbonized. The ones that went with wind and solar failed and keep failing."

Distorting facts while telling everyone else is lying, is the only tool left to the green sociopaths now in order to continue to deceive the misinformed public.
"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

Mar 20, 2019
The ones that went with wind and solar failed and keep failing
Lies lies lies. UK is doing fine - phasing out coal - gas/nukes going down - renewables on the increase. You just keep lying Willie - and the facts leave you in the garbage can of history.

Mar 21, 2019
...UK is doing fine - phasing out coal...
"£165m investment: UK's first deep coal mine in over 30 years given green light" - Mar 19, 2019
...Lies lies lies...
...just keep lying...
If it were possible to convert the greenies' lies into electricity, it could already had replaced coal/oil/gas.

"Minnesotans Can Expect 40% Increase in Electric Bill Under Renewable Energy Mandate Proposed by Governor Walz"

Mar 21, 2019
Minnesotans Can Expect 40% Increase in Electric Bill ...
Ah - so you criticize quoting pro renewable web sites - but then you quote right wing propaganda bullshit. And who is "the Center of the American Experiment?" http://www.citypa...90485181

Mean time in the real world
as the installations of rooftop solar and large scale renewables grows, the output of fossil fuels reduces – initially this hit brown coal, but more recently it has impacted gas generation because of its high cost.
It all depends where you look - liar Willie. At the real world, or at bullshit propaganda sites.

Mar 23, 2019
RenewEconomy again and again? You green sociopaths(maniac compulsive pathological liar) have only unreliable/biased sources in order to continue fooling the misinformed public.

Solar/wind fiasco:
"Gas wars part one: let's be honest about Germany's growing dependence on fossil gas"
"'Over-zealous' Germany energy transition risking industrial competitiveness - Wacker CEO" - Mar 19, 2019
"Green Energy Transition Is Destroying Germany's Competitiveness, CEO Warns"
"If "renewables" can impoverish rich countries, imagine what they can do to poor countries."

Mar 23, 2019
RenewEconomy again and again?
All you have is Breitbart. At least my sources are related to the topic - and not right wing news rags.
So Australia has enough wind and solar in the pipeline - to take it to 100% renewables by 2030. So hey Willie liar - can you name one country that is on track to 100% nuclear unicorn farts withing 10 years?
And what about that cost curve on nuclear unicorn farts? Wind and solar keep going down Willie - we want to see what is happening to nukes.

Mar 24, 2019
...So Australia has enough wind and solar in the pipeline - to take it to 100% renewables by 2030...
If electricity is already insanely expensive in Australia with penetration of intermittent renewables into the grid, just imagine when it reaches "100%".

Not including batteries, at 1/3 of penetration into the grid, solar and wind make electricity ~5x costlier, including batteries, solar and wind can be ~50x costlier than carbon-free nuclear.
"The cost of wind & solar power: batteries included"
"Batteries Included: Wind + Solar + Batteries = Insanely Expensive Power"
"The True Costs of Nuclear and Renewables" - Dec 2018

The "100% renewables" cultists never talk about emission reduction.
Solar/wind trillion-dollar fiascos.

Mar 26, 2019
If electricity is already insanely expensive in Australia with penetration of intermittent renewables into the grid, just imagine when it reaches "100%"

Renewables reduce the cost of electricity - so you are just a fat liar. https://theconver...a-108251

Mar 27, 2019
Solar and wind are backed up 100% of time by coal/gas-fired backup plants.
If the price of gas climbs, the electricity costs increase.

Well, Sunshine and Breeze are free, but everything else costs money: coal/gas-fired backup plants, solar panels, windmills, batteries, transmission lines, subsidies/tax incentives, etc.
So it's no surprise intermittent renewables are causing the electricity prices to skyrocket everywhere.
Meanwhile, the green sociopaths have no option except to continue lying like there's no tomorrow and call liar who exposes their liars.

"Wind and solar plants hit by massive de-ratings in congested grid"
'"Renewables are cheap" - until the cost of transmission is taken ito account Since weather (and time) dependent generation can be anywhere, transmission must be from from everywhere to everwhere. That costs!'

Mar 28, 2019
Solar and wind are backed up 100% of time by coal/gas-fired backup plants
No they are not. Look for example at Costa Rica. What a liar you are. When Australia hits 100% renewables - you will still be telling the tide not to come in. Shame you know nothing.

Mar 29, 2019
...Look for example at Costa Rica...
Not much wind/solar here:
Costa Rica: 78% hydro, 10% geothermal
"Costa Rica has few people, warm climate, little industry, and is powered mostly by hydro."
...When Australia hits 100% renewables...
"In REAL life, 100% renewables = 80% natural gas & 20% renewables. No wonder natural gas is the fastest growing fuel worldwide."

Mar 29, 2019
Not much wind/solar here:
So what? Each country is unique - and we use what works best. Still puts the big to you lying assertion
Solar and wind are backed up 100% of time by coal/gas-fired backup plants

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more