In a study of electrical supply options for Springfield in the 1990s, a second gas turbine at the Dallman power station was the favored option. Although the fuel was expensive compared to coal, it was relatively inexpensive to build compared to a coal plant. However, another option presented was a solar farm, which showed it was more cost-effective than the cheaper gas plant over 20 years, at an installed cost of $5/watt. Ultimately the coal plant won, due to the promise of more construction jobs and more permanent jobs for operation and maintenance.
What was missed was that solar also generates jobs. Now we are faced with the aftermath of that decision. The City Council just voted to approve a study for the conversion of the Dalman 4 coal plant to natural gas, with plans to use it long enough to pay for itself by 2040.
Solar farms now cost under $1/watt and $3/watt with storage. You can build one as fast or as gradually as you need it. You can also avoid the feast and famine brought on when a large labor force is needed to build a conventional plant, then laid off when it’s done. A solar farm can grow a labor force and retain it as more and more arrays are installed to match growth.
Renewables are “predictive resources,” as all you need to do is watch the weather forecast to know if solar or wind power is going to be available. Then you can substitute them for your fossil fuel sources. The sun drives summer peak demand from air-conditioning loads, but it can also be the source to address that demand. Tracking solar arrays rotate throughout the day, tracking the sun as it moves across the sky, meeting its full availability. Wind can typically meet winter nighttime heating loads and be available to charge electric cars overnight.
There is much talk about new gas and converted coal plants being the go-to options for capacity. But what happens to our home heating costs as the electricity-generating industry converts to gas? The nuclear industry will say they are the go-to option for shortfalls in capacity because they are carbon-free, including “new” nuclear. In fact, nuclear plants are the most expensive option and the slowest to bring online – unless we want to throw away all the safety controls. Nuclear plants are also the most dangerous option, and there is still no safe storage for nuclear waste, which includes mining and milling dust, which is radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.
What do you do when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow? Utility-scale batteries are here. Detractors say batteries can’t do the job because they only last four hours, but that is all the time you need for those critical peak demand periods.
Springfield, Missouri, built a five-megawatt solar farm with battery backup. California has 5,600 megawatts of storage capacity. With possibly the world’s largest supply of lithium recently discovered in Nevada and Oregon, scarcity is not a problem. Advanced batteries include Iron-Air batteries and Iron-Flow batteries. Even water can be separated into hydrogen and oxygen using renewables and then recombined in fuel cells to produce electricity and water again in a closed loop.
To get a new perspective on the future, we can see an emerging electrical grid that is widely distributed, with solar, wind and batteries of all sizes from household-scale to utility-scale. It will all be held together as a “Smart Grid,” where time-of-use meters will allow for feeding electricity to and from the grid when demand and price align. Reliability will be greatly increased as homes can run on their own batteries during disruptions or help support the grid if needed.
Hindsight is always 20/20 and, in this case, unfortunately, the coal plant is a stranded asset that we still need to pay off. Assuming conversion to gas is cleaner, with less global-warming CO2 emissions, and is more efficient, would utility engineers want to just stop there and not install solar? Hopefully this new engineering study that answers these questions will be transparent and shared with the public. Transparency would help us make responsible community-based decisions that affect us all.
This is a climate emergency. The planet can’t wait. Let’s aggressively reduce emissions now through more conservation and by installing solar on rooftops, over parking lots, at our substations and by building a big solar farm on the land we already have for an unneeded second lake.
We are public power, and we have a say in what happens here. We won’t need fossil fuel or nuclear anymore. We can instead rely on the sun, the only safe nuclear plant, sited 93 million miles away, that will last another 4.5 billion years.
Bob Croteau of Springfield has been promoting solar and energy conservation since he was training unemployed youth to do weatherization and build solar collectors in 1980. He joined the CWLP Energy Services Office in 1984 as an energy auditor and engineered Springfield’s first solar electric array installed on the FSR Homeless Shelter in 1989. He developed the solar Interconnection and Net Metering policies and Solar Rebate program. His master’s project in environmental studies from University of Illinois Springfield was a feasibility study for a solar power plant for CWLP.
This article appears in Reconstructing Springfield’s high schools.

The typical cost of building a solar power plant is between $0.89 and $1.36 per watt. A 1 megawatt solar farm can cost between $1.9 million and $3.2 milliondepending on farmland cost
That’s a quoted industry average when buying Chinese solar panels.
That doesn’t take into consideration the rare earth that has to be dug out of the ground and processed, much like gold mining, which has terrible downstream pollution and toxic sludge when producing solar panels that are also not recycled and are already piling up in landfills.
When the whole lifecycle of producing batteries and solar is considered, it is less green than coal and natural gas.
Renewables are not as reliable as once touted. Europe found this out the hard way.
Riding my bicycle about three weeks ago in eastern Morgan County. There is a several mile stretch of a windmill farm. Forget how unsightly they look, of the hundred or so windmills, not a single propeller was spinning, because there wasn’t sufficient wind.
Author lives in a fantasy world. Half of the article is total fiction. Par for the course for environmenatlists.
Look at all the idiot “experts” claiming things like burning coal is cleaner than solar and wind “cuzza all the MINING,” as if coal isn’t just about the filthiest, most destructive mined thing, taking out whole mountains, destroying streams and groundwater…and people’s lives. There is zero scientific evidence that says solar and wind energy are somehow “less green” than coal and gas. Laughably stupid.
Are there environmental costs? Yes. Are they significant? Yes. Can they be mitigated more easily than coal and gas? Yes.
Can solar and wind power everything right now? No. Not yet. But that’s not the point. We must achieve a huge reduction in carbon and methane pollution, and this is how it’s done.
A 200mw solar farm in Morgan County with a current capacity factor of 40 percent was built for a little over $200 million. Dallman 4 is a 200 mw coal plant. It’s capacity factor through June 30 this year was just 33 percent. It cost $600 million to build the stupid thing in 2007.
“It don’t werk if’n it ain’t coal ‘n’ steam powered.” Get out of here with that BS.
:
@Donald Hanrahan
Have you ever been to a battery plant?
Have you been to a smelter or processing plant and seen what they have to do to get that very little bit of rare earth that has to be dug out of the ground and the remaining tailings it produces that are far worse than coal mining?
Have you ever seen the toxic sludge ( that is dumped in ocean) that is left over when a solar panel is produced? Or what happens to the non-recyclable glass? I think not!
This is today’s reality, based on onsite factual information. Solar and wind are expensive and unreliable.
Look no further than Europe to prove that, as they are re-firing coal plants.
I don’t think anyone disagrees that coal is dirty, but it can be 100% recycled.
Nuclear and hydrogen are far better replacements, as hydrogen is being blended with natural gas right now in England.
This is reality because so-called green renewables have been out for some time, and we know what they can and cannot do.
I think it’s just easier for you to jump up and down and complain about spelling typos and name-calling when you don’t get your way, based on your bogus theory about power and water use.
Yeah, we all heard it before: “You own some property in Springfield,” but you don’t live here.
My hope is that they move Hunter Lake to the Bradforton area so you can enjoy it more.
Many houses are built to increase our tax revenue through development. If all you green nuts really think the world is going to dry up, we need extra water security.
If your so keen to complain about Springfield Live here!
CWLP built a coal plant we didn’t need and it caused huge rate increases to pay off the debt.
Rural electric co-ops saw huge rate increases because they invested in the Prairie State coal plant.
It takes a special kind of stupid to pay more every month because of coal and still rant and rave about solar and treehuggers. It’s hard for some people to admit they were wrong.
I’m an enthusiast for renewable energy. It is clean, cheaper and safer than fossil fuels, and it’s earliest technical problems are being ironed out. New companies like LiCycle are developing new processes for electric vehicle battery recycling, and the trend is for every material used by humankind to be reused or recycled. YouTube has videos that go into detail on battery advances and a lot of advances in the pipeline that will take on the objections that folks are making on this thread. Also, many of the old coal tailings piles can be processed for rare earth metals recovery. Wind turbines are often idled because they have contracts that call for them to be the equivalent of ‘peaker plants’ to send power to companies purchasing it to meet demand. When not supplying that electricity, they are shut down. That power should go into storage, but we are not there yet. Central Illinois should consider a system like the one being developed on the West Coast. Visit 3CE.org for information about it. Thanks!
Hi, everyone. I’m just a little lost with the references to “Europe.” That continent (and the majority of countries there) not only get 22% of their energy from renewables, but they just voted last month to increase this to 42.5% by 2030. Please read: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/eu-lawmakers-approve-a-deal-to-raise-renewable-energy-target-to-42-5-percent-of-total-consumption-by-2030#:~:text=consumption%2Dby%2D2030-,EU%20lawmakers%20approve%20a%20deal%20to%20raise%20renewable%20energy%20target,of%20total%20consumption%20by%202030&text=STRASBOURG%2C%20France%20(AP)%20—,transition%20away%20from%20fossil%20fuels.
Yep your lost; Europe is restarting coal plants