US firm gets permission for 600 MWh Minnesota battery project that can support electrical grid 23%

By Christopher McFadden33%

7/18/2026, 1:03:16 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Halo Effect, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 16% saturation with 87 hits. Analysis detected 463 faulty-reasoning hits from 545 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.2% and a BS Rank of 23% (16,926 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 77.30% of the article peer group.

Spearmint Energy (Spearmint) has announced it has now secured a site for a planned 600 megawatt-hour battery energy storage facility in Freeborn County, Minnesota. 
This follows site permit approval from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) for the planned Midwater Energy Storage Project (“Midwater”). 
As Spearmint explains, this will see a 150 megawatt (600 MWh) standalone battery energy storage system (“BESS”) installed at the site. 
“Midwater will be sited on 10 to 20 acres of privately owned land adjacent to the Glenworth Substation off Minnesota Highway 65 in Freeborn County. 
The project is designed to support a more reliable, consistent, and affordable energy supply,” Spearmint explains in a press release . 
The new facility will essentially act as a large rechargeable battery for the state’s electrical grid. 
Once installed, the battery will be able to provide a maximum rate of 150 MW to the grid when needed. 
Spearmint secures permit for battery in Minnesota 
The 600 MWh figure effectively means the total amount of energy that the BEES can store. 
Taken together, these figures mean the system could, in theory, provide around 4 hours of 150 MW supply when fully charged. 
The concept behind it is essentially the same as a home storage battery in that it would be charged up when electricity is plentiful and relatively cheap. 
This could be when wind farms are at peak performance or when demand is low from consumers. 
It could also occur when power plants are producing more power than needed. 
Once charged, the battery can then be used to provide power when electricity demands rise or when supply falls (say, when renewables are offline/not performing at peak). 
Critically, the new facility will be on a multi-acre site alongside the Glenworth Substation. 
This will provide a practical connection to the high-voltage electricity network. 
According to Spearmint , the battery itself will sit inside a series of container-sized battery units with all the necessary electrical equipment, transformers, fire-safety systems, and control infrastructure. 
From there, it can charge from and discharge into the wider grid. 
The BEES will also be standalone, meaning it will not be reliant on any single electrical input source. 
Rather, it will be tied directly to the grid and charged that way when conditions allow. 
Standing out but standing alone 
“We appreciate the commitment of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and staff in reviewing this critical infrastructure project. 
The Midwater site permit represents a meaningful investment in Southern Minnesota’s energy future,” Andrew Waranch, Founder, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Spearmint, said. 
“Battery energy storage systems play a critical role in strengthening grid reliability, storing energy when supply exceeds demand and delivering it back to the grid when needed most,” said Peter Rood, Chief Development Officer of Spearmint Energy. 
“As electricity demand continues to grow, projects like Midwater provide flexible infrastructure that supports grid stability, enhances affordability, and enables the integration of diverse generation resources. 
We are pleased to have achieved this major milestone,” he added. 
This is an important announcement, but construction is yet to begin. 
The company will still need to jump other hurdles (such as grid interconnection agreements, financing, procurement, etc.) before the project can become a reality. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 3.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 1.6%Interesting Engineering: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 2.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.0%Christopher McFadden: 3.3%Interesting Engineering: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic5.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 5.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Christopher McFadden: 8.1%Interesting Engineering: 6.4%Framing Effect8.6%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.5%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%Christopher McFadden: 13.6%Interesting Engineering: 16.9%Optimism Bias5.9%This article: 4.4%Christopher McFadden: 1.5%Interesting Engineering: 0.6%Pessimism Bias4.4%This article: 2.6%Christopher McFadden: 0.9%Interesting Engineering: 0.9%Negativity Bias2.6%This article: 4.4%Christopher McFadden: 9.8%Interesting Engineering: 4.6%Self-Serving Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Christopher McFadden: 7.3%Interesting Engineering: 5.2%Halo Effect11.9%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.0%Christopher McFadden: 9.8%Interesting Engineering: 8.6%Appeal to Authority16.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 1.6%Interesting Engineering: 5.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 2.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.0%Christopher McFadden: 4.3%Interesting Engineering: 1.7%Unattributed Quote13.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.6%Christopher McFadden: 1.5%Interesting Engineering: 3.9%Biased Writer Voice4.6%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christopher McFadden: 0.0%Interesting Engineering: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Christopher McFadden: 11.3%Interesting Engineering: 10.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.6%

545 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers22%attributed speech426writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageSpearmint Energy • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew Waranch • 24 words • 0.0% coveragePeter Rood • 37 words • 0.0% coveragePeter Rood • 26 words • 100.0% coveragePeter Rood • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Peter Rood

100%flagged-word coverage
74 attributed words62% of attributed speech37% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +35.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Peter Rood: 35.1%35.1%Unattributed Quote-16.7 ptsWriter: 16.7%Peter Rood: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice+11.6 ptsWriter: 3.3%Peter Rood: 14.9%14.9%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.