Energy Sources

Affordable & Reliable. Affordable & Reliable. Affordable & Reliable!

Let’s start with the criteria for what energy sources the PUC should approve for Xcel.

1. The power is affordable. We need to find the least expensive source that meets all criteria.

2. The power is reliable. This means it is always available and provides sufficient inertia to the grid.

3. The power meets the legislative requirement to emit just 20% of the CO2 emitted in 2005.

   1. And for any efforts to reduce carbon can only be taken if it increases rates by 2.5% or less annually.

4. The power is sufficient. Our economic growth depends on sufficient power.¹

5. Meet the Just Transition objectives.²

From the above first two items I think that means power must be sufficient for all needs. Affordable but insufficient is economically devastating and by definition unreliable.

Combined Cycle Gas Turbine

The Optimum Solution

By far the optimum solution to meet the above criteria is to use a combination of CCGTs for baseload, replacing all coal plants, and SCGTs for peak. And to make use of all existing wind, solar, hydro, etc. Why is this the optimum?

1. It costs a lot less than building wind/solar, batteries, and gas backup for the wind/solar.

2. The CCGTs run 24/7 and provide solid grid inertia. The SCGTs can be fired up in seconds, 24/7. There’s no issues with intermittency.

3. This will meet the reduce CO2 emissions to 20% of 2005. Barely,³ but it should meet it.

   1. Even this approach will likely exceed the legislatures 2.5%/year with the increased likelihood of the oncoming Trump induced inflation.⁴

4. Just keep adding turbines until we have sufficient power.

5. These can mostly be located near the shut down coal plants providing jobs for the coal plant workers.

I know you commissioners have the fantasy of wind + solar + batteries providing our power. But at a minimum it is your responsibility to price out going all gas⁵ to both replace coal and for increased needs. This gives everyone a baseline by which to measure the increased costs of the wind + solar + batteries fantasy.

The Super Expensive Solution

Yes going wind + solar + batteries will make a lot of people feel good. And yes, feeling good is worth a couple of bucks. Well a couple of bucks on your bill, not mine.

So price it out. Price out the CAPEX, OPEX, and land requirements for building out all the wind & solar farms. Price out the transmission lines required to bring the power from those farms to the grid. Price out the batteries required for a 3 day⁶ snow storm with no wind as that happens a couple of times a year. Price out the gas turbines needed as backup for the 4 or 5 day low sunlight no wind periods.

Add that all up and we can then compare that total vs. the gas total. Then if you go the wind + solar + batteries + gas backup route, at least people will know that half their utility bill is due to this choice. And you can explain to them why they should feel that is worth it.⁷

1. Costs more than the gas or nuclear solution.

2. Way less reliable than any other approach and no inertia.

3. Rocks on the CO2 emissions - none (aside from mining & manufacturing).

4. Adding power takes time, more for the transmission lines than the wind/solar farm.

5. Not great on providing jobs - they basically run unattended.

And no fair cheating by saying extra transmission lines means we can pull from elsewhere when we hit long periods of low solar/wind. We all know that’s bullshit as those other locations will often have low wind/solar at the same time.

The Nuclear Solution

Medium/long term the best approach is likely nuclear. And not SMRs as they are unlikely to surpass the AP-1000 or APR-1400 for price per GW for a couple of decades, if ever. Plus SMRs are conveniently in the future so you can say maybe… while going with wind & solar.

Make a sincere effort to price out what it will cost to build either AP-1000s or APR-1400s to handle 100% of our base load needs. And yes that is all up in the air right now as it’s not clear which of the DOE loans, subsidies, etc. will be around in a couple of months. But this will settle out shortly.

1. Costs more than gas but very likely less than wind/solar + batteries.

2. The most reliable source and provides rock solid inertia.

3. No CO2 emissions when running and minimal in construction.

4. Adding additional baseload power takes 5 - 7 years. But generally not much in transmission lines.

5. Excellent on providing new jobs, construction & operations.

I think you’ll find nuclear makes sense as countries that have tried the wind + solar approach, like Germany, Denmark, & the U.K. are now all turning to nuclear. I’d rather we learn from them touching the hot stove rather than we also need to touch the hot stove⁸ and learn it burns.

But with that said, nuclear may be too uncertain at present. Or too expensive. Do the research, figure it out, then share that with all of us. It’s definitely an avenue that China, India, etc. are going down and so it definitely deserves a comprehensive determination of the cost & timeline to build plants today.

1. Economic Growth Now Depends on Electricity, Not Oil

2. Just Transition strikes me as similar to the Inflation Reduction Act. Neither were about the title of the legislation. But doing what we can for just transition - good idea.

3. CCGTs emit approximately ⅓ the CO2 per kWh that a coal plant does.

4. A lot of the grid infrastructure, like large transformers, mostly come from China.

5. If someone builds a new wind or solar farm, by all means buy that power at a reasonable rate.

6. Or a shorter/longer period. You need to set the CO2 goal and from that figure out how long you need to go on batteries.

7. I would love to hear you explain to a family barely getting by why this is worth another $100 - $200/month out of their already stretched budget.

8. Overinvest in wind & solar.