A Review of the Ascend Analytics Report

A trip into fantasyland

The best way to understand Theresa May’s predicament is to imagine that 52 percent of Britain had voted that the government should build a submarine out of cheese.
— Hugo Rifkind

I summarized the Ascend Analytics Report on Colorado’s possible models for a low/no carbon energy future by 2040 (click here to read it).

Magic Pixie Dust, a key component of the Ascend Analytics plan

Lets start by summarizing the technologies some of them use:

• Hydrogen

  • Optimized 100% Clean

  • Hydrogen Limited

  • Accelerated Geothermal

  • Demand-Side Focused

• Geothermal

  • Optimized 100% Clean

  • Hydrogen Limited

  • Accelerated Geothermal

Ok, so we have a teensy-weensy problem. First, hydrogen will likely never make sense.¹ Second, geothermal is promising but we’re unlikely to see it in the next 10 years. Maybe in 15 years, but we shouldn’t bet the ranch on it.²

Now all is not lost. We can eliminate hydrogen and geothermal from OT100, H2L, and DSF. And replace them with batteries & gas. Basically throw out OT100 & H2L as they become ED or WSB. Throw out GEO. And for DSF we add batteries.

For the SMR plan, it can be done but should be modeled using the existing AP1000 or APR-1400. These plants are cheaper and can be built today. SMRs, like geothermal, are at least 7 years out and most likely 15+ years before they’re coming off an assembly line. And when they do, they’ll likely be more expensive per kW than the large plants.

Reality Based Plans

So we’re left with four plans. With some cost changes:

• Economic Development

  • No change (this model was already realistic)

• Demand-Side Focus

  • Unknown additional batteries (the modeling did not size the hydrogen storage)

• Nuclear Reactors

  • $23 billion less³

• Wind, Solar, Batteries Only

  • No change (this model was already accurate)⁴

Now let’s look at the issues with each:

Economic Development - This assumes 17% of our power will come from out of state. The problem with this is low winds and overcast skies tend to be regional. We’ll often have to be pulling power from quite a distance. Lots of power which means high capacity transmission lines.

And when we want lots of power from say California, so do all of our neighbors. We’ll be competing with Utah, Arizona, Kansas, etc. And what happens if California is also hit with a storm and the regional demand drives prices through the roof.

We’ll need gas backup to handle 80% of the wind/solar capacity. Even if we have batteries good for 30% for 12 hours, that won’t get us through a major multi-day storm. This is fine as long as we keep sufficient gas capacity. But this is not a model to get us to only 5% carbon emitting power.

Demand-Side Focus - This one has the loosest cost estimates. And that’s understandable because it requires a giant change in consumer and business behavior. First it requires significant number of homes and businesses get solar & batteries. The only way that’s happening is if the state⁵ provides significant tax credits. Basically the more tax income the state gives up, the better this model works.

Second it requires people to step up in a lot of additional ways. To winterize their home. To allow Xcel to drain their car battery during peak evening. To accept Time of Day pricing. In this libertarian leaning state? I don’t see this happening.

Nuclear Reactors - Safe, consistent, reliable, inexpensive power. What’s not to like. And yes use solar + batteries for the evening peak. Use overnight power to charge up pumped hydro. Use the existing wind turbines until they wear out.

What does need to be thought out here is peak winter power. If we have a storm the solar is doing nothing and heat use will shoot up to maximum. As more people get heat pumps, this will grow. What’s best for this remains an open question.

Wind, Solar, Batteries Only - Aside from being prohibitively expensive, it’s also the least reliable. No matter how many batteries you purchase, there will be a storm or other event that drains all the batteries before the wind & solar can cover all use.

I think the state will struggle to sell “It’s the most expensive, but hey it’s unreliable too.”

Conclusion

We’re left with the problem every wind + solar fantasy dies on - energy storage is prohibitively expensive. And no amount of storage is guaranteed to handle all events.

We can go forward with the Economic Development model. Using gas, not neighboring states, as the backup. At times we’ll likely be running 80% from gas. But it’ll probably average out to 30% gas.⁶ Maybe less if enough people get solar + batteries.

And 30% gas, 70% renewables is a lot better than what we have today. Especially with coal at 0%. But please stop claiming that we’ll be at 2% gas.⁷

But if we’re going to move beyond that, it’s nuclear.

Oh, and Ascend Analytics did a horrible job. The state should ask for its money back.

1. Good take here on the state of green hydrogen.

2. DOE is guessing 2050 at the earliest

3. Build 4 APR-1400 reactors for $24 billion. Provides 5.6 GW.

4. I don’t use the word “realistic” here because this costs a fortune and is unreliable.

5. Trump sure isn’t going to allow federal tax credits.

6. Germany’s big problem was not that the wind died down. Their big problem was when it did, they had no backup.

7. And please don’t add high capacity transmission lines - that will end up like our sharing of the Colorado River with California.