Why should I care what Colorado's plan for CO2 emission reduction says? Is it binding? No. Is it six years old and grossly out of date? Yes. Is Colorado providing funding for new transmission or generation? No.
Rather look at the various utilities' Clean Energy Plans to see what's actually is being planned. Hint: There's a ton of natural gas fired generation.
Scientists have been conducting fusion reactions since 1952, but these reactions always consumed more energy than they produced. Then, in 2022, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California achieved 'Lawson’s criterion,' making the first net-positive energy gain from a controlled fusion reaction. It only lasted for a fraction of a second, but it proved fusion could be a power source, rather than a power drain. Now comes the next challenge: showing fusion can generate net-positive energy — what physicists call “Q>1” — in a commercially-relevant way.
More than 40 fusion startups are speeding towards this goal. Commonwealth Fusion Systems will turn on a demonstration power plant, called SPARC, in 2027. Scientists expect it will first achieve net-positive energy production (Q>1) and eventually generate up to ten times more energy than it consumes or more (Q>10). This will be fusion’s Wright Brothers moment.
What comes after could look like the space race, but this time we won't need seven decades to reach our moon.
The good news is that the world’s first commercial fusion power plant – a 400 MW machine we call 'ARC' – will break ground in the next few years. Last month, CFS, Dominion Energy and the Governor of Virginia made an historic announcement to site the world’s first commercial fusion power plant in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The future is here now.
I like "additional hyperbole." Sadly, your comment opposes well-developed fission energy which has safely provided the U.S. abundant 24/7 cost-effective emission-free power for more than six decades.
April 22nd: Spain brags about hitting 100% renewable power.
April 28th: Spain has the nation's largest blackout in history.
These two events are not coincidences.
While officials have not admitted anything, we can rule a few things out. No unusual weather, and no sabotage. We know what caused the failure was at the interlink with France, and at the time, France was transmitting a lot of power to the Spanish grid.
My guess - because they use a lot of intermittent power sources, Spain is unusually reliant on grid transfers from France, which has stable dispatchable nuclear power. A single failure at a single transfer point caused the Spanish and Portuguese grids to immediately collapse - the remaining dispatchable power in both countries was insufficient to stop the collapse.
So, ideas that incorporate a lot of grid transfers between states are prone to causing massive collapse. This is why, traditionally, grids have been designed to limit transfers over distance, because each mile is considered a potential point of failure, and with enough miles, you get grid collapse. Schemes where substantial fractions of the total energy used is transferred over hundreds or thousands of miles are statistically guaranteed failure.
It very well might be that. But it might also be some solar farms dropped offline and France then opened the breaker to stop the crash from migrating into France. And that made it worse in Spain.
My guess is something got screwed up on the phase/frequency in an area. Spain has low inertia. So the solar plants followed the changing phase/frequency until they hit their limit and then dropped.
But we'll have to wait and learn as they investigate. We might both be wrong.
I think we are closer on geothermal and SMRs than most people think - 5 years maybe. I'd start the process of trying to ramp up both in the state. Both have a huge advantage in creating onsite process heat, which is something that does not get discussed enough. Both are also good for small communities.
I'd also look at natural gas with carbon capture - NET Energy in Texas is building the prototype as we speak, and there is no reason to think it won't work. It has already worked at smaller scale.
My big concern with density is the materials needed to make them. If they get 10x the density, then it's 1/10 the mining, refining, transporting, manufacturing, etc.
As to having enough room, you're right that Colorado could use rechargeable AA batteries and have enough room.
The fantasy that Colorado governor Polis advocates for assures that there will be plenty of demand for Colorado coal-fired generation in 2040. For validation, note that California's focus on adding tens of billions of dollars of solar and wind generation since 2010 has resulted in increased consumption of natural gas for electricity generation. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3045ca2m.htm
HB25-1040, “Adding Nuclear Energy as a Clean Energy Resource” was introduced in this year’s legislative session currently waiting to be assigned to Committee.
While this won’t promote any nuclear plant construction, it’s at least a recognition in the state’s laws to recognize nuclear energy as a form of “clean energy.”
The past two times it was introduced, it had decent bipartisan support but died in committee after the usual “green” anti-nuclear influences spoke against it.
Number 8 is brilliant. And limit land use delays that would slow down the construction.
Excellent article. Thank you for this clear and direct analysis.
Great piece. Thanks to Meredith Angwin for directing me to you.
Why should I care what Colorado's plan for CO2 emission reduction says? Is it binding? No. Is it six years old and grossly out of date? Yes. Is Colorado providing funding for new transmission or generation? No.
Rather look at the various utilities' Clean Energy Plans to see what's actually is being planned. Hint: There's a ton of natural gas fired generation.
The plan I'm quoting from was finalized April 2024. So it's less than 1 year old.
Care to provide a link to the updated plan?
Added to the end of the post above.
Things change: World Economic Forum asked "Is the world ready for the transformational power of fusion?" on Jan 7, 2025 https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/fusion-energy-future/
Scientists have been conducting fusion reactions since 1952, but these reactions always consumed more energy than they produced. Then, in 2022, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California achieved 'Lawson’s criterion,' making the first net-positive energy gain from a controlled fusion reaction. It only lasted for a fraction of a second, but it proved fusion could be a power source, rather than a power drain. Now comes the next challenge: showing fusion can generate net-positive energy — what physicists call “Q>1” — in a commercially-relevant way.
More than 40 fusion startups are speeding towards this goal. Commonwealth Fusion Systems will turn on a demonstration power plant, called SPARC, in 2027. Scientists expect it will first achieve net-positive energy production (Q>1) and eventually generate up to ten times more energy than it consumes or more (Q>10). This will be fusion’s Wright Brothers moment.
What comes after could look like the space race, but this time we won't need seven decades to reach our moon.
The good news is that the world’s first commercial fusion power plant – a 400 MW machine we call 'ARC' – will break ground in the next few years. Last month, CFS, Dominion Energy and the Governor of Virginia made an historic announcement to site the world’s first commercial fusion power plant in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The future is here now.
Additional hyperbole is available from a press release at https://finance.yahoo.com/news/quantum-kinetics-arc-reactor-sets-060000050.html
I like "additional hyperbole." Sadly, your comment opposes well-developed fission energy which has safely provided the U.S. abundant 24/7 cost-effective emission-free power for more than six decades.
April 22nd: Spain brags about hitting 100% renewable power.
April 28th: Spain has the nation's largest blackout in history.
These two events are not coincidences.
While officials have not admitted anything, we can rule a few things out. No unusual weather, and no sabotage. We know what caused the failure was at the interlink with France, and at the time, France was transmitting a lot of power to the Spanish grid.
My guess - because they use a lot of intermittent power sources, Spain is unusually reliant on grid transfers from France, which has stable dispatchable nuclear power. A single failure at a single transfer point caused the Spanish and Portuguese grids to immediately collapse - the remaining dispatchable power in both countries was insufficient to stop the collapse.
So, ideas that incorporate a lot of grid transfers between states are prone to causing massive collapse. This is why, traditionally, grids have been designed to limit transfers over distance, because each mile is considered a potential point of failure, and with enough miles, you get grid collapse. Schemes where substantial fractions of the total energy used is transferred over hundreds or thousands of miles are statistically guaranteed failure.
It very well might be that. But it might also be some solar farms dropped offline and France then opened the breaker to stop the crash from migrating into France. And that made it worse in Spain.
My guess is something got screwed up on the phase/frequency in an area. Spain has low inertia. So the solar plants followed the changing phase/frequency until they hit their limit and then dropped.
But we'll have to wait and learn as they investigate. We might both be wrong.
Perfectly reasonable.
I think we are closer on geothermal and SMRs than most people think - 5 years maybe. I'd start the process of trying to ramp up both in the state. Both have a huge advantage in creating onsite process heat, which is something that does not get discussed enough. Both are also good for small communities.
I'd also look at natural gas with carbon capture - NET Energy in Texas is building the prototype as we speak, and there is no reason to think it won't work. It has already worked at smaller scale.
Why does battery power density matter for utility scale batteries? Last time I was in Colorado, there was plenty of empty land.
My big concern with density is the materials needed to make them. If they get 10x the density, then it's 1/10 the mining, refining, transporting, manufacturing, etc.
As to having enough room, you're right that Colorado could use rechargeable AA batteries and have enough room.
The fantasy that Colorado governor Polis advocates for assures that there will be plenty of demand for Colorado coal-fired generation in 2040. For validation, note that California's focus on adding tens of billions of dollars of solar and wind generation since 2010 has resulted in increased consumption of natural gas for electricity generation. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3045ca2m.htm
Great write up, David.
HB25-1040, “Adding Nuclear Energy as a Clean Energy Resource” was introduced in this year’s legislative session currently waiting to be assigned to Committee.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1040
While this won’t promote any nuclear plant construction, it’s at least a recognition in the state’s laws to recognize nuclear energy as a form of “clean energy.”
The past two times it was introduced, it had decent bipartisan support but died in committee after the usual “green” anti-nuclear influences spoke against it.
Hopefully the third time will be the charm.