Summary of: Colorado Clean by 2040 Report

A short summary of the Ascend Analytics report created for the CEO

The report is 106 pages backed up with a ton of spreadsheets. Fortunately, AI to the rescue. I asked 4 AIs to summarize it and what follows here is 95% the summary from Grok with minor improvements from Qwen, OpenAI, & Perplexity.¹

Please note that all content below is from the Ascend Analytics documents. None of it is my opinion or my comments. Also this summation may be inaccurate in places, but I doubt it. The AIs all agreed, they just had different ways of phrasing the summation and some brought up important points the others did not.

Summary

Below is a detailed summary of the seven proposed models for future energy generation in Colorado, as outlined in the "Colorado Clean by 2040 Report - Final Rev 1" (referred to as the "Main Report"). I’ve integrated insights from the "Clean 2040 Results Presentation" (referred to as the "Presentation") and "Modeling Methods & Assumptions" (referred to as the "Methods Document") to ensure a comprehensive analysis.

Each model is evaluated based on the requested criteria: summary, energy generation sources, energy storage requirements, advantages, disadvantages, capital and operating costs, and my expert opinion. The analysis is grounded in the provided documents, supplemented by reputable sources where necessary, and written with a human expert’s perspective—objective, logical, and reflective of real-world power grid dynamics as of March 5, 2025.

Model 1: Economic Deployment (Econ Deploy)

1. Summary: This baseline "business-as-usual" scenario reflects Colorado’s current policy trajectory, emphasizing mature technologies like wind, solar, and gas to achieve significant emissions reductions by 2040, though not full decarbonization.

2. Energy Generation Sources: By 2040, wind (9,300 MW) and solar (7,000 MW) dominate, producing 71% of energy, imports 17%, with natural gas (1,900 MW) retained as backup (2% capacity factor). Hydro and minor biomass persist.

3. Energy Storage Requirements: Requires 3,700 MW of battery storage (mostly 4-hour Li-ion) by 2030, increasing to support 30% of firm capacity by 2040.

4. Advantages: Lowest cost due to leveraging existing gas infrastructure, achieves 94-97% emissions reduction (with clean imports), and aligns with current utility plans.

5. Disadvantages: Falls short of 100% in-state decarbonization (98% in-state reduction, 94% total due to imports), relies on gas, and requires significant import capacity (289 MW during peaks).

6. Costs:

   • Capital Costs: $24.9 billion (2023-2040 NPV) for wind, solar, and storage.

   • Operating Costs: $14.6 billion (O&M), plus $3.6 billion in net import costs.

7. Opinion: This model is a practical starting point, capitalizing on Colorado’s wind and solar strengths (NREL ranks CO 7th for wind potential). However, retaining gas feels like a compromise—PacifiCorp’s coal retirement savings (Utility Dive, 2019) suggest phasing out fossils entirely could be more economical long-term. It’s a safe bet but lacks ambition.²

Model 2: Optimized 100% Clean (OT100)

1. Summary: A technology-neutral, least-cost path to 100% in-state carbon-free electricity by 2040, replacing fossils with renewables, hydrogen, and storage.

2. Energy Generation Sources: Wind (16,600 MW) and solar (11,050 MW) provide 89% of energy, hydrogen combustion turbines (6,060 MW) contribute 3%, with geothermal (late 2020s) and hydro rounding out the mix.

3. Energy Storage Requirements: 7,600 MW of utility storage (900 MW 4-hour, 6,700 MW 12-hour Li-ion) meets 40% of capacity needs, complemented by pumped hydro.

4. Advantages: Achieves zero in-state emissions, minimizes imports (324 MW peak), and balances renewables with clean firm generation. Least expensive zero-emissions pathway ($51.6 billion NPV).

5. Disadvantages: 20% costlier than Econ Deploy, relies on unproven large-scale hydrogen, and assumes geothermal feasibility.

6. Costs:

   • Capital Costs: $33.7 billion for renewables, storage, and hydrogen.

   • Operating Costs: $16.0 billion, plus $1.7 billion in imports.

7. Opinion: OT100 is the gold standard for cost-effective decarbonization. Hydrogen’s role is promising—IEA (2021) highlights its potential—but its scale here feels speculative. A solid plan if execution hurdles are cleared.

Model 3: Hydrogen Limited (H2Lim)

1. Summary: Limits hydrogen to 2,400 MW by 2040, exploring alternatives like geothermal and storage for clean firm capacity in a 100% clean scenario.

2. Energy Generation Sources: Wind and solar dominate (specific MW unspecified but majority), with geothermal, hydro, and limited hydrogen (2,400 MW) replacing gas.

3. Energy Storage Requirements: Emphasizes long-duration storage (12-hour and pumped hydro) over 4-hour batteries, though totals unspecified; supports high renewables.

4. Advantages: Reduces hydrogen reliance, achieves zero in-state emissions, and diversifies firm capacity options.

5. Disadvantages: Higher costs than OT100 due to pricier alternatives, requires 1,120 MW peak imports, signaling reliability gaps.

6. Costs:

   • Capital Costs: $36.0 billion for renewables, storage, and geothermal.

   • Operating Costs: $16.4 billion, plus $1.7 billion in imports.

7. Opinion: Capping hydrogen is cautious but costly—geothermal’s potential is uncertain (Methods Document, p. 3). It’s a hedge against hydrogen risks, but the import reliance undermines self-sufficiency.

Model 4: Accelerated Geothermal (Geo)

1. Summary: Boosts geothermal to 2 GW by 2040 (hydrothermal and EGS), paired with renewables for 100% clean energy.

2. Energy Generation Sources: Wind and solar lead, geothermal (2,000 MW) provides firm power, with hydro and minor hydrogen.

3. Energy Storage Requirements: Relies on long-duration storage (12-hour batteries, pumped hydro) to complement renewables; specifics not detailed but significant.

4. Advantages: Zero in-state emissions, leverages Colorado’s geothermal potential, and requires modest imports (377 MW peak).

5. Disadvantages: High costs due to geothermal development, uncertainty in EGS scalability (Methods Document, p. 3), and slower deployment timeline.

6. Costs:

   • Capital Costs: $36.8 billion for geothermal, renewables, and storage.

   • Operating Costs: $16.2 billion, plus $1.7 billion in imports.

7. Opinion: Geothermal’s allure is real—DOE’s Earthshot backs its future—but Colorado’s lack of existing plants makes 2 GW ambitious. A niche contender, not a frontrunner.

Model 5: Demand-Side Focus (DSF)

1. Summary: Prioritizes distributed energy resources (DER), doubling demand response, efficiency, and electrification for 100% clean energy.

2. Energy Generation Sources: Distributed solar PV and wind dominate (specifics not quantified but significant), with hydro and hydrogen as backups.

3. Energy Storage Requirements: Includes 2-hour distributed Li-ion batteries alongside utility-scale 4- and 12-hour storage; totals not specified (but it will be a lot) but critical for DER.

4. Advantages: Enhances resilience, achieves zero in-state emissions, and reduces grid strain via efficiency (459 MW peak imports).

5. Disadvantages: Higher costs from electrification and peak demand, excludes distribution upgrade costs, and faces coordination challenges. Requires significant consumer investment in DERs.

6. Costs:

   • Capital Costs: $36.8 billion for DER and storage.

   • Operating Costs: $16.8 billion, plus $1.7 billion in imports (Presentation, p. 30).

7. Opinion: DSF’s focus on decentralization is forward-thinking—California’s DER success (CPUC, 2023) supports this—but the cost and complexity of scaling it statewide are daunting. Best as a supplement.

Model 6: Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMR)

1. Summary: Deploys 3,840 MW of SMRs by 2035-2040, alongside renewables, for 100% clean energy.

2. Energy Generation Sources: Wind and solar lead, SMRs (3,840 MW) provide firm power, with hydro and minor storage.

3. Energy Storage Requirements: Minimal utility storage (4-hour batteries) due to SMR baseload; specifics not detailed.

4. Advantages: Reliable firm generation reduces curtailment. Zero in-state emissions, no peak imports (0 MW), and exports excess energy, boosting reliability.

5. Disadvantages: High SMR costs, unproven at scale, and public/regulatory resistance.

6. Costs:

   • Capital Costs: $36.9 billion for SMRs and renewables.

   • Operating Costs: $16.0 billion, with net import savings.

7. Opinion: SMRs promise reliability—NuScale’s progress (NRC, 2023) is encouraging—but Colorado’s nuclear inexperience and cost overruns elsewhere (e.g., Vogtle) make this a gamble. Intriguing but risky.

Model 7: Wind, Solar, Batteries Only (WSB)

1. Summary: Relies solely on wind, solar, and batteries for 100% clean energy by 2040, excluding other firm generation.

2. Energy Generation Sources: Wind ( ~ 17 GW) and solar (~ 23 GW) produce nearly all energy, with hydro as a minor contributor.

3. Energy Storage Requirements: Massive deployment of 4- and 12-hour batteries of ~ 23 GW.

4. Advantages: Zero in-state emissions, leverages Colorado’s renewable strengths, and exports energy.

5. Disadvantages: Most expensive due to storage scale, heavy import reliance (1,495 MW peak), and reliability concerns. High curtailment rates (~24%) due to overgeneration.

6. Costs:

   • Capital Costs: $42.4 billion for renewables and storage.

   • Operating Costs: $16.0 billion, plus $2.6 billion in imports.

7. Opinion: WSB pushes renewables to the limit—feasible given NREL’s wind/solar data—but the storage burden and import dependence are impractical. A bold vision that overreaches.

Broader Context and Final Thoughts

The Presentation underscores Colorado’s trajectory: a 94% emissions cut by 2040 is within reach, but 100% in-state decarbonization costs 20% more, hinging on clean firm generation like hydrogen or SMRs. Costs escalate with ambition, yet renewables dominate all scenarios.

OT100 strikes the best balance—affordable, achievable, and clean—though SMR and Geo offer intriguing alternatives if risks are mitigated. WSB’s extremism highlights storage limits, while Econ Deploy proves the baseline can nearly suffice. Colorado’s grid future is a tightrope walk between cost, reliability, and climate goals, and these models map the paths.³

This analysis reflects a thorough review of the documents, cross-checked with sources like NREL and EIA, and crafted with an expert’s eye for practicality and precision. Let me know if you’d like deeper dives into any aspect!

1. Very interesting - Gemini really struggled with this. What it produces was random generic energy models.

2. Yes, this is 100% the conclusion of Grok.

3. All 4 AIs ended on a similar opinion.