Column by me in The Daily Sentinel
If we want reliable, carbon-free energy, nuclear must be in the mix
Colorado is officially trying to make our grid 95% green. And at present to do so primarily with wind and solar plus batteries and interconnections. So I figured, let’s look at who has accomplished this so far.1
We have countries that have done so primarily with hydro power:
Iceland (with a significant geothermal component)
Norway
Paraguay2
Quebec, Canada
Sweden (heavy nuclear component)
Switzerland (heavy nuclear component)
And countries that have done so primarily with nuclear:
Finland (heavy hydro component)
France
Ontario, Canada
Slovakia
Finally countries that have done so primarily with wind and solar
Denmark
There are some very small countries (Luxemburg) and very poor countries (Ethiopia) that are 90% green. But they’re essentially one power plant for the entire country so not a useful example.
So we have Denmark. They are very dependent on pulling power from their neighbors when the wind dies and the sky is overcast. They’re small and their neighbors are large. And two of those neighbors are Norway & Sweden producing green power they can purchase.
A lot of countries are trying to get to this point using wind & solar. Germany & the UK are the best examples. They’re stuck at about 60%, are using coal plants as backup, and have their neighbors threating to disconnect from the grid because of how they spike the wholesale price of power when the wind stops blowing.
So if we look at what has worked historically, it’s hydro and nuclear. We’ve dammed pretty much everything we can in the U.S. So that leaves nuclear.
Maybe Colorado could be the first largish state to be primarily wind & solar without neighbors that produce significant amount of excess green energy. But it’s a risky bet to say we can accomplish something no one else has succeeded at.
A safer bet is be like France3 while watching Germany4 to see if they can succeed. Although with the voter pushback in Germany and the U.K., they may both switch from wind & solar to N2N.5 In which case going nuclear will be the clear choice.
One dam produces 1000% of the power they need - wow.
Build nukes.
Attempting primarily wind & solar.
Natural Gas to Nuclear.
Great post!
One of the few books that address this issue. I think highly of the book and the authors.
https://www.amazon.com/Bright-Future-Countries-Solved-Climate/dp/1541724100
You forgot geothermal. Iceland (25%), El Salvador (25%), New Zealand (25%), Kenya (shooting for 51% by 2030), and the Philippines (17.5%) have very high levels of geothermal contribution.
New geothermal schemes mean it can be a fairly large contributor in the western U.S. DOE thinks we can cut costs to $45/Mwh by 2035. They think it could be 10%+ of the U.S. grid but concentrated in a few states (Utah, California, Nevada, Wyoming, etc.). Only 2% of available sources have been tapped.
In 2023, Fervo Energy broke ground on the 400-megawatt Cape Station Project. The company anticipates it will begin delivering around-the-clock, clean power to the grid in 2026 and reach full scale production in 2028.
https://fervoenergy.com/fervo-energy-breaks-ground-on-the-worlds-largest-next-gen-geothermal-project/