Wind, solar and battery storage are the right solutions for Colorado, not unproven technologies
Key Takeaways:
Proposals for unproven and expensive SMR and gas with carbon capture technologies put PSCo’s ratepayers at risk of significant future rate increases.
The already high costs of SMRs, coupled with uncertain construction lead times and potential additional costs make the technology a huge risk for Colorado and its ratepayers.
Carbon capture is an unproven technology for gas-fired generation: its performance is uncertain and its costs are unknown.
Renewable energy parks with wind and solar resources, battery and long-term storage, and flexible loads, should be evaluated as alternatives to SMRs and gas with carbon capture.
Colorado is at a crucial moment as it transitions away from coal as an electricity generation resource. As different options are weighed, Colorado must be careful not to lock in technologies like small modular reactors (SMRs) or gas-fired turbines with carbon capture that will take too long to build, be extremely costly, and leave both ratepayers and taxpayers on the hook for years to come.
A new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) looks at how construction of new nuclear reactors or adding carbon capture to gas-fired plants could both delay the transition and boost the cost.
Public Service of Colorado (PSCo) is currently assessing options for how to replace output from Unit 3 at the coal-fired Comanche power plant in Pueblo, which is scheduled to shut down in 2030. Carbon capture is an unproven technology for gas-fired generation that often underperforms. Traditional nuclear construction commonly takes far longer to build and costs significantly more than originally forecast; SMRs, which have never been built in the U.S., are likely to face the same problems, making them an unreliable option for meeting the current energy transition needs.
“Renewable energy like solar and wind resources are already available and quickly deployable options to meet electricity generation needs,” said David Schlissel, former director of resource planning and analysis at IEEFA, principal at Schlissel Technical Consulting and lead author of the report. “Colorado and other coal states should be wary of new technologies that will not arrive in time to address the climate crisis.”
The choice facing Colorado is clear. It can chase unproven options such as SMRs and gas with carbon capture that are going to be expensive and have uncertain commercialization timelines. Or it can build cost-competitive and available wind, solar and dispatchable battery storage resources now.
