DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 02, 2025 12:49 AM UTC
13 Comments
FYI – Chris Matthews on Scarborough this morning just noted that Michael Bennet's apparent run for governor is a step towards running for president down the line . Not interested in your thoughts on Matthews or Scarborough or Bennet. Just thought it was an interesting take.
And then there's the member of our state delegation that you would never want anywhere near The Oval Office. Two-gun Tootsie demonstrating her ignorance again: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/04/01/congress/oliver-stone-jfk-lbj-boebert-00265127
Nice win by Susan Crawford in Wisconsin last night.
The first order of business is for that supreme court to address the gerrymandered US House seats which give 6 seats to the GOP and 2 to the Dems in a state that is virtually 50/50.
9 Takeaways from the JP Morgan Chase Energy Study You Won't Want to Miss
I cross-posted this. It's really good.
Anti-renewable advocacy group?
I read this whole article and got the uncomfortable vibe that it was written by an anti-renewable group.
First, there were a few polemical anti-renewable comments, and some suspiciously selective comparisons. It reminds me of the anti-wind energy articles where they talk about all the birds being killed by windfarms, but never explaining the methodology, and never comparing the number of bird deaths (which came from one suspect & old research project) to the much higher number of birds killed by house cats, cars and building collisions. Make things look scary by not showing an honest, direct comparison, and then market the hell out of the meme. (I STILL get FB posts from anti-renewable MAGA people saying "What about the Birds!?")
Wikipedia suggests that LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) for wind and solar has gone down dramatically since 2009 due to technology, production & scale improvements (which will continue). Eyeballing the 2024 LCOE for some of various sources:
Wind 5 cents/KWHr
Solar 6 cents/KWHr
Gas 7 cents/KWHr
Coal 12 cents/KWHr
Nuclear 18 cents/KWHr
LCOE for Various Electric Sources
You have argued that a more complete analysis is necessary for full comparisons. But we also know that technology and scale improvements for solar, wind & storage are inevitable and on-going.
Speaking of the future:
I can admit that nuclear plants need to be part of the mix, and may decrease somewhat in cost
I can agree with you that zoning, project delays and other restrictions need to be relaxed
Not to mention better inter-regional grid connections
Not to mention Smart Grid and Price signals to move energy usage to high-solar or high-wind times
Price Signaling really motivates me.
I charge my car off peak (at night or during the day), and pay 7 cents/KWhr. In the evening it would be 21 cents/KWhr. It costs me $3 to drive 120 miles, whereas a gas car would cost $10, $15 or $30 (depending on mileage).
As we move to more electric cars, we will have a huge base of battery storage, which can be charged off-peak. We are taking direct advantage of daytime solar, and we are also eliminating gasoline consumption.
Smart Grid
Price signaling is one way to adjust peak demand. A smart grid could manage peaks and valleys directly. My car has "Vehicle to Load", meaning that it can send electricity to my appliances. If I could send it back to the grid, I can make money on the margin between 7cents and 21cents.
When everybody has an electric car, there will be a HUGE ballast of batteries in the grid.
EV as storage is problematic from a resource planning perspecitve as it will likely have an insanely low ELCC assigned to it. The uncertainty of unavailability for dispatch, which drives the premius for storage, is hard to overcome. Rooftop PV+ storage is far more attractive in minimizing the ramp required of dispatchable thermal and reducing the slope of the duck curve on the systems with high renewable penetration as evidenced in CAISO and ERCOT (who's butt has been saved by battery storage this past summer and winter in extreme weather events and where storage has disincentivized several subsized thermal proposals).
I agree – don't want to run to the garage to rush my wife to the hospital at 2:00am and find Xcel has drained my car's battery.
The blog writing the synopsis is conservative & anti-wind. They dislike it more because of it's not dependable/reliable not because the SCGT backup means it doesn't reduce CO2. But yeah, your read of their vibe is spot on.
The LCOE can be utter bullshit. If you measure wind/solar vs. nuclear (or pretty much anything else), they kick ass. Up to 4x cheaper depending.
If you measure wind/solar plus batteries to provide reliable dispatchable power, then nuclear (and pretty much everything else) kicks renewable's ass.
And doing a true comparison, so wind/solar plus batteries – how many days of low/no wind & overcast skies do you need batteries to cover. If you say 4 days, that's twice the cost of saying 2 days. But the fewer days, the more often you're firing up the SCGT backup generators.
Finally inter-grid connections are great for the state that goes heavy into renewables. They suck for those neighbors that are not renewables dependent as their power is pulled spiking power prices.
It's complicated…
What Problem are you trying to solve? Cost depends on your assumptions.
Magically replacing 100% with Wind, Solar and Batteries with today's technologies? Yeah, that's expensive, and it seems like that is the engineering problem you are modeling.
Gradually phase in renewables where, when and as they become competitive? That's a different problem.
I maintain that technology, manufacturing and scaling will continue to cause prices to drop. Maybe we don't get to 100% renewables, but we can get to 50% easily, 75% with a bit more effort and cost.
Even 90% is cost effective if we count all the "external" costs of a carbon energy economy, like (ahem) climate change.
The present state plan is 95% renewables by 2040. With 5% hydro/bio that means 90% wind/solar. I don't see how the state affords the quantity of batteries this will require. Even with the two proposed additional pumped hydro stations.
Note that they assume we can get 17% of our power from neighboring states (more transmission lines). What Europe has shown is that when you get a week with continent wide Dunkleflaute, power prices spike, rolling blackouts are implemented, and factores are permanently closed.
The reason I advocate nuclear is it's the only way to get carbon free without bankrupting us.
I'm good thanks. More focused on stopping fascism in the US. But you do you.
"What does God Need with a Starship?" Captain Kirk