Xcel Energy, Colorado’s largest utility, committed to going 100 percent carbon-free by 2050

Yes, I know all about the photo caption~ctm

From Summit Daily

Deepan Dutta  December 6, 2018

Carbon dioxide bellows from a coal-fired power plant near Boulder, CO. Xcel Energy has committed to going 100 percent carbon-free by 2050.

As the world turns its back on promises to curb carbon emissions, one of America’s largest utility companies has stepped up and promised to eventually eliminate its own. Xcel Energy, Colorado’s largest electric utility, announced Tuesday that it intends to go 100 percent carbon-free in all eight states it serves by 2050, while reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent of its 2005 emission levels by 2030. Xcel is the first major U.S. utility to make such a commitment.

The announcement was made at the same time a new report revealed that global carbon emissions increased in 2017 by 1.6 percent after staying relatively flat for the three years prior. Emissions are expected to have increased by 2.7 percent in 2018, dashing hopes that the world had finally turned a corner on carbon dioxide production.

The utility explicitly did not commit to 100 percent renewable energy, as Summit County and the town of Breckenridge have. Mark Stutz, spokesman for Xcel Energy Colorado, said that Xcel’s goal aligns with those set by communities like Summit, but does not want to limit itself to renewables. Instead, Xcel intends to explore future technology like advanced nuclear power plants and fossil fuel power with carbon sequestration, which could offer the benefits of fossil fuel-based energy without the emissions.

“We think it matches up very well with Summit’s goals,” Stutz said. “Clearly, both sides have the same goal: improving air quality and getting to zero carbon emissions. Our approach differs slightly in that we are not limiting ourselves to current technologies. There might be some technology we’re not aware of today, something that comes out in 10 to 20 years that accomplishes the same goal without relying entirely on renewables.”

Stutz pointed out reliable wind and solar energy was considered far-fetched a few decades ago, but is now cheaper to produce than many fossil fuel counterparts. He also said that improved battery technology in the future might allow for long-term energy storage on a mass scale from renewable and emerging energy sources, eliminating the need for constant real-time generation that drives the need for fossil fuel energy today.

Summit County Commissioner Dan Gibbs applauded Xcel’s announcement.

“We believe climate change is one of the greatest threats to our economy and to our way of life here in Summit,” Gibbs said. “This is such a positive step in the right direction, for one of the nation’s major utility companies to move to 100 percent clean energy.”

Read the full story here

HT/SF

Advertisements

107 thoughts on “Xcel Energy, Colorado’s largest utility, committed to going 100 percent carbon-free by 2050

  1. If such ridiculous commitments were legally binding then I’d pay attention. Until then, 32 year out commitments by CEOs that will have long been retired are about as valuable as climate scientist predictions for the same timeframe.

    • You guys just slay me.

      You rant and rave on and on about government forcing people to do this or that on renewables and other means of reducing air emissions in vehicles and power plants … and then when privately owned companies like Excel Energy or Honda or Tesla make private commitments to produce reduced emissions, you rant and rave about them not being required to do this so it must be BS that will never see the light of day.

      You cannot have it both ways.

      The market will determine whether private companies are ultimately successful in what they say they’ll do, and what they actually do.

      You just sound like a bunch of sour old cranks. “Get off my LAWN!!!”

        • But seems ignoring them is quite ok which appears the stance of most gweens and other assorted virtue signallers as well as anyone publishing today in Nature(ist)…where the emperor parades frequently “tackle out” as Blackadder would say.

        • In New Speak the word Market doesn’t mean what it used to.

          Freedom is Slavery
          Markets are Government controlled.

      • Sure, the “free market”, the free part is the subsidies from tax dollars for every kWh of wind and solar sold. Free for the utility, expensive for the customer.

      • Imagine what electricity rates will have to be to support even more intermittent sources of power and battery storage to make it viable. This is corporate “virtue” signaling at it’s best and will never happen.

      • Duane, having companies like Excel play games with the regulations to improve their bottom line, while virtue signalling, is what we have contempt for. While it is ultimately the fault of the ignorant, misinformed, and zealots who vote for green politicians who wrote the rules, watching someone take advantage is still deplorable.

      • Duane, your eagerness to display your ignorance is priceless.
        Government regulated monopolies are not the free market.

        • Duane is one of those people who believe that anything that isn’t pure communism is some form of free market.

      • Hi, Duane.

        The article does some cherry-picking. Some clarifications:

        – Xcel is a public company, not a privately-held one, and does business in multiple states.
        – Per Wikipedia: Xcel Energy Inc. is a utility holding company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, serving more than 3.3 million electric customers and 1.8 million natural gas customers in Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, Texas and New Mexico in 2017.
        – per their 2017 SEC annual report
        https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/72903/000007290318000009/xcel1231201710-k.htm#s9D2EBA4D06555615B359892933DB1199
        total electricity revenues were $9,676 Million, via delivery of 107,064 Million KWh of electricity.
        – 2017 Electricity Generation (% of total KWh): Coal- 36%, Natural Gas- 23%, Wind- 21%, Nuclear- 13%, Hydro- 4%, Other- 3%. 66% of generation owned, 34% of generation purchased.
        – 2017 Avg Residential revenue per KWh: 12.29 cents.
        – 2017 Natural Gas Delivery revenue: $1,650 Million, on 363,957 MMBtu.

        With these in mind, a ‘commitment’ to go ‘Carbon Free’ would mean these things:

        – Divestment of the entire natural gas business
        – Replacement or modification of 59% of the current generation (Coal and NatGas sourced).

        As an aside, the caption on the picture uses the word ‘bellows’, which is an incorrect usage. What they meant was ‘billows’.

        Reading the article at the source, the claimed intent of the project is to cut emissions in electricity generation. Looking at the annual report, IMO the only business risk that would be affected by the program would be ‘regulatory risk’.

      • The CEO is welcome to take his company down the bankruptcy path.

        I suspect his shareholders will not appreciate it.

        I have no iron in Colorado’s fire, so my opinion matters not. Just don’t ask taxpayers for a bail out when it happens.

        • I do have an iron in Colorado’s fire (or more accurately a home). And I am an Xcel customer, both gas and electricity. As in most places there is no choice. But my opinion still doesn’t matter. The corporations as well as the citizens of this state have lost common sense. Do I stay and fight or head to Wyoming, Utah or Idaho where people still have brains (and know how to use them)?

      • They are giving us a choice.

        1. We can control you directly with a gun to your head.
        2. We can control you through markets which we control.

        Completely your choice.

      • Duane,

        When you people stop posting pictures of water vapor and calling it CO2 (often darkened by photoshopping to look like soot) — https://www.google.com/search?q=co2+pollution+images&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOx8CMkpvfAhWm8oMKHXJRBxsQsAR6BAgEEAE&biw=1111&bih=651 — I’ll shut up about blatant virtue signaling by a company, like so many others in the industry, that is too afraid to stand up to this fraud to put it in its proper place. And I’ll shut up about renewables when they can stand on their own without fossil fuel backup.

        In other words, I won’t be shutting up anytime soon and instead will continue to call Global Warming exactly what your friends over at the Club of Rome said it is: a craven political attempt to control us by making humanity itself the enemy . . .

        “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of GLOBAL WARMING, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.“ – Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations

        . . .the better for the few to soak the many to solve the problems supposedly caused by their very existence, at least that of the industrial beings that the evil mastermind Maurice Strong so detested:

        “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (which created the throughly political IPCC)

        Never mind that James Hansen, the so-called “Father of Global Warming,” dismissed the notion that wind and solar can meet our energy needs in the foreseeable future as “fantastical” and indeed a “grotesque idea,” if only because this “clean” energy has such low energy densities that they would gobble up land and natural resources faster than you can say “Inconvenient Truth.”

        No less inconvenient is the fact — totally covered up by the totally complicit mainstream media — that no less than Google abandoned its much-ballyhooed renewable energy research initiative shortly after launching it, concluding:

        “We decided to combine our energy innovation study’s best-case scenario results with James Hansen’s climate model to see whether a 55 percent emission cut by 2050 would bring the world back below that 350-ppm threshold. Our calculations revealed otherwise. Even if every renewable energy technology advanced as quickly as imagined and they were all applied globally, atmospheric CO2 levels wouldn’t just remain above 350 ppm; they would continue to rise exponentially due to continued fossil fuel use.

        https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/google-engineers-explain-why-they-stopped-rd-in-renewable-energy#gs.Zx3BCUs

        So while you wring your hands, gnash you teeth, weep, wail, and otherwise throw your life away as a consequence being had by the ruling elite, know that we “deniers” sleep well in homes heated, cooled, and electrified by plentiful, reliable, affordable fossil-fuels and look forward to decades more of their comforts.

    • Not if they are just virtue signalling and paying lip service. No real commitment, no penalty if they don’t make the goal. What if the advanced technologies they hope to embrace do not appear or mature sufficiently? It’s not as if they are risking $billions now, or in the foreseeable future.

      • … no penalty if they don’t make the goal.

        Here’s a list of 18 failed predictions dating back to the 70s. The biggest failed predictor was Paul Ehrlich. It is sad to note that in spite of his spectacular record of failed predictions, Ehrlich seems to still have a lot of credibility in liberal circles.

        The liberals say Trump has told many many lies. They wonder what’s wrong with his supporters who haven’t abandoned him in the face of all that lying. OK then, why do the liberals seem to still love Ehrlich in the face of all his failed predictions?

      • brian356: Now that they have put this out there, text about it should show up in the 2018 annual report. Since they have nuclear-sourced generation in their mix, given the time frame they could improve the %, but that would involve capital investment. I’d look to bond issuances by the company as an indicator that they are taking action, rather than just announcing a long-term plan.

    • Nonsense. Corporate America is moving towards 100% renewable energy. Who exactly do you expect all the coal and natural gas fired plants to sell electricity to?

      • Chris – December 12, 2018 at 1:40 am

        Who exactly do you expect all the coal and natural gas fired plants to sell electricity to?

        Don’t be talkin silly, there’s no “expecting” about it ……. because the coal and natural gas “market” will always have the renewable “market” as a guaranteed customer and will always be ready and willing to pay what the “asking price” is for the c&ng generated electricity.

        • Sam, I have not idea what you are saying. Folks that buy renewable are getting renewable, they are not getting coal or NG masquerading as renewable.

          • I’m willing to bet that they don’t run separate power lines to anyone foolish enough to “buy” renewable power.

            PS: They need to install smart meters in the houses of all such fools, so that their power can be turned off whenever the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

          • Chris and Mark: I live in Texas, and Wind/Solar ‘renewable’-sourced electricity is marketed at very attractive rates, a little lower than non-renewable. However, in Texas, the retail market for electricity is not controlled by the generators of it. There are no areas where ‘all’ the electricity supplied to the grid is ‘renewable’, and, because of the way the grid works, there is no way to identify at the consumer end the original source of the energy.

            In any market where a grid is involved in delivery to the retail end, if there is a mix of generation sources (gas, coal, nuclear, biomass, solar, wind, whatever) then the energy of the grid is a moment-to-moment aggregate of the sources, and what gets consumed is commensurate with the aggregation.

            What does exist is a contractual system between generators, marketers and consumers of electricity, with negotiated rates for all involved. I am able to buy the ‘renewable’ package (and pay a little less per KWh) because in the supply-chain, there are wholesale rates to my retail company for a part of what gets supplied to them, that lower their costs, so they lower mine.

          • MarkW said: “I’m willing to bet that they don’t run separate power lines to anyone foolish enough to “buy” renewable power.”

            MarkW once again shows his ignorance about technical matters. Different generating locations share high voltage lines. So what? Folks that buy renewable power from hydro stations on, say, the Columbia River pay their money to BPA. BPA may share the high voltage lines with a coal fired plant, but the customer that buys from BPA is not paying money to the coal fired plant. And if nobody buys its power, it’ll shut down. It’s basic supply/demand economics.

            [???? .mod]

          • Chris – December 12, 2018 at 8:08 am

            Sam, I have not idea what you are saying.

            Chris, that doesn’t surprise me any because it is obvious that your learned knowledge of the subject being discussed is quite limited, ……. probably due to you being miseducated by like-minded individuals.

            To explain my comment, ….. it will always be mandated that “renewable” energy (solar, wind) must have a standby “backup” supplier for times when there is no Sunshine or wind, …… and that standby “backup” supply, in 95+% of the cases, will be fossil fuel burning generators, ……. which have to be operating 24/7/365 to deliver the needed electricity at a moment’s notice ……. and the “renewable” suppliers, and/or their customers HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT BACKUP SERVICE.

          • Steven Fraser: you must live in a unique part of the world. Everyone I have talked to indicate that the ‘renewable’ package is approximately 50% higher cost. (and that is after government subsidies). It would be interesting to see how/why it is lower cost in your area.

      • As the manner in which regulated utilities are able to charge off on “investments” in wind and solar add to the utilities profits do not matter? As the governments push “renewables”, and do not penalize the companies for either high prices or unreliability, sucking up to politicians is usually a low risk policy.

      • “Who exactly do you expect all the coal and natural gas fired plants to sell electricity to?”

        People who need electricity.

        People who need bovine dejecta and virtue signaling can get that by issuing press releases.

        • Vague and hand waving as usual, Walter. People who build and operate power plants are making 30-40 year decisions. 28% of US electricity consumption is for industrial, 35% for commercial and 37% for residential. Given that a portion of residential users will want renewable, that leaves, say, 20% of the market. Haha, that’s a great business case, why don’t you fund it yourself?

          • Fascinating.
            When companies respond to government regulations, in your mind, this qualifies as believing in the nonsense behind the regulations.

          • Chris – December 12, 2018 at 8:04 am

            Given that a portion of residential users will want renewable, ……

            Chris, all residental users are old enough that their “wants” won’t hurt them.

            And Chris, you are probably not aware of the fact that the per se “residential users” are not actually PURCHASING electricity from a power generating facility, …… in actuality, they are paying the power generating facility for transmitting their generated electricity through the “wiring” of their residence (home).

            Ya don’t getta keep that electricity, ya just let it “flow” in and out of your residence. 🙂

      • A small handful companies have issued press releases that make the claim that the support renewable energy. And from this Chris concludes that all of corporate America believes in his scam.

        It really doesn’t take much to convince Chris.

    • Government regulations usually set profits as cost plus.
      So by increasing their costs they are able to increase their absolute profits.
      The consumers have no choice since the utility is a government regulated monopoly.

    • Maybe. I left California where I paid an average utility bill of $400 per month to heat and cool a 1200 sq-ft house. Moved to Colorado where my 2800 sq-ft house averages about $150 to heat and cool. Guess what is going to happen to my bill as these idiots fold to the green agenda.

  2. ” Xcel intends to explore future technology like advanced nuclear power plants and fossil fuel power with carbon sequestration”

    It is much smarter to profess to go nuclear and fossil fuels, even with sequestration, than to commit to renewables. Then when sequestration doesn’t pan out, they still have viable power product capacity.

    SR

  3. in re the supposed plume of CO2 – Of course we know that CO2 is colorless, and thus not visible. However, I imagine that, even if CO2 gas was as black as soot, it makes up such a small part of the atmosphere that it would not be seen.

    SR

    • In that supposed plume of CO2, I assume you realize it also contains nitrogen and argon, components of the air stream that maintains the burning process. Coal itself, of course, is not pure carbon, and the lower grades used in power plants have several other elements such as hydrogen. That hydrogen reacts with oxygen from the air and is the major source of H2O. The photo shows a very humid day, so that brings even more water vapor to the smokestack. As the flue gases cool, water vapor condenses into visible steam.

      Photo captions are often worse than headlines. Perhaps you can contact Summit Daily and set then straight.

      I see the photo is from Shutterstock. You might want to verify it’s of one of Xcel’s power plants.

      • Also verify that’s even a smokestack. I’ve seen pictures like this before where they made such claims only to find out the actual smokestacks are the ones to the side that you can’t see anything coming out of. The pipe with the obvious plume turned out to be a cooling tower, and the cloud of ‘pollution’ was pure steam.

        ~¿~

      • The anti-MTR and coal mining “enviros” often post similar pictures of coal preparation plants with early morning “fog” or after a rain shower “fog”, ….. with the caption claiming that the “fog” is actual, factual proof of dastardly dangerous “dust particulate” being emitted into the atmosphere.

      • Boulder’s Valmont Power Plant was converted to natural gas more than 5 years ago by Xcel Energy. It’s so arid around here you seldom even see water vapor

        I don’t have a choice about Xcel as my power provider, so I sure as hell don’t want them investing in solar and wind and charging me ever more for unreliable electricity!!

  4. “Stutz pointed out reliable wind and solar energy was considered far-fetched a few decades ago”. They still are considered far-fetched by anybody with any knowledge. “Reliable” means it can be switched on and off when needed and can be operated at a controlled power level when operating – i.e. everything that wind and solar aren’t.

    • Exactly what I thought when I read that. The word “reliable” should not be used in the same sentence as wind and solar power, unless there is a “not” in front of it.

  5. Seems Colorado’s utility is competing with California’s for the greener-than-thou award. That may be a race to the bottom. PG & Electric stock dropped from 70 down to 25 a year ago and it is destined to go lower:

    PG&E Power Line Near California Wildfire Had Damage
    Company discloses new details in a regulatory filing, raising likelihood it could be liable for state’s deadliest wildfire (WSJ)

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-power-line-near-california-wildfire-had-damage-11544585254

    • The blame needs to be put on whoever allowed chaparral to grow unchecked beneath the distribution lines. That stuff should be burned off regularly in a controlled manner. No fuel, no fires.

  6. Again the claim that renwables are cheaper than fossil fuel equivelants. Apart frpom all the costs to compensate for renewables fluctuating and intermittent nature, subsidies etc, is any consideration given to the availability factor.
    If you require X amount of additional capacity for a grid, you could install a power plant of x capacity. If it is a wind farm you probably need about three times X to satisfy the rquirement. Is this ever considered by people who claim wind is cheap or cheaper?

    • Ian Reid

      If you require X amount of additional capacity for a grid, you could install a power plant of x capacity. If it is a wind farm you probably need about three times X to satisfy the rquirement. Is this ever considered by people who claim wind is cheap or cheaper?

      No. Not true.
      If you replace that one power plant with wind power, you need 6x the wind generation capacity.
      6x the copper and transformers and controllers too.
      6x the maintenance, except few wind farm owners actually maintain their sites once the subsidies for construction run out.
      Then you need to keep the fossil-fueled power plant running 1/3 of the time to replace the wind power that fails.

      • Hello RACook,

        perhaps I was being a little generous with the capacity factor but my point is do the people who claim they are cheap use such a factor in their pricing calculations. I very much doubt it myself?

        • Does this cheap power factor in the cost of back-up (fossil/nuclear) systems as well as some of the cost of distribution infrastructure?

  7. Stutz pointed out reliable wind and solar energy was considered far-fetched a few decades ago

    And still is.

    ~¿~

  8. There might be some technology we’re not aware of today, something that comes out in 10 to 20 years that accomplishes the same goal without relying entirely on renewables.

    Pie in the sky. If this doesn’t happen they’ll end up in Sh*t Creek: no investments made in “oldies, but goldies”, existing power plants worn out, no new ones under construction, wind and solar still notoriously unreliable and nothing but the vain hope of muddling through, then. If I were a shareholder, I’d disinvest right now.

  9. “We believe climate change is ……”

    Believe:
    VERB
    1) accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of;
    2) accept the statement of (someone) as true
    3) have faith, especially religious faith
    4) hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose

    Let’s try this for size:
    “Ladies and Gentlemen, this your captain speaking. We BELIEVE that our current altitude is 36’000 feet and …”

    Guess I’ll be fired before the end of the sentence. However some get along with beliefs, specially when public money is involved in the process.

    • “We believe climate change is one of the greatest threats to our economy and to our way of life here in Summit,” Gibbs said.

      Acting on the ‘belief’ is indeed one of the greatest threats to our economy and to our way of life.. etc.
      ‘climate change’ is not!
      Analogous to exceeding the service ceiling in an aircraft can put one in ‘coffin corner’?!
      Maybe that was Icarus’s fatal mistake.
      Thanks Flight Level!

  10. As far as I can see, ANYONE can commit to ‘100% Green Energy’ – simply by buying ‘carbon credits’. I can generate half my energy from coal so long as I put several millions into green coffers.

    So this effectively becomes an extra tax from the customer viewpoint, and a good way to maintain hidden funding from the environmentalists viewpoint….

    • Thumbs Up ! A global get-rich extorsion scheme solely busy at PR/brainwashing to justify it’s existence.

  11. You forgot about the elephant in the room*.
    The smokestack image is playing to the AGW crowd..who are willfully ignorant.

    *Mention to them that coal fired power stations actually throw more radioactive fallout into the atmosphere than all the NPP in the world and the same people will get their tin foil hats on.

    It’s a fact, coal has so much thorium, uranium and other long lived radioisotopes in, that burning zillions of tons of the stuff makes active flyash, (the bit that doesn’t go up the chimney!) which of course are often turned into household bricks after. Talk about the virtuous circle!
    You could do better collecting all that stuff and make nuclear power with it.

    Once people catch on, more radiation comes from background, domestic radon, and flying long haul than is ever going to come from a NPP, maybe, just maybe the debate may change?

    What’s even funnier,- since solar minimum is with us, and solar wind flux is dropping, cosmic ray flux on long haul airline flights is higher than at any time during the space age.
    That fact alone, turns airline flight crews into long term radiation workers who should be issued with film badges..including all those duffers running around the world to climate conferences to “save the world”.

    ah, but who cares about real science nowadays?

    • “Mention to them that coal fired power stations actually throw more radioactive fallout into the atmosphere than all the NPP in the world”

      You might also mention to them that it’s because coal is green (plant matter) turned black and naturally contains radioactive isotopes from the time before ‘pollution’
      or that
      virtually ALL the NPP waste every created is so small a volume as to still be stored onsite at the point of creation
      or that
      their own bodies are radioactive and not from pollution but from naturally occurring isotopes like CARBON 14.

      I’ve tried this on some of the faithful, and the result resembles silence as they imagine my tinfoil hat, I surmise. Disbelief is hard.

  12. That is 32 years from now. By then all the people who have made the pledge will be/could be dead. Who is going to hold them to it?

  13. If Xcel were to do this, all it would demonstrate is that utilities are government-guaranteed monopolies that can’t fail no matter how badly they screw up. Their rate payers will be the ones to pay the price of their stupidity. And don’t be surprised if some level of government allows PGE to sock their customers with the bills even if they were responsible for the fires. Break up the utilities and allow some free-market competition!

  14. Utility companies have now passed used car salees men as the most dishonest creatures doing business in the private sector. It’s a great honor—champion liars of the world.

    • I worked for an electric utility when ‘deregulation’ was all the rage. One man, the CEO, wrecked the company by making a lot of stupid acquisitions so he could be a player in the ’emerging’ market of -6 utilities nationwide. Now it takes a lot of talent to virtually bankrupt an electric utility but our guy, Alan Noia, managed to do it. Of course he ‘retired’ with millions. CEOs have far too much power, their boards are hand picked google dolls, and shareholders have no means to stop such absurdities. Our guy turned our company into a mini-Enron – many people lost their jobs – he filed a very fanciful Annual Report for which he should have been jailed. Let’s hope the execs in Colorado are sane enough to pursue development of small scale fail safe nuclear while pretending that carbon dioxide is ‘bad’. What a world we live in.

  15. If I were forced to buy a car from only one local auto dealer, I would not be surprised if they would be 100% committed to selling me only (more expensive) electric cars by 2050.

  16. I worked for an electric utility when ‘deregulation’ was all the rage. One man, the CEO, wrecked the company by making a lot of stupid acquisitions so he could be a player in the ’emerging’ market of -6 utilities nationwide. Now it takes a lot of talent to virtually bankrupt an electric utility but our guy, Alan Noia, managed to do it. Of course he ‘retired’ with millions. CEOs have far too much power, their boards are hand picked google dolls, and shareholders have no means to stop such absurdities. Our guy turned our company into a mini-Enron – many people lost their jobs – he filed a very fanciful Annual Report for which he should have been jailed. Let’s hope the execs in Colorado are sane enough to pursue development of small scale fail safe nuclear while pretending that carbon dioxide is ‘bad’. What a world we live in.

  17. Anyone who is “waiting for an advanced nuclear technology” and doesn’t mention molten salt nuclear reactors is just plain energy-ignorant. The obvious economic fact is that long before 2050 molten salt reactors will replace any and all power generation technologies. And any system that expects batteries to compensate for unreliable renewable power is going to fail, at some point, since there are no limits on the unreliability of renewables, but there are limits to battery storage capacities. And power drawn down to replace insufficient renewable capacity must be recovered by renewable power, which requires, at a minimum, an enormous overcapacity of renewables and battery storage, which has a direct, linear impact on cost. Renewables wind and solar are just dumb. They have no place in an efficient and reliable power grid. Wind and solar suck and their proponents have a bad habit of lying thru their teeth about costs.

  18. Regulated utilities would all love nothing more than to get approval to go 100% green because they get a guaranteed rate of return on their investments. They just need approval from the state/board of public utilities/whoever sets utility rates. The more money they can spend, the more money they make – and, as I am sure everyone reading this article is well aware, green energy is a quick way to spend ridiculous amounts of money. Merchant generator owners that have to compete in deregulated energy markets are much less inclined to build solar and wind because they actually have to compete with gas, coal, nuc etc to make money….that is unless they are receiving subsidies and tax credits to build…then it’s just more free money…the best kind of money for an investor. Rate payers end up holding the bag.

  19. In an update, they added that they will provide free electricity in the year 2100.

    Free rides to the moon in 2150.

  20. “As the world turns its back on promises to curb carbon emissions, one of America’s largest utility companies has stepped up and promised to eventually eliminate its own. Xcel Energy, Colorado’s largest electric utility, announced Tuesday that it intends to go 100 percent carbon-free in all eight states it serves by 2050, while reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent of its 2005 emission levels by 2030. Xcel is the first major U.S. utility to make such a commitment……………………………………………………………

    The utility explicitly did not commit to 100 percent renewable energy,”

    Reporting on the green industry has become so deceptive now; that they contradict themselves within 2 paragraphs of each other.

    • Alan,
      As I posted above, Xcel hopes to go carbon free by: ” Xcel intends to explore future technology like advanced nuclear power plants and fossil fuel power with carbon sequestration”

      The 1st part – nuclear – is exactly what many skeptics say power plants should be, as it is indeed essentially carbon free.
      The 2nd part – fossil fuel with carbon sequestration – is a good goal to announce, because, when carbon sequestration technology doesn’t pan out they still have a reliable, capable, affordable power plant.

      I think this announcement was a very good way to satisfy Greenies while continuing to behave rationally.

      SR

  21. Xcel is just pandering to Colorado’s new Marxist governor. In fact, CO turned dark blue with Dem’s taking the governorship, AG, SecState, Treasurer, House and Senate. No doubt it will devolve into a blue state sh*thole like CA or IL within the next few years.

  22. 100 Per-cent Carbon free by 2050? Even now Wind and Solar are “brown energy”.
    Not possible without major breakthrough in Fusion Energy.
    Otherwise – it is “Let the Bastards Freeze in the Dark” all over again.

  23. This may be a pre-emptive strike. Our Governor-elect is looking to help line Tom Steyer’s pockets.

    BTW, picture is the Boulder power plant.

  24. “We believe climate change is one of the greatest threats to our economy and to our way of life here in Summit,” Gibbs said…..YOU PATHETIC, IGNORANT FOOL.

  25. I don”t really know anything other than the fact that Xcel has been in a stinky battle with The City of Boulder over ownership of the utility’s equipment. Boulder wants to take it over and convert to “renewables”. That battle has strung out over several years and has cost both money and image. Colorado is growing fast and many of those people are coming from the California Koolaid Bar. The money spots are on the Front Range and along the I-70 corridor into the Ski Meccas. In terms of strategy, it may serve the company to quiet the forces that want to take over the utility, and possibly others. At the current projected growth rate we will rapidly approach 7 million people jammed into relatively small areas of the state. Our new and very California Democrat governor signals the sea change that is about to overtake Colorado. Also, a bit of a side show, Bank of The West made a corporate decision to no longer do business with fossil fuel companies. I realize that is only one Bank but as has been said this is a Virtue Signaling Festival right now; it could spread. The West Slope won’t be immune but the Bank of the West stunt pissed off a lot of people who work, and depend on, a perfectly functional coal mine and power plant at Twenty Mile in the North West part of the state. And, Certainly there is the economic force of Jim Bridger Power in South West Wyoming. This will be quite a mashup.

  26. The free market, huh? Does that mean those of us under Xcel’s thumb won’t have to buy our energy fro Xcel?

  27. And I promise to invent a 100% flying pig by 2050, and become a billionaire. By 2030, the pig will only fly about 80% of the time, and I will be an 80% billionaire.

    • Or, that you’ll get 80% of the pig to fly, and the rest will be ground(ed), perhaps into sausage.

  28. Just so you know, large scale solar costs continue to plunge and will turn even the uninformed heads by 2020. They will still need some natural gas plants to go with solar though.

    • Did you forget a /sarc tag? Without storage, solar is worth less than zero on a grid. Electric grids are a service, not a commodity provider.
      Just how much power does solar produce at 1:00 AM?

    • Even if solar were free it’s only useful when the sun shines. An industrialized economy runs 24/7. I hope you realize that.

  29. Wow! That’s awesome! Whether they manage it or not, it’s a great pledge. They must see an economic interest in it. It’s the free market factor working, I guess. Whaddaya know. Xcel is my electricity company, though I subscribe to a solar farm – Xcel owes me money now.

    But everyone is condemning them. That’s rich. Probably the same people who’ve been moaning about subsidies and letting the free market do its thing. Americans are spoiled by cheap energy, makes them wasteful.

    • They must see an economic interest in it.

      Naw. What they see is Jarad Polis’s rear end up close since they stuck their nose up it in an effort to curry favor with the new boss. Gotta’ suck up to the incoming lefty administration in order to bend regulations Xcel’s way.

  30. By 2050 ? Wow how bold . And in 2049 they will extend it another 30 years ,that is unless Time magazine and the National Enquirer have declared global cooling is freezing the planet again .
    No Colorado you won’t be deforesting to save the planet to play the virtue signal card .
    A more realistic prediction is none of the dumb ass politicians who are trying to sell such utter crap will be around . Something to look forward to .

  31. From the article: “Xcel Energy . . . intends to go 100 percent carbon-free in all eight states it serves by 2050.”

    Well: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” — attributed, arguably, to John Ray, 1670

Comments are closed.