The Energy Grid - Part5
- davidcogd
- Jan 20
- 3 min read
The First 4 Parts of this Series are recommended for reading to have the background facts about the U.S. Energy Grid.
To summarize, Cogport estimates a demand for an additional capacity to produce electric energy of 260,000 MW (260 GW) by 2030.
The U.S. currently has about 597,000 MW (597 GW) of capacity which is already in a shortage situation.
Based on the information provided earlier in the Series, Cogport suggests a proposed plan for new plants to meet future demand:
SHORT TERM – By 2030
Type of Plant Number of Plants Total Capacity
Natural Gas (CCGT) 180 (1000 MW) 180,000 MW
Small Nuclear Reactors 200 (200 MW) 40,000 MW
Fuel Cells 400 (200 MW) 40,000 MW
Total Capacity 260,000 MW
Commentary:
The Short Term choices are based on feasible lead time for construction and a reasonable cost per kWH as paid by the customer
Here is a summary of the initial cost of construction:
Type of Plant Number of Plants Total Cost
Natural Gas 180 @ $2.2 Billion $ 396 Billion
(180,000 MW)
Small Modular Reactors 200 @ $0.8 Billion $ 160 Billion
(40,000 MW)
Fuel Cells 400 @ $0.2 Billion $ 80 Billion
(40,000 MW)
Total $ 636 Billion
How did Cogport choose the Proposed Mix ?
The primary factor is time for installation of plants needed on a short-term basis in the next 4 years (by 20230):
Type of Plant Lead time
Natural Gas 3 Years
Small Modular Reactors 2-3 Years
Fuel Cells 1-2 Years
We chose a balance of time, reliability, usable capacity, initial cost, and emissions to propose Fuel Cells as the best short term solution.
Fuel Cells have the advantage in Lead Time to available operation. The construction is mostly done at the factory level. This can be quickly scaled up with the right supporting policies and financial investment.
Fuel Cells are highly flexible in size/capacity using modules from 50MW to 1000 MW. They are adaptable to specific local needs and demands - particularly applicable to new Demands from AI Data Centers.
Other advantages of Fuel Cells are Zero Emissions and 90% Usable Capacity.
The second option in the Mix is Small Modular Reactors (SMR’s). Disadvantage is long lead time with our legacy regulations on nuclear power. This needs immediate government reform to encourage a very viable option.
Advantage is reasonable cost, 90% Usable Capacity, Zero Emissions, and scalability from one to multiple modules in an application - tailored to the local demand.
The Fuel Cell and SMR industries are still in their infancy. What Cogport has proposed would mean exponential growth in those businesses. It will take significant financial investment to increase their production on this scale.
Even with a massive increase in Fuel Cell and SMR, Natural Gas plants (CCGT) will need to carry the majority of the new load.
The cost for Gas plants is an advantage. The Usable capacity and reliability are high. Emissions of CO2 are lower by half than a Coal fired plant.
Emissions from 180 new Gas plants would produce 378 million tons per year of CO2. That compares to U.S. annual emissions of 5,300 million tons per year from all sources, mostly transportation. In the meantime, we work on reducing car and truck emissions. (EV’s).
So, there is a tradeoff to accept more CO2 emissions in the short term to keep the lights on and economy growing at fast rate.
SUMMARY
Longer term opportunities will eventually replace Natural Gas.
Cogport will review policy options to support the 2030 plan and provide longer term options in the next report.
David Hollaender January 20, 2026




Comments