COLORADO STARVING

Colorado’s Senate Energy Committee voted not to classify nuclear energy as “clean energy,” thereby starving Colorado of the opportunity to develop needed reliable and affordable clean electricity

The Colorado Senate Transportation & Energy Committee recently rejected a Senate bill which would have changed Colorado’s statutory definition of “clean energy” to include nuclear energy.  Colorado’s Renewable Energy Standard requires that 100% of electricity must be generated from clean sources of energy by 2050.  In furtherance of these “clean” energy goals, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission approved Xcel Energy’s (Colorado’s largest utility) Phase I Colorado Clean Energy Plan in 2022 as follows:

• Reduce carbon emissions 80% to 85% (compared to 2005 levels).

• Add unprecedented amounts of renewable energy to the grid.

• End use of coal by 2030.

• Drive investment and economic development across the state.

• Provide a just transition for communities with retiring coal plants.

These clean energy goals may be virtuous; however, it is unclear how Colorado and Xcel will ensure safe, reliable and affordable electricity for its ratepayers once Colorado prematurely closes all of its remaining coal plants and constructs “unprecedented amounts of [intermittent] renewable energy.”  Knowledgeable energy professionals understand that this strategy is physically impossible, fiscally untenable and a sure-fire formula to destabilize Colorado’s electricity grid.  Fortunately, energy-sober people are beginning to recognize that there is a way for Colorado to decarbonize its electricity grid and simultaneously maintain grid safety, reliability and affordability by replacing the electricity currently generated from coal with electricity generated from nuclear energy.

Constructing new nuclear power plants to replace existing Colorado’s coal-fired power plants is probably the only way to “have our decarbonized cake and reliably eat it too.” Colorado State Senator Larry Liston, District 10, recently sponsored Senate Bill 24-039, which would have simply redefined the statutory definition of “clean energy” to include nuclear energy.  The proposed Bill would not have in any way discriminated against other low carbon sources of energy like wind, solar and geothermal.  The Bill would not have required any nuclear power plants to be constructed in Colorado.  The proposed Bill simply sought to acknowledge that nuclear energy would be defined as a clean energy source under Colorado Law.

The Bill was well supported by a wide range of public interest groups.  Grace Stanke, nuclear engineer and Miss America 2023, felt that passage of Colorado Senate Bill 24-039 was so important that she paid her own way to fly to Colorado to personally testify in support at the Colorado Senate Transportation & Energy Committee Hearing.  Grace Stanke was the first to testify at the Committee Hearing; however, she was far from the last to testify in favor of SB 24-039.  Testimony in support of the Senate Bill 24-039 came from Democrats, Republicans, university professors and students, industry scientists, electric cooperative members, economic advisors, public policy advisors, utility executives, environmental organizations, mining associations, concerned citizens from Colorado communities where coal plants are closing and even a high school student.  The most represented group testifying in support of the Bill was the newly organized Colorado Nuclear Alliance, which had 15 members testify in favor of SB 24-039.

Grace Stanke & Senator Liston testifying at the Colorado Senate Transportation & Energy Committee Hearing on January 24^th, 2024.

There was great optimism that SB 24-039 would pass because of a generational change in public opinion taking place in the United States and around the world regarding nuclear energy. Regrettably, nuclear energy in Colorado remains a deeply partisan issue.  At 8:37 pm on January 24^th, 2024, SB 24-039 was defeated in the Colorado Senate Transportation & Energy Committee, largely along party lines.  All Republican members of the Committee voted in favor of  SB 24-039 and all Democrat members of the Committee voted against the Bill except Democratic Senator Nick Hinrichsen from Pueblo.  It is notable that the greater Pueblo community is likely to suffer greatly once their coal plant is prematurely shut down in 2031, due to political pressures.  The decision by the Democratic Senators to vote against classifying nuclear energy as clean energy seems uninformed and tone deaf.

THE GREAT NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE

Despite Colorado’s passe’ views about nuclear energy, people across much of the U. S. are recognizing that nuclear energy is clean, safe, reliable, affordable and resilient.  The world as a whole is also awakening to the fact that any deep decarbonization of our complex energy systems will require greater use of nuclear energy.  Below are a few of the indications that we are on the cusp of a global nuclear renaissance.

• In 2022, the State of California and Pacific Gas & Electric Company reversed plans to prematurely close Diablo Canyon [Nuclear] Power Plant in San Luis Obispo, California.  PG&E and the State of California have agreed to keep Diablo Canyon open until at least 2030 and PG&E has applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for an additional 20-year license extension for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. 

• Exelon Corporation, which operates the Byron Nuclear Generating Station and Dresden [Nuclear] Generating Station in Illinois, has decided to keep these plants operating rather than closing them as originally planned in 2021.

• The Palisades [Nuclear] Generating Station in Michigan is scheduled to be re-opened in 2025 after being prematurely closed in 2022. 

• Ontario has decided to extend the life of its Pickering Nuclear Generating Station by at least 30 years by refurbishing its existing nuclear power reactors.

• Nuclear moratoria have recently been lifted in several U. S. states including Illinois and Connecticut. 

• Bill Gates and TerraPower are constructing an advanced nuclear reactor at the site of the Naughton [Coal-Fired] Power Plant in Wyoming, which is closing in 2025.

• In December 2023, at COP 28, 22 nations (now 25 nations), including the United States, pledged to triple nuclear power generation by 2050. 

• Japan is in the process of reopening most of its nuclear plants which were closed after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident. 

• South Korea has reversed its decision to close all its nuclear plants and is now planning to construct new nuclear power plants. 

• Europe has recently adopted nuclear energy as part of its Green Energy Investment Taxonomy.

• France, which produces approximately 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy, recently announced plans to construct up to 14 additional nuclear reactors.

• United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Belarus, Turkey, and Czech Republic are among the European countries that are planning to expand their existing fleets of nuclear power plants.

• Poland and Estonia are among the European countries that are now dedicated to construct their first nuclear power plants.

• Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Ireland, and Belgium are all considering whether to move forward with new nuclear initiatives.

• China, Russia, and India are all aggressively constructing nuclear power plants on a large scale across the globe.

• More than 50 new “advanced nuclear technologies” are currently in development around the world.

• Recent polls in the U. S. and across the globe are consistently showing broad support for nuclear power.  Even recent polls in Germany where they recently shut-down their remaining nuclear power plants, public opinion supports nuclear power by a margin of approximately 2:1.

• A 2023 poll of likely voters shows that Colorado voters favor the inclusion of nuclear energy as part of Colorado’s clean energy mix by more than 2:1 (Independence Institute).

OPPOSITION TO COLORADO SB 24-039 DEFINING NUCLEAR ENERGY AS “CLEAN ENERGY”

Despite the substantial tailwinds which are pushing nuclear energy forward, opposition to nuclear still remains in Colorado.  Several individuals appeared at the Colorado Senate Transportation & Energy Committee Hearing to speak against SB 24-039.  These opponents used many familiar and trite anti-nuclear arguments at the Hearing.  Some of the opponents of the Bill specifically objected to nuclear energy being defined as clean energy.  Other opponents of the Bill simply testified in opposition to nuclear energy more generally as an energy source.  Primary objections to Senate Bill 24-039 were:

• Nuclear energy is too dangerous.

• Nuclear energy is too expensive.

• There is no solution for “so-called” nuclear waste.

• People do not want nuclear power plants near their homes.

Not only do these objections not specifically relate to defining nuclear as clean, but they are weak arguments with little credibility.  Below is a brief rebuttal to these objections to nuclear energy.

Nuclear Energy is too Dangerous:  Rebuttal: Statistically, nuclear is the safest form of energy.  The U. S. has the world’s largest fleet of nuclear reactors and yet not one person has ever died in the U. S. from commercial nuclear energy.  The only notable U. S. nuclear accident occurred at Three Mile Island Unit 2 in 1979.  However, the safety measures worked, and no one died as a result of the accident.  In fact, no one outside of the nuclear power plant even received an elevated dose of radiation as a result of the accident.  The Three Mile Island accident is often blown out of proportion and built up in our imaginations.  Most people are unaware that despite the accident at the plant, adjacent Three Mile Island Unit 1 continued to safely operate for another 40 years. 

In 2011, a Tsunami knocked out backup power to the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station in Japan which resulted in a meltdown.  Most people are unaware that not a single person died as a result of the Fukushima nuclear accident, while approximately 20,000 people died in Japan as a result of the tsunami itself. 

Of course, all types of energy have risks, including nuclear energy.  Nevertheless, over the past 70 years, nuclear energy has proven itself to be the safest form of energy.  Lest we forget, approximately 7 million people die prematurely each year from air pollution, largely due to coal-fired electricity generation and unclean indoor cooking fuels. (Source: World Health Organization Data review: how many people die from air pollution? - Our World in Data)

Nuclear Energy is too Expensive:  Rebuttal: Electricity produced from existing nuclear power plants is most often produced at similar prices to the other cheapest forms of electricity generation.  Many nations are currently constructing new nuclear power plants which are capable of delivering electricity at prices comparable to other sources.  These countries are able to do so, because they construct many nuclear power plants and have developed the labor force and supply chains to construct affordable nuclear power plants.  The U. S. has constructed precious few new nuclear power plants over the past 40 years.  Therefore, the U. S. has squandered its supply chains and nuclear workforce, thereby making new construction of new nuclear power plants in the U. S. more expensive. 

Madison Hilly, Executive Director at Campaign for a Green Nuclear Deal said that “we cannot afford to construct another new nuclear power plant in the U. S.; however, we can afford to construct one hundred new nuclear power plants.”  What this means is, once the U. S. gets back into the business of regularly constructing new nuclear power plants, we will be capable of generating affordable electricity from nuclear power plants, which is competitively priced with electricity generated from wind, solar, coal and natural gas.

Unfortunately, many supporters of wind and solar continue to inaccurately portray wind and solar as the cheapest forms of energy and electricity generation.  This inaccurate assertion is intellectually dishonest.  After factoring in Federal, State and local subsidies, production tax credits and investment tax credits, the marginal cost of manufacturing a megawatt hour of electricity using wind and solar may, in some cases, be cheaper than the marginal cost of manufacturing a megawatt hour of electricity from coal, natural gas or nuclear; However, people who understand complex energy systems recognize that this characterization is only a half-truth.  The marginal cost alone of generating a megawatt of electricity from wind and solar fails to account for the other system costs such as back-up, batteries, transmission, grid balancing and other reliability costs.  Without even doing a detailed analysis, it is clear to see that jurisdictions using the highest percentages of wind and solar (California & Germany) also have the highest electricity costs. 

“We cannot afford to construct a new nuclear power plant in the U. S.; however, we can afford to construct one hundred new nuclear power plants.”   

                                                                                    Madison Hilly, Executive Director at      Campaign for A Green Nuclear Deal

There is no solution for “so-called” Nuclear Waste: Rebuttal: Often people mistakenly think about “nuclear waste” as dangerous oozing globs of green goo seen on “The Simpsons.”  However, in reality, nuclear waste is nothing like that.  So-called nuclear waste is simply partially spent nuclear fuel which is a solid.  Spent nuclear fuel is not the most dangerous industrial waste in society, it is just the most misunderstood.  Once the partially spent nuclear fuel has been used at a power plant, it is allowed to cool in steel-lined concrete pools of water for a few years at the nuclear power plant, whereupon it is removed and stored in steel and concrete casks.  Since spent nuclear fuel is a solid, not a liquid, it cannot leak from the casks. In the last 55 years, there has never been radiological released to the environment or harm to the public from stored spent nuclear fuel in the U. S.

Most spent nuclear fuel is comprised of more than 90% uranium which is still fissionable; hence, some, if not most, of the spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and re-used in existing and future advanced nuclear reactors, transforming it from waste into a new fuel source.  France already reprocesses and recycles its spent nuclear fuel, further reducing its already low volume of nuclear waste. 

Even once spent fuel has been reprocessed and recycled, some portion of the spent fuel will likely need to be stored in a permanent underground repository.  The Federal Government is responsible for providing a permanent repository for the spent fuel in the United States.  Unfortunately, use of the planned Federal nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada has been stalled because of political tensions resulting from insufficient engagement with community stakeholders.  In the meantime, casks containing spent nuclear fuel are normally stored on site at the respective nuclear power plants.  These casks are well protected, large, extremely heavy, and practically indestructible, making them impossible to be “stolen.”  While we are waiting on the U. S. government to develop a permanent spent nuclear fuel repository, the spent nuclear fuel is perfectly safe being stored on-site at the nuclear power plants where the spent fuel is being created. 

The Department of Energy has recently launched a new Consent-Based Siting Program for Spent Nuclear Fuel (Consent-Based Siting | Department of Energy).  The purpose of the program is to identify one or more communities that desire to host interim storage site(s) to store spent nuclear fuel until reprocessing facilities and/or a permanent nuclear repository can be established.  These interim storage site(s) would allow the nation’s spent nuclear fuel to be stored at fewer centralized sites.

We should think of spent nuclear fuel as a positive attribute of nuclear energy and not a negative characteristic.  The volume of waste from other energy sources, such as coal, dwarfs the volume of so-called nuclear waste.  If a person only used only nuclear energy for their entire energy needs for a lifetime, the so-called nuclear waste attributable to that person would fit in a soda can.  In other words, the amount of nuclear waste is tiny by comparison to other forms of energy.  All of the commercial nuclear waste created in the entire United States since World War II could fit onto a single football field at a height of less than 30 feet.  Spent nuclear fuel should therefore be considered as a distinct advantage compared to other forms of energy and serves as another reason to use more nuclear energy. 

People do not want Nuclear Power Plants near their homes.  Rebuttal: The false notion that people do not want nuclear power plants near their homes is one of the greatest myths and misconceptions about nuclear energy.  At a time when NIMBYism (not in my backyard) seems to be at its zenith, data show that this sentiment normally doesn’t apply to nuclear power plants.  Nuclear power plants provide communities with a strong local industry which provides stable employment opportunities and a reliable tax base.  Nuclear power plants provide wealth and generational job opportunities.  In nuclear communities, it is not uncommon for kids and grandkids to follow in the footsteps of their parents and grandparents to assume well-paying jobs at nuclear power plants which may operate for 60 years or more.  If fact, there are many studies which all show that public support for nuclear power plants almost always increases the closer a person lives to a nuclear power plant.  This is undoubtedly because of all the great benefits that are derived from having a nuclear power plant operating in the community.

CONCLUSION

Real Clear Energy recently published an article entitled “There is no Clean Future without Nuclear Energy” and this concise statement sums up how important nuclear energy is to our collective future.  Nuclear energy is emerging as the bi-partisan issue of our time.  The current National Platform for the Democratic Party states: “Recognizing the urgent need to decarbonize the power sector, our technology-neutral approach is inclusive of all zero-carbon technologies, including hydroelectric power, geothermal, existing and advanced nuclear, and carbon capture and storage.” 

Unfortunately, most Democratic Leaders in Colorado have been slow to recognize the importance of nuclear energy.  It is time for Colorado to recognize that nuclear energy is clean energy and an utterly essential part of our future clean energy needs!  If Colorado is determined to close its coal plants and provide electricity primarily generated from intermittent wind and solar power without nuclear energy, the State will careen towards a fragile power future (code for blackouts) and spiraling higher electricity costs.  Colorado is starving for clean, reliable, affordable and dispatchable electricity.  Next year another bill will likely be introduced into the Colorado Senate to classify nuclear energy as “clean energy.”  Hopefully, Colorado legislators will find the wisdom to reconsider classifying nuclear energy as clean energy!

“Constructing new nuclear power plants to replace Colorado’s coal-fired power plants is probably the only way to have our decarbonized cake and reliably eat it too.” 

                                                                                                Doug Sandridge

Thank you to the dedicated members of the Colorado Nuclear Alliance who helped with the preparation of this article!