True, nuclear can deliver high-paying jobs, good tax base, and emissions-free energy. Rarely do proponents mention risks.
by Allen Best
It mystifies me, this perfervid belief in nuclear energy that I see in parts of Colorado. Just weeks ago, the commissioners in one Western Slope county added their support for nuclear. They noted that 65% of residents of northwest Colorado support nuclear. Conferences in Montrose and Pueblo devoted ample time to nuclear cheerleaders. They promise high-paying jobs and ample tax base.
Well, heck, I believe it would be nice to have a Lamborghini when I replace my used Toyota Prius in a few years. But can I afford a $300,000 car?
When extolling the technology, nuclear proponents rarely discuss cost, and then mostly in response to questions. Nuclear has a horrible track record. Two units in Georgia recently were completed at a cost of $35 billion, more than double original projections. Construction of two reactors in South Carolina was halted in 2017 after repeated cost overruns. Much hope was pinned on small modular reactors, but then Utah utilities in 2023 pulled the plug on NuScale.
Bill Gates was in Wyoming recently to fling a shovel of dirt at Kemmerer. There, TerraPower hopes to deliver a nuclear reactor by 2030. Gates has committed $1 billion, plans to invest another $1 billion, but told a TV interviewer that he expects the project to ultimately cost $10 billion.
Could Xcel Energy justify investing $10 billion in a reactor after it closes its two coal-burning units at Hayden or its two in Pueblo? How about Tri-State Generation and Transmission when the last coal unit closes at Craig in 2028?
Chief executives of both Xcel and Tri-State say they can conceive of nuclear being part of Colorado’s energy future – but not until costs come down. Duane Highley, chief executive of Tri-State, Colorado’s second largest electrical generator, said recently he sees nuclear becoming competitive somewhere between 2035 and 2040.
“We need to see a couple of these built and prove that they can be built cost-effectively, then everyone will be lined up. Everyone wants to be the first in line to be serial No. 2 – including us. But we’re a co-op. We can’t take that kind of financial risk with our members’ money,” he said.
Robert Kenney, the chief executive of Xcel Colorado, told me he does not see nuclear as an option for at least several years. The federal government may need to backstop it, he said, limiting risk to individual utilities.
Fair enough. Federal subsidies have helped wind and solar get on their feet. Renewables are starting to catch up to the subsidies for fossil fuels. Nuclear has also received help.
Renewables will take us much of the way to 100% emission-free energy, but nobody thinks they will take us all the way. A study commissioned by the Colorado Energy Office last year sees natural gas plants delivering a small but vital component of the affordable, reliable and near-100% emissions-free electricity by 2040. We know the technology. It’s not cheap, with new plants costing roughly $500 million. But neither is it a $10 billion experiment.
New ways to store excess renewable energy could help. Xcel is likely to be participating in a test of iron-air technology at Pueblo that could store energy for 100 hours. Both Colorado and Xcel are very interested in green hydrogen. Companies hope to produce new pumped-storage hydro power projects near Steamboat and Craig in the 2030s.
Or consider geothermal. Conventional ground-source geothermal employs coils 8 to 10 feet below ground or relatively shallow wells to tap the constant approximately 55 degree heat for heating and cooling of buildings. Colorado Mesa University heats and cools 800,000 square feet with the technology. It reduces emissions and saves money. The only question in Colorado is how fast this technology will scale up to displace natural gas.
Enhanced geothermal, the type used to produce electricity, is another matter. California gets 10.1% of its electricity from enhanced geothermal. It also has had volcanic eruptions as recently as 1917 (Lassen). Colorado’s most recent volcanic eruption (Dotsero) occurred 4,000 years ago.
Colorado has no electricity from geothermal, although Gov. Jared Polis contends Colorado could get 4% to 8% of its electricity from geothermal by 2040. Drillers have shown great ingenuity at unlocking oil and gas deposits in Colorado and elsewhere. Can they instead tap the heat deep underground to affordably produce electricity when we need it, to complement wind and solar?
Who knows whether enhanced geothermal will be part of Colorado’s emissions-free electricity, whether it can compete. Deep geothermal drilling may be too expensive but it won’t be a $10 billion gamble. Cheerleaders for nuclear need to acknowledge that risk. And then we can talk about the problem of waste disposal.
- A tale of two legislative bills in Colorado - April 17, 2025
- Tons of questions about data center bill - April 14, 2025
- No surprise in slower EV sales in early 2025 - April 14, 2025
Good article, Alan. I think cost issues will remain for some time to come for nuclear. I remain confident that nuclear waste issues are not critical, especially as I watch Finland proceed with their site. They were always my candidate for first to dispose of spent fuel when I worked at Yucca Mountain. I also think there is potential for capturing and storing excess wind/solar energy in “geothermal batteries” – finding reservoirs whose water can be heated and stored and produced for either power generation or thermal energy when wind/solar are not performing. This can bridge overnight easily, but also seasonally. Cost will also be an issue for geothermal, but the numbers may be a bit better and the need for technology demonstration and advancement easier.
They also rarely discuss consumptive water use (a bit better than coal, 40% net efficiency), so still a lot). Though the reactor is “sodium-cooled” the Kemmerer power plant is a slightly separated steam turbine/cooling tower; that separation which is why that conventional stage can be built now. The reactor still awaits approval. “No pressure” on the regulators.
They don’t discuss the inability to stop and start, which is what we will need more and more and get with the kind of aeroderivative gas turbine in Platte River Power’s last IRP.
The “perfervid belief” comes partly from a kinda lame “just transition” so far. Clearly coal-nuke repowering preserves those pipefitter/steam operator jobs in the same location. “Enhanced” geo-electricity generation preserves drilling & fracking, maybe in the same spot, maybe not. (Sadly, our heat isn’t as hot as Great Basin heat, so that generation is too inefficient and expensive. )
We should have been moving miners to building pumped hydro closed circuit energy storage 15 years ago. Drillers and gas piping contractors to geo heat, whether closed loop “thermal networks” or actual hot water.
In my perfect world we would be able to build manufacturing workshops for industrial heat pumps in Pueblo and Craig. Pipefitters and steam operators could build compressors and evaporators instead of turbines and condensers. Their skills would work with the natural refrigerant big three. Propane (flammable), ammonia (toxic) and CO2 (very high pressure.)
Lots of other half-baked reasons for “perfervid belief” in nukes oozing out from Silicon Valley’s macho nerds and DC’s “arsenal of clean energy” folks and their Twitter fans. It’s not being adequately countered by those of us who want to put our heads down and get on with the business of integrating/storing another 50% wind/solar into the electricity system and using those green electrons to clean up heat and vehicle power.
Thanks, Jeremy. I hope you are right that the waste issues can be solved. And as regards geothermal batteries — that is a most interesting idea. Are you still in Oklahoma.?
Thanks Allen. One word tells the economic story, Vogtle. Colorado has to clean up Canyon City and
Schwartzwalder Mine before consideration of anything new.
Good points, Joseph.