Nuclear power offers Colorado communities a lifeline
As Coloradans, we share a commitment to clean air and a sustainable future. But the state's current energy plans — the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap 2.0 and Pathways to Deep Decarbonization — risk leaving us with an unstable grid, soaring bills, and missed opportunities for real economic revitalization. Let's examine the flaws in our renewables-only approach and explore a better path forward.
Colorado's goal of 95% wind and solar ignores a critical fact: These sources are intermittent. When the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining, grid operators scramble to fire up backup gas plants. Xcel Energy's own 2021 study revealed that wind integration costs rise sharply as reliance grows, requiring expensive grid upgrades and reserve gas capacity.
Meanwhile, Colorado's existing coal plants — slated for closure by 2031 — currently provide stable, 24/7 power. Replacing them with weather-dependent renewables risks repeating Germany's mistakes, where electricity prices spiked to $1,025 per megawatt-hour during calm, cold spells in 2024.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Proponents claim wind is 'zero-emission,' but this ignores reality. Wind turbines require gas-powered plants to stabilize the grid during low-wind periods. A 2021 study of Colorado's grid found that balancing wind with coal plants increased sulfur dioxide emissions by 23% and nitrogen oxides by 27%. Even Xcel's system relies on gas for 29% of generation today — a dependency that will grow as coal retires. Wind isn't cheap either. While turbines have low operating costs, their total system expenses — transmission, storage, and balancing plants — are staggering. Xcel's $15 billion proposal for new wind and solar in 2023 came with a $628/month projected average bill by 2040.
Germany's 'Energiewende' — a renewables-focused transition — offers a cautionary tale. In December 2024, a week-long 'dunkelflaute' caused wind output to plummet to 3 gigawatts (versus an average of 19 GW). The electricity price surge forced industries to halt production and households to brace for unaffordable bills.
Building interstate transmission lines, as proposed in Colorado's Pathways plan, won't solve this. During regional calm periods — common in winter — interconnects spread scarcity, as seen in Europe's 2024 price crisis. Do we want California causing our prices to spike?
Nuclear energy offers what wind and solar cannot: 24/7 clean power at stable costs. South Korea's APR-1400 reactors — like those at the Shin Hanul plant — cost $3,571/kW to build, far below the U.S. average of $5,833/kW. These reactors deliver power at $29/MWh, matching Xcel's current wind contracts. Critics claim nuclear construction is too slow, but South Korea built four APR-1400 units in the UAE in 10 years — faster than Colorado's 17-year timeline for wind/solar builds. Retired coal plants like Craig and Comanche already have transmission lines and skilled workers, making them ideal sites.
Nuclear isn't just about electrons — it's about jobs. A single APR-1400 reactor creates 900 construction jobs and 300 permanent roles paying $80,000–$120,000 annually. These are union-compatible, career-track positions, unlike temporary wind/solar gigs. For Pueblo, Craig, and Hayden — communities facing coal closures — nuclear offers a lifeline. South Korea's recent $17.4 billion contract to build reactors in the Czech Republic proves this model works globally. Colorado can replicate this success.
Colorado's energy plans are at a crossroads. We can continue betting on unreliable renewables, rising bills, and destabilized grids — or pivot to nuclear:
Reliability: Nuclear provides 'always-on' power, eliminating blackout risks.
Affordability: Stable 80-plus-year plant lifespans lock in low costs.
Jobs: Replace lost coal jobs with high-wage nuclear careers.
The Legislature should amend its low carbon goal to explicitly exclude electricity generation that requires carbon emitting backup. And with that change the Colorado Energy Office should then amend the Roadmap and Pathways to stop further wind (solar has a useful role) and use nuclear for our base load. Let's learn from Germany's mistakes, not repeat them. By embracing proven nuclear technology, Colorado can achieve true decarbonization — without sacrificing reliability or burdening families. Our energy future is too important to leave to outdated ideologies. Let's choose pragmatism over dogma and build a grid that's clean, reliable, and inexpensive.
Otherwise we continue down our present path to expensive, unreliable, carbon emitting energy.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Energy Summit 2025 addresses challenges for energy evolution on the Western Slope
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. (KREX) – The Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce hosted it's 2025 Energy Summit at the downtown Convention Center with an aim to, in the panelists' own words, bring together divergent views on energy production and industry without surrendering principles. Which is a fancy way of saying, can't we all just get along? As panelists expressed at today's summit, it's almost never that easy or simple in this highly politicized area of state infrastructure. Summit speakers from Xcel Energy and West Slope Colorado Oil and Gas Association told the crowd about the many ways legislators, tasked to regulate energy, butt heads with the companies producing it. 'I see our regulators prioritizing energy, and environmental policy over the other things…development imperatives, balance, reliability, portability, etc.' says Robert S. Kenney, President of Xcel Energy Colorado, 'whenever you directly prioritize one set of policies over the other, you're not crafting good balance of public policy.' These disagreements have, in recent months, recently culminated into a lawsuit against the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, brought by West Slope Colorado Oil and Gas and the Board of Mesa County Commissioners. The suit comes in response to recent enactments of new greenhouse gas rules, requiring a conversion to electric power for oil and gas companies operating pipelines, compressor stations, and other midstream facilities. Plaintiffs say, these conversions will drive out jobs and don't leave room for the 'all of the above approach' to energy use summit panelists championed. WesternSlopeNow has reached out multiple times to the Air Quality Control Commission, who declined comment on pending litigation. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Colorado lawmakers proposing bill to pause wolf reintroduction at special session
Multiple attempts to pause Colorado's controversial wolf reintroduction program have failed. But that hasn't persuaded a bipartisan coalition of state lawmakers from attempting another bill to pause more paws on the ground during the special session called by Gov. Jared Polis to address the state's budget woes. The bill to be introduced at the Aug. 21 special session of the Colorado legislature calls for pausing the planned release of more wolves late this year or early next year to help the state grapple with a budget shortfall of nearly $1 billion, according to a news release. The special session was called in part to address the passage by Congress of President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" and its health insurance impacts to the state, according to the news release. Here are highlights of the proposed bill: Reduce by $264,268 appropriations for state fiscal year 2025-26 from the general fund to Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the reintroduction of gray wolves and allocate money in the same amount to the general fund to be used for the health insurance affordability cash fund. Eliminate fiscal year 2025-26 general fund revenue for Colorado Parks and Wildlife to acquire or reintroduce wolves. That money may be used to assist livestock owners in preventing and resolving conflicts between wolves and livestock and to pay fair compensation to owners of livestock for any losses of livestock caused by wolves. The state general fund allocated $2.1 million for the wolf recovery program that will be used for the purposes mentioned. Bill sponsors stated in a news release Aug. 19 the bill would allow for a "reasonable pause in wolf reintroduction while the state continues to put in place supports for landowners and handles budget challenges." The bill's main sponsors include Sen. Dylan Roberts (D-Frisco), Sen. Marc Catlin (R-Montrose), Rep. Meghan Lukens (D-Steamboat Springs) and Rep. Matthew Martinez (D-Monte Vista). "Now is not the time to be spending precious taxpayer dollars on new wolves; let's focus on lowering costs for Coloradans and balancing our budget.' Roberts said in the news release. Roberts and Catlin, whose districts are in the heart of where two prior wolf releases and the majority of wolf depredations of livestock have taken place, have been consistent critics of Colorado Parks and Wildlife's implementation of the wolf recovery plan. That plan was established after voters narrowly approved reintroducing wolves to Colorado in 2020. Roberts, chairman of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, confronted Colorado Parks and Wildlife Director Jeff Davis about budget overruns of its wolf recovery plan at a Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee hearing held June 30. The Aug. 19 news release cited the plan's nearly $3.5 million cost the past fiscal year when voters were told the wolf recovery program would cost about $800,000 per year in future years depending on the final plan. The news release cited part of that budget overrun was due to significant costs for wolf-livestock conflict management and depredation reimbursement costs to livestock owners required by the plan. Part of the state's wolf-livestock conflict management costs have been offset by the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project's Born to be Wild specialty license plate that has generated nearly $1 million since its inception in January of 2024. The sale of those license plates has paid for the state's $500,000 range rider program to deter wolves from conflicts with livestock. Colorado Parks and Wildlife in 2024 awarded wolf depredation claims of $603,327.60, which is more than $253,000 over what the state budgeted through its general fund as well as revenue from several Colorado Parks and Wildlife funds, excluding sales revenue of hunting and fishing licenses. The state wildlife agency previously told the Coloradoan the difference will be covered by its funding sources. Claims of similar amounts could be incurred by the state, as there have been 19 confirmed wolf depredations of livestock as of Aug. 19, 2025, compared to 29 depredations in 2024. Here are previous attempts to pause wolf reintroductions that have failed The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission voted 10-1 to deny a petition by ranching and county groups to pause wolf releases in January. Gov. Polis vetoed Senate Bill 23-256 in May of 2023 that would have postponed the state's initial wolf releases, which occurred in December of 2023. A group called Smart Wolf Policy is collecting signatures to get Ballot Initiative 13, which calls for repealing what voters approved in 2020 by putting an end to the reintroduction effort by Dec. 31, 2026, on the November 2026 ballot. This article originally appeared on Fort Collins Coloradoan: Here is the latest effort to pause Colorado's wolf reintroduction Solve the daily Crossword
Axios
a day ago
- Axios
Low credit scores blast Coloradans' home insurance rates
Coloradans with low credit scores can expect to fork over $2,000 more annually on average for home insurance compared to high-credit policyholders, a new analysis finds. Why it matters: Credit scores aren't necessarily indicative of somebody's ability to pay their bills — and tying them to insurance prices can disadvantage low-income and minority homeowners, among others. The big picture: U.S. homeowners with low credit are charged $1,996 more annually compared to otherwise identical homeowners with high credit, per a new report from the Consumer Federation of America and the Climate and Community Institute. Zoom in: The report shows the "credit penalties" — the difference between annual premiums for otherwise identical low-credit and high-credit policyholders — sits at $2,034 for Colorado. Context: The report is based on over 600,000 nationwide "test quotes" representing "what a typical, hypothetical homeowner would be charged for homeowners' insurance."
