Splitting (Atoms) in the Centennial State
A look into (some of) Colorado's Nuclear Energy Past and Future
Established in 1837 by a license from Territorial Governor William Clark (of the Lewis and Clark fame) Fort St. Vrain was a fur trading post situated at the confluence of the South Platte River and St. Vrain Creek. The closest town today is Platteville, about 45 minutes northeast of Denver, Colorado. It functioned not only as a commercial enterprise in the fur trade but also as a meeting place for various cultural and diplomatic exchanges between Native Americans and traders.
By the late 1840s, the fur trade began to decline due to over-trapping and a shift in fashion trends away from fur in Europe and the eastern United States. This decline, coupled with increased migration and settlement in the region, led to the eventual closure and abandonment of Fort St. Vrain. The site was the county seat for Weld County when the Colorado Territory was established but the seat, including the log-cabin style courthouse was eventually moved to present day Greeley. Today, not much is left of the original fort, instead the site is marked by monument placed by a local chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution in 1911.
Fast forward to just shy of 100 years of Fort St. Vrain’s closure to the late 1950’s just a stone’s throw from the remains of the fort. The local electrical utility, Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), along with other regional utilities showed an interest in new and novel nuclear generation. These utilities had become entrenched with La Jolla based General Dynamics’ nuclear division who were interested in developing a high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor (HTGR), which differed from other reactor types such as Light Water Reactors (LWRS)1. Two such HTGR reactors were eventually built, one in PA called Peach Bottom and one near the site of the original site of Fort St. Vrain creatively labeled the same title and with a nameplate capacity of 330MW. Construction of the Fort Saint Vrain Nuclear Power Plant began in 1968 was ready for testing in 1972 and by 1979 was connected to the grid to serve the bustling PSCo service territory.
Fort Saint Vrain Nuclear Power Plant’s plant design, using an HTGR was unique in that it could be operated to follow electrical loads, as opposed to providing simple baseload power which is typical with most nuclear generation stations. But this came at a cost to PSCo and its customers. Among one of the most prominent issues was the gas used to cool the reactor: helium. Given the tiny molecules of the gas, it could easily escape even the best of seals and it was easily contaminated by water which led to corrosion resulting in breakdowns. The plant also had severe electrical issues as well including faults and failure of backup systems to kick in when needed.
Fort Saint Vrain Nuclear Power Plant in other words, but for different reasons, acted more like a typical wind or solar plant (minus the hype and subsidies): it was intermittent, unreliable, and increasingly expensive for PSCo to operate with those costs being passed to the customers. The plant was decommissioned in the late 1980s and the site was converted to a natural gas powered generation facility with a nameplate capacity of 954MW and remains that way today. (The country’s other HTGR reactor, Peach Bottom, continues to operate, lacking the problems faced by Fort St. Vrain.) Public Service Company of Colorado eventually was purchased by Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy, who remains the primary utility in PSCo’s service area today.
Despite Colorado’s rapidly growing population, little to no effort has been made by Xcel or other utilities in the state to accommodate such growth when it comes to electrical load. Instead Xcel and others have gone gung-ho for phasing out reliable baseload sources such as coal and natural gas, opting to replace these sources with so-called “renewable/clean energy,” but better labeled as fiat energy, per Saifedean Ammous, or as Chris Popoff describes “narcissistic energy.” Such imbecilic policies resulted in the surge in the price of electricity, adding to the cost of living crisis faced by millions of residents in the state. The state of Colorado, whose government have largely been colonized by energy illiterate posers/coastal-elites/stable-earthers from both coasts have made facepalm-inducing commitments to fantasies such as “net zero” and “carbon-free.” Sans nuclear, the state will likely become another California or another New York.
There are, fortunately, a few bright spots.
Roughly two and a half hours south of both the fallen Ft. St. Vrains, just outside the city of Pueblo lies Comanche, a 1,635 MW coal-fired power plant, among the largest in the region, if not the state. Xcel plan on shutting down in large part because it’s a dirty carbon-intense coal plant but also will be compliant with the state’s net zero (nuclear-absent) laws which were imposed by the energy-illiterate and anti-human colonizers. Pueblo, formerly known as the “Pittsburgh of the West” for its steel mills has seen a steep decline over the years, akin to “Rust Belt” cities, making its economic trajectory almost polar opposite of most of the Front Range stretching from Cheyenne, WY all along the I-25 corridor into New Mexico. The shutdown of Comanche, with one part completed in 2022, the remaining two upcoming in 2025 and 2031 is set to kill hundreds of jobs and millions in tax revenue for Pueblo and the region exasperating the economic woes. Locals in Pueblo, along with a group (to their credit) within Xcel Energy with decades of presence in the region do not want to leave the locals dry.
One such suggestion is to replace Comanche’s current coal-fired generators with a new nuclear plant, using innovative SMRs. As reported in the Colorado Sun, a statewide independent newspaper2, Jerry Bellah, one of the members of the committee setup to figure out post-Comanche days and VP of the local chapter of an electrical workers’ union stated point blank, “The only way we don’t feel pain is a nuke.” Whether Mr. Bellah knows it or not, he’s onto something, as the coal generating plant Nanticoke, North America’s largest coal power plant located outside Toronto was shut down with its workers largely transferred to neighboring Bruce Nuclear Power Plant. This provided a legitimate “just transition,” and is documented in an excellent documentary created by Decouple Media.
Such a proposal in Pueblo would not only produce clean, reliable energy for the region free of greenhouse gas emissions, but would continue to provide the high paying, meaningful jobs as well as tax revenue. Of course, one of the usual suspects, California-based Sierra Club doesn’t approve. Noah Rott, a spokesman from the Malthus-fapping anti-nuclear Sierra Club, proclaimed that proponents of the nuclear solution were “misleading Pueblo officials into pushing for an untested and outrageously expensive new nuclear reactor,” and cried that such a solution wouldn’t be ready by the time the entire Comanche facility was shut down. Perhaps because of the bureaucratic bullshit against nuclear construction pushed in large part by groups such as the Sierra Club.
Doom from the Sierra Club aside, here comes the second bright spot.
As subtly indicated last week, the Colorado Legislature (known locally as the Colorado General Assembly) is in session. On the docket, is SB23-079, the Nuclear Energy As A Clean Energy Resource bill, also one of the attachments at the end of this piece. Authored by Senator Larry Liston (R - because spoiler alert, unfortunately this matters), if it makes it though the sausage machine that is the legislature, and is signed into law by the Governor, it will change the Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS), specifically Section 40-2-124 excitingly titled “Renewable energy standards - qualifying retail and wholesale utilities - definitions - net metering - legislative declaration - rules.” to include nuclear energy as a form of “clean energy.” The Colorado General Assembly, previously left out nuclear energy in this definition when they modified the law in previous years.
Despite being the typical legalize associated with bills, Senator Linston’s bill reads like beautiful music for proponents of not just nuclear energy but general energy literacy.
It mentions that nuclear energy is “the single largest source of carbon-free electricity generation,” with “a 92.7% capacity factor,” and is “a source of clean energy will help Colorado prevent future blackouts and brownouts.” It doesn’t poo-poo the state’s existing definition of so-called “clean energy” even though the facts presented in the bill are essentially kryptonite to these inferior energy sources. It instead compliments them - if nothing else that’s good politics.
On Wednesday, January 24th, the Transportation & Energy Committee are set to meet and discuss the bill. Interestingly enough, this is the second year Liston’s bill has popped up in the legislature and this is a rabbit hole worth exploring as it highlights the challenge the Centennial State has faced recently in terms of adopting nuclear energy.
Last year,the bill never made it out of committee. A motion was made to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole but failed. A later motion postponed the bill indefinitely. (It took the bill’s sponsor to bring it back this year.) The votes fell on partisan lines with Republicans in support of moving the bill onward and Democrats (who have the majority in both chambers and the executive branch) in opposition. Governor Jared Polis, appears to be lukewarm for nuclear energy, for the record but it’s hard to know if he’d sign such a bill into law.
Several people submitted written testimonies in favor and in opposition to the bill as it was discussed by the Committee last year.
Of the 13 people in support who testified in writing, one is Alan Medsker, who in part wrote:
Nuclear energy is clean, safe and reliable, and should be considered alongside other sources as a clean energy source. It has an excellent track record, does not require any new inventions or discoveries and can contribute significantly to our efforts to replace polluting energy sources with clean ones, and to provide more energy to parts of our world that need it. We should not let semantics prevent us from using one of the most powerful tools in our clean energy toolbox. Please support this legislation.
James Hopf, also testified, among his excellent words noted the EU’s recent reclassification of nuclear energy as clean energy.
The European Union has classified nuclear as a clean source, under their clean energy taxonomy, based on the conclusions of their formal scientific bodies. The EU Joint Research Centre concluded that nuclear does no more harm to human health or to the environment than other clean sources such as renewables.2
He also noted the overall bipartisan support:
Nuclear power is not, and need not be, a partisan issue. There is widespread bipartisan political support in the US for new nuclear power plants. One example being the Democratic Biden administration, which very strongly supports nuclear. Also, many nuclear-supportive bills have passed in recent years, with support from legislators from both parties.
There was also Sarah Jensen, who is a Masters in Environmental and Natural Resource Policy Student at CU Boulder as well as an ambassador for the Colorado chapter of American Conservation Coalition Action.
Ms. Jensen pointed out what happened in her home state of California and urged the legislature in her new home not to repeat the same mistakes.
As a young person concerned about climate change and my future, I think we need to acknowledge California’s mistakes in order to learn from them and do better. The fact is simple, California’s energy policies have created an unreliable grid that experiences rolling blackouts and bears some of the highest energy prices in the country. Why? Because they said no to one of the safest, most reliable, clean energy sources available today, nuclear. In 2002, California established a Renewable Portfolio Standard, which sets statewide goals for increasing the percentage of carbon-free energy on the grid and outlines the eligible energy sources that count towards the state’s clean energy goals. The problem? Nuclear energy was deliberately left off that list because California decided it was not “good enough.” And instead of embracing the potential of nuclear as a zero-carbon energy source that can increase grid reliability and reduce emissions, California chooses to import electricity from out-of-state coal-fired power plants, the most significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
Later, she was far more blunt, writing, “I do not want Colorado to make the same mistakes as my home state of California.”
(In the eyes of the author of this post, a recent ex-California (now returned Colorado) resident who witnessed first hand the de-civilization of said state and now Colorado, her statements ring completely true. )
While several more testified with written statements in favor (total of 9), there were four who testified against.
One was Jan Rose of the Orwellian-named Colorado Coalition for a Livable Climate who later is week is hosting an event entitled, “The Inflation Reduction Act, Utility and State Tax Credits: What’s in it for ME?”
Rose’s testimony is dripping the the usual forced-teaming and authoritarian statements.
Much as we all wish nuclear energy was in fact a clean energy resource, it is not.
And:
In addition, according to its many filings with the PUC, Xcel doesn’t need a nuclear reactor to manage demand, and the people of Pueblo don’t want it. They’d be trading the devil they know—massive emissions from a coal-fire power plant—for the devil they don’t, because SMR studies that show more radioactive waste is produced from an SMR than a traditional watercooled reactor.
She claims that new battery technology is not only around the corner, but such innovations are present in Colorado, today!
With said technology, she asserts.
None of these battery technologies utilize lithium so they eliminate the concerns about mining, and they’re orders of magnitude cheaper than a nuclear plant needed only to manage peak demand a few hours of a few days per year. And they’re being deployed today. They’re actual, real, ready, clean energy tech; SMRs are not.
Before signing off with her signature and the obnoxious “Sent by a Climate Reality Leader - proud to take the #LeadOnClimate” text Rose, who previously ranted entirely against nuclear energy insisted instead insisted neighboring Wyoming instead “experiment” with the ordeal:
Please reject this bill and let other states experiment with uranium so heavily enriched that it has to be bought from the Russians, like the NuScale demonstration project in WY.
Another in opposition, to no surprise, Gina Hardin of the Colorado chapter of Anti-Industry Industry group 350.org. Hardin’s tone drips in the same nonsense as Jan Rose’s blabbering nonsense about waste (also engaging in forced-teaming), the overblown environmental impact of uranium mining, closing with the ultimate anti-nuclear cliché: MELTDOWNS!.
Last February, several people went to the Committee Meeting in person to testify. Thirteen were in support with only two in opposition.
Despite an overwhelming amount of people both writing in a in-person testifying in support the majority of the Transportation & Energy Committee, all Democrats were not in support of the bill while the minority amount of Republicans were in support.
Phil Ord, a Colorado-based pro-nuclear advocate, registered Democrat, and person genuinely worried by the negative effect of climate change last year on Twitter X, vented his frustrations on the partisanship.
This Wednesday, the 24th, the Transportation & Energy Committee will meet again. The bill is slated to be discussed according to the posted schedule.
Free State Colorado provides a guide on how to testify either in person or remote at the Colorado State Capitol. The guide outlines the process for public participation in legislative committee meetings, explaining how to find and choose a bill to testify on, prepare a statement, and the logistics of attending a committee meeting.
The more people who can testify, the better.
And of course for Colorado voters who are served by any of the sponsors of the bill or the members of the committee would benefit making their voices be heard to their respective legislators.
Fingers crossed in the meantime for a pro-civilization, pro-nuclear Colorado.
Which includes both the “subtypes” Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) and Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs). PWRs keep water under pressure to prevent it from boiling, while BWRs allow the water to boil inside the reactor vessel.
The Colorado Springs Gazette’s Editorial Board also are on the record cheerleading for nuclear energy in the state. Los Angeles Times wannabe, Denver Post, have been largely silent.
There is a huge error in the capacity of the coal fired plant, Comanche, in Pueblo, CO. This article said it was 1.41 MW. The correct number is 1,635 MW.
Nuclear power suffers from a safety problem that is exposed by myself and my co-author in the peer-reviewed journal article at https://www.ndt.net/article/v04n05/oldberg/oldberg.htm , Contrary to the claims of the narcissists, burning fossil fuels does not result in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). The appearance that it casuses CAGW results from burning fossil fuels is the result of an application of the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness by the argument made by a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) climate model under which an "abstract" event of the future for Earth's climate system is mistaken for a "concrete" event of the future, where an "abstract" event of the future is "abstracted (removed) from a location in space and time whereas a "concrete" event of the future has such a location.
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Referee of the manuscript fot UN IPCC Climate Assessment Report 6) (comments ignored by the UN IPCC)
Advisor to the House Sub-Committee on the Climate Crisis before being shadow banned for repeatedly advising the committee that there was no such crisis.
Los Altos Hills, CA
terry_oldberg@yanoo.com