Allen Best: Nuclear cheerleading is fine – but what about the cost?

True, nuclear can deliver high-paying jobs, good tax base, and emissions-free energy. Rarely do proponents mention risks.

I’m mystified by this perfervid belief in nuclear energy that I see in Colorado. The commissioners in one Western Slope county added their support for nuclear, citing a poll that showed 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?

Nuclear has a horrible track record of cost overruns. In Georgia, two units recently completed cost $35 billion, more than double original projections. Cost overruns halted construction of two reactors in South Carolina in 2017. Much hope was pinned on small modular reactors, but then Utah utilities in 2023 pulled the plug on NuScale.

---

---

Bill Gates recently flung a shovel of dirt in Wyoming. 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 Colorado’s largest electrical utilities justify investing $10 billion in a reactor or two after they close their coal-burning units in Craig, Hayden and Pueblo in the next five to seven years? Chief executives 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 Generation and Transmission Association, 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,” 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 as they did fossil fuels before. Nuclear has also received help.

Renewables can take us far toward 100% emission-free energy, but we also need other answers. A study commissioned by the Colorado Energy Office last year sees natural gas plants delivering a small but vital component to maintain affordability and reliability. We know the technology. It’s not cheap. But neither is it a $10 billion experiment.

New ways to store excess renewable energy could help. Xcel is likely to participate in a test of iron-air technology at Pueblo. It could store excess renewables for 100 hours. Both Xcel and the Polis administration have shown keen interest in green hydrogen, which uses renewable energy and water. Pumped-storage hydro power projects near Steamboat and Craig could help in another decade.

Geothermal could help, too. Conventional ground-source geothermal taps the near-constant 55 degree heat found about 10 feet below ground to heat and cool buildings. Colorado Mesa University heats and cools 800,000 square feet with the technology.

A different geothermal that goes far, far deeper underground can generate electricity, as it does in Iceland. California gets 10.1% of its electricity from enhanced geothermal. It also has a hotter subterranean. Volcanic eruptions last occurred there in 1917 (Lassen). Colorado’s most recent volcanic eruption (Dotsero) was 4,000 years ago.

Gov. Jared Polis contends that geothermal can deliver 4% to 8% of Colorado’s electricity by 2040. He cites the ingenuity of drillers at unlocking oil and gas deposits. Other see enhanced geothermal as a stretch for Colorado – like nuclear.

Who knows which among these emerging technologies will triumph, but they won’t be $10 billion gambles. Cheerleaders for nuclear need to acknowledge that risk. And then we can talk about the problem of waste disposal.

Allen Best chronicles Colorado’s energy and water transitions at BigPivots.com.