U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 08, 2025 02:00 PM UTC

Colorado Gets More Nu-Que-Ler Friendly

  • 9 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As the Colorado Sun reported last week, and we wanted to note for the record so that future generations might understand what life was like before…

Joking, of course, unless we fatefully are not:

House Bill 1040, which adds nuclear energy to the state’s list of clean energy resources, was signed into law Monday by Gov. Jared Polis.

The state defines clean energy as geothermal, solar, small hydroelectricity, wind and hydrogen energy. The law essentially tacks the words “and nuclear” onto the end of that list, opening up future nuclear projects to special funding opportunities.

But nuclear energy has a fraught history that left the bill’s many opponents wondering about Colorado’s definition of clean…

House Bill 25-1040 marked the third attempt by GOP state Sen. Larry Liston to pass legislation adding nuclear power to the state’s clean energy options necessary to meet the goal of a complete migration to carbon-free energy by 2040. This year, the changing–some say backsliding–national political environment on renewable energy and climate change, combined with the increasing urgency to meet the state’s ambitious goals, brought enough Democrats on board to pass the measure. As the Denver Gazette reports, Gov. Jared Polis signed the bill as a practical measure to provide the needed “baseload” power generation only power plants not dependent on fickle externalities like the weather can provide:

“The governor was excited to sign this bipartisan bill yesterday that passed with significant votes in both chambers to continue on our progress toward all solutions to meet our clean energy goals,” said a spokesperson for Polis. “To be clear, this bill does not move forward any particular nuclear energy project in Colorado, nor have any been proposed as part of resource planning by any utility.”

Advocates of nuclear power said the three-year effort by legislators and nuclear power proponents to pass what ultimately became House Bill 25-1040 would put Colorado on the path to meeting the state’s goal of 100% “carbon free” energy by 2040.

But back to the Sun’s story, Colorado is still dealing with the environmental consequences of the last nuclear power boom decades ago, which raises the obvious question of why with that mess not fully cleaned up creating new potential nuclear messes makes sense:

In Cañon City, a former uranium mill that was closed in 2011 was contaminating the surrounding soil as recently as 2023, despite being designated as a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund site in 1984, and community members are still fighting off businesses interested in underground uranium deposits. Superfund sites, and former Superfund sites, that processed uranium for energy or weapons are found near Denver, in Montrose County and outside of Rifle. In 2023 the state took over cleanup efforts after the company keeping uranium out of Arvada’s water supply walked away.

“If this industry hasn’t cleaned up its old mess, why should we trust them with a new one?” Ean Tafoya, vice president of state programs for GreenLatinos asked the state Senate committee.

Any new nuclear power plant that might be built in Colorado would not be of the antiquated designs that frightened the American public out of their appetite for nukes following accidents like the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979. Aversion to nuclear power along with coal and other perceived “dirty” energy sources formed the basis of environmental advocacy in America for a generation afterward. It is only in the last decade as a new generation of nuclear power plants under development offered the prospect of safe and reliable operation at scalable capacity that the debate among policymakers serious about confronting human-caused climate change has restarted.

And now in Colorado, nuclear power is part of the climate change toolkit. With the federal government walking away from its obligation to fight this global battle, it could be the only short-term way to move the decarbonization needle.

At the potential cost of a few more Superfund sites. With that we’ll yield the floor for your thoughts.

Comments

9 thoughts on “Colorado Gets More Nu-Que-Ler Friendly

  1. Reminds me of another Simpson episode; What this town State really needs?! — is a monorail !!!!

    Cuz’ disasters are always provide such great entertainment!

  2. I know they don’t run them the same way now, but Ft. St. Vrain left a bad taste in people’s mouths here. After a 10-year shutdown, it was eventually converted to a natural gas-powered station. Rocky Flats was another dose of that bitter brew. When she moved to Colorado, my wife trusted the government a lot more than now. They bought a house so close to that plant that we used to joke about being able to see the glow from the security guards, er, the parking lot lights at night. We’re both on thyroid supplements now. Things that make you go “hmmm”.

  3. Nothing against Springfield Colorado, but if we absolutely must have one nuclear plant I hope that's where they put it. (I just outed myself as not living in SE Colorado)

  4. Oh boy… where do I start?

    Bottom line, if you want to stop global warming, nuclear is our only option today. VREs can’t get us there. Even if we spend extraordinary amounts of money, they will require SCGT as backups for overcast days and dunkelflaute.

    I am by no means saying nuclear is perfect or has zero problems. What I am saying is weighing out the alternatives nuclear is by far our best option at present.

    1. Ask the people of Chernobyl about fears being overwrought.  Nuclear power safety depends on stability in the world, which we clearly don't have today.  Just ask Ukraine.  

      1. Chernobyl was a fucking disaster. Enabled by a lousy plant design and stupid test protocol. And it can't happen to any Western or modern plant. Zaporizhzhya is worrisome because it's on the front lines but even in the middle of the fighting, it's held. That's a good sign, albiet still worrisome.

        Having a nuclear plant, chemical plant, or oil fields in the middle of a war is bad. Look at the horriffic environmental damage the Kuwait fields caused when Saddam blew them all up. All these things and more can cause widespread longlasting problems if destroyed in battle.

        But I don't think we should degrade our civilization because of the portential of war. If we have battles in the U.S., nuclear plants will be the least of our worries.

  5. “If this industry hasn’t cleaned up its old mess, why should we trust them with a new one?” Ean Tafoya, vice president of state programs for GreenLatinos asked the state Senate committee.

    I asked Ean to be on my podcast to let him lay out his arguments against nuclear. You can see in my interview of Ken DeGraaf that I do not push my opinions when interviewing someone I disagree with.

    I asked them because I thought they gave the most measured arguments against nuclear. But Ean declined.

    1. Nuclear power in Colorado is undoubtedly on the list of possibilities … and I admit, I haven't read everything Xcel has as potential plans, so there may be something more positive than what I have read.

      Most recently:  CPR: Xcel Energy’s plan to replace state’s biggest coal plant could start with renewables and gas — and maybe end with nuclear

      commissioners invited David Schlissel — a Massachusetts-based analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis — to speak at a September town hall, where he offered a more pessimistic take on the practicality of a nuclear power plant in Pueblo. 

      “The nuclear industry has a long history of huge cost overruns and years-long schedule overruns, and by huge I mean multi-billion dollars,” Schlissel said, pointing to the nation's newest nuclear power source, Georgia's more than $20 billion over-budget Vogtle plant. 

      Xcel Energy’s new plan lists nuclear power as a possible option, though it would come online long after Comanche 3 shuts down. In its filing, Xcel Energy says it’ll eventually need advanced tech like nuclear and geothermal to completely cut out its carbon emissions by 2050. 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

107 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!

Colorado Pols