Family picnics in the 1940s and 1950s in western Colorado might have resulted in more than ants marching over a worn checkered tablecloth. On the arid sandstone outcrops, in fine grains and veinlets, in greenish-yellow or a sooty black, lay the United States’ hope for Cold War dominance: uranium.
Seventy-five years on, some Coloradans still recoil from the prospect of nuclear energy and its spent fuel. The outdated term, “nuclear waste” — now spent nuclear fuel — conjures images of neon-green goo, a far cry from the reality of uranium pellets encased in zirconium rods.
Demands on power grids are increasing and as Colorado nears 2050 with the goal of net-zero emissions, proponents say that renewable energy alone won’t be able to cope. In 2022, state Sen. Bob Rankin, R-Carbondale, and state Rep. Hugh McKean, R-Loveland, introduced Senate Bill 22-073, which proposed a feasibility study on bringing small modular reactors to Colorado as a source of carbon-free energy.
After SB 22-073 died in committee, Rankin set up the Northwest Colorado Energy Initiative (NCEI) under the umbrella of the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado to secure a replacement for coal. Among the possible alternatives carbon capture, nuclear, wind, solar and geothermal.
“We are pursuing a community, fact-based, informed consent approach in our discussions,” said Matt Solomon, project manager for NCEI. “We are at a very preliminary stage and it’s very crucial so that we can understand what the concerns (are) and properly explore opportunities. My motto is TCP —transparent, consistent and predictable.”
After years of discussion, change is on the horizon with the recent success of HB 25-1040, which would label nuclear energy as “clean and green” but would exempt nuclear energy from the tax subsidies that wind, solar and geothermal are allotted.
The Garfield County Board of Commissioners voted, 3-0, to support HB 25-1040. And on Tuesday, the House approved the measure on a bipartisan vote.
“Nuclear is something that must be explored as a source for future energy needs,” said Garfield County Commissioner Mike Samson in a Feb. 12 news release. “He (Solomon) is making … great strides and progress in getting education out to people concerning nuclear energy. I’m in favor of all kinds of energy, but some is more feasible and realistic than others.”
Mesa County commissioners have also taken a public position of support for the bill.
Mesa County Commissioner Cody Davis, chairman of AGNC, said that if Colorado is moving toward the cleanest energy, nuclear is the “cleanest, most reliable energy on the planet.” Davis is aware though of the pushback against nuclear power and believes it’s necessary to educate and collaborate with communities.
“There’s a lot of misinformation about nuclear and its potential and even its track record,” said Davis. “It’s had a couple of bad events in the past, but they don’t amount to much. But nuclear has the least impact on our planet. The only reliable clean energy is nuclear.”
Rural Western Slope communities have felt the pinch as Colorado transitions from coal and oil. Both the Craig and Hayden power stations are set to close in 2028. The closures have had significant impact on already struggling economies.
Davis argued that power plants could easily be transitioned from coal to nuclear energy.
“In a sense, it could be a plug-and-play,” Davis said. “In the near future, what is most likely to happen is natural gas as transition fuel. If we are going to go truly green, solar, etc., won’t replace the natural gas.”
Sen. Larry Liston, R-Colorado Springs, a sponsor of HB 25-1040, said that small nuclear reactors make complete sense for the Western Slope and southeastern Colorado.
“In fact, they make sense almost anywhere,” Liston said.
In 2022, NCEI hosted viewing parties of Oliver Stone’s documentary, “Nuclear Now,” in Breckenridge, Steamboat Springs, Rifle, Montrose and Grand Junction. Based on question and answer sessions after the viewing, NCEI developed a survey. On average, Solomon said, favorability to nuclear power increased 10% after participants were presented with facts on nuclear energy.
“What we’ve found is that this region, northwest Colorado, is a lot more prudent, practical and pragmatic, and they had less of an emotional response,” Solomon said. “They want to know what’s going to be reliable, affordable and secure energy independence. Climate change and footprint were the least important to them in the survey.”
In addition to the potential siting of small modular reactors or micro-reactors in Colorado, part of the discussion has also involved interim storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel in Western Slope locales. This part of the coal-to-nuclear conversion has drawn particular angst from opponents, which Solomon called “sensationalized propaganda” that detracts from his mission.
Neither Solomon nor Davis addressed spent fuel, other than to say it is safe to store and transport.
“The problem with it, is that it isn’t fair to the communities that they are misrepresenting,” Solomon said. “We are trying to have fact-based conversations and working to support the entire region and it’s being polluted by one-sided advocacy from the Front Range. It hurts our efforts to bridge the urban-rural divide. Our approach helps communities feel engaged and conveys these sentiments to the people in Denver making those decisions.”
But even with the good-faith, fact-based discussions and the informed consent that NCEI and the U.S. Department of Energy are pursuing, citizen advocacy groups are not pleased.
“Most people aren’t physicists,” said Jeri Fri, a founding co-chair of Citizens Against Toxic Waste. “The DOE is trying to solve the problem of spent nuclear fuel by going to communities and asking them if they would participate in a program to place this waste within their community.”
Fry argued that, for decades, the federal government has been unable to solve the problem of spent nuclear fuel and instead is pushing it into rural Colorado.
“The 2010 Blue Ribbon Commission on the Yucca Mountain (facility in Nevada) couldn’t figure out this problem,” Fry said. “How can we expect small communities to take on this job and do this safely? Those of us on the CCAT board see this yet another problem that would impact our land for generations to come.”
Fry lives 3 miles from the Cotter Uranium Superfund Site in Cañon City, where 5.3 million tons of radioactive waste languishes.
“This site has been here for 42 years, and it’s accepted as OK, and people forget … Our town has grown up around it,” Fry said. “We’ve been trying to get it cleaned up for 20 years. If we forget how dangerous this material is, then we are putting ourselves and future generations in harm’s way.”
Fry testified in front of the House Energy and Environment Committee in opposition to HB 25-1040, saying that labeling nuclear energy as “clean and green” was just manipulating semantics.
“There is contamination every step of the way, from mining and milling and enrichment, even before there is a rod,” Fry said. “There’s been no sincere investment in the front end of the nuclear cycle in policy or technology. Until then … we are just going to repeat the history that left many places contaminated like Cañon City is.”
Source: Denver Gazette
