Nuclear cheerleading is fine — but what about the cost? | Columns | gjsentinel.com

True, it would deliver high-paying jobs, good tax base and emissions-free energy. But risks are rarely mentioned.

By ALLEN BEST
August 4, 2024

Big Pivots

It mystifies me, this perfervid belief in nuclear energy that I see in parts of Colorado. Just weeks ago, the commissioners in one Western Slope county added their support for nuclear. They noted that 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?

When extolling the technology, nuclear proponents rarely discuss cost, and then mostly in response to questions. Nuclear has a horrible track record. Two units in Georgia recently were completed at a cost of $35 billion, more than double original projections. Construction of two reactors in South Carolina were halted in 2017 after repeated cost overruns. Much hope was pinned on small modular reactors, but then Utah utilities in 2023 pulled the plug on NuScale.

Bill Gates was in Wyoming recently to fling a shovel of dirt at Kemmerer. 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 interview that he expects the project to ultimately cost $10 billion.

Could Xcel Energy justify investing $10 billion in a reactor after it closes its two coal-burning units at Hayden or its two in Pueblo? How about Tri-State Generation and Transmission when the last coal unit closes at Craig in 2028?

Chief executives of both Xcel and Tri-State 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, 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. But we’re a co-op. We can’t take that kind of financial risk with our members’ money,” 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. Renewables are starting to catch up to the subsidies for fossil fuels. Nuclear has also received help.

Renewables will take us much of the way to 100% emission-free energy, but nobody thinks they will take us all the way. A study commissioned by the Colorado Energy Office last year sees natural gas plants delivering a small but vital component of the affordable, reliable and near-100% emissions-free electricity by 2040. We know the technology. It’s not cheap, with new plants costing roughly $500 million. But neither is it a $10 billion experiment.

New ways to store excess renewable energy could help. Xcel is likely to be participating in a test of iron-air technology at Pueblo that could store energy for 100 hours. Both Colorado and Xcel are very interested in green hydrogen. Companies hope to produce new pumped-storage hydro power projects near Steamboat and Craig in the 2030s.

Or consider geothermal. Conventional ground-source geothermal employs coils 8 to 10 feet below ground or relatively shallow wells to tap the constant approximately 55 degree heat for heating and cooling of buildings. Colorado Mesa University heats and cools 800,000 square feet with the technology. It reduces emissions and saves money. The only question in Colorado is how fast this technology will scale up to displace natural gas.

Enhanced geothermal, the type used to produce electricity, is another matter. California gets 10.1% of its electricity from enhanced geothermal. It also has had volcanic eruptions as recently as 1917 (Lassen). Colorado’s most recent volcanic eruption (Dotsero) occurred 4,000 years ago.

Colorado has no electricity from geothermal, although Gov. Jared Polis contends Colorado could get 4% to 8% of its electricity from geothermal by 2040. Drillers have shown great ingenuity at unlocking oil and gas deposits in Colorado and elsewhere. Can they instead tap the heat deep underground to affordably produce electricity when we need it, to complement wind and solar?

Who knows whether enhanced geothermal will be part of Colorado’s emissions-free electricity, whether it can compete. Deep geothermal drilling may be too expensive but it won’t be a $10 billion gamble. 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.