Last month, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified a design for the nation’s first advanced small modular nuclear reactor (SMR). According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “Advanced SMRs offer many advantages, such as relatively small physical footprints, reduced capital investment, ability to be sited in locations not possible for larger nuclear plants, and provisions for incremental power additions. SMRs also offer distinct safeguards, security, and nonproliferation advantages.” They are a “key part of the Department’s goal to develop safe, clean, and affordable nuclear power options.”
Given the safety, reliability, and carbon-free nature of nuclear power and the versatility and comparative affordability of smaller reactors, Colorado should consider adding nuclear energy to its energy portfolio. As part of that consideration, the General Assembly should pass House Bill 1080 to require the director of the Colorado energy office to conduct a study “on the feasibility of using small modular nuclear reactors as a carbon-free energy source in the state” and submit it to the legislature by July 1, 2025.
Currently, Colorado’s electricity comes from coal (41%), natural gas (27%), wind (27%), hydropower 26%, and solar (3%). The state is pursuing energy innovations at the margins. In addition to harvesting natural gas from wells, the state has four biogas facilities that collect methane produced by landfills and wastewater treatment plants. A Lamar feedlot facility uses an anaerobic digester to produce power from animal waste. The state has several small biomass facilities converting wood waste to power, as well as wind, solar, and hydropower installations.
Because of their intermittent nature and other drawbacks, however, renewable energy sources cannot supply all of the state’s electricity needs. The safest, most reliable low-carbon energy source portfolio would be nuclear and some combination of wind, hydro, biomass, and solar power. Natural gas plus renewables would be the second-best energy arrangement.
In terms of safety, nuclear power is by far the safest as measured by the number of deaths per terawatt-hours of electricity produced. A watt-hour is a unit of energy equal to one watt of energy output for an hour and a terawatt is a trillion watts. The United States uses around 4,000 terawatt-hours of electricity in a year.
The mortality rate for nuclear energy per terawatt-hour of energy produced is .03 compared to 29 lives per terawatt-hour for coal. Since the 1950s, more than 600 nuclear plants have been in operation around the world with 440 or so still in use. During that time there have been three accidents resulting in the deaths of 32 people. By comparison, hundreds of thousands of lives are cut short every year due to air pollution generated from burning coal. The mortality rate for energy produced by oil and national gas is 18 and 3 lives per terawatt-hour respectively and solar and wind have similar mortality rates to nuclear.
Nuclear is also the most reliable of the energy sources in terms of the amount of electricity produced by a generator at full capacity. Nuclear power plants can produce maximum power more than 92% of the time compared to natural gas (54%), coal (49%), hydropower (37%) wind (35%), and solar photovoltaic cells (25%).
Of course, there are other factors worth considering. Wind turbines kill between a half a million and one million birds and around 750,000 bats each year. Mortality rates can be mitigated by painting turbines black and shutting down the turbines during certain times of the day and seasons. Wind turbines take up enormous space in landfills and nuclear waste is radioactive for thousands of years and must be disposed of safely. Wind and solar equipment require rare earth minerals. Coal and nuclear plants require more water than natural gas plants.
“There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs,” to quote Economist Thomas Sowell, and the state needs to examine all of the sources in its energy portfolio given their strengths and limitations.
Five years ago, the General Assembly passed Senate Bill 3 directing the Colorado Energy Office to promote nuclear as “a cleaner energy source.” The state has done little or nothing to promote nuclear energy thus far and studying the feasibility of SMRs would a good first step.
Krista L. Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
