The recent push to replace coal-fired power plants in Colorado with nuclear reactors has sparked a heated debate about the role of nuclear power in the state’s energy mix. While proponents argue that nuclear power is a clean and reliable source of energy, I argue that it is not a viable option for Colorado, and for good reason.
The High Cost of Nuclear Power
The cost of nuclear power is a significant concern. According to the financial firm Lazard, the cost of electricity produced by a nuclear power plant is three times that of solar and wind. The only new reactors recently built in the U.S., Vogtle Units 3 and 4, were completed seven years behind schedule at a cost of $36.8 billion — more than two and a half times the original budget. This high cost has resulted in higher electricity bills for Georgia Power ratepayers. •
- Higher capital construction costs per kilowatt
- Higher delivered electricity cost due to size and complexity
- Smaller, untested reactors (SMRs) are not a viable alternative
The Long Lead Times for Nuclear Power
Another concern is the long lead times for nuclear power plants. The total time from concept to operation is about 15 years, compared to solar and wind plants, which take one to two years. This long lead time means that we are talking about a significant delay in addressing climate change and air pollution. •
- 15-year lead time compared to solar and wind plants
- Delay in addressing climate change and air pollution
- Opportunity costs: deploying solar and wind and preventing emissions
Nuclear Power and Colorado’s Renewables-Based Grid
Nuclear proponents argue that nuclear plants can fill in the gaps when solar and wind are not available. However, this claim is not supported by the facts. Xcel plans to provide 80% of its electricity from solar and wind in just the next five years. Although Colorado is very sunny year-round, grid operators must be prepared for occasional “dark lull” periods of four days or more when local solar and wind resources are limited by the weather. •
- Grid operators will burn stored natural gas in low-cost combustion turbines during dark lull periods
- Nuclear plants will not be able to boost output during dark lull periods
- Nuclear power will duplicate renewable electricity and cause it to be wastefully curtailed
The Bottom Line
In conclusion, nuclear power is too costly, too risky, and too slow to deploy. It is not a viable option for Colorado, and it will not support renewable energy generators on the grid. Instead, we should focus on deploying solar and wind, and preventing emissions.
References
•
“The cost of electricity produced by a nuclear power plant is three times that of solar and wind.” – Lazard
•