Nuclear Energy Presents a Security Solution Colorado Can’t Afford to Overlook

By Kevin McManimon | Commentary, Complete Colorado

While a real-life ‘Red Dawn’ scenario playing out is unlikely, with Soviets falling from the skies and taking over Colorado, the threats to national security posed by Colorado’s current decarbonization agenda are very real.

Colorado is home to some of the United States’ most important national security assets, including the U.S. Space Command, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), and many aerospace and defense contractors. The installations run by these assets require a dependable energy source in order to monitor threats, operate satellites, and carry out functions to protect the nation.

But as the state continues towards an unrealistic climate goal of 100% decarbonization by 2040, an important issue is raised: Can Colorado’s renewable energy scheme dependably support the infrastructure essential to national security?

The current sources, specifically wind and solar and their susceptibility to extreme weather and foreign interference, put these essential defense functions at risk. Nuclear energy offers both a green and reliable alternative.

The risks of an unstable grid

Colorado has set one of the most ambitious clean energy goals in the country with a 100% decarbonization mandate by 2040. This aggressive plan includes the retiring of all 6 remaining coal plants by 2031, the addition of 3,400 megawatts of wind energy, 1,970 megawatts of solar energy, 1,170 megawatts of energy storage. Furthermore, 82% of new passenger vehicles sold must be electric or plug-in hybrid by 2032.

If Colorado continues to increase its dependence on wind and solar energy, the state is setting itself up for a potential power crisis. In the event of harsh winter storms or multi-day weather lulls, Colorado could experience rolling blackouts and grid instability. This phenomenon, known in Germany as Dunkelflaute, highlights the vulnerability of the state’s energy grid in the absence of a dependable alternative solution.

This was further displayed by the Iberian Peninsula blackout this past April that left tens of millions without power for hours, and which ultimately occured because the solar-dependent Spanish grid was unable to handle the unusually high supply of solar power.

Blackouts during extreme weather or grid strain aren’t just inconveniences, they’re security vulnerabilities. Considering that nearly all military installations in Colorado draw power from the civilian power grid, the current carbon reduction plans jeopardize the functions of these installations, including monitoring of potential missile threats, operation of military satellites, and the storage of classified data.

Furthermore, China dominates the global production of key clean energy components. They control over 80% of solar panel manufacturing, 60% of battery mineral production, and nearly 90% of rare earth magnet output. And just this past May, unexplained communications equipment was found in Chinese-manufactured renewable energy infrastructure.

Nuclear energy in Colorado

The Colorado Energy Office estimates that the state’s decarbonization mandates will cost $108 billion through 2050. By 2030, all households combined will spend between $970 million and $1.25 billion more, with rates growing by 56%. If Colorado is to meet the doubling of energy demand over the next 5 years, wind and solar farms are an inefficient and costly solution. On top of the price tag, wind farms require 300x more land for the same energy output (60,000-75,000 acres per 300 megawatt) compared to small modular nuclear reactors (10-15 acres per 300 megawatt), while solar farms require 100x more land (2,500-3,000 acres per 300 megawatt).

The conditions in Colorado are increasingly favorable for successfully reintroducing nuclear energy into the state’s energy portfolio. Earlier this year, the legislature passed House Bill 25-1040, which aded nuclear to Colorado’s statutory definition of  “clean energy.” Colorado also has the third highest reserves of uranium, the main fuel source in nuclear power production, behind only New Mexico and Wyoming.

Additionally, Colorado’s mandate to decommission coal plants around the state provides a unique opportunity. These sites could be converted into nuclear power plants, utilizing existing energy transmission infrastructure and a skilled workforce that would otherwise become unemployed. Ultimately, nuclear as an alternative is less reliant on foreign economies and is less susceptible to extreme weather and foreign interference.

It’s true that some military installations in Colorado have their own microgrids and power generation capabilities (like Fort Carson and Buckley Air Force Base) and all have some form of backup power generation. However, these backup systems are not capable of handling prolonged or wide-area outages. Even with these contingencies, these installations require greater energy security, which nuclear power can provide.

READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT COMPLETE COLORADO

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.