As Coloradans, we share a commitment to clean air and a sustainable future. But the state’s current energy plans — the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap 2.0 and Pathways to Deep Decarbonization — risk leaving us with an unstable grid, soaring bills, and missed opportunities for real economic revitalization. Let’s examine the flaws in our renewables-only approach and explore a better path forward.

Colorado’s goal of 95 percent wind and solar ignores a critical fact: These sources are intermittent. When the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining, grid operators scramble to fire up backup gas plants. Xcel Energy’s own 2021 study revealed that wind integration costs rise sharply as reliance grows, requiring expensive grid upgrades and reserve gas capacity.

Meanwhile, Colorado’s existing coal plants — slated for closure by 2031 — currently provide stable, 24/7 power. Replacing them with weather-dependent renewables risks repeating Germany’s mistakes, where electricity prices spiked to $1,025 per megawatt-hour during calm, cold spells in 2024.

Image

Proponents claim wind is “zero-emission,” but this ignores reality. Wind turbines require gas-powered plants to stabilize the grid during low-wind periods. A 2021 study of Colorado’s grid found that balancing wind with coal plants increased sulfur dioxide emissions by 23 percent and nitrogen oxides by 27 percent. Even Xcel’s system relies on gas for 29 percent of generation today — a dependency that will grow as coal retires. Wind isn’t cheap either. While turbines have low operating costs, their total system expenses — transmission, storage, and balancing plants — are staggering. Xcel’s $15 billion proposal for new wind and solar in 2023 came with a $628/month projected average bill by 2040.

Germany’s “Energiewende” — a renewables-focused transition — offers a cautionary tale. In December 2024, a week-long “dunkelflaute” caused wind output to plummet to 3 gigawatts (versus an average of 19 GW). The electricity price surge forced industries to halt production and households to brace for unaffordable bills.

Building interstate transmission lines, as proposed in Colorado’s Pathways plan, won’t solve this. During regional calm periods — common in winter — interconnects spread scarcity, as seen in Europe’s 2024 price crisis. Do we want California causing our prices to spike?

Nuclear energy offers what wind and solar cannot: 24/7 clean power at stable costs. South Korea’s APR-1400 reactors — like those at the Shin Hanul plant — cost $3,571/kW to build, far below the U.S. average of $5,833/kW. These reactors deliver power at $29/MWh, matching Xcel’s current wind contracts. Critics claim nuclear construction is too slow, but South Korea built four APR-1400 units in the UAE in 10 years — faster than Colorado’s 17-year timeline for wind/solar builds. Retired coal plants like Craig and Comanche already have transmission lines and skilled workers, making them ideal sites.

Nuclear isn’t just about electrons — it’s about jobs. A single APR-1400 reactor creates 900 construction jobs and 300 permanent roles paying $80,000–$120,000 annually. These are union-compatible, career-track positions, unlike temporary wind/solar gigs. For Pueblo, Craig, and Hayden — communities facing coal closures — nuclear offers a lifeline. South Korea’s recent $17.4 billion contract to build reactors in the Czech Republic proves this model works globally. Colorado can replicate this success.

A better path forward

Colorado’s energy plans are at a crossroads. We can continue betting on unreliable renewables, rising bills, and destabilized grids — or pivot to nuclear:

• Reliability: Nuclear provides “always-on” power, eliminating blackout risks.
• Affordability: Stable 80-plus-year plant lifespans lock in low costs.
• Jobs: Replace lost coal jobs with high-wage nuclear careers.

The Legislature should amend its low carbon goal to explicitly exclude electricity generation that requires carbon emitting backup. And with that change the Colorado Energy Office should then amend the Roadmap and Pathways to stop further wind (solar has a useful role) and use nuclear for our base load. Let’s learn from Germany’s mistakes, not repeat them. By embracing proven nuclear technology, Colorado can achieve true decarbonization — without sacrificing reliability or burdening families. Our energy future is too important to leave to outdated ideologies. Let’s choose pragmatism over dogma and build a grid that’s clean, reliable, and inexpensive.

Otherwise we continue down our present path to expensive, unreliable, carbon emitting energy.