PIESAC's response to Ken Danti's opinion piece about nuclear power in Pueblo
In the opinion piece in last week’s Chieftain, Mr. Danti (it is not clear if he is speaking on his own behalf or on the behalf of the City of Pueblo Energy Advisory Commission or the Mayor) accused the Pueblo Innovative Energy Special Advisory Committee (“PIESAC”) of being delusional because we recommended that Xcel Energy and the community consider the construction of an advanced nuclear plant in Pueblo to replace Comanche 3.
Bill Gates, Terrapower, General Electric, Westinghouse and 30 other companies are not “delusional” because they support advanced nuclear power. These are a few of the companies that are investing hundreds of millions and billions of dollars in developing and constructing advanced nuclear reactors. Microsoft recently announced that it was hiring a program manager to develop small nuclear reactors (“SMR”) to provide safe, reliable, emission-free power for their data centers. They are making these decisions based on facts, not delusions.
The United States Department of Energy (DOE) recently stated: “Power system decarbonization modeling, regardless of level of renewables deployment, suggest that the U.S. will need 550-770 GW of additional clean, firm capacity to reach net-zero; nuclear power is one of the few proven options that could deliver this at scale, while creating high-paying jobs with concentrated economic benefits for communities most impacted by the energy transition.”
Our recommendations are based on facts and driven by how to replace the high-paying jobs, community economic benefits of over $189 million a year and tax payments of over $21 million a year. SMRS providing 500 MW of power would take up less than 35 acres and provide 200 to 300 jobs paying $60 to $200 thousand a year and taxes of over $95.29 million a year. Mr. Danti wants the community to dismiss this opportunity with no study, no analysis and without presenting an alternative.
Rather than dealing with the personal damage to families in the Pueblo community who will lose their high-paying jobs or be forced to move out of Pueblo, Mr. Danti pushes the tired false slogan of No Nuclear and More Solar. He states that the community needs to support additional solar and wind and batteries because, in his opinion, that is best for the community even though 500 MW of solar will provide only 5 to 10 jobs, paying $40,000-$80,000 a year and only $1.69 million a year in taxes.
As members of PIESAC, we all agreed that the most important goal was to replace the highly paid jobs at Comanche 3 and the tax base with zero- or low-emission power generation. As one of our members stated: “This is personal to me. It is not hypothetical.”
Mr. Danti, however, dismisses the jobs and taxes and states that solar and wind, backed by storage, should be built and that there is plenty of land to build solar and wind in Pueblo. He is wrong on both counts. We anticipated these tired old false arguments and refuted them on page 16 of our report. Mr. Danti has either not read the report, or he has no intention of letting facts get in the way of his opinion.
Wind values as measured by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) establish that it is not cost effective to build wind farms in Pueblo. That is why one does not see wind farms in Pueblo.
He states again, with no evidence, that there is land available to create many more solar farms with storage — more than the 500 MW we studied and then you could multiply the 5 to 10 low-paying jobs and tax payments of $1.69 million. It would take almost 13 solar farms of 500 MW to replace $21 million in tax payments. Further, as we stated in our report, the technical experts advised us that the effective load-carrying capability of 500 MW of solar requires 31,531 acres. Where in the county is the acreage that is close to transmission lines that could be used to build 13 solar farms that produce 500 MW of power? Furthermore, Xcel Energy must have geographic diversity in the location of solar farms. Cloud cover stops solar production and so the solar must be spread out across the state. Pueblo may be close to saturation in solar power.
Mr. Danti also believes that wind or solar plus battery storage could provide the power to replace Comanche 3. Current storage is short term. The DOE is studying long term storage along with SMRS. However, solar and wind with long duration storage are not yet cost competitive and provide very few jobs and taxes. It is true that SMRS are not yet cost competitive, but they will be, especially with companies such as Microsoft, General Electric and Westinghouse investing so much money in developing the technology. Mr. Danti, however, based on one conversation with an unnamed person at the national lab in Idaho Falls, concludes that SMRS cannot be built until 2040. He does not even attempt to distinguish between short term and long term storage.
The processes of PIESAC were transparent. We did not rely on unnamed sources. We identified all of the experts who spoke to us, and we posted their slides on the website.
Mr. Danti also believes he can predict what the Public Utilities Commission will do, stating the PUC will never approve advanced nuclear in Pueblo. Mr. Danti then maligns the motives of Xcel Energy and falsely states that the PUC forced Xcel to make a payment in lieu of taxes for 10 years, implying there could be some useful coercion in the future to get more money. Xcel voluntarily agreed to make those payments and that agreement was presented to the PUC. Xcel, even though it does not provide electricity to Pueblo residents, has been an exceptionally good partner for Pueblo over the years. Xcel Energy has continued to be a good partner to Pueblo by making that offer and by being willing to pay for a study to determine the best replacements for Comanche 3 and to involve the community in those discussions.
Unfortunately, Mr. Danti seems to be one of those people who have no solutions and only a simple slogan of “No to Nuclear” and “No to Natural Gas.” Slogans and opinions based on incorrect facts will not help Pueblo make this transition. Mr. Danti is president of the trade group Renewable Energy Owners Coalition of America that promotes more solar and wind. His biases are clear.
The members of PIESAC are all respected members of the Pueblo community with different types of expertise: Jerry Bellah, Sarah Blackhurst, Russell DeSalvo, Patty Erjavec, Dennis Maes, Tim Mottet, Duane Nava, Jeff Shaw, Chris Wiseman and co-chairs Corinne Koehler and Frances Koncilja. None of us were paid for our work on the committee and approached our work with open minds and concerns for the citizens of Pueblo.
Each of us is willing to have public or private discussions on these important issues. However, those who oppose our recommendations should come to the table with facts, as opposed to opinions based on no facts or incorrect facts. They should also present options that will create high-paying jobs and tax payments in excess of $21 million a year that will make Pueblo whole. Continuing to make the types of false statements contained in Mr. Danti’s opinion piece is reckless and irresponsible and not in the public interest. Pueblo is facing huge challenges with the closure of Comanche 3. Advanced nuclear makes Pueblo whole and puts it on a path to prosper and lead the clean energy transition and should be discussed by the community.
The Pueblo Innovative Energy Special Advisory Committee
This article originally appeared on The Pueblo Chieftain: PIESAC's response to Danti's opinion piece about nuclear power in Pueblo
