Energy is health and wealth. Pueblo needs both, which means going nuclear.

Modern energy extraction has facilitated every major advancement in human history, including a successful march toward zero poverty and starvation around the globe.

The more concentrated an energy source, the higher its value. Like superfoods provide a high concentration of nutrition, dense energy sources – oil, gas, coal and fission – deliver a lot for a little.

One kilogram of coal can produce 8 kilowatt hours of heat, while a kilogram of oil generates 12.

A kilogram of uranium – no less natural than broccoli – can deliver 24,000,000 kilowatt hours of electricity, while generating no greenhouse gases.

This makes nuclear power the only clear path to achieving the zero emissions goals of environmentalists and the Green New Deal.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

To facilitate the irresponsible race to clean energy, Xcel Energy plans the closure of the coal-fired Comanche 3 power plant in Pueblo County by Jan. 1, 2031. Like most clean energy schemes, the closure will hurt a poor community to suit the demands of wealthy environmentalists and politicos mostly in Denver, Boulder, and Aspen.

Excel does not provide power to Pueblo, but the plant employs 77 locals directly and 160-plus indirectly. The operation generates about $20 million in annual tax payments that support local needs.

To lose Comanche without a replacement is to devastate Pueblo – a community with a high poverty rate and a median household income of $35,000 less than the state average.

The committee studied 12 energy generation technologies and 10 of them would generate less than $2 million in taxes each year for Pueblo. As reported in the Pueblo Chieftain, a carbon capture cycle gas plant would generate $16.52 million in taxes while providing 20 to 25 jobs with salaries between $80,000 to $120,000.

An advanced nuclear power plant would generate $95.29 million in taxes and create up to 300 jobs that pay between $60,000 and $200,000. By embracing concentrated energy, the green transition would benefit Pueblo after years of causing harm.

“The only thing that is going to make Pueblo whole with the closure of Comanche 3 is going to be advanced nuclear,” said Frances Koncilija, the committee co-chair and owner of Koncilija Energy Law and Policy.

A Pueblo native, Koncilija supports clean energy. As a former member of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, she has seen the green transition oppress her hometown.

“Pueblo’s foundation was built on coal, steel, and iron,” said committee member Sarah Blackhurst, as quoted by the Chieftain. “That’s true, but its future is built on the atom. This is the correct way to make this community prosper.”

Most importantly, it would be safe. The United States has used 93 nuclear power reactors in 28 states, beginning in the 1960s, and seen little carnage. Globally, we have experienced more than 18,500 reactor years and had two major accidents.

World Health Organization data shows the mortality rates per billion kilowatt hours are 100 for coal, 36 for petroleum, 24 for biomass, 4 for natural gas, 1.4 for hydropower, 0.44 for solar power, and 0.15 for wind.

Nuclear is the safest of all, with a human death rate of 0.04 for each billion kilowatt hours produced. Cold weather and a lack of heat kill at a considerably higher rate than all the world’s nuclear power plants.

The committee got this right, and the recommendation awaits approval by Xcel and the utilities commission.

For middle- and lower-income households, the war on traditional fuels isn’t a hobby or a fashion statement. It is a burden of unpaid bills, empty cupboards, and despair. A modern, small-scale nuclear plant would help the community and clean the air.

Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Board