Coal to Nuclear: the Comanche Case Study
Over the last 10 months, Pueblo Innovative Energy Solutions Advisory Committee (PIESAC) evaluated possible new clean energy technologies that could replace Xcel Energy's retiring coal power plant, Comanche 3. Drawing from outside consultants, subject matter experts at Xcel Energy, and the Pueblo community, PIESAC found the plant closure would have "devastating impacts on the economy of Pueblo unless the community, Xcel Energy, and other stakeholders begin planning to replace the highly paid and highly skilled jobs, and tax payments." After considering the technologies that could take the place of the coal plant, they concluded that “only nuclear will make Pueblo whole and also provide a path to prosperity.” Let's find out why!
The below is a summary of the PIESAC study, mostly using the words of the committee, augmented by some charts for clarity.
Coal
Pueblo is a city of 168,000, located 130 miles south of Denver, Colorado. Pueblo was built and prospered because of the coal, steel and rail industries. The coal plants Comanche 1, 2, and 3 were built in Pueblo "because Colorado Fuel and Iron, the predecessor to EVRAZ North America , required reliable base load generation for the steel production. Although EVRAZ has built a customer-sited solar array, EVRAZ needs the reliability of the grid to produce electricity for steel production when the sun is not shining." The supercritical coal plant Comanche 3 came online in 2010 and was supposed to operate until 2070, but has had major operational challenges.
It is urgent that we reduce climate changing emissions, but we must also provide a path forward for coal communities such as Pueblo that have relied on highly paid skilled jobs and tax payments from coal plants.
Comanche 3 has provided highly paying, highly skilled jobs with a combined $196 million in indirect and induced economic impact for the Pueblo community. Xcel Energy is one of the largest taxpayers in Pueblo, paying over $25 million a year to Pueblo County. Closing Comanche 3 in 2031 versus the originally planned 2070 will cost Pueblo over $845m in taxes, which fund the operations of the county and city, schools, fire districts, libraries, and conservation districts.
[T]hese hardworking men and women have been marginalized due to their connection to a coal plant. Regardless of what we have learned about the danger of the emissions from coal plants, the community should respect and honor these workers as they see their past accomplishments denigrated and their future eradicated.
The magnitude of the tax loss was illustrated as "to replace the loss of $15.9 million in taxes would require the construction of 7,950 new homes paying $2,000 a year in property taxes to offset that loss. Or Pueblo could develop a plan to attract 1,590 new businesses paying $10,000 a year in property taxes to offset the loss."
Nuclear
As the table above shows, 500 MW of advanced nuclear would generate 200-300 long-term jobs paying $60-200k/ea. This compares favorably against the current coal operation's 77 employees earning $146k/ea, and far better than any alternate technology choice. 500 MW of solar generation produces 5-10 long term jobs paying $40-$80k/ea. Burning pure hydrogen provides 20-30 jobs paying $80-$120k/ea. Combined Cycle Gas with Carbon capture produces 20-25 jobs paying $80-120k/ea. Advanced nuclear would generate 10-50x more jobs than any alternatives, with family-sustaining compensation. Furthermore, given that nuclear plants can operate for 80 years or longer, these are multi-generational jobs.
Jerry Bellah , a committee member and vice president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) local division, declared, “The only way we don’t feel pain is a nuke.”
Beyond the job benefits, switching coal for nuclear multiplies annual property taxes nearly 6x from $15.9 million to $95.3 million. Outside of nuclear, only combined cycle gas combustion with carbon capture prevented the near elimination of property taxes.
This finding is consistent with what the IMF found about economic multipliers on energy investment spending.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Solar and Wind
The PIESAC report looked at solar but concluded that this would provide very few jobs and not much tax revenue. Furthermore, Pueblo may have reached the saturation point for solar. Solar and wind would each take up too much space, they said.
The electric system is highly complex and requires a variety of different resources & technologies to reliably serve load... the Effective Load Carrying Capacity (ELCC) of any intermittent resource decreases as more and more of that resource is added.
Having more and more solar, all else being equal, does not solve the challenges faced by Xcel Energy in providing reliable energy for customers 24/7.
Reuse
The Comanche site includes important assets which can be repurposed for new power generation options:
Political Will
Keating Group conducted a poll of 500 individuals from Pueblo during the period November 9-14, 2023. This poll showed 63% residents to be concerned about Comanche 3 closure, 42% very concerned. 52% have a favorable impression of advanced nuclear and when the tax and job benefits are explained, 66% are in favor. 74% support a new gas plant with carbon capture.
The electric grid and electricity generation are complicated. Simple slogans of 'No to nuclear'... and '100% Renewables by 2035' do not solve the problems for the grid or the problem of how to replace high paying long term skilled jobs and property tax.
The report states "We are aware that some in the community are... opposed to advanced nuclear being built in Pueblo. The Democratic party passed a 'nuclear free' resolution, and the city of Pueblo passed a 100% renewable resolution by 2035."
We have each become convinced the only technologies that have the potential to create good long-term family-supporting jobs and millions of dollars of property tax payments are advanced nuclear with a new gas and carbon capture running a distant second... We are convinced that these two technologies could establish Pueblo as a leader in the clean energy world and make the words of 'Just Transition' meaningful to Pueblo County as opposed to an empty slogan.
PIESAC recommends the "Just Transition" be defined to mean coal communities should be no worse off with the closure of coal facilities and replace the coal generation with high paying and highly skilled jobs and lost tax base so that coal communities have an opportunity to prosper, grow, and re-imagine their local economies.
Sources
Half of work is spent writing. Want to get better at it?
7moLove the concept of "intergenerational jobs." Nuclear can provide the same sense of heritage and pride that coal does but without environmental concerns.
Nuclear Energy Investment Capital
7moNice summary, Isuru. I like that advanced nuclear has a more favorable impact on jobs and the local tax base.
Energy Specialist & Learning Experience Designer
7moCC Arif Nesimi (Ness) Kilic, PhD