It Might Be Too Soon to Celebrate Colorado’s New Clean Energy

When HB25-1040 was signed into law back in March, it expanded the definition of clean energy in Colorado to include nuclear energy. According to the bill, this definition “determines which energy resources may be used by a qualifying retail utility to meet the 2050 clean energy target.” The reaction across the state has been split, with some Coloradans excited for the potential and others worried about possible negative consequences.

Advocacy groups have expressed concern about the health impacts of the uranium mining needed to produce nuclear power and the radioactive waste that is made by these plants. However, other communities are excited about the potential of going nuclear. 

Ben Hemphill, a mechanical engineer with James Fisher Technologies, is a supporter of nuclear energy. He told Yellow Scene Magazine he was surprised but happy to see the bill passed. 

“The mining that’s required to create the fuel isn’t necessarily clean, but that argument could also be made for the mining required for solar panels,” Hemphill said. 

A major advantage of nuclear energy is its zero carbon emissions. Unlike wind and solar, nuclear plants run 24/7, which means nuclear could fill the gaps when renewable sources fall short.

Hemphill shared that one of the biggest challenges is disposing of nuclear waste.

“The disadvantages of nuclear waste is that it all gets contained inside the facility and has to be dealt with,” he said.

This kind of waste is dangerous if exposed to the public, but Hemphill explained there are controls in place to mitigate that risk.

He added that exposure to radioactive waste is always a risk, but argued the advantages of using nuclear energy outweigh it. This is not to say the risks should be ignored by the industry, but Hemphill believes they are being accounted for. 

“Nuclear does have a strong safety culture,” Hemphill said. 

He added that proper regulations are what can give people confidence in using nuclear energy as a clean energy source. 

“I think it’s disingenuous to suggest that nuclear energy is going to help us become a clean energy state by 2040,” Garrett Ryder with Sierra Club Colorado told Yellow Scene Magazine. “In order to build a lot of these nuclear power plants, you’re looking at least a decade of construction and laying the groundwork and ensuring that all of the materials are safe.”

Sierra Club has opposed nuclear energy since the 1970s, instead pushing for other forms of sustainable energy, such as wind and solar power. 

Passing HB25-1040 reflects more of an interest in Colorado’s industries than the people who call it home, according to Ryder. He pointed to the disposal of nuclear waste and the health consequences of uranium mining as some of the biggest concerns Colorado will face with this shift. 

A major concern for Ryder is the lack of guardrails laid out in the legislation. For him, it raises questions about how effectively the state will handle this shift. 

A 2024 study from the National Library of Medicine stated that workers at nuclear power plants and residents living nearby demonstrated a higher risk for cancer and mesothelioma. These results came from researchers analyzing 47 studies, spanning 175 nuclear power plants and 17 countries. Accidents at power plants can cause immediate injury, but the long-term radiation exposure is another factor to consider. 

In June 2024, the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledged the major advantages and challenges of nuclear energy, but did not mention the adverse health impacts. The focus was on the challenges faced by the industry, including high operating costs and the construction of new plants. Public awareness was listed as one challenge, with the Department of Energy noting that the general public sees nuclear power as dangerous.

Colorado Newsline published a commentary piece in July 2025 that highlighted why a shift to nuclear energy is not worth it. Reasons included the high cost, high risk, and long lead times. Solar and wind plants can be constructed in around two years, but it can take about 15 years for a small nuclear plant to be built. The commentary piece also raised concerns that the need for nuclear plants to run 24/7 would work against other clean energy sources. 

Coal-dependent communities across the state, such as Craig, are considering adding nuclear plants to replace the coal mining operations that are shutting down. City officials in Craig expect to lose around 700 jobs due to energy and coal mining plants going offline, CBS News reported. The city is considering the transition due to the possibility of job growth, but officials are not fully sold on the idea yet. 

There are clear advantages and disadvantages of using nuclear energy as a clean energy source in Colorado, but it is still too soon to tell how beneficial the decision might be. Advocacy groups have made strong stances against HB25-1040, while some communities are embracing the shift. It will take time to see what the future of nuclear energy brings to Colorado, but we shouldn’t be celebrating yet. 

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. We’ve been telling the truth for 24 years. Your support helps us keep telling it for at least the next four years.