Copyright The Denver Post
Colorado needs nuclear energy to address emissions cost-effectively Re: “Is nuclear power becoming cool in Colorado?” Oct. 13 news story Judith Kohler’s October 13 article, “Is nuclear power becoming cool in Colorado?” highlights an important moment for our state. As Colorado transitions away from coal, it’s time to recognize that nuclear power is essential to providing clean, 24/7, reliable and affordable power to our state. Small modular reactors (SMRs) now under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) use passive safety systems that can cool themselves without human intervention or external power, making them safer. Their compact, factory-built design shortens construction times, limits financing risk, and lowers overall costs — the very issues that plagued earlier plants like Fort St. Vrain. While wind and solar should be a part of the clean energy mix, we need to be careful about becoming like California, which currently generates 57% from renewables, but has energy prices 40-50% above the national average, and still must import 20-30% of its power from neighboring states. Contrary to Dennis Wamsted’s assertions in the article, advanced nuclear energy is no longer “on paper.” Both China and Russia have operating SMRs and more in the pipeline. The NRC has formally licensed two of NuScale’s designs, and is reviewing a number of others on an expedited timeline. TerraPower (led by Bill Gates) has broken ground on an SMR in Wyoming and is exploring additional sites in Utah. Kairos has started construction on a reactor in Tennessee. This is all happening now, and Colorado should be a part of this next generation of nuclear energy. Melinda Alankar, Littleton Publicly funded schools cannot be religious-based Taxpayers in Pueblo’s School District 49, and across Colorado, should be alarmed by the newly announced partnership between an Education ReEnvisioned Board of Cooperative Educational Services and Riverstone Academy, which proudly identifies itself as Colorado’s first “Christian” public elementary school. At first glance, the arrangement may sound like an innovative approach to education. But peel back the layers, and a far more troubling picture emerges. Public funds — your tax dollars — are now being funneled into a school that explicitly identifies with a religious denomination. That’s not “choice.” That’s an erosion of the constitutional wall separating church and state — one that protects both religion and government from dangerous entanglement. Even more disturbing, District 49’s own superintendent, Peter Hilts, recently admitted during a public board meeting that fees charged to families are treated as district “revenue” and can be spent “wherever” leadership decides. When taxpayer and parent money can be redirected at will — and when public funds are used to advance religious education — the potential for abuse skyrockets. This isn’t about faith. It’s about accountability and the rule of law. The Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue case cited to justify this partnership does not give public entities carte blanche to fund religion. Colorado’s Constitution is crystal clear: no public money shall aid any church or sectarian purpose. If this precedent stands, Colorado will have opened the door to publicly funded religious governance, the very danger our founders warned against. Ryan A Brown, Colorado Springs Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
