Good ideas sometimes take a while to gain acceptance; but eventually the wisdom of their merits can no longer be ignored, and the good idea takes hold. So it might be, at long last, for the promise of nuclear energy in our state.

HB25-1040 passed the Colorado House of Representatives early last week, on a strongly bipartisan vote, and has now been introduced in the Senate, where it will soon be heard in the Transportation and Energy Committee. If passed, the bill will simply include “nuclear energy” under the statutory definition of “clean energy.” If you were to ask the average person on the street if they believe that nuclear power is clean, nearly every one you speak to would reply “yes.” This bill just cements common sense into statute.

This is a small, but crucial, first step toward making reliable, abundant, carbon-free electricity a reality for Colorado.

This bill paves the way forward, not for a single nuclear technology, but for multiple nuclear alternatives to be permitted to deliver energy to our state under “clean energy” mandates. These alternatives might include, but are not limited to, small modular nuclear reactors, liquid fuel reactors (such as innovative molten salt reactors) — even reactors that do not require uranium to generate electricity.

While some of these specific technologies might be new or still being fully developed, nuclear power as an abundant carbon- and emission-free source of electricity capable of meeting current and future demands on our society’s electrical grid is not.

Nuclear power has been viable, safe, and ready for several decades now. France, in fact, gets almost all of its electricity from nuclear power, and has so for more than 40 years. The only thing that has kept nuclear power from gaining a similar foothold in the United States has been political and regulatory resistance. This bill is the first step in reversing that unreasonable, anti-scientific, superstitious official prejudice against this technology.

Why is this so important? Well, for a few reasons. To start with, Colorado has adopted energy standards that call for rash and extreme reductions on greenhouse gas emissions from electrical generation; in fact, state law is to adopt zero-carbon electrical generation by 2050.

Like it or not — wise or not — under our democratic system that is the law of the land. The question for the time being is, “how do we get there?” The answer, for the time being, is “we can’t.”

Renewable energy sources — predominantly wind and solar — are simply incapable of fully meeting even current electrical demand, never mind future demand.

Wind and solar are “nondispatchable” generation sources; meaning that they cannot be dialed up or down depending on the demand at the moment, unlike dispatchable sources such as coal, natural gas, or nuclear. We cannot turn up the sun or increase the wind to generate more electricity during periods of higher demand. Compounding the problem is the fact that we do not have efficient methods to store wind and solar energy — they are generated as they are created.

Power plants fueled by coal and natural gas, on the other hand, can react to fluctuations on demand, simply by adding more coal or gas to the furnaces. Those sources, however, also generate considerable greenhouse gas, and will be essentially outlawed in a couple of short decades. Nuclear power offers the best of both worlds — a dispatchable source that can be ramped up as needed to meet demand, while simultaneously generating no emissions, harmful or otherwise. Simply put, nuclear is the only option.

The other reason, of course, is that even without the state clean energy mandates, the fact remains that electrical demand is increasing exponentially.

There are several factors contributing to that rise in energy demand: a growing population, improved standards of living, and the advent of energy intensive new technologies are among the most important. The expansion of artificial intelligence, data centers, and the domestic manufacturing of high-tech components such as semiconductors add up to a greater demand for electricity.

Even more traditional industries such as agriculture are more electricity-intensive than they were in the past. A single hospital these days uses more electricity in any given time frame than some small towns did a few short decades ago. It simply makes sense that we as a society ought to be looking for new ways to generate that energy, ways which allow us to maintain our way of life, and not inflict undue harm on our natural heritage. Nuclear power is the way forward.

In Colorado, the biggest obstacle to nuclear energy in our state is ourselves. It is interesting how France can manage to get upwards of 70% of its energy from nuclear, with no waste problem — they recycle 99% of the spent fuel — simply because they do not have the regulatory hurdles we have inflicted on ourselves.

Many countries, in fact, have figured this out, including Slovakia, Argentina and Turkey. Even Bangladesh is building two nuclear power plants.

China is building nuclear plants almost as fast as they are building new coal plants. A report published last summer by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation revealed that not only was China building 27 nuclear power plants — each of which they build in an average of seven years but that the U.S. is as much as 15 years behind Communist China in terms of nuclear energy technology.

It is indeed alarming that America’s principle global adversary is that far ahead of us, but it is also important to note that this is a position that we as a nation have chosen to be in. America is the birthplace of the harnessing of nuclear energy — we have the ability and the capability to not only catch up to China, but to lead, if only our public policies are updated to enable us to get out of our way.

Expanding nuclear power generates extensive economic benefits as well, beyond the provision of abundant, reliable, and clean electricity; the nuclear industry, and its many facets, provides good, high paying careers for Coloradans, particularly in the economically hard-hit areas of southeastern and northwestern Colorado, where the impact of the closure of coal plants has been most keenly felt.

Despite the benefits, there remains some stubborn resistance to the idea from the environmental extremist crowd. These Luddites, if they had their way, would have us shivering in the dark, burning dung from whatever cows were left to keep warm. Their opposition is puzzling, to say the least, given that many of these groups have been among the loudest proclaiming the existential danger of carbon emissions. With a viable, carbon free dispatchable alternative now available, their continued opposition seems to be more a resistance to 21st century standards of living than to true environmental stewardship.

If Colorado is to thrive and adapt in the 21st century, with the expansion of data centers, electric vehicles, advanced air-mobility and other modern innovations, we will need to abandon old, discredited superstitions and modernize our electrical generation — that means finally embracing nuclear energy. I am excited to be a part of this bill, not just for the good people of Colorado Springs, but for the state. HB25-1040 sends a signal that Colorado is open to accepting the challenge of adopting 21st century energy.

Larry Liston, a Colorado Springs Republican, represents District 10 in the Colorado Senate.