Denver International Airport has commissioned a feasibility study on building a small modular nuclear reactor on its 34,000-acre site to provide a steady, carbon-free power source. The review, announced Wednesday by Denver Mayor Mike Johnston and DIA CEO Phil Washington, will examine reactor designs, regulatory requirements, potential funding sources, and safety considerations.
The $1.25 million study, funded by the airport enterprise, is expected to take six to 12 months to complete. Officials said the proposal comes as the airport plans for passenger volumes to reach 120 million annually by 2045, up from a record 82.4 million in 2024.
Johnston said the project could position DIA as the “greenest” airport in the world by generating clean power onsite and attracting energy-intensive industries. Washington noted that small modular reactors can be “stackable” and “scalable,” allowing capacity to increase alongside airport expansion. Advocates point to the reactors’ ability to deliver base-load power to offset the variability of wind and solar generation. Colorado School of Mines professor Thomas Albrecht told CBS that many designs are cooled by molten salts or liquid metals rather than water, and could be installed and connected much like transportable industrial equipment.
If built, the facility would be Colorado’s first nuclear plant since the Fort St. Vrain site closed in 1989. The announcement coincided with a change in state law reclassifying nuclear power as clean energy. Supporters say the technology is safe and necessary to meet long-term energy needs, while environmental groups cite unresolved concerns about nuclear waste, safety, and cost.
“It simply cannot be regarded as clean when it is creating waste that lasts countless generations,” said Chris Allred of the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center in comments to CBS.
DIA officials emphasized that safety and security will be central to the study’s findings.
As a former Navy reactor operator I have to agree with ALL the comments in the article, both pro and con.
Waste is the key concern for me. The Navy has procedures and facilities for handling expended reactor cores, civilian plants do not. Cores are stored on site until there is a safer place to put them.
If the currrent administration thinks they can win elections without Nevada, maybe they’ll push for final approval of the long planned storage site there at Yucca Mountain.
Disposal of nuclear waste needs more effort but also examination of potential for re-use. Some scientists think it is feasible, but government may not want private enterprises to be in possession of it.
I read that Ukraine recycles in one nuclear power station. (It inherited several from the USSR.)
Certainly don’t need the leaking liquids mess aat Hanford WA.
The important thing that the article failed to address (or maybe the airport press release didn’t mention it) is what kind of reactor is it? If it’s uranium, then all the comments and risk about waste, ability to use the fuel to make a bomb, etc. apply. And how can you consider uranium reactors ‘clean’ when the ‘exhaust’ remains lethal for 1000’s of years? That’s just stupid marketing.
However, thorium small reactors look very promising, and I think India and China have made a lot of progress with this. From what I’ve read, thorium is the way to go - waste is much more managable, and it’ll actually burn up radioactive waste. And you can’t make a bomb from it. And you can make them neighborhood-sized. Or one could power a containerized cargo ship instead of by polluting fossil fuel engines. We should be going in this direction, not the uranium direction.
New high temperature fast (neutron velocity) reactors can actually burn existing nuclear waste after startup. They also burn most of the fuel and produce far less waste.and are more energy efficient than the existing light water reactors. I would consider them the safest and greenest source of power.
Mr. Drake has done his homework - these are the safest, least wasteful, power generation units available to us. The other green options, wind and solar, produce far more waste.
This really sounds like a way to introduce it to the public, so they can get their heads around it, before they do it. Standard practice in our politicized world.