TXU Update: Coal and Nuclear in Texas
Back in March 2007, it looked like the buyout of TXU - the largest energy generator in Texas - was going to lead it away from a major new investment in coal-fired power plants. It still plans to have a smaller investment in coal: hence, the proposed Oak Grove development. Some considered this an obviously positive development, because environmental groups like the Environmental Defense Fund were invited to the table for the buyout negotiations.
After that, it emerged that TXU is going to try to replace the coal with… nuclear. They are proposing a very large nuclear plant now.
This, I believe, is the bind the anti-coal forces will frequently be put into. Coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants are extremely well-understood, as far as their engineering and electrical characteristics go. Solar, wind, and other renewables are not as well understood, and currently companies don’t want to try. Hence, if a company wants to avoid coal or natural gas (another carbon-negative electricity-generating substance), they will immediately look to nuclear.
And since coal is so cheap, comparatively, and since there are no nuclear-weapons-related issues surrounding coal, electricity politics are going to get increasingly tricky.
Posted by jc on June 30th, 2007 in Uncategorized |
Lisa remarks on December 6th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
There is productivity to consider. Texas is a fast growing state, they are set for an energy crisis, regular brown-outs, etc. in the next few years at the rate they are growing. And even in a scenario in which they are able to handle the increased demand through consumer efficiencies, their coal fired plants are old.
I agree with you that with all that sunshine, and that gulf breeze, Texas should be showing us how its done in terms of renewable energy production. But if renewable energy advocates are going to convince capitalists and lawmakers in Texas to favor sun or wind over nuclear energy then the will have to be able to show that the renewable energy sources are as productive, efficient and as reliable a source of power as nuclear. I just wonder if they are able to show that. If they can then they might stand a chance of changing minds if they try.