September 07, 2006 06:29 pm
—
Galen Scott
gscott@weatherforddemocrat.com
After TXU announced plans last week to build up to three new nuclear power plants by 2020, state lawmakers assessed the feasibility of adding nuclear generated electricity in Texas Wednesday.
State Representative Phil King (R-Weatherford), chairman of the House Committee on Regulated Industries, said with rising electricity prices and the ever-growing population of Texas, it is imperative the state take a serious look at new alternatives to natural gas-fired electric generation.
King met with the House Committee on Energy Resources, which oversees state agencies such as the Railroad Commission of Texas.
“My opinion is that legislators have to have the courage to say, ‘this is the right way to go, and we’re going to do this,’” King said. “We’ve got to have the courage to make these hard decisions, because you don’t want your electricity to look like the traffic in Dallas, and that’s what you’re going to end up with if we don’t go nuclear and coal.”
He said ERCOT, the state electricity grid which currently produces about 63,000 megawatts, will need to double its capacity over the next 25 years.
“It’s not a crisis,” King said. “We built 29,000 megawatts in the last 10 years with investor dollars. And we’ll be able to do that again, we just need to switch technologies.”
According to cost estimates provided by King, natural gas powered plants can produce one kilowatt hour of electricity for 7.15 cents. Coal-fired plants came in second at 2.21 cents, and nuclear power plants are the cheapest at 1.72 cents.
“You really don’t want to build any more gas plants because gas it too expensive,” King said.
State Representative G.E. “Buddy” West, chairman of the House Committee on Energy Resources, acknowledged numbers discussed Wednesday appeared to represent quite a bit of savings.
“I think with the new energy bill, there are several places around the country that are vying to be the first ones, because the first ones get some tax breaks through the federal energy bill,” West said.
Part of the push toward nuclear also stems from negative publicity drummed up over TXU’s other plans to build 11 new coal-fired generation facilities.
Coal-fired plants emit carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming, and a trend toward tougher air quality requirements is making the future outlook of nuclear more attractive.
Though nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide or coal-type pollution, environmental groups are quick to note the problem of nuclear waste disposal.
Texas’ two nuclear power plants produce spent fuel rods and other high-level nuclear waste, which is stored in pools of water at the reactors. Such waste is currently being stored on-site at weapons manufacturing plants and power plants around the nation until a permanent disposal site can be located.
One potential site, Yucca Mountain in Nevada, is being considered as a repository for high-level waste, including spent nuclear fuel, although it has generated fierce opposition.
After visiting a nuclear facility in Florida, King said the amount of waste produced at the plant in 25 years of operation could be contained in something about the size of a public swimming pool.
“Yucca Mountain will probably come on line, but if it doesn’t, you can store on-site for decades because it is such a small amount of fuel,” he said. “To be honest, that doesn’t bother me at all because it’s such small quantities, and I worry more about transport.”
Comanche Peak, TXU’s only existing nuclear power plant, began operating in 1990 after the project was completed at a cost 12 times over budget. That cost was picked up by rate payers.
King said after the wholesale electricity generation market was deregulated in 1995, new power plants had to find private funding instead of relying on contributions from rate payers.
Texas currently receives 10 percent of its electricity supplies from the four reactors that operate at Comanche Peak and NRG Energy’s South Texas Project (STP), according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.
In June, NRG announced plans to invest $16 billion in the construction of two additional reactors. King said STP was the first nuclear plant in the world to be built with private dollars.
Now, if a project goes over budget like Comanche Peak, King said it would be paid for by the investors who took the risk.
But the consumer protection provided by privately-funded construction is also surfacing as one potential hurdle in the nuclear process.
Nuclear power plants typically last from 40 to 60 years. When it’s time to close a plant, the decommissioning process can be very expensive. Estimates now average $325 million per reactor.
“Historically, when [nuclear power plants] were in a regulated environment, there were monies collected from all the plants over a period of the plant’s life expectancy,” King explained. “So, we’re going to have to look at that and try to develop a superfund or something to deal with that.”
Despite such potential complications, King hopes to see a couple of new nuclear power plants in Texas in the next 10 years. He emphasized the economic benefit power plants like Comanche Peak can provide for local communities. According to TXU, that facility claims more than 1,300 employees.
King said employees at nuclear facilities are paid 40 percent above average and a host of new technical jobs requiring specialized training will be needed to serve new coal and nuclear facilities.
King hinted that community colleges like Weatherford College could see some state funding for career development programs.
“I was very excited about this with the potential of Weatherford College,” King said. “There’s going to be a big, big need.”
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.