|
Electricity is generated in Texas by a variety of different fuel sources including coal, natural gas,
cogeneration, and nuclear power. In 1999 approximately 38.6 percent of all the electricity generated in Texas was derived from the burning of natural gas.* Forty-six percent of the state's electricity was derived from burning coal and lignite. Both natural gas and coal are non-renewable resources. The balance comes from nuclear power (uranium), cogeneration, and hydroelectric power and very little from renewable resources such as wind or solar.
Gas
In 1999, about 46 percent of electricity generated from Texas utilities was produced by natural-gas-fired power
plants. Natural gas is one of the cleanest nonrenewable fuels and is often used in peak power generating plants. The mechanics of a natural-gas-fired power plant allow it to be turned on and
off quicker than power plants running coal, lignite, or nuclear fuel. Natural gas plants are also relatively cheaper to build, making it the fuel of choice for most new power plants. The only
drawback to this fuel source is its expense relative to coal and lignite.
Coal and Lignite
In 1999, Texas power generators consumed more than 90 million short tons of coal and lignite, producing 41
percent of the state's electricity.* Coal and lignite power plants in Texas are mainly used for base-load power supplies, which means they are in constant operation. Texas spends approximately $1.1 billion every year to import coal for electric generation.* Most of this coal is imported from Wyoming.
Cogeneration
Electricity is inherently inefficient to produce. Up to two-thirds of the heat energy in a fuel source is lost
while making electric power. Cogeneration is a process that generates electricity and heat at the same time. Cogeneration units are up to 50 percent more efficient than standard power plants.* Industrial users were among the first to embrace cogeneration because it allows large industrial plants to generate electricity while using the heat for industrial processes. In addition, cogeneration units are advocated by some energy analysts because they are cheaper to build than large power units.
In 1996 Texas industries produced approximately eight percent total electricity from cogeneration.* From 1980 to 1992, the amount of electricity derived from cogeneration increased by more than 1,000 percent in Texas.* At present, 80 percent of the state's cogeneration plants are operated by petrochemical and chemical producers along the Gulf Coast.
Nuclear Power
In 1942 Dr. Enrico Fermi assembled enough uranium to cause a nuclear fission reaction. Nine years later, in
1951, the first electric power was produced from the atom, when an experimental reactor lit up four light bulbs in a laboratory experiment.
Today more than half of all Texans rely on nuclear power as one of their sources of electricity. But the debate
continues over how successful Texas's experiment with nuclear power has been. Texas has approximately 4,802 megawatts of installed nuclear power capacity coming from two plants: the
2,300-megawatt Comanche Peak project in Somervell County, and the 2,502-megawatt South Texas Project in Matagorda County. The combined cost of constructing the two facilities was $15.6
billion.* Part of the reason the plants were so expensive was that construction took many years longer than expected. The two units at Comanche Peak were under construction longer than any nuclear plant now operating in the U.S. Comanche Peak Unit Two received a construction permit in December 1974 but did not begin operating until August 1992.*
Some economists, scientists, and citizens continue to advocate shutting down the nuclear plants immediately.
They argue the move would save money for ratepayers over the long term because nuclear plants pose safety problems that could be very expensive to resolve. In addition, these groups say that
the long-term storage costs of radioactive waste are too high and too dangerous to be cost-effective.
Nuclear power proponents, however, claim that, when operated correctly, nuclear plants emit little or no sulfur
dioxide, particulates, nitrogen oxides, or carbon dioxide, all of which contribute to global warming. Additionally, they say that the plants will save ratepayers money over the long term
because the fuel costs for nuclear power plants are far less than for conventional fossil fuel plants. No new nuclear power plants have been ordered in recent years.
|
