this is TXUs basic plan. we have no regard for health or human needs and are in it only to make the quick dollar. cmon this is a billion dollar corporation. they can hire the best scientists and engineers to perfect newer technology for them. this whole dilemma comes down to one thing. Humans are shortsighted and lazy.
You might want to consider schooling 'W' on the Trader_Jorge method to ensure victory in Iraq. In the face of conditions that show no posibility for success just yell out, "We won, you suck" and run away as fast as you can. Then you can tell everybody that you won. You are indeed a piece of work, Trader_Jorge.
I would rather build fewer IGCC plants than amortize future costs on these cheap and dirtier coal plants. Not only are there CO2 concerns, but also Nox issues that would contribute towards acid rain. If fast tracked, these plants would help the overall energy supply, but it's because of idiots from other states, who's public supports cheap power that's not in their backyard, that would give Texas this advantage. They're shifting the environmental burden onto other states with laxer air standards.
Only someone as intellectually r****ded and fiscally shortsighted as TJ would support this. And I have not read one of his posts, for fear of internet-spread infectious inanity.
Nuclear plants are a long way off and probably will be blocked just liked these plants. Fact is, to meet all our energy needs in the next coming decades, we will need nuclear, gas, renewables, AND coal. To think that we can meet the skyrocketing demand for electricity through a few clean sources is the short-sighted point of view.
people need to start buying CFLs, buying more efficient appliances and bulding more efficient homes. but first the government needs phase out incandescents. australia just did and i applaud them. our energy needs need to be controlled and we should stop rapidly expanding like we have infinite land, food and water resources. the electricity of the (near)future should come from coal(gasified, then CO2 stored underground), solar, wind, and a decent amount of nuclear. it makes no sense to use old school coal technologies when we have an abundance of money and the skilled research minds to get it done.
Good post, I agree. This fast track was slowed down today. State delays coal plant hearings until June Process governor wanted fast tracked is postponed to give groups more time to prepare case. By Claudia Grisales AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Wednesday, February 21, 2007 Hearings on TXU Corp.'s proposal to build a series of coal-fired power plants in Texas were postponed today until June 27. Environmental groups had asked state administrative law judges to delay the hearings so they could have more time to prepare their case. The process will be slowed to "provide a bit more time to allow all the parties to fully prepare, have their Ts crossed with response to testimony and that sort of thing," administrative judge Kerry Sullivan said. Gov. Rick Perry had ordered an expedited process for approving the plants, but Tuesday, a state district court judge said Perry had overstepped his authority and that his order wasn't binding on the hearing judges. TXU's proposal has drawn strong opposition from environmental and citizen groups from Texas and Oklahoma. Members of those groups say the plants would more than double the utility's emissions of carbon dioxide, a chief culprit in global warming. TXU and its allies say Texas urgently needs more power to meet growing demand. Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of the Texas office of Public Citizen, said the new hearing date will allow time for the Legislature to conside
We can also uproot the energy transmission infrastructure. That would cost billions but most areas are falling into decay anyways. This would decrease the amount of energy lost, help mitigate demand spikes, and create new paths for addressing weaknesses in alternate energy storage. It's not as simple as switching fuels. Our nation was built around fossil fuels, which is why its so hard to get off of it.
im not saying get off of coal. just find better ways to use it. and sparingly if possible. coal mining totally decimates our landscapes.
This takes the coal plants off the list of things to do... TXU Selling for 45 Billion Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Investors led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Texas Pacific Group will buy TXU Corp., the largest power producer in Texas, for $45 billion in the biggest- ever leveraged buyout. KKR, run by Henry Kravis and George Roberts, and David Bonderman's Texas Pacific, joined by Goldman Sachs Group Inc., will pay $69.25 for each TXU share, 15 percent more than the closing stock price on Feb. 23, the companies said today in a statement. About $12 billion in debt will be assumed, TXU spokeswoman Lisa Singleton said. Kravis and Roberts, both 63, upended the buyout world in 1989 with their $31 billion purchase of food- and tobacco-maker RJR Nabisco Inc. It was the largest LBO ever and remained so until November, when KKR joined in the $33 billion buyout of hospital chain HCA Inc. That deal was topped this month by Blackstone Group's takeover of Equity Office Properties Trust, the biggest U.S. owner of office buildings, for $39 billion. ``The general availability of money is driving all of these transactions higher and higher,'' said Todd Richey, a former investment banker with Banc of America Securities who now teaches finance at the University of California at Irvine's business school. ``Occasionally, there's hubris or irrational exuberance, but with the low cost of capital right now, there's lots of opportunities for big deals to be successful.'' Cash, Debt The investors are providing $8.5 billion in cash and the rest of the deal will be debt, according to people familiar with the matter. The buyout firms will put up $5 billion and Goldman Sachs is investing $1.5 billion, according to three people who asked not to be named. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Citigroup Inc. and Morgan Stanley are also investing. Credit-default swaps on TXU debt soared, signaling that investors now consider the debt to be riskier. Contracts based on $10 million of TXU debt doubled today to $170,000, according to CMA Datavision in London. Credit-default swaps, which are based on corporate bonds, are used to speculate on a company's ability to repay debt. Moody's Investors Service said it's reviewing the Ba1 rating on TXU senior unsecured debt for a possible downgrade on concern that the company's financial profile ``will experience a significant increase in leverage'' from the takeover. The rating already is one notch below investment grade. Shares of TXU surged $7.91, or 13 percent, to $67.93 today in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. That's a more than fivefold increase since Chief Executive Officer C. John Wilder took over in February, 2004. The buyout was first reported after the market closed on Feb. 23. Breakup Fee TXU can solicit rival bids through April 16. A breakup fee of $375 million for accepting a superior offer by that time will increase to $1 billion after April 16, according to a public filing today. ``It's very likely that there's going to be interest,'' Wilder said today on a conference call. ``It's also very likely that if an investor group wanted to make a serious proposal that there would be the access to capital that they would need to pull this transaction off.'' Credit Suisse Securities and Lazard Ltd. advised TXU in connection with the transaction. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Lehman and Morgan Stanley advised the buyout group. Bankruptcy Brush The company, after almost going bankrupt in 2002 because of a failed overseas expansion, has rebounded and may earn $2.6 billion in 2006, up 51 percent from a year earlier, according to the average of six analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Wilder returned TXU to a focus on electric generation and distribution in the Dallas region. Natural-gas prices that more than tripled this decade have raised Texas power prices, making TXU's coal and nuclear plants more valuable. The plants can produce more than 18,100 megawatts, and the company is also the largest electricity retailer in the state, selling power to more than 2.1 million homes and businesses. TXU owns a transmission business that could be sold to pay off debt used to fund the LBO. TXU ``turned into a good cash machine,'' said Perry Sioshansi, president of Menlo Energy Economics, a consulting firm in Walnut Creek, California. Rate Cut TXU said it will cut electricity rates by 6 percent within 30 days for residential customers who have not selected cheaper options from other power providers and another 4 percent after the expected closing in the second half of the year. Closely held LBO firms use a mix of cash from investors plus their own funds and debt secured on the target they buy to finance their deals. They typically seek to expand companies or improve performance before selling them within five years. To help gain approval for the transaction, TXU and its buyers are agreeing to abandon eight of 11 coal-fired generators the company planned to build and support mandatory U.S. limits on power-plant pollution that contributes to global warming. Environmental Groups The buyout firms and Goldman approached the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense over the past two weeks to negotiate the power plant agreement and gain support for the transaction. TXU also will devote $400 million to cutting power demand in Texas. Wilder's power plant expansion aimed to give the company more low-cost power to sell in the state's deregulated wholesale market. The prospect of increased pollution that could make smog worse in Houston and Dallas, and emissions of carbon dioxide, stirred opposition among environmentalists and mayors in the state. Two proposed buyouts of utilities have failed in recent years, and two of the largest U.S. utility mergers have also been blocked by opposition from state regulators and politicians. Arizona state officials in December 2004 rejected the sale of UniSource Energy Corp., owner of the state's second-biggest utility, to a partnership backed by KKR along with J.P. Morgan Partners LLC and Wachovia Capital Partners. Oregon in March 2005 rejected a purchase of Portland General Electric by Texas Pacific. Earlier Buyouts KKR, based in New York, and Texas Pacific of Fort Worth, Texas, have been partners on earlier utility buyouts. In July 2004, the firms were part of a group that bought Houston-based Texas Genco Holdings Inc. for $3.65 billion. They sold the company, the second-largest power generator in Texas, to NRG Energy Inc. for $5.8 billion in February 2006. Buyout firms announced a record of more than $700 billion in takeovers last year, and almost $50 billion so far this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Investors, seeking returns that exceed stocks and bonds, poured a $432 billion into private-equity funds last year, also a new high, according to London-based Private Equity Intelligence Ltd. That money is increasingly going into bigger deals. The average price of the 10 largest buyouts stood at $25.5 billion before the TXU deal was announced, Bloomberg data show. KKR, Blackstone, Texas Pacific, Carlyle Group and Bain Capital LLC each had a role in two of those transactions. KKR, founded in 1976, is almost done gathering $16.6 billion for its latest U.S. fund. Past investments include Toys ``R'' Us Inc., Sungard Data Systems Inc. and VNU Group BV. Texas Pacific was founded in 1992 by Bonderman, 64, James Coulter, 47, and Bill Price, 50. It raised $15 billion last year. It has invested in about 75 companies, including Burger King Corp. and Continental Airlines Inc.
I guess it takes us to the next topic of whats going on with all the LBO's lately. Seems like there is a lot of reprivitazation deals lately with rumors of more, AMD I heard today. Is this going to be the next scandal like S&L's etc.
Environmentalists would have you ban coal plants, fossil fuels, nuclear power, and hydropower. Of course, all you would be left with is solar and wind. And "bio-fuels" which produce a lot of CO2 but sound environmental (because environmentalists don't actually learn much science). Is it any wonder that a movie that thinks katrina is a result of global warming (which I haven't heard any climatologist support) won an Oscar? Problem is, most environmentalists still want to drive their car, live in nice houses, have hot water to take showers, and don't mind using energy so long as their think that by cutting down by 15% - and that if everyone did that - the world would be saved. Nope. No one wants to admit that in order to live off of solar and wind, we'd have to live in the jungle and we'd all be working as banana farmers and our standard of living would plummet. That's the real inconvenient truth.
They also soak up CO2 in the process of growing the fuels. Using prairie grass for the base source also sequesters carbon in the ground in addition to the carbon that goes into the harvested grass. To respond to the obvious argument that it takes more fossil fuels to make bio fuel, yes at the moment but not once you start using bio fuels and agricultural waste to power the farm and refinery.
It's still a net loss and CO2 contributor. The same land you use to grow bio-fuels could be populated with CO2 digesting trees. Wouldn't that be a better way to fight Global Warming??? I don't think grass does much
Once again you miss the point. Unlike your rantings no one is advocating going back to the dark ages and we still need energy. Bio-fuels made using prairie grasses can both provide energy while also storing carbon. It is carbon negative as the carbon derived from the energy will end up going back produce more grasses with some also being stored into the soil. As far as growing trees on the land prairie grasses will be grown on prairie land that doesn't support tree growth and on denuded agricultural land. http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/news_details.php?release=061207_3059&page=UMNN Mixed prairie grasses are better biofuel source, U of M study says Fuels made from prairie biomass reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide Contacts: Mark Cassutt, University News Service, (612) 624-8038 Peggy Rinard, College of Biological Sciences, (612) 624-0774 MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL ( 12/7/2006 ) -- Highly diverse mixtures of native prairie plant species have emerged as a leader in the quest to identify the best source of biomass for producing sustainable, bio-based fuel to replace petroleum. A new study led by David Tilman, Regents Professor of Ecology in the University of Minnesota's College of Biological Sciences, shows that mixtures of native perennial grasses and other flowering plants provide more usable energy per acre than corn grain ethanol or soybean biodiesel and are far better for the environment. "Biofuels made from high-diversity mixtures of prairie plants can reduce global warming by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Even when grown on infertile soils, they can provide a substantial portion of global energy needs, and leave fertile land for food production," Tilman said. The findings are published in the Dec. 8 issue of the journal Science and featured on the cover. Based on 10 years of research at Cedar Creek Natural History Area, the study shows that degraded agricultural land planted with highly diverse mixtures of prairie grasses and other flowering plants produces 238 percent more bioenergy on average, than the same land planted with various single prairie plant species, including monocultures of switchgrass. Tilman and two colleagues, postdoctoral researcher Jason Hill and research associate Clarence Lehman, estimate that fuel made from this prairie biomass would yield 51 percent more energy per acre than ethanol from corn grown on fertile land. This is because perennial prairie plants require little energy to grow and because all parts of the plant above ground are usable. Fuels made from prairie biomass are "carbon negative," which means that producing and using them actually reduces the amount of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere. This is because prairie plants store more carbon in their roots and soil than is released by the fossil fuels needed to grow and convert them into biofuels. Using prairie biomass to make fuel would lead to the long-term removal and storage of from 1.2 to 1.8 U.S. tons of carbon dioxide per acre per year. This net removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide could continue for about 100 years, the researchers estimate. In contrast, corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel are "carbon positive," meaning they add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, although less than fossil fuels. Switchgrass, which is being developed as a perennial bioenergy crop, was one of 16 species in the study. When grown by itself in poor soil, it did not perform better than other single species and gave less than a third of the bioenergy of high-diversity plots. "Switchgrass is very productive when it's grown like corn in fertile soil with lots of fertilizer, pesticide and energy inputs, but this approach doesn't yield as much energy gain as mixed species in poor soil, nor does it have the same environmental benefits," said Hill. To date, all biofuels, including cutting-edge nonfood energy crops such as switchgrass, elephant grass, hybrid poplar and hybrid willow, have been produced as monocultures grown primarily in fertile soils. The researchers estimate that growing mixed prairie grasses on all of the world's degraded land could produce enough bioenergy to replace 13 percent of global petroleum consumption and 19 percent of global electricity consumption. The practice of using degraded land to grow mixed prairie grasses for biofuels could provide stable production of energy and have additional benefits, such as renewed soil fertility, cleaner ground and surface waters, preservation of wildlife habitats, and recreational opportunities. There are 30 million acres of grasslands in the U.S. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which pays farmers to manage land to benefit the environment. Current CRP regulations do not allow prairie grasses grown on this land to be used for renewable energy, but the U.S. Farm Bill could be revised to accommodate this practice, Tilman added. Doing so would have important economic, environmental and energy security benefits. "It is time to take biofuels seriously," Tilman said. "We need to accelerate our work on biomass production and its conversion into useful energy sources. Ultimately, this means we need to start paying farmers for all the services they provide society -- for biofuels and for the removal and storage of carbon dioxide." The research was supported by the University of Minnesota Initiative for Renewable Energy and the Environment and by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Cedar Creek Natural History Area has been an NSF Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER; www.lter.umn.edu/) site since 1982.
