A nuclear energy renaissance is in full swing in the Lone Star State. Luminant Generation recently filed a federal permit to build two new reactors at its Comanche Peak nuclear plant in Somervell County. That makes six new nuclear reactors pending statewide, which would more than double the state's production of electricity from virtually carbon-free nuclear power.

Texas is among the nation's leaders in developing alternative sources of power – wind power, geothermal and future biofuel energy supplies. But with planned investments in nuclear energy, consumers and businesses can save on their electricity bills while reducing their carbon footprint.

While the capital costs for nuclear plants are higher than for gas or coal, once they are built, nuclear plants operate very cost-effectively.

In 2007, U.S. electric utilities spent an average of 1.76 cents to produce each kilowatt-hour from nuclear energy, compared with 6.78 cents per kilowatt-hour from natural gas.

Nuclear energy doesn't produce greenhouse gases during the production of electricity. Of course, all sources of electricity produce some carbon when you consider the entire "life cycle" process of mining fuels and building the plant and operation, but nuclear energy has among the lowest carbon impacts on the environment when you consider the entire life cycle of electricity sources.

As a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, I believe many conservationists in Texas would embrace nuclear's clean-air benefits.

Gov. Rick Perry has worked with state legislators to craft the Texas Emission Reduction Plan, which will help Dallas, Fort Worth and other cities that fall short of the Environmental Protection Agency's federal clean-air standards. Together they've enacted legislation that provides financial incentives for Texans to switch to cleaner-running vehicles. In the future, charging plug-in hybrid vehicles with nuclear energy will improve air quality even more.

Such statewide efforts on transportation would be complemented by more nuclear energy capacity for electricity production. Last year, the four nuclear reactors in Texas helped prevent 30 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, equal to removing almost 1 million cars from the road.

More reactors would also generate more jobs. Texas knows well the durable, long-term impact of job creation in the energy sector. The state's 4.7 percent unemployment rate in July was a full percentage point below the national average. Energy payrolls play a big part in keeping the Texas economy moving forward, even in difficult times.

And construction of each new reactor requires as many as 4,000 workers, at salaries starting at $65,000, according to a new report by the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which I chair with former EPA Administrator Christie Whitman.
All told, Luminant's two recently announced reactors are projected to generate $22 billion in economic development and employment.

So it is not surprising that both presidential candidates have made nuclear energy part of their energy platform. Republican John McCain endorses building 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030. Democrat Barack Obama believes nuclear energy should be part of the country's plans as it seeks cleaner sources of energy.
Progressive Policy Institute President Will Marshall, even more emphatically, told National Public Radio in August that "it's time for progressives and Democrats to break the taboo on nuclear energy. What better way to show we're serious about protecting our planet?"

Texas is at the heart of America's energy transformation. Seeing these nuclear reactors through construction to full operation will help ensure Texas' role as an energy leader, provide a more secure energy supply and create the kind of world our kids will be proud to inherit.

Patrick Moore is co-founder of Greenpeace and co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a national grass-roots coalition that promotes nuclear power. His e-mail address is Cochair@CASEnergy.org.