Ralliers call for renewable alternatives / LJWorld.com

Lawrence and Douglas county

December 3, 2006

Topeka — About 100 people braved the chill Saturday to turn up the political heat against a proposed coal-burning power plant in western Kansas.

"Kansas should be a leader in new technology, such as wind, and not be a part of the problem," said Nicole Reiz, a senior at Kansas University and president of KU Environs.

Reiz and other speakers said the proposal by Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to build three 700-megawatt coal-fired plants in Holcomb would harm the environment for generations, contribute to global warming and disrupt the economy.

They want the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to deny the permits needed for the project and for Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to declare a moratorium on new coal-fired plants.

"We will not accept business as usual anymore. We are drawing a line in the sand," said Bill Griffith, chairman of the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club.

Griffith said the carbon dioxide emitted by the plants would be "the largest new source of greenhouse gases in the United States."

Those attending also complained that the plant would use up valuable water from the Ogallala aquifer and increase dependence on fossil fuels that is contributing to destructive climate changes.

"We are not simply witnessing the changes to the Earth, we are causing them," said Margaret Thomas, a founding member of the Sanctuary Sustainable Coalition, which represents religious groups dedicated to solving environmental problems.

She said folks who opposed the plant must work to help the economy of western Kansas by promoting wind energy and other renewable options.

Others echoed those sentiments.

"Let's get talking about alternative energy and implementing it," said Cliff Smedley, a former resident of Grant County in southwest Kansas.

Linda Weinmaster, of Lawrence, spoke against the plant because she said it will increase emissions of mercury, a highly toxic metal that she blames for her 15-year-old son's autism.

"We have got to eliminate mercury in all its forms," she said.

After the rally, those attending marched around the Capitol carrying signs that read "Stop the Coal Rush" and "The Answer is Blowing in the Wind."

So far, Sebelius has declined to get involved in the Sunflower decision and issue a moratorium on coal-fired plants.

"Governor Sebelius is considering all options as we seek to balance energy development and conservation in our state," said her spokeswoman, Nicole Corcoran. "At this point, we're still gathering information, but I can tell you Governor Sebelius is looking at all possibilities closely."

Last week, KDHE extended the public comment period on Sunflower's proposal through Dec. 15.

Steve Miller, a spokesman for Sunflower, said the project should be approved because it complies with all laws and regulations.

"I don't have any reason to think we have anything to worry about as long as we are following the law," Miller said.

Of the rally, he said he was thankful he lived in the United States where "we can all share our opinions with our friends and neighbors. Everyone has the right to assemble."

Sunflower has stated that it can keep mercury emissions to current levels with new technology in its proposed plants and older plants.

Sunflower also says that the project will be an economic boon to the region, and that its drawdowns from the aquifer would be a small fraction of what is used for agricultural irrigation.

Many at the rally complained that the project would do little for Kansas because 90 percent of the energy would be sold through partnerships out of state. But Sunflower says that the plants themselves will provide needed jobs that will benefit the area.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

3 December 2006
at 6:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jackalope (Anonymous) says…

100 participants? Not exactly a Cecil B. DeMille cast of thousands production. Maybe it was too cold to leave the house heated by non-renewable energy sources.
3 December 2006
at 6:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

roger_o_thornhill (Anonymous) says…

Damn ralliers! Always “calling” for something.
3 December 2006
at 8:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KsTwister (Anonymous) says…

Ohio booted a new coal plant to the curb after doing its study on effects of the surrounding area(and they had a river to build it on). Kansas could do more with wind farms instead of taking this outcast. The Western Aquifer is already suffering without this quick death approach.
3 December 2006
at 8:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oldgoof (Anonymous) says…

Excuse me while I wait for the Johnson and Douglas County hot-tubs get to temperature this morning.
3 December 2006
at 9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Sustainable Energy Alternatives

There are many alternative energy sources that are sustainable and do not pose the accident risks inherent in nuclear energy production. These sources include:

*Bioenergy: biomass, such as plant matter and animal waste, can yield power, heat, steam, and fuel.
*Geothermal: renewable heat energy can be harnessed from deep within the earth.
*Wind: turbines turning in the air convert kinetic energy in the wind into electricity.
*Solar: the sun's energy can be captured and used to produce heat and electricity.
*Hydrogen: if produced by renewable sources, it can power fuel cells to convert chemical energy directly into electricity, with useful heat and water as the only byproducts.
*Tidal: using the movement of the ocean to power turbines and generate electricity.

*Many more sustainable resources could be found and current resources improved if better technology were available and if the government and utilities actively promoted their development.
Sustainable energy links:
Renewable Energy Policy Project (a CREST site)
Sustainable Energy Coalition
Renewable Energy
3 December 2006
at 9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

classclown (Anonymous) says…

Build a thermometer plant next to the power plant then they will have a way to take care of all that mercury.

merrill, see if the LJW will change your log in name to cut_and_paste
3 December 2006
at 10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jackalope (Anonymous) says…

So, the issue is their coal fired plants? Not ours? Childish.

3 December 2006
at 10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“So, the issue is their coal fired plants? Not ours?”

Strawman alert— our coal-fired plants are also an issue— a very big issue.
3 December 2006
at 10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Esq2eB (Anonymous) says…

Then why aren't these concerned KU students protesting at the capital to get Jefferson shut down? Why is Merril cutting and pasting from his(her) home which is powered by a coal plant?
Go on strike, oh noble citizens of Lawrence. Refuse to use energy until they construct turbines on Mass street and on KU's campus to power your fine city. Right now, shut off your computer, burn candles and wood for heat, and we will see you in a couple decades when they get the thermal biomass up and running to produce enough electricty for you. Heck, by then the SLT might even be halfway done.
3 December 2006
at 10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jackalope (Anonymous) says…

The stated issue of Kansas not needing any more power capacity is a convenient and fallacious argument from Lawrence. Southwest Kansas is not even remotely economically tied to Northeast Kansas. It is tied economically to adjacent regions of Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas and somewhat to New Mexico. It may be hard to accept, but Lawrence could fall off the face of the earth and Southwest Kansas would hardly blink. Neither is a plant in Holcomb tied geographically or climatology to Northeast Kansas. It is 400 miles away and 3,000 feet above sea level on a semi arid plain. There are no rivers or streams that travel from Holcomb to Lawrence. The weather patterns that creep into Kansas from the south that regularly affect Northeast Kansas first appear on the Kansas landscape a hundred or so miles east of Holcomb.

Salina does not have much to complain about either. There is little or no economic connection Holcomb and Salina. No plant in Holcomb is going to reduce water supply to Salina. There are no rivers or streams between Holcomb and Salina. In fact, the Holcomb plant is actually going to take less water from the aquifer than agriculture. The Smokey Hill river is mostly dry at the present time. A lot of that has to do with up stream cities, such as Hays pumping all they can get, and irrigation along the Smokey.

Couple all of this with a huge fouling coal fired plant just north of Lawrence, the protestation of Lawrence has all the appearance of some self appointed elite in the Northeast telling the rest of the state how to live and make a living without touching its own exploitation of non renewable energy. Our stuff apparently does not stink. Do as I say, not as I do.

I suggest that even with the extreme limitations of the much touted wind energy production that we exercise the right of imminent domain and confiscate huge tracts of land on the outskirts of Lawrence and install windmills as far as the eye can see. Of course unless there is some huge storage battery system available, we would have to live without electricity when the wind is less that 5 mph or more than 35 mph when the windmills would shut down. I suppose, however, that we could line Potter's Lake with plastic, install huge anodes and fill it full of acid from all of the acerbic remarks about Holcomb and lead from the rear ends of all who just want to sit, talk and complain and use it for a storage battery. I am certain that Boog and his immediate boss the head of KDHE could pull some strings to “extend” the comment period on this idea also.

Lets see some rallies at the gates of the plant north of town. Build out own wind farms. Let's clean up our own mess and then, perhaps we can start viewing ourselves as an example to be followed. Or, we could just continue to just talk, a good o'l Lawrence ploy, and do nothing but complain about others.

I leave it with you, my friends. I have to get some work done today. Just talking will not get it done.
3 December 2006
at 10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Esq2eB (Anonymous) says…

“creating NEW plants that won't even be used to power Kansans' homes.”

But it will create jobs and income to families out there, so they can afford to power and heat their homes. But that doesn't seem to concern anyone in this forum.
3 December 2006
at 10:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

WEll, why don't those of you who are tramping around in the cold making noise form an investment group and go for a wind farm?

do something for a change!

Thanks.

Marion.
3 December 2006
at 11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“But it will create jobs and income to families out there,”

This isn't the only way in the universe to create jobs out there. Put in wind generation instead, and the water will still be there for the agricultural lands that lie beneath the turbines.
3 December 2006
at 11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

If the new plants are using less water than agriculture, are you proposing that the farmers stop using aquifer water so that the plants will have an adequate supply?
3 December 2006
at 11:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Esq2eB (Anonymous) says…

This isn't the only way in the universe to create jobs out there.

But it's the only one being proposed, with financial backing and interested parties. So let the people 300 miles away have it. Like Marion said, if you don't like it, then get together some investors, and build your wind farm. Until then, you are just a speed bump on the way to this becoming a reality. By “you”, I mean the city of Lawrence and its ridiculous city council.

3 December 2006
at 11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“if you don't like it, then get together some investors, and build your wind farm.”

The only reason this is being proposed is because of all the government subsidies and free passes on the amount of pollution they can produce that coal-generation plants recieve.

The coal and power industries keep on buying politicians to make sure it stays that way. As long as there is a vacuum of leadership at the state and national levels on energy policy, we'll need a few courageous local leaders like this city commission to fill that obscene, greed-fueled void.
3 December 2006
at 11:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bubarubu (Anonymous) says…

It's sort of sad that Marion and Esq2eB think that the only way people should be able to make change is by buying and selling, that those who are short of economic power should also be short on political power.
3 December 2006
at 12:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snowWI (Anonymous) says…

These proposed plants in Holcomb have an affect of people living in Eastern Kansas, the US, and the world. The prevailing jet stream winds in the upper layers of the atmosphere transports air from the West to the East across North America. When storm systems move into the US, they move from West to East. That is why you see much higher concentrations of acidic precipitation in the northeast US, because the prevailing jet stream and storm systems come from the West, near the industrialized midwest region.
Also, the mercury concentrations in the air must come down to the earth, usually in the form of precipitation.
Mercury is dangerous, and the federal EPA regulations are not strict enough.
Even Texas has taken a stand against coal power plants. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedconte…
3 December 2006
at 12:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snowWI (Anonymous) says…

I wonder how many people are on this forum from Western Kansas…
Pennsylvania has called for more strict controls on mercury emissions. In a landmark 3-2 decision stricter controls on mercury will be implemented. Pennsylvania plants are only behind Texas in mercury emissions.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06321/…
Texas gets smart and does not support old pulverized coal technology. Kansas, meanwhile, still has its head in the sand.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/16148…
3 December 2006
at 12:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Yes, the word from the Left is that we can't have wind power because of government subsidies, the oil companies, the coal insustry, the Trilateral Commission, the Bildeburgers, the Free Masons and the Puerto Ricans.

How the Puerto Ricans got in there I'm not certain but inclucing them makes about as much sense as the reasons given by the Left for the failure of the Left.

Thanks.

Marion.
3 December 2006
at 12:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

wasn't there a giant wind farm proposed for the flint hills a few years ago? didn't the environmentalists (earth nazis) protesteth too mucheth about thateth?

answer: yes, to both questions.

these people have absolutely ZERO credibility. next thing you know, they'll be teaching about 'mother earth' in our public schools - oh, they already do.
3 December 2006
at 1:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oldgoof (Anonymous) says…

logicsound: “Implying that opponents of the new coal plant are hypocrites is a childish argument……If Kansans don't need the additional power and could gain the same jobs from alternative energy, what is the purpose of the coal plant in the first place?”
..
goof says: Energy consumption and demand does not respect state boundaries. (which is how Colorado's renewable energy portfolios got us into this position) It is an issue which must be addressed federally. This particular permit process is *not* designed to address these issues, as much as everyone here may believe. And if my comments made you feel like a hypocrite, let the shoe fit. It is the label you chose.
3 December 2006
at 2:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oldgoof (Anonymous) says…

logicsound: “Because there is a difference between allowing current power sources to continue existing(while we find viable alternatives) and creating NEW plants that won't even be used to power Kansans' homes.”
..
Goof says: You brought up the term hypocracy. Your sentence says it all. For as you have a concern for their energy plants, they too have the same concern for our existing ones. And you have hot-tubs and SUVs out the wazoo, and they have few.

3 December 2006
at 2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jackalope (Anonymous) says…

At 6a.m. this morning the jet stream was blowing in a southerly direction over northeast Kansas. Nowhere even near southwest Kansas. If I were living somewhere south of Lawrence and its huge belching coal fired plant I suppose I should be seriously considering gathering the peasant and pitchforks and storming the Ivory (and oh so principled) Towers of Lawrence.
3 December 2006
at 2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jackalope (Anonymous) says…

logicsound04: “We breathe the air that starts in Western Kansas, so if ANYONE has a say, it should be us.”

I suggest, then, that you next take up the topic of feed lots and confined pork facilities in the western reaches of the state. That could be discussed and demonstrated against for years and years.
3 December 2006
at 4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Esq2eB (Anonymous) says…

logicsound04 unlogically states:

“Perhaps you, esq2eb, don't mind making Kansas the metaphoric “landfill” for Colorado energy, but it seems many Kansas DO have a problem with it.”

Ignoring the fact this sentence makes absolutely no sense, I am still going to try and argue with Logic. How would Kansas become the landfill? By producing a product(energy) that is exported(see:sold) to another state? In the process of selling it, Kansas collects taxes from the great people of Colorado, Kansans are put to work, and a portion of our state sees an economic boon. If they were not going to see this boon, it is doubtful they would be pushing for it. If Kansas only tried to produce products that were only meant for Kansas and Kansans, our economy would flounder within no time at all. We would have alot of beef and pork with no one to sell it to. Alot of wheat and corn rotting in the silos. Crates of plastic shoes from Payless would go unsold in New York and South Central, LA. Hallmark would have alot of leftover greeting cards, especially this time of year. Sprint would have to lay off alot of people if they were only going to service the four corners of this state. Beef packing plants in Dodge City, Garden City, and Emporia would have to lay off their illegal immigrants because of the Logical Stoppage of the Exportation of Kansas Produced Products to other States. Twit.

Bubarubu Blurted:
“It's sort of sad that Marion and Esq2eB think that the only way people should be able to make change is by buying and selling, that those who are short of economic power should also be short on political power.”

Not the only way there Buba, just the most efficient. I don't know what planet you live on, but typically those with the support and financial backing, typically see results, and quicker than those without. And the protesters and academics find a new cause the next day.
3 December 2006
at 9:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oldgoof (Anonymous) says…

logicsound says: (1)”So if you weren't trying to imply hypocrisy on the part of coal plant opponents, then kindly explain comment to me”….and (2) ” I suppose since we still have cars on the road from 1970, then it would be appropriate for us to allow auto manufacturers to make new cars with 1970's emissions standards?”
..
Goof says: (1)Of course I was implying hypocracy, but my comments did use the word nor label anyone in any manner, nor was it a comment 'to you' yet you continue to personally address me and label me, and (2) your grandfathering argument really does not affect my observations here. As you probably know, the growth in SUVs has affected average gas consumption in this country, and has eliminated much (if not all) of the earlier mpg benefits received from federal CAFE standards. So yes, when I hear the “True Blue Women” of Johnson County getting into this particular topic, I am reminded of the meeting I attended of theirs earlier this fall when I noted at the time that a conservative 75% of the vehicles in the parking lot at the meeting were SUV's. This group has a long way to go with me before I listen to them too much on this issue.

Folks, in this world, those with wealth consume the most energy. I'd love to see non-industrial per-capita energy consumption data comparing consumption between citizens of Johnson/Douglas County and Kearny County.

***
People are probably mistakenly assuming I want these plants built, which is not the case. But what I have tried to express to some of the types here is how others (those in SW Kansas) are perceiving people from NE Kansas. And yes, the inherit hypocracy of those with wealth preaching to those without the same. (logicsound, note I do not have to call you or others an old-fart or use terms like 'country bumpkin' to make my point. Take a lesson in manners here before you flame on.)
3 December 2006
at 10:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Bubarubu (Anonymous) says…

Esq2eB bloviated:
“Not the only way there Buba, just the most efficient. I don't know what planet you live on, but typically those with the support and financial backing, typically see results, and quicker than those without. And the protesters and academics find a new cause the next day”

If your argument had been about efficacy, that would be one thing. Instead you belittled the efforts of people to express their principles and said they should get out of the way of the people with the money.

SW Kansas, by the way, is pretty well off as far as employment goes. Better than the national average, better than eastern Colorado (which is supposedly the market for this energy) and better than eastern Kansas. Finney County is almost a full percentage point below the national average and half a point below the state average.

No one has a problem with building up Kansas' energy production or selling excess energy to other states. Doing it at the expense of air and water quality when it is not necessary by any measure is purely idiotic. Then again, so is restricting political expression to those who can buy it.
4 December 2006
at 1:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

deec (Anonymous) says…

I live in Hays, and contrary to what some think, opinion is mixed out here about these plants.
The pro-plant folks really want to gloss over the water issues. This past summer in Russell, 20 or so miles down the road, the citizens were under strict water rationing so that there would be adequate water for the ethanol plant to keep functioning. It is not hard to envision this same scenario around the electrical plants. The aquifer is being depleted by agriculture and other uses. Will we require farmers, ranchers and other residents to curtail their water use in a few years to assure water is available for the electricity factories?
4 December 2006
at 6:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Tax subsidies would be wisely spent developing new jobs by providing a positive boost in the existing energy industry. Apply subsidies that would not only create new employment but new energy sources simultaneously. Our government has provided avenues to outsource jobs yet has failed to replace jobs for hard working americans. This could provide a practical solution for many of the highly skilled unemployed.

Considering the number of ways available to generate new electricity why not avoid the known health risks associated not only with coal but also nukes. Why add potentially more to the cost of healthcare? Respiratory ailments and cancer are expensive to treat.

Remember acid rain:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/acidrain/acidfact…
4 December 2006
at 5:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

wheatridge (Anonymous) says…

Did they all drive their electric/solar/wind mobiles?

4 December 2006
at 5:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

wheatridge (Anonymous) says…

Oh and those who are worried about the Ogallah aquafier, had any IBP hamburgers lately, let's see 1,000,000 head a year and are soy beans harvested by electric tractors and combines?
4 December 2006
at 7:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snowWI (Anonymous) says…

wheatridge,
That is why I limit my consumption of beef. Eating every type of food group in moderation is the approach that I tkae. The exploitation of the Ogallala Aquifer in the current manner is not sustainable for the long-term. We need to come up with even more better irrigation methods that use the water resources more efficently if we want to continue using the aquifer in the future. Thanks
4 December 2006
at 7:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snowWI (Anonymous) says…

wheatridge,
To clarify, I realize how much energy it takes to produce the food that we all take for granted. That is why I eat all types of food from the different food groups in moderation.
5 December 2006
at 10:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bliddel (Anonymous) says…

Energy, Power, and Man. Apparently few on here really understand any of these.

Hydrogen is not a source of energy.

Economically feasible hydroelectric sites are already built. There are no more domestic rivers (with confined big elevation changes) left to dam.

Fusion: on hold because the environmentalists killed the supercollider project in the Clinton era.

Nuclear Fission: Seems to work for the French, doesn't it? And the other two plants at three mile island still safely produce power to this day. And there is less radioactivity emitted from a nuclear fission plant than from a coal fired plant. Enviromentalists worried about the wrong things - again.

Coal: Still beats natural gas and oil, if only because we have a domestic supply of it. The cooling water requirement is a valid concern, but could possibly be addressed through economic incentives for farmers to use less irrigation.

Wind: Only now becoming at all competitive with conventional systems. If you are happy paying double what you pay now, let's go for it… but please, let's not plant the darn things at the ends of airport runways, like they do in Pennsylvania!

Bottom line: Every system is a compromise of sorts. Environmentalists must eventually compromise, or freeze in the dark.
5 December 2006
at 11:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

etsi_truss (Anonymous) says…

deec. do a little research! 2 of the plants will be owned by Tri-State and operated by Sunflower. Tri-State is already laying groundwork for a 3rd plant in SE Colorado just 100 miles west of Sunflower's existing plant location and the proposed new plants at Holcomb. We could go ahead and run them out of Kansas
back to Colorado, screw Western Kansas economy 1 more time and let Tri-State build all 3 plants in SE Colorado, have the same outcome and absolutly no control over anything!!! good idea!!!!

http://www.tristategt.org/RDP/CPP/overvi…
13 December 2006
at 9:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

grammarphone (Anonymous) says…

I suggest that all of you “wind-skeptics” read the stern report

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/indepen…

The argument that you pay “double what you pay now” is simply wrong. Wind is actually much less expensive (especially when you take into account subsidies and externalities associated with coal). Not to mention the fact that wind turbines pay for themselves in four years.

If you read the Stern Report or visit the US Department of Energy's website, you'll find that wind plants actually create more jobs per kilowatt than coal plants. And in addition, farmers who lease their land to the utility make a pretty decent dollar just for having the turbines on their land.

You can cry about how mean old Lawrence is beating up on the rest of Kansas, but you would be better suited to do some research and form an opinion that isn't based on preconceptions of “eviro-loonies” out in eastern Kansas. It's a fact that economic diversification and innovation provide better long-term results than simply accepting an antiquated and dirty technology just because it's subsidized.

I have yet to hear any logical argument in support of a new coal plant, but have heard more than enough in opposition. Call me a whacko, but I've done the research myself. I've been to Topeka to protest. I've been to the hearings and heard what Sunflower electric has to say. You can continue to grind your axes, but until I hear any form of a logical argument backed by real information, I wont be convinced.
13 December 2006
at 9:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

grammarphone (Anonymous) says…

i'm trying to do “research,” etsi, but your link to the Utilities website doesn't even work. :)
13 December 2006
at 10:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

drewdun (Anonymous) says…

I like pollution.