Archive for Friday, December 15, 2006

Eight states contest Kansas coal plant plans

The Lawrence city commission has also filed a letter in opposition

December 15, 2006

Advertisement

— Eight state attorneys general today asked Kansas to reject Sunflower Electric Power Corp.'s proposal to build three coal-fired plants in west Kansas.

"We encourage Kansas to explore alternatives that will allow Kansas to satisfy its needs for energy without exacerbating global warming," the officials said in a letter to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

The states opposed to the proposal are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The Lawrence city commission has also filed a letter in opposition.

Sunflower has proposed building three, 700-megawatt plants in Holcomb.

The opposing states said the plant would pump annually into the air 15.4 million tons of carbon dioxide, an emission that contributes to climate change.

The Holcomb emissions would cancel out emission reduction measures adopted by the states, the attorneys general said.

The officials urged KDHE to reject Sunflower's plan or require the company to use new technologies that reduce emissions and improve efficiency.

The letter was sent on the final day for public comment in the matter.

KDHE has not said when it would decide whether to grant a permit for the plants.

Steve Miller, a spokesman for the Hays-based Sunflower Electric, said he disagreed with the position of the eight states, but that they were entitled to submit their remarks.

He said probably the best way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions would be to focus on improving pollution controls in foreign countries.

Comments

John Spencer 8 years, 5 months ago

Steve Miller, a spokesman for the Hays-based Sunflower Electric, said he disagreed with the position of the eight states, but that they were entitled to submit their remarks. I love this comment, essentially he is saying, "Make the rest of the world clean up so we can pollute more." If C02 was the only thing coming out of the plants, I don't think it would be so bad, but the amount of mercury that will come out and land in the waters all around Lawrence will contaminate the water we drink and bathe in.

John Spencer 8 years, 5 months ago

Steve Miller, a spokesman for the Hays-based Sunflower Electric, said he disagreed with the position of the eight states, but that they were entitled to submit their remarks.

He said probably the best way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions would be to focus on improving pollution controls in foreign countries.

Darn it, I guess I didn't copy the part I wanted to :) I love this comment, essentially he is saying, "Make the rest of the world clean up so we can pollute more." If C02 was the only thing coming out of the plants, I don't think it would be so bad, but the amount of mercury that will come out and land in the waters all around Lawrence will contaminate the water we drink and bathe in.

red6102003 8 years, 5 months ago

Well you can tell they are the same people who think global warming is just a myth or natural cycle. Just like smoking doctors used to indorse smoking as being healthy for you. They just want to save money at the cost of our future.

MyName 8 years, 5 months ago

He does have a point, if by "best" you meant "cheapest", since it would probably cost less for us to have some of the other countries move from low or no level pollution controls to moderate level controls, than to have us move from moderate level controls to high level controls.

However, we're not taking a very good leadership position by doing things this way. Not only that, but we actually have to live near those powerplants, so fixing pollution in another part of the world isn't going to do much to help the air quality over here, and we have a duty to try and get the air we breathe to be as clean as possible.

devobrun 8 years, 5 months ago

This community (Lawrence and environmentalists in general) are fighting the wrong battle.

If you want to eliminate coal-fired plants, reduce the demand for electricity, or offer an economically competitive alternative.

Exxon had record profits in their 3rd quarter because demand exceeded supply. Same thing will happen for Sunflower Electric if the demand continues to increase and their supply is limited.

When profits soar, the very same people will whine about windfall profits. Common theme throughout is a basic lack of knowledge by the same people about energy or economics. Whine, they know. Work (in Joules) they don't know.

I happen to find the "science" of global warming to be simply a political implementation of a computer program. I don't believe it. But if I did, its too late, folks. Stickin' it to yourselves economically to chase an idea about which you can do nothing is childish.

Allow the plant, reduce your consumption, save your money and invest it in alternatives. Implement the alternatives and put the b.....ds outta business in 10 years. You don't live in 1972 anymore. Give Ted Nugent his shirt back and for godsakes grow up.

tolawdjk 8 years, 5 months ago

Interesting that Wisconsin chimed in when they are building a new 1,230 MW coal facility...

http://www.emersonprocess-powerwater.com/news/pr/WeEnergies_ElmRoad_NewPlant.asp

People living in glass houses and what have you.

Sigmund 8 years, 5 months ago

What "Eight state attorneys ..." know about global wrming could be stuffed into their briefs.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 5 months ago

If you guys say "na, na, na, na..." loud enough and long enough, all of those evil buttinskies complaining about your stupidity will just vanish.

Charles L Bloss Jr 8 years, 5 months ago

It is nobody else's business, except for the company building the coal fired plant, KDHE and EPA. The rest, including the joke of a city commission in Lawrence, can write letters until their computers burn up. If I were Sunflower Electric Power Corporations CEO, I'd shred all of it. Thank you, Lynn

oldgoof 8 years, 5 months ago

good grief. Here comes everybody calling everyone names (in particular logicsound), courtesy of the much-higher-polluting electrons produced by Lawrence's coal plant powering his computer.

Devobrun's 4:19 post says it all in the first two sentences.

Until the Green posters here want to confront energy consumption by consumers in Lawrence (I don't have numbers, but will bet big bucks the domestic use and growth rate is much higher here than for western Kansans..contact me if you want to wager) they are subject to some criticism as..... yes, being hypocritical.

I consider myself pretty darn 'Green' and I am a huge windfarm proponent, and proponent for significant changes in federal energy policies, but until the likes of Logicsound start conversing in civil tones in discussing the underlying issues behind our country's energy addiction and policies, opposition to the plants will seem empty in content and shrill in tone.

And damned self-centered for Lawrencians, as others in the State want to believe anyway.

snowWI 8 years, 5 months ago

Steve Miller says: "He said probably the best way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions would be to focus on improving pollution controls in foreign countries." Yes Steve, try and divert the attention away from the fact that the proposed plants would emit millions of tons of CO2 every year. The US needs to be a leader in newer technologies to reduce greenhouse gases, and not blame poor developing countries. These proposed coal plants are making Kansas the joke of the country again. Many people I know from surrounding states know about the vast untapped wind resources of Kansas. The only problem is Kansas still needs time to develop the transmission line infrastructure in order to make wind energy a priority.

snowWI 8 years, 5 months ago

I think many of the problems of these proposed plants is a lack of vision and leadership in our energy future. Western Kansas has been experiencing a brain drain of younger generations to larger cities. This in turn means that most of the decisions about energy are made by mostly older generations who question the scientific consensus that global warming is occuring, and are resistant to developing renewable energy technologies. These same people support building coal plants that emit millions of tons of GHGs, and will also line the pockets of the coal companies.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 5 months ago

"Until the Green posters here want to confront energy consumption by consumers in Lawrence " (I don't have numbers, but will bet big bucks the domestic use and growth rate is much higher here than for western Kansans..contact me if you want to wager)

So what you're saying is that you're wild guessing that you're not making a strawman argument.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.