Topeka — A proposed massive, coal-fired electric project in western Kansas would cause health and environmental problems for generations to come, opponents of the facility said today.
"We don't need these out-dated, pollution-generating plants," Sarah Dean of Jefferson County said.
But executives of Sunflower Electric Power Corp. said the 2,100-megawatt project near Holcomb complied with all environmental rules and would help the economy.
"We need the power, and we need the economic stimulus that will result from this project in rural Kansas," said Earl Watkins, president and chief executive officer of Sunflower Electric.
Testimony from both sides of the issue was taken today by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, which will decide whether Sunflower gets a permit to build the project. Nearly 100 people attended the hearing.
Another public hearing on the proposal will be held Nov. 16 in Lawrence in the Malott Room of the Kansas Union, 1301 Jayhawk Blvd.
Sunflower Electric has proposed building three 700-megawatt, coal-fired electric plants.
A public comment period on the proposal will run through Nov. 30.
All comments should be submitted in writing to Rick Bolfing, KDHE Bureau of Air and Radiation, 1000 S.W. Jackson, Suite 310, Topeka 66612-1366 or presented at the hearings.
Comments
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.
average (anonymous) says…
Hint.... it's not *we* (Kansans) who need this much power. The demand is in the Colorado front range. Meanwhile, the Colorado greenies crow about their "carbon emissions cap" while building power plants downwind in Kansas.
Meanwhile, to get enough water to run these plants, Sunflower Electric has been buying water rights from dozens of farms. More "Buffalo Commons", and more ghost towns.
pilch (anonymous) says…
How will you earth muffins get electricity to power your "efficient" hybrid vehicles??
average (anonymous) says…
pilch -
Present-day hybrids don't get electricity from the grid. No plug. They charge their batteries when the engine is idling and braking. The batteries boost power when the little gasoline engine is insufficient and run the car during low speed start-and-stop driving (when combustion engines are most inefficient).
For my take (semi earth-muffin), a second nuke at Wolf Creek and/or wind in the Flint Hills are both preferable to this project.
pilch (anonymous) says…
average, I stand corrected. however smelting metal is filthy and takes a lot of energy. Hybrids are heavy on the batteries I believe, though I could be wrong. Solar is getting better as is wind, but for now I agree that nukes are the way to go. I am all for saving the planet, but it should be done wisely. Check out www.junkscience.com
big_blue (anonymous) says…
an interesting email on the subject i recently rcvd:
...there are very serious concerns regarding the current proposal for a new coal-fired plant to be built out in Holcomb, Kansas. In summary, we know now that coal-fired energy presents a host of long-term problems for humans and our planet, including, but not limited to - asthma, heart attacks, strokes, mercury poisoning which causes long-term neurlogical damage and global warming the full impacts of which will dwarf the preceding.
The proposed plant will be one of the largest coal-fired plants in the entire U.S., and its carbon impacts will completely negate the recent agreement by all northeastern states to cut their carbon production. Kansans will only use 8% of the power from this plant. Perhaps the most upsetting aspect of this plant is its location in the heart of one of the greatest wind resource areas in our nation. Utilities have complained that transmission is a problem from Western Kansas and yet they are building a massive coal-fired plant right there. (Yes we understand the difficulties in the fact that wind is not base-load: that if they build coal-fired production they can be better-assured of having transmission lines fully occupied at all times: but the point remains that they are willing to build lines to transmit coal-fired energy, but not wind.) Further, this plant will draw water from the Ogallala Aquifer to operate. Saturating this area with polluting coal-fired power will make it even more difficult for people to establish new non-polluting wind generation.
hipper_than_hip (anonymous) says…
Until we as a nation are willing to accept nuclear power again, then coal-fired generating facilities are the way to go. One thing to consider is the economic impact of a large coal-fired plant in the middle of KS: many hundreds of high paying jobs. Coal-powered plants take years to build, so there will be lots of money coming into our economy.
compmd (anonymous) says…
I still don't understand the aversion from wind power here. Even if the coal plants were instead nuclear plants, water is required for cooling, which would mean tapping the Ogallala Aquifer, taking water from agriculture. Didn't we just have an article on how that was a bad idea?
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
We're mining that aquifer already. We don't need to add to the load on it. How about rationing electricity, instead? Wanna watch football? Turn off something else or buy energy credits from your green neighbors who don't own a TV.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
I suppose some folks might opt to "borrow" power with a camouflaged extension cord, instead of doing the right thing.
oldgoof (anonymous) says…
Once the LJW starts publishing its paper with 'green tags' the whole problem disappears.
Mari (Mari Windermere) says…
And the wind??????
KSMan (anonymous) says…
For more info see www.holcombstation.coop
snowWI (anonymous) says…
Patriotman, I will have to disagree with your statement that "coal plants pollute very little." Coal plants still produce sulfur dioxide, radiation, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, as well as carbon dioxide. Kansas is the "Saudi-Arabia of wind" not the King of Coal. sunflower will export > 92 % of this energy to other states, while Kansas will only receive 8% of the share.
Coal is not the energy source that Kansas needs to use in the 21st century to remain economically competitive. Wind farms and wind energy provide far more permanent jobs than coal plants do. The proposed plant at Holcomb would only add about 140 permanent new jobs while producing 12 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. A wind farm, however, would likely produce up to 500 new permanent jobs if the same megawatt capacity were used. Texas, Iowa, and Minnesota have already proven that wind energy investment has been great for the rural economy. Wind energy produces no emissions or carbon dioxide. carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that should already be regulated by the government.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
Patriotman, wind energy is not a supplement because climatology studies have indicated that the wind speeds in the western tiers of counties in Kansas are very reliable. Large scale wind farms are economically feasible in these areas. The transmission line infrastructure in those counties needs to be built first before we ever consider coal. The electricity that could be generated from wind from these counties could be quite large if we developed large scale wind farm projects. Also, burning coal continues to generate large amounts of carbon dioxide that further exacerbates global warming.
Once again Iowa, Minnesota, and Texas already have the Renewable Portfolio Standard in place and are mainly building new wind farms to generate electricity, NOT coal plants.
The bottom line is that generating 150 new jobs is NOT worth the 13 million new tons of carbon dioxide that would be generated, increased mercury pollution, and continued depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer. The cost of the new coal plant does not include transportation costs, health risks to the public, or the changing price of energy. The development of wind farms would generate far more permanent jobs in rural counties, and other states have already been leading the way.
snowWI (anonymous) says…
Most of the current coal power plants do not use this liquified method of pumping the carbon dioxide into the ground. The new proposed plants have no method for pumping the carbon dioxide that is generated back into the ground. The new plants would pump even more carbon dioxide into the air.
Patriotman, Sunflower's main argument is about creating new jobs in Western Kansas. Wind farms generate far more jobs per terawatt hour than coal plants do. That is why we need large scale wind farms on the high plains, because many rural counties need an economic boost, (not just one county). The fact is that Sunflower will still export 92% of this electricity while they make their shareholders happy by increasing their profits.
Wind Energy is a very reliable source of energy because the wind turbines actually store excess energy that has already been generated when wind speeds are not as strong. However the average wind speed in those Western counties is at least 15-20mph over the entire year. That is a higher average speed than is found in almost any location in the entire country.
I urge you to tour some of the new wind farms in Iowa. The new wind turbines are so efficent now that they can produce greater amounts of electricity with lesser amounts of wind. New large-scale wind projects are being proposed and built all the time in this state. A large-scale project usually provides enough power for about 50,000 homes. However, many more large-scale projects are being proposed in that state.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Patriotman,
Coal will be "king" today... next week... maybe even next year.
What about 50, 100 years from now? Fossil fuels are harvested and burned exponentially faster than the Earth can replace them. Is there enough "dino juice" to supply the needs of 300 million Americans this year, 400+ million by 2050? Do I even need to mention China, and India? The wind may be "unreliable," but it'll return a lot faster than fossil fuels; the Earth's rotation makes that possible (but that's grade-school science I needn't remind you of, right?).
Important thing here, IMHO, is to judiciously harness *all of the above*. Yes, a clean-burning coal plant will work for now... but why not research ways of converting that plant to burn other things in the future? Waste products of all kinds, plants that can be grown, harvested, and regrown in a 12-month period?
We needn't waste time kidding ourselves that supplies of fossil fuels are "bottomless"; rather, we need to keep plugging away at renewable energy sources... and continue exploring new ways to conserve energy, as well.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
snowWI (anonymous) says…
Agnostick, the main problem that most people have with Sunflower is that their are large untapped wind energy resources in Kansas. Kansas has enough wind power potential to export large amounts of electricity to other states through large-scale wind power generation. Sunflower also proposes building outdated coal plants that will be obsolete as soon as they are built, and emit 14 million tons of carbon dioxide every year.
The problem is that no one forced these electricity companies to build new transmission lines to the rural counties. Now, we are left with the problem of debating a coal plant because we do not have the proper transmission line grid in place. (A proper transmission line grid in Kansas would lead to greater development of wind farms)
Wind energy is reliable; go to most other states surrounding Kansas and see all the new large-scale wind farms in operation on the plains generating no emissions or carbon dioxide.The National Sierra Club will likely become involved in this case against Sunflower because this proposed plant would likely become the largest new source of carbon dioxide in the ENTIRE country.