Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, February 3, 2007

Moratorium on coal-burning plants rejected

February 3, 2007

Advertisement

— A proposed two-year ban on construction of coal-burning power plants appears dead.

The House Energy and Utilities Committee on Friday tabled the measure on a voice vote.

The only lawmaker who could be heard opposing the motion to derail the bill was state Rep. Vaughn Flora, D-Topeka, who drafted the proposed moratorium.

The bill was filed as state officials consider a $5 billion project by Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to build three 700-megawatt coal-fired plants in western Kansas.

Flora's legislation would have imposed a two-year moratorium on coal-burning plants. During that time, the state would have conducted a study on the health effects of emissions from coal-fired plants.

During a public hearing on the bill Monday, utility executives said the moratorium, if enacted, would kill the Sunflower project, and lead to rate increases by forcing power producers to seek more expensive forms of energy.

But environmentalists said the moratorium would protect Kansans' health by reducing climate-changing coal-fired emissions and help the economy by increasing development of renewable energy, such as wind.

Ray Dean, professor emeritus at Kansas University, said he was disappointed that the moratorium failed, but that he and others would continue to publicize the effects of global climate change.

The state on Thursday denied permits for two coal plants near Holcomb, Kan.

The state on Thursday denied permits for two coal plants near Holcomb, Kan.

"We're trying to get the message out," Dean said.

Flora failed to get an up or down vote on his moratorium when Rep. Annie Kuether, D-Topeka, moved to table the bill.

Committee Chairman Carl Holmes, R-Liberal, said there could be no debate on a motion to table.

Later, Kuether said she made that motion to protect committee members, especially freshmen legislators, from having to vote on a bill without a lot of background knowledge about the issue.

"It wasn't going to come out favorably," she said of Flora's bill.

Comments

ASBESTOS 7 years, 10 months ago

"I also realize that California does get some of its electricity from dirty coal powered plants in Utah. California also has more stringent environmental regulations than most states so the chances of any coal plant being built in California is low."

SnowWi you need to quit liestening to goofy old professors. California imports A MAJORITY of their lectrical energy, BECAUSE of their tight regulations. THey want the power, but do not allow anyone to generate it. They soon will have to start generating their own electriciry, because they are not building any power plants. THe process id not "pulverized coal" it is called "fluidized bed", and it is so fine it is almost not a particle anymore. You want "coal gassification", which emits more through the process of gassification, less when burning it, but you still release that pesky CO2.

If you want CO2 emissions free power generation on the scale we need it, nuclear is the way to go, end of story. Your dreas of wind energy only will not happen, as it is inefficient and dilute.

ASBESTOS 7 years, 10 months ago

CHINA, folks is building 1 PLANT EVERY DAY. That means this year 365 coal power plants with less clean burning technology has already been build, and 365 more will be build next year. Why do yu think copper went from less than a dollar a pound to $4.25 a pound? China! Why do you think steel is so high? China! (Oh and you guys do not address the coking and the steel making industry which puts out TONS of CO2.) China as well!

They will burn more coal in the next 15 years with more dirty technology than what the US and Europe burned in their totality of using coal. That "fact" is veiled in the IPCC report. Even the IPCC states that even if we stopped production temps will rise, pointing to China which will NOT stop and we cannot make them stop using and burning coal.

You can raise all the hell you want, and even if you succeed in eliminating all the coal fired plants in the US, China will continue the CO2 emissions on an even larger scale (India will too as well) than the US has ever done.

So if you want to really stop or reduce CO2 emissions on a level that will acctually be substancial, you must address China. Anything else is just dishonest yelling and hollering. The US is not the bad guy here. What most in college towns do is have a liberal bent because of the so called "intelligent" professors, and they actually "incdoctrinate" rather than teach.

This "Global Warming by Man made CO2" is a perfect example of pervification of science. Even the IPCC has taken down the amount of Man made caused to 25% of the actual total, making 75% from natural sources. Additionally the only solution these "intellectual wizards" can come up with is bitch about the United States. Folks it is CHINA! China is the key. They will be the most powerful country in our liftimes, replacing the US as a Superpower. Their economy will be 3 times ours, and their population will be 3X as well. SO goes their use of resources.

Chinese are not magically "in tune" with the earth anymore than any other human culture on the face of the earth. It is time to wake up to the face that someone else will have power other than the US and we will be at their mercy. They will continue to pollute and build. Look at Hong Kong and other larger cities in China.

Please, look at the sciencd and the political processes.

3 powerplants in Kansas has nothing to do with that, and if California is not going to produce her own power, I say we need to and sell it to her. AND that power should be generated with clean nuke energy.

Jamesaust 7 years, 10 months ago

Of course it was. There never was any other serious option.

Even a nationwide, first-priority effort to move away as fully as possible from fossil fuel consumption would still require one additional generation of fossil fuel plants, such as this. If Rundle, et al., wanted to do something useful instead of a publicity stunt, they would have written to our local Congressmen (and -woman!) and demanded national leadership.

(There would be one possible quicker route - an epidemic of nuclear plants, which could be built in about a decade and a half. But ideology trumps practicality and those who bang the drum loudly about global climatic calamity seem to lose their sense of impending doom when the topic turns to nuclear power.)

LiberalDude 7 years, 10 months ago

booooo! No more coal plants. We will pay more for wind power.

Jamesaust 7 years, 10 months ago

"We will pay more for wind power."

Wind power is technologically incapable of replacing conventional energy - for the present and perhaps forever.

You can no more buy today a society powered by the wind than Henry VIII could buy a health system utilizing penicillin.

oldgoof 7 years, 10 months ago

Excuse me, as I type on my keyboard powered by that dirty dirty KPL-Westar Lawrence powerplant, wondering where the exponential growth in Lawrence electrical consumption is going to be powered from.

snowWI 7 years, 10 months ago

oldgoof, The coal power plant north of Lawrence is VERY old. This plant was built in the 1950s and is far dirtier than the current plant at Holcomb. However, Kansas will definatly NOT get the majority of the power from these plants. Most of the power will go to Colorado where the demand is highest because Sunflower is part of the Tri-State Electric Cooperative. It is a shame that Kansas has to suffer the effects of even more pollution while we export dirty coal generated electricity to other states. Kansas will be the joke of the country again as other states such as Iowa, Minnesota, and Texas continue to build large scale wind farms. Wind energy is a growth industry, coal SHOULD NOT BE. Remember, climate change costs and health costs are NEVER included when you figure what the real cost of a coal plant is.

windy 7 years, 10 months ago

Well snowWI, the bill went right to file 13 where it should have been in the first place. Where do you get this b.s that you posted? 'Most of the power will go to Colorado where the demand is highest because Sunflower is part of the Tri-State Electric Cooperative.' Sunflower is not part of Tri- State Elec. Co-op.

You had also posted this, 'The House Bill better be passed. Kansas must be a leader in developing wind energy instead of relying on OUTDATED pulverized coal plants that do not have the capability to reduce CO2 emissions in the future. California has no coal power plants in their state.' No, California has no coal fired generation, but they do have 22,815 MW's of gas turbine generated power (another fossel fuel), 5,011 MW's of nuke power, and for your info 1'784 MW's of coal generated power that is generated in Southern Utah that only goes to L.A. So what makes them so special to all of you greenies?

oldgoof 7 years, 10 months ago

snowwi: Lawrence's electrical consumption will grow at the same rate (if not higher) than the rest of the nation...Where is Lawrence's new power going to come from? That is my point.

oldgoof 7 years, 10 months ago

And which of the green posters here support wind generation proximate to consumption.. (most effecient, you understand) ..re in the Flint Hills? Sound off please. SnowWI?

oldgoof 7 years, 10 months ago

Lets see, wind right now in Lawrence is 0-3 mph. It is less than 10 degrees. Where is my power coming from??

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 10 months ago

"Where is my power coming from??"

That's an irrelevant question with regards to where our future power generation will come from, isn't it?

snowWI 7 years, 10 months ago

windy, It sure looks like the proposed Holcomb plants are a "combined" tri-state effort to me. (involving other states) "This agreement follows an announcement last year by Sunflower and Tri-State Genearation and Transmission Association, a Westminster, Colorado based wholesale power supplier to develop two additional 700 MW units at Holcomb station" http://www.sunflower.net/News/NRGoldenSpread.pdf I also realize that California does get some of its electricity from dirty coal powered plants in Utah. California also has more stringent environmental regulations than most states so the chances of any coal plant being built in California is low. What would you rather live next to, a coal plant or a natural gas plant?

snowWI 7 years, 10 months ago

oldgoof, Southwest Kansas has transmission lines that they could use for building more large-scale wind farms. Most the high voltage transmission lines are localized in certain areas though. With the announcement that the moratorium on coal-burning plants being rejected this will still leave Kansas far behind other states with regards to developing wind energy. Even Texas, with its massive reliance on fossil fuels, has been developing many wind farms lately in the sparsly populated western area of the state.

snowWI 7 years, 10 months ago

windy, You still do not want to admit that the proposed coal plants for Holcomb will already be outdated. These plants will still be using pulverized coal technology, and not coal gasification. The current pulverized coal technology will have nearly no chance at reducing the amount of CO2 that is emitted. These proposed plants will still emit around 14 MILLION TONS of CO2 with little chance at reducing those emissions using that old technology.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 10 months ago

ASBESTOS--

While you are correct that industrial growth in China (and India and elsewhere) is very a signifcant problem that needs to be dealt with if the damage of global warming is to be limited, your well-demonstrated xenophobia of all things foreign is no justification to give a free pass to the US for doing nothing to reduce its own production of greenhouse gases.

The US is could be a leader in this, but unfortunately, too many of our leaders think just like you do, which will only encourage China to continue down a very dangerous path-- for all of us.

ASBESTOS 7 years, 10 months ago

BOZO,

China is going down this path regardless of what the US does. Remember this is the country harvesting organs from condemned criminals and others. Do you think they will develope "moral clarity" the minute the discussion changes to Golbal Warming? You dems have selective moral outrage. What is going on in China should be shouted from the rooftops, especially when giving the US hell over Iraq. Very Selective.

China is on a path and nothing short of war will deter them from their goal to "westernize". Nothing. Hell we as anation and a world cannot agree on what to do with IRAN developing and having Nukes! If we cannot convince the world to trun back the clocl on WMD, do you really think we can onsomething like "CO2" emissions and "Global Warming"? Can you really be that dense? They are not going to "follow our lead" on anything other than westernizing.

That is not "xenophobic" labeling me that does not make me that. YOU need to analyze fact, instead of just reading the leftwingers bitches.

Helps out a lot, that is looking at facts, instead of opinions>

Remember the copper price, that is the corresponding level of development in the countries of China and India. Copper 4-6 times more expensive than what it was.

Not addressing China and bitching about the US (we have REDUCED the amount of GHG that we emit, [er unit energy and unit production). China will pass us this year as leading CO2 emitter. That is from the IPCC. SO start looking where the problem is.

ASBESTOS 7 years, 10 months ago

Wind to supplement ... Agreed

Digital grid control and conversion .... agreed

New Power plants are needed .... agreed.

It is either keep using the old inefficient coal plants, or build newer ones to get us to that low emission future. Nuke plants would be good as well.

If we want energy independence, you have to drill in the Gulf of Mexico (again China is drilling there with 28 other nations in International waters and Cuban waters) so drilling is ocurring, we need our own oil, we have it, so off shore we go. We also need to drill on ANWR. That is what gets us to independence. You cannot just look at the so called "green" technologies, because they are not green either. Ethanol takes ALOT of water and corn prices have doubled in just one year. Mexico is going to have a hard time feeding their people. Tortillas (made with corn) has DOUBLED.

You gotta look at ALL power generation. For the smallest "Carbon Foot Print" go nuke.

You can no longer ignore it.

ASBESTOS 7 years, 10 months ago

"2050, the year it's estimated that our atmospheric carbon content will reach oversaturation (400-500 ppm) from it's current point (~350 ppm) if we continue at our current clip."

Source please. The new IPCC states that it is 100 years out>

VP Cheney has the power to push the coal fired plants? Why did he not do it sooner. You are a troll there logic. Spouting opinion instead of fact. What a pathetic argument.

"2050 would also mark the year by which the prime corridor for growing wheat will have migrated into the Canadian shield--so"

Noyt according to the New IPCC, so please source.

deec 7 years, 10 months ago

China wouldn't need all that power if we hadn't exported our manufacturing base there.

budwhysir 7 years, 10 months ago

With all the talk about wind power, what about hydropower. You know that it is easier to get water to run downhill into a hydropower uint than to look up and say "BLOW WIND BLOW".

Just a thought, seems like alot of debate on a question that has already been answered

classclown 7 years, 10 months ago

How about using those dilithium crystals they use on Star Trek?

:p

Claire Williams 7 years, 10 months ago

I don't know much about the coal burning moratorium that was proposed, so I won't put in any opinion on it. But I did want to pop in and say that Nuclear energy is a very dangerous solution. Sure, it's clean energy that would help reduce our carbon output. But in my opinion, the risks outweigh the benefits. One major accident at a medium sized plant could rad half the state. Even Wolf Creek is too close for comfort for me.

I would rather see new cleaner burning coal plants to replace the old and dirty ones. Yes, we would still be burning coal, but it would be a step in the right direction, I would think. Does anybody have numbers on how much pollution the plant north of town puts out, and how much a modern plant puts out? I would be interested to see how they compare.

ASBESTOS 7 years, 10 months ago

"Get lost ASBESTOS--I got those statistics from a lecture on global warming I attended on Wednesday"

OH since it comes from a professor at a university that makes it the gospel and science, and good science as well?

Open your eyes!

"carbon ppm is expected to be in a range of 540 to 970. And I would guess that the 540 is only if we begin curbing our current habits (not if we continue at our present pace)"

NO the lower is the inconsistency at current rates. The prediction is between 540 and 970 at current production, since the argument by the IPCC is that nothing is being done at the moment, HENCE the need for an alarm. Your guess is not consistent with the IPCC report.

oldgoof 7 years, 10 months ago

SnowWi writes: "oldgoof, Southwest Kansas has transmission lines that they could use for building more large-scale wind farms. Most the high voltage transmission lines are localized in certain areas though" .. Oldgoof says: that is a little disingenuous. There is very little transmission capacity there, and the vast majority of the land is currently economically unable to cost-justify wind. "localized" means tiny to me. As one who owns land there, and knows where the lines run, the thread that goes through these boards about W Kansas being a potential wind farm mecca don't know beans.

oldgoof 7 years, 10 months ago

Asbestos notes " California imports A MAJORITY of their lectrical energy, BECAUSE of their tight regulations." .. And this is exactly where Colorado is heading due to their enactments of renewable energy portfolios. (As I presume the greenies here would support) State-level responses to these national and international issues won't work. .. I'm still waiting for Cool or SnowWI to support proximate wind generation (i.e. Flint Hills) Western Kansas simply wont cut it economically due to its remote location and lack of transmission capacity.

ASBESTOS 7 years, 10 months ago

"but one of the first foreign policy choices they made was to opt out of the Kyoto treaty,"

NO LOGIC, that was opted out by President CLINTON as well. For the same very sound reasons. It gives CHINA a pass on their power generation. Do you see why I am raising hell about CHINA< YET??

China's main emitting industries are exempted from Kyoto. Even Great Britian, Germany, and French all see the vulgarity of trading emissions. Kyoto is just paying small countries for their inability to have industry. That is Kyoto. Nothing more. IT is not a cood treaty, and is very weak on science, and has this emission trading, and not reduction.

So you again showed your blind adherance to political agenda and talkign points rather that actually reading the Kyoto protocol.

Let your professor tell you what to think, oh yeah you went to the lecture to see what you were to think, not to learn HOW to think!!

DA!

ASBESTOS 7 years, 10 months ago

Cool is right there:

"we don't even have NET METERING ?

many people would love to hook up a small turbine - pay for their own and get a GRID CREDIT."

The electric companies can charge us $0.09 per Kilowatt hour, however IF you generate and send it back, you will be lucky to get $0.055 per kilowatt hour. THe legislature needs to get net metering, and wind turbines would sprout all over.

THERE is the answer, not whining about the coal fired power plants, but let people generate electricity and sell it. WHY should the power companies be the only ones that can sell power at profit?

I agree withthat one a lot. VERY GOOD COOL!

ASBESTOS 7 years, 10 months ago

""Let your professor tell you what to think, oh yeah you went to the lecture to see what you were to think, not to learn HOW to think!!"


You realize you botched this retort, right? It should've read:"

NO it was intentional, that particular use of the english language. YOU sir are told WHAT to think, and cannot think outside that.

ASBESTOS 7 years, 10 months ago

From the Heritage Foundation:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1437.cfm

And From USA TOday:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-06-12-kyoto.htm

The Clinton White House Press OFfice:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-06-12-kyoto.htm

NEWSMAX:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/22/92331.shtml

Yeah President Clinton did finally sign it, but did not send it to congress. This is another issue on "not inhaling". If he signed it and believed it he should have sent it to the Senate. By not sending it to the senate, he basically did not really sign anything.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 10 months ago

oldgoof said--

"Western Kansas simply wont cut it economically due to its remote location and lack of transmission capacity."

Then you would agree that it's pretty silly to consider putting in those massive coal-fired plants proposed for Holcomb, would you not?

ASBESTOS 7 years, 10 months ago

Bitch at President Bush all you want, but the Kyoto failed a Senate vote 97-0 in the Clinton Presidency, AND most democrats voted for the bill (against Kyoto). A little bit of revisionist history going on here.

"On July 25, 1997, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, along with 93 other senators (with five senators not voting and none voting in opposition) adopted a resolution stating that 'the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto.' Shouldn't someone who has held the office of vice president of the United States and who has sought the presidency disclose the facts, even when reviewing a book? The reason that Gore's name is not found with the 95 others is that as vice president presiding over the Senate, he could not cast a vote unless there was a tie. On the Kyoto vote the result was 95 to 0 against the treaty."

oldgoof 7 years, 10 months ago

Bozo asks: "Then you would agree that it's pretty silly to consider putting in those massive coal-fired plants proposed for Holcomb, would you not?" . Goof answers: As pointed out by others, the primary consumers of this electricity will be Colorado....and they are going to have to put in huge new lines to transmit it. That is part of the plan. Actually, those lines will increase the potential for west Kansas wind, because those lines will be able to transport energy into the Western grid. Right now, there is more or less a Berlin Wall running down the country, and the two national transportaion national grids are largely not connected. That wall is in general the KS-Colo line. W Kansas wind is probably going to solve other state's needs before it solves Kansas' . Look, I'm not a Holcomb plant fan. I just find it a fantasy for some who think that a restriction on coal or nuclear plants is going to reduce/constrain this countrys growth in electrical consumption....and that starts right here in Douglas County, and with the Johnson County True Blue Women who drive their CO2-belching Ford Expedition's and similar SUV's from their consumption-intensive homes to the State Capitol to express their concerns about the environment and the oil-related war in the mid-east. And at the expense of a few jobs in an area of the state that needs them badly.

ASBESTOS 7 years, 10 months ago

"...and that starts right here in Douglas County, and with the Johnson County True Blue Women who drive their CO2-belching Ford Expedition's and similar SUV's from their consumption-intensive homes to the State Capitol to express their concerns about the environment and the oil-related war in the mid-east. And at the expense of a few jobs in an area of the state that needs them badly."

I say can we have an "Ay Men"!

oldgoof 7 years, 10 months ago

logicsound says to goof: "There have been studies done that show Kansas in the top three states nationwide in terms of wind potential. However, we are in the bottom 10 in terms of wind power realized--maybe you are confusing the two..." .. not at all. The problem is you have to collect and transport that energy over LONG distances, when the very expensive lines to do this do not exist. That is what makes wind development in W Kansas largely uneconomic in any large scale manner. Power generation of all types is most efficient proximate to its destination.

Transmission lines are a creature of private investment. (investor owned, and cooperatives of course) If the country (or states) want to jump in, this could affect some locational distortions, but I don't see people in NE Kansas anxious to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars which would be necessary to run big pipes to....say Bird City or Elkhart, either on an up-front basis, or through rate surcharges.

oldgoof 7 years, 10 months ago

ASBESTOS points out: "we don't even have NET METERING ?

many people would love to hook up a small turbine - pay for their own and get a GRID CREDIT."

Goof notes: An uncle of mine has had a turbine on his farm for over 30 years. At first, the coop would give him about 2/3 the retail cost of a kw hour as a credit for the electricity he put back in the grid..a few years later it went to zero....and some years after that he started getting some credit back, although I do not know what it currently represents. A regulatory policy which would guarantee a higher credit would stimulate more small turbins.... but then peak costs for all would also significantly increase.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 10 months ago

oldgoof, regarding the expense of transmission lines--

"That is what makes wind development in W Kansas largely uneconomic in any large scale manner."

Whatever we do will be very expensive. Continuing to build coal-fired power plants (and not decommissioning ones like the one near Lawrence) will continue to add to the problem of global warming, the expense of which, if the status quo holds, will completely eclipse the expense of constructing power transmission lines.

It would appear that under the current leadership in the world, our inability to do what needs to be done because the markets can't do will be the fatal flaw of our species.

oldgoof 7 years, 10 months ago

Bozo: Agreed. And so far, it is cheaper for Colo to build these plants and build their lines. . And I would agree that until a cap-and-trade or co2-tax system is imposed on a national/international level, we are all whistling in the wind. There is no short term direct cost to carbon dumping. So we should not be surprised that altruism and karma have not changed peoples consumption patterns.

ASBESTOS 7 years, 10 months ago

Logic you can take that preamble to blow away all enemies too.

Context my man, CONTEXT.

Yes I know what the constitution says, as I have read it AND books on how it came to be. The Federalist papers is a good book to read on constitutional isues. I suggest you read it before you make an infantile mistake of a post like above again, wrapping your argument in the constitution.

If you read it farther, it has issues with the influence of foreign countires, and that is exactly what the UN and Kyoto is. SO you quote the constitution when it suits your needs, but you ignore it when endorsing something the UN or Kyoto or IPCC comes up with?

Psycho!!!

ASBESTOS 7 years, 10 months ago

"But despite the attempts of inserting misinformation into the reports: 90% of the panel agrees that climate change is being caused by human impact upon the Earth's atmosphere, and that it will have very serious consequences for all life on this beautiful planet."

No Kadden, that is what the "Review" states. THe IPCC Technical report has not been releases. What has been reported so far is from policy wonks, not scientists. The IPCC report will scale back by 1/2 the anticipated sea level rise. The IPCC report will also say that the man influenced CO2 estimates are and were 25% overstated at a minimum. YOU just inserted misinformation!

Yes, you are right, people need to get the information first. What has occurred though are agenda driven people whom know little about the report are misrepresenting what the report actually says.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"The fact of the matter remains that coal power is the wrong way for a civilized society to reduce pollution and overcome climate change."

Tell that to CHINA!! Bitch all you want about coal, but if CHINA is building 1 coal plant per day all last year and all next year, well, you get the idea. WE are no longer the problem, it is the developing world, and they will not stop for anything.

"The primary reason we do not have more people following this very wise path is our lack of political will to adopt NET METERING! 43 other states have adopted net metering laws and most of them also have good incentives for people to create their own power sources. As usual the corrupted politicians in Topeka are keeping Kansas in the dark ages."

This is by far your best comment and I agree wholeheartedly!!!

Kaedden 7 years, 10 months ago

After reading all these posts I just want to say that is a real shame that people can't have a civil debate without resorting to name calling.

I trust the IPCC. It is the world's foremost authority on the subject of climate change. Yes the panel of scientists has been infiltrated by biased viewpoints funded by big business and big oil. But despite the attempts of inserting misinformation into the reports: 90% of the panel agrees that climate change is being caused by human impact upon the Earth's atmosphere, and that it will have very serious consequences for all life on this beautiful planet.

The only logical and practical options we have rests with renewable energy systems for our power needs. Of course this approach must be coupled with conservation, energy efficiency, low-impact recycling, and sustainable designs.

The fact of the matter remains that coal power is the wrong way for a civilized society to reduce pollution and overcome climate change.

As for nuclear power; it is by far the most expensive form of power generation, unsafe, produces dangerous waste that we can not safely store, is not practical, creates tons of pollution from its construction process, and no one in their right mind will live anywhere close to one.

Localized renewable energy systems are by far the best option. It increases property value, creates clean reliable energy, makes us all responsible for our own power needs and less wasteful, is very cost effective over the life of the systems, creates security in the event of a crisis, and it sets a positive example for future generations and other nations. The primary reason we do not have more people following this very wise path is our lack of political will to adopt NET METERING! 43 other states have adopted net metering laws and most of them also have good incentives for people to create their own power sources. As usual the corrupted politicians in Topeka are keeping Kansas in the dark ages.

This is what the history books will commonly refer to our current government system as CORPORATACRACY! Our children will have good reason to hate us unless we do something about this corruption.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 10 months ago

From what I've heard, ASBESTOS, the report issued by the IPPC was actually toned down considerably in order to reach unanimous consent as required by UN rules.

ASBESTOS 7 years, 10 months ago

OH, so we do not care what is going on, what is important is "consensus", not a solution?

You have got to be kidding BOZO!!

"CO2 causes between 9 to 30% of the greenhouse effect. Different gases have different impacts."

Then the "Global warming" could NOT be from "manmade" sources. IT would be empirically impossible.

IF you start doing the math with mass of the Atmosphere, and the reported level currently of 370 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and convert that to mass, and track the fossil fuel consumption, there is no way that there is any issue with man influences.

Starting with 370 ppm in the atmosphere assuming completely mixed air, would account for 2.1146 x 10e13 tons. The TOTAL world consumption of fossil fuels results in 22-27 x 10e9 tons of CO2 emissions annually. The buildup if manmade would require a doubled residence time such as 200 years as opposed to the 70-100 in the Global warming alarmists, AND we would have to quadruple our fossil fuel use to get to the 370 ppm CO2 from the considered natural level of 270-280 ppm.

Stated simply, there is something else putting LOTS more CO2 in the air AND there is something taking out a HELLUVA lot of CO2 out of the air.

OH, and the numbers come from a "Global Warming" site and are cross referenced to the IPCC data.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 10 months ago

"OH, so we do not care what is going on, what is important is "consensus", not a solution?"

Did anybody say that? You have to know what the problem is before you can work toward solutions. With this report, human-induced global warming has been clearly identified as a supercritical problem whose solution can't be delayed any longer.

UN rules stated that the report had to have unanimous consent of the member delegates in the IPPC in order to be released. The vast majority wanted to put out a report saying that it that it is 99% certain that human activity is a major cause of global warming, but was that was reduced to 90% certainty in order to get unanimous consent.

As far as your back of the envelope calculations, as usual I'm not even certain what your point is, so for now, I'll just stick with the nearly unanimous conclusions of pretty much every climate scientist in the world.

ASBESTOS 7 years, 10 months ago

" With this report, human-induced global warming has been clearly identified as a supercritical problem ...."

Not what the IPCC report states, that is what the UN politicians report states, the IPCC Technical report has not been released yet.

IF you cannot follow my "back of the envelopecalculations" you need to stop commenting on Global warming as a certianty from Man made emisions. THAT is the point of the "calculations". In a Mass ballance, there simply is not enough CO2 being emitted, AND there is a large amount that is not comming from "man man emissions", additionally there is something taking out a helluva lot of carbon dioxide.

It is not thaqt you don't understand, it that you don't want to understand.

Hence, you should just shut up!

BTW, Science is not consensus, it is facts. IF we were going to entertains "consensus" as "science" the right wingers wanting ID and CREO in schools in science class could have been made by "consensus".

Consensus is as bad for science and solutions than is political agenda!

snowWI 7 years, 10 months ago

Minnesota moves ahead and will requite 1/4 of the power generated by 2025 to come from renewable sources such as wind, solar, and hydro.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_us/renewable_energy

Commenting has been disabled for this item.