Archive for Thursday, November 1, 2007
Sunflower Electric, lawmakers go on offensive over coal plants
Governor backs denial of permits
November 1, 2007
Advertisement
TOPEKA — The head of Sunflower Electric Power Corp. called on Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to reverse her administration's denial of two coal-fired plants - and apologize.
The letter from Earl Watkins, president and chief executive of Sunflower Electric, was in response to remarks made by Sebelius last week and an Oct. 18 denial by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment of the proposed power plants near Holcomb.
"Governor, I ask you to apologize for your challenge of our moral fiber and to reverse your decision," Watkins said.
KDHE Secretary Roderick Bremby denied the permits, citing concerns about the health effects of coal-produced carbon dioxide emissions.
Several days later, Sebelius wrote in an "open letter" that she supported the decision for economical and environmental reasons.
She said denial of the permits would "uphold our moral obligation to be good stewards of this beautiful land."
Watkins said that the proposed plants would have been among the cleanest coal-fired plants in the nation, and that Sunflower had worked aggressively to address environmental concerns.
He said it was unfair for Sebelius "to play the 'moral' card" because she promotes wind energy, which some see as harmful to landscapes, birds and habitats.
In response to Watkins' letter, Sebelius' office said she would review it "carefully" but it won't affect her support of Bremby's order.
In addition, Sebelius spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran said, "The moral obligation she has referenced is her own moral obligation to protect the people and environment of our state."
Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, and House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, R-Ingalls, also have weighed in with an "open letter" critical of the Sebelius administration's decision on the coal plants.
The two legislators said Sunflower's proposal met all environmental standards and noted that carbon dioxide emissions are unregulated on the state and federal level.
"The governor's public position and her administration's decision are misleading and misguided," they said.
More like this
- Coal plants spark battle of letters November 2, 2007
- 6News video: Coal company demands apology November 1, 2007
- The head of Sunflower Electric Power Corporation calls on Governor Kathleen Sebelius to reverse the November 1, 2007
- Coal battle moves to court 53 comments / May 22, 2008
- Coal plant supporters' ad attacks governor 29 comments / November 6, 2007
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Quiet revolution taking place in America November 25, 2009 · 118 comments
- Blog: How Has Obama's Stimulus Helped You? November 21, 2009 · 59 comments
- Turbine manufacturer passes on Lawrence site November 24, 2009 · 75 comments
- Haskell freshman dies in Montana jail November 24, 2009 · 27 comments
- Lambert performance causes stir November 25, 2009 · 41 comments
- Stay or leave? It's business as usual for Mangino in wake of probe November 25, 2009 · 39 comments
- On the street: Is Thanksgiving your favorite holiday? November 25, 2009 · 44 comments
- Dropping home values may not accurately reflect market November 25, 2009 · 37 comments
- Blog: Tasering Your Preteen: Can You Imagine? November 24, 2009 · 68 comments
- Federal government seeking easement on 1 million acres of Flint Hills November 25, 2009 · 13 comments
- Former KU Chancellor Laurence Chalmers dies November 25, 2009
- Message warns students at Perry-Lecompton not to attend class today April 20, 2007
- Pale veggies pack plenty of nutrition December 17, 2008
- KU says student didn't follow proper lab procedures before exposure to toxic chemical November 25, 2009
- School district may have to tap contingency fund November 24, 2009
- Lawrence likely to land distribution center November 24, 2009
- Keenly attuned blind couple have different way of ‘looking at’ things October 12, 2009
- 6News video: SLT opponents gather for forum June 15, 2008
- Kansas ranks 24th in nation when it comes to health November 24, 2009
1 November 2007
at 11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
If Morris, Neufeld, and Sunflower get their way, I expect a letter from their grandkids to my grandkids 100 years from now apologizing for building this plant.
1 November 2007
at 11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
preebo (Anonymous) says…
“The two legislators said Sunflower's proposal met all environmental standards and noted that carbon dioxide emissions are unregulated on the state and federal level.”
I wouldn't be so sure… Massachusetts v. EPA has clearly placed the ball in EPAs court regarding this issue. I would expect within the next five years there will substantial regulatory action involving CO2 requirements.
http://www.nrdc.org/media/2007/070402…
1 November 2007
at 12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…
At the risk of suffering the wrath of some of the posters to this forum … but I support the KDHE Secretary's decision.
I seem to remember an article(s) saying that the vast majority of the electricity generated would go to Colorado and not Kansas. I also remember an article(s) saying that the plant had already been denied in TX, OK, CO and NB (I think). I do remember a map showing the downwind hazard of the pollution from the plant extending well beyond NE KS, widening as it went further downwind.
I would appreciate someone helping locate those articles and the map. Maybe it was just one article. Those might lend to the discussion.
1 November 2007
at 12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Larzia (Jake Esau) says…
I think wind turbines look better than smokestacks….
1 November 2007
at 1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lounger (Anonymous) says…
Go away sunflower. Take your filth and CO2 and tuck tail and leave!!
1 November 2007
at 1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kshiker (Anonymous) says…
I wanted to check this forum to see if I could spot some of the wonderful, not-based in reason or logic comments that I am used to on this subject. I have not been disappointed. The fact is that wind power is not a base power source. You could quadruple the amount of wind power we currently have in Kansas and it would not meet our future electricity needs. The only true base power sources at this time are coal, natural gas and nuclear.
I know you all will not support building new nuclear plants and natural gas is both declining and expensive. So, unless you want to stop using your computers and turn off the lights in your homes and offices, I would suggest that you support a reasonable expansion of coal-fired power plants.
1 November 2007
at 2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
average (Anonymous) says…
Kshiker -
There are plenty of us here who are against coal and pro-nuclear. There are such posts every time and you dismiss them since they don't fit in your simplistic worldview.
Of course, since a nuclear installation is amortized over a 40-50 year operating lifespan (higher capital costs but much lower fuel cost), no one would build a nuclear plant at Holcomb. There simply won't be any aquifer water to chug through in 40 years there. But Wolf Creek 2, or a nuclear plant on the Kaw or Missouri Rivers to replace current coal plants? I'd buy land next door and apply for a job.
1 November 2007
at 3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snowWI (Anonymous) says…
kshiker (Anonymous) says
” I would suggest that you support a reasonable expansion of coal-fired power plants.”
I don't think so. Other states rejected having coal plants built as well. Kansas has plenty of coal plants already in operation in this state. Electricity rates are still way cheaper compared with other states. Most of the electricity that would be generated from Holcomb would be sent to other states besides Kansas.
1 November 2007
at 3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
kshiker - in Texas, investors have expressed interest in projects worth more than 24,000 megawatts in wind power—more than is installed in Germany right now and, if built, enough to provide one-third of Texas's electricity needs.
Conservative, Republican, oil-crazy Texas.
Base power indeed. The argument against wind as a base power source made tremendous sense in 1997.
Unless you are starring in a soon to be canceled NBC series, I suggest you join the rest of us in the present.
1 November 2007
at 3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deskboy04 (Anonymous) says…
I will no longer use electricity.
1 November 2007
at 3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kshiker (Anonymous) says…
Dirkleisure —
Lovely arguments, but I guess I missed when you explained the rationale behind your “opinion” that wind was a base power source. Even though investors have expressed interest in a large amount of wind projects in Texas (according to you with no citations), this does not mean that these turbines will actually be constructed. The last time I checked, investors have expressed interest in building a Wizard of Oz Theme Park at the old Sunflower Ammunition Plant. We all know that was a great idea too! Never happened!
1 November 2007
at 3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
etsi_truss (Anonymous) says…
If she is so concerned then she needs to go 35 mile west and start cleaning up her own backyard.
I am sure all hell would break loose then!!!!!!!!!!
1 November 2007
at 3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kshiker (Anonymous) says…
Snow WI —
You win. Apparently electricity demand in Kansas is not expected to grow over the next 20 years and we will not have to construct any new power generation capacity. Wait a minute … that is wrong. Even if Kansas is well-suited currently, future demand will vastly oustrip current capacity. Unfortunately, wind power alone will not generate enough capacity to accommodate future demand. So … its new nuclear plants, new natural gas plants or coal plants.
1 November 2007
at 3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hk45 (Anonymous) says…
I just drove down I-70 last weekend and saw several wind turbines going up 25 miles west of Salina and I have to say they look impressive, but it does ruin the landscape of the rolling hills. I would much rather see a few smoke stacks around a coal plant than several wind turbines spread over many miles.
1 November 2007
at 4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
scott3460 (Anonymous) says…
“So, unless you want to stop using your computers and turn off the lights in your homes and offices, I would suggest that you support a reasonable expansion of coal-fired power plants.”
How about we get rid of the millions of illegal aliens who have invaded our country & then our energy “needs” may seem more manageable.
1 November 2007
at 4:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kshiker (Anonymous) says…
Scott —
That is certainly an interesting point-of-view on the energy debate. I would certainly not disagree with your characterization of the problems this country has with enforcing current immigration laws. However, even if the population of the United States was reduced by 10 to 11 million citizens (the estimated amount of illegal immigrants residing in this country), we would still probably see electricity demand increase dramatically over the next 20 to 25 years.
1 November 2007
at 4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
feeble (Anonymous) says…
kshiker (Anonymous) says:
You win. Apparently electricity demand in Kansas is not expected to grow over the next 20 years and we will not have to construct any new power generation capacity. Wait a minute : that is wrong. Even if Kansas is well-suited currently, future demand will vastly oustrip current capacity. Unfortunately, wind power alone will not generate enough capacity to accommodate future demand. So : its new nuclear plants, new natural gas plants or coal plants.
===============
While this may be true, it is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.
“All the power from Holcomb 3 & 4 will belong to Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association and will be sold to customers in Colorado, New Mexico, Nebraska and Wyoming. Golden Spread Coop will own 400 MW of the capacity from Holcomb 2. It will be sold to its customers in Oklahoma and Texas. Sunflower says it will sell 150 MW from Holcomb 2 to its member coops and to Mid-Kansas Electric. Thus Kansans will receive only about 8% of the power from the expansion at Holcomb.”
http://kansas.sierraclub.org/Wind/Who…
Sure, the sierra club is an active participant in this circus, but a measly 8% does nothing for our (kansas) future power needs. As another poster mentioned, Wolf Creek 2 would do far more for the state.
The Holcomb deal is great for Sunflower Electric, but lousy for Kansas.
1 November 2007
at 4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kshiker (Anonymous) says…
Feeble —
Lovely citation from the Sierra Club. A group of non-biased, professional scientists if there ever was one. The Sierra Club contributes nothing of value to this debate and frankly has already done enough damage.
I would agree with your second contention though. A new nuclear power plant would be an extremely promising development.
1 November 2007
at 5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kshiker (Anonymous) says…
LogicSound —
Did you not realize in your infinite wisdom that wind and solar power are renewable energy components, which are thus eligible for the $2.7 billion tax incentives in your list entitled “renewable electricity production credits?”
1 November 2007
at 9:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KsTwister (Anonymous) says…
Sunflower Electric should not be carrying on like some muscle man of organized crime.
Please Governor don't back down, because how can you meet standards if there are NO regulations on carbon emissions????”The two legislators said Sunflower's proposal met all environmental standards and noted that carbon dioxide emissions are unregulated on the state and federal level.”
2 November 2007
at 4:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hornhunter (Anonymous) says…
feeble,
You might want to get up to speed before posting, appearantly the do gooders are not interested in putting good up to date info on their web site and misleading people even more. The last I heard it was 2 air permitts, 2 units @ 700 MW each.
logic, wind will never be a Base load energy. 'BASE' means always there, even when there is no wind.
5 November 2007
at 8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Left_handed (Anonymous) says…
feeble, are you saying that the carbon dioxide wouldn't be a problem if the electricity was being substantially used in Kansas? Or that the carbon dioxide won't be a problem if it's made in Colorado or Oklahoma? Talk about a specious argument.