Coal plant block could jeopardize wind farms
The state's decision to block two coal-fired power plants could put an end to wind farm projects in western Kansas. Enlarge video
Coal-fired energy plants
Topeka — The Colorado power company wanting to build a 700-megawatt coal-fired plant in western Kansas should abandon that plan and opt for conservation and renewable energy sources.
That's the conclusion of an analysis released Monday that was conducted by Summit Blue Consulting for Western Resource Advocates, an environmental group.
But Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, based in Westminster, Colo., said it still supports building a coal-burning plant near Holcomb.
Under the proposal, Tri-State would own one 700-megawatt plant, and Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and a Texas company would jointly own another 700-megawatt plant. Both plants would be built near Sunflower's existing 360-megawatt plant. About 85 percent of the electricity from the plants would be sold to customers in Colorado, Texas and Oklahoma.
But last month, Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby rejected the two proposed plants, citing concerns with carbon dioxide emissions and global warming.
Sunflower and Tri-State say they will fight the decision in court.
"The secretary made an arbitrary and capricious decision," said Tri-State spokesman Lee Boughey. He said Tri-State is "absolutely" committed to the project.
But the analysis by Summit Blue said Bremby's decision gives Tri-State managers an opportunity to reassess their power source strategy.
Sticking with its proposed coal-fired power plant "does not increase either the diversity or flexibility of resources," the analysis says.
Considering the potential costs of carbon dioxide regulation and increasing construction costs, Tri-State's plan makes it "highly vulnerable to changes in the cost of electricity," the report says.
But Boughey rejected the report's portrayal of Tri-State, saying that Tri-State has a balanced energy plan that includes coal, renewable energy and conservation. He said the company supported a recent plan approved in Colorado to require energy companies to derive 10 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020.
Boughey said the Holcomb project will be discussed today by Tri-State board members during their monthly meeting.
"This is an important project to us," he said.
Environmentalists say Tri-State should abandon the Holcomb project and focus on energy efficiency, developing wind energy in Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming, and exploring carbon-reducing technologies. Western Resource Advocates say they hope the report it commissioned will sway Tri-State board members.
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.
63BC (anonymous) says…
As the following Wichita Eagle story makes clear, the only way to make renewable energy viable in Western Kansas is to have the coal plants, because they pay the freight for the transmission costs. It's not either/or. Without the coal expansion, renewable projects won't survive at all.
http://ap.cjonline.com/pstories/state...
wichita, Kan. — As many as 13 potential wind-farm projects in western Kansas could be in danger because of the state's decision to reject two coal-fired generating plants near Holcomb, proponents of the wind farms said. --> --> wichita, Kan. - As many as 13 potential wind-farm projects in western Kansas could be in danger because of the state's decision to reject two coal-fired generating plants near Holcomb, proponents of the wind farms said.
New transmission lines were to be part of the $3.6 billion Sunflower Electric Power Corp. project, which was rejected by Rod Bremby, the state's secretary of health and environment.
But with the fate of that project in doubt, several western Kansas officials say their projects aren't feasible without the additional transmission capacity.
"I'd say this decision pretty much halts wind development in western Kansas," said David Snyder, economic development director in Ness County. "We need transmission lines, and we need the coal plants to get them."
Snyder said it's not economically practical for transmission lines to be erected for wind alone because of the erratic nature of that power source and the expense of the lines.
Building transmission lines costs about $1 million per mile.
"It's bad enough that we face shortages in power and the loss of a sizable amount of money already invested in preparing for the construction of the plants, but now we could lose our wind project, as well," said Neal Gillespie, economic director for Stevens County in far southwest Kansas.
DougCounty (anonymous) says…
The Tri-State folks are in a heap of trouble with some of their other electrical co-op buyers. Delta Montrose, one of the big players in New Mexico is still VERY skeptical. Check out these excerpts from their website at www.dmea.com:
"...Tri-State is also planning to build old technology coal-fired power plants. And it is placing the first two plants in Kansas, hundreds of miles from DMEA. We think Tri-State should build the first plant using state-of-the-art coal-fired power technology that will be usable far into the 21st century....DMEA wants the right to use local suppliers of electricity to provide part of our local needs. We know that DMEA's service territory has lots of potential electric power supplies. There is waste wood from a large local sawmill and from the clearing of tamarisk and other weed trees. The coal mines are venting methane gas into the atmosphere that could produce electricity. The manure from three dairy cows can be turned into enough methane to power two houses, and our service territory has several thousand dairy cows. Many of our towns' municipal water systems could generate hydropower. And the water project planned for the Grand Mesa could produce a large amount of hydroelectricity....
Q: Can't DMEA connect to local generators under its current contract?
A: Technically the contract allows us to produce five percent of our own power. But the agreement is filled with loopholes that would let Tri-State block such projects. In addition, in the past, when a local company has come up with a proposal to generate large amounts of power here, Tri-State has offered to buy that power at a very low rate. Frankly, Tri-State has never shown much interest in diversifying its power sources. DMEA doesn't have much wind. But our sister co-ops in eastern Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, and New Mexico have lots of wind. But Tri-State especially opposes wind power even though Xcel has hooked up huge amounts of wind for its urban customers.
Q: It sounds hopeless.
A: Far from it. We at DMEA are full of hope. First, we are not alone in refusing to extend the contract. We've been communicating with the other 43 co-operatives and a surprising number see things similar to the way DMEA sees them. Moreover, Tri-State and the co-ops are not alone in the world. And the world is changing rapidly. Pressure is building fast on Tri-State from citizens, regulators, state legislators, and governors to modernize its thinking and its technology. DMEA is not the only one looking far down the road. What we see, many others see. There's nothing exceptional about DMEA. None of us wants to saddle our children and our children's children with debt and old technology."
hornhunter (anonymous) says…
DC,
"The Tri-State folks are in a heap of trouble with some of their other electrical co-op buyers"?
Thats pushing it just a little to much, HEAP. And what kind of trouble would that be?
"Delta Montrose, one of the big players in New Mexico is still VERY skeptical."?
So when did they move Delta Montrose to N.M ?
Don't you think you should find out what they wanted to do with the current state of the art technology, before you cut and paste out dated info.
If not, move out west young man, and you could live in one of these two dream homes.
"The manure from three dairy cows can be turned into enough methane to power two houses, and our service territory has several thousand dairy cows."
DougCounty (anonymous) says…
My bad--Delta Montrose is in Colorado, not NM, but they are part of a 43 member coop group that Tri-State provides services to, including ones in NM. You may say that this is outdated information, but the website still has it on its home page and they seem to be in no rush to change their skeptical attitude and openly questioning the Tri-State approach to energy transmission and power production that contrasts with other power producers in Colorado and elsewhere in the region.
The bottom line is that the line that we are getting about the power plant is not uniformly supported and even is openly questioned in the areas that are supposedly being represented by the Republican boosters for this project. Folks out there are not dummies--they have eyes and ears and know that with carbon taxes and a bust of the natural gas boom in Colorado, the local taxpayer and coop could be saddled with big debts that they won't be able to afford.
georgeofwesternkansas (anonymous) says…
The Supreme Court has created the legal authority to reguate co2, true statement. It does not and will never remove the authority of state or federal legislators to create the laws that regulate co2 output. Key word "create" as in "not yet created", "hoping to create", "if we get the votes".
Sunflower met the current statutory requirements placed before them according to Kansas law, only to be denied by what Brimby thinks, hopes, or wishes may someday be the law of the land. Yes, it is good to reduce co2 output, but not like this. This is a political end run which is totally unfair and will never stand in court and everyone knows it. What it has done is make the people of SouthWest Kansas a political pawn in some game.
The professional staff at KDHE operating within current Kansas statute recomended this permit be granted, and were overturned by a politican. Please tell me how you can apply a regulation that does not exhist, or operate outside of current statute??
By his actions Brimby has created policy that will not allow KDHE to renew any coal generation air permits in 2008. With all Kansas coal plants up for renewal in 08, and knowing that 75% of our power is going away within 12 months, we have a very big problem. Is this what the owners of this state have asked for?
Brimby in his lust to solve the problems of the world has created a rather large mess without any reasonable solution. If he does not treat weststar the same, well, he has to treat them the same.
We do need to move away from fossel fuel, but right now we have nothing that can replace it, and will not in my lifetime, maybe my grandchildren will see it. This view does not make me any kind neo-con but rather someone who has no illusions about reality. We demand electricity 24/7 and coal is the only thing that can give it and still allow us enough money to go on vacation. The nucelar construction/power industry was dismantled 30 years ago by the same movement different cause folks that never present any solutions and only promote panic.
Without electricity it is 1905, and I do my farming at the food market. I don't have any horses, or know how to farm with them if I did. How about you?
I keep asking this question but cannot get any answer. If we are smart enough to predict the weather 20 years from now, why can I not get a spot on forcast for Christmas?? Or better yet a snow report for Steamboat in March, I want to ski.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"I keep asking this question but cannot get any answer. If we are smart enough to predict the weather 20 years from now, why can I not get a spot on forcast for Christmas?? Or better yet a snow report for Steamboat in March, I want to ski."
Weather forecasts are used every day to make very important decisions. Our whole economy is run on much less precise information than that which projects global warming as a result of human activity.
georgeofwesternkansas (anonymous) says…
"Weather forecasts are used every day to make very important decisions. Our whole economy is run on much less precise information than that which projects global warming as a result of human activity."
Thank you for supporting my point. If we cannot acurately predict the weather in 5 days, please tell me how 10-20 years out will be a much more precise forcast??
DougCounty (anonymous) says…
Global warming was discussed in The World We Live In book I read when I was a kid in the 60's. It's been on the radar of the scientific community for over 40 years and has been the overwhelming consensus of the world's climatologists for over 20. Why do folks have such a problem accepting this? The only reason I can think of is that it's because folks don't like what they are hearing, just like the tobacco industry kept churning out studies that denied the overwhelming evidence against their product. Just because it's human nature to deny what you don't like to hear doesn't mean that we can't accept it before it's too late. Jared Diamond has written an excellent cross-cultural review of what the important factors are in a culture faced with a set of facts that threaten it in his book titled Collapse. I recommend everyone who reads this to read that book and see that we make the choices that will ensure that the US chooses to take the path of long term survival instead of denial and ultimate collapse--our planet's history is strewn with plenty of examples of both paths taken.
georgeofwesternkansas (anonymous) says…
As in my original post, I will again state that we need to move away from fossel fuel. We do need to make the right choices. For electric base load the long term choices are nucelar or coal. The nucealr plant construction industry was dismanteled in the 70's as the Vietnam activest network was in need of a cause, which makes nucelar plant construction cost too high. It will be much cheeper to complete devlopment of micro alge/co2 biofuels. Sunflower is partnered with GreenFuel Technology in micro alge project that started 7 months ago.GreenFuel currently has a successful micro alge project with Arazona Power and Light that is being adapted for multi stack use north of Pheonix.
Sunflower is in this to do the right thing and will only build the most modern and efficent plant. Before the current plant was built the plan was to build nucelar before all construction of the cleanest source of power was shut down.
Sometimes we have to make the best choice when the right choice is not available. Coal is the current choice because wind will never be more than a supplement, natural gas in the USA is all but depleated. So we will choose, Make coal cleaner, only have power when the wind blows (could be that global warming will stop the wind), or pay $10K per year to power your home.
gr (anonymous) says…
georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says:
"
"Weather forecasts are used every day to make very important decisions. Our whole economy is run on much less precise information than that which projects global warming as a result of human activity."
Thank you for supporting my point. If we cannot acurately predict the weather in 5 days, please tell me how 10-20 years out will be a much more precise forcast??
"
george, I think you missed his point. We use inaccurate and non-precise information to make "very important decisions". Then we use precise information to predict weather 10-20 or more years out for imaginary decisions.
Shooting himself in the foot comes to mind.
bozo, I found an analysis of what you are trying to do. It's called, "Shifting the Burden of Proof" which is what I've been trying to tell you. Absolutely no different than saying space aliens are causing global warming - prove they are not.
http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd...
DougCounty (anonymous) says…
I actually admire Sunflower for their Integrated Bioenergy Center, and because they are trying to mature these technologies into an integrated whole, I feel that they really are trying to do the right thing. I just think that the 700 MW units are just way over the top and discourage, rather than encourage the development of wind and other biomass options for our state. They do this because of the limitations imposed by the Tri-State transmission lines that will limit the amount of renewables that can access those transmission lines, and because they are pumping electricity to the sprawling front range developments in Colorado, this will also suppress the development of alternatives out there, as well as the energy co-ops Tri-State is serving, which the Delta Montrose website clearly states.
I think they are having trouble developing the Integrated Bioenergy Center concept as well, as they lost the development partner for the ethanol leg of the center and have not found a replacement as far as I've heard. The ethanol plant was supposed to process algae starch from the algae reactor, and glycerol from the biodiesel plant, and provide extracted corn oil for the biodiesel plant, so without that piece of the pie, I openly wonder if this is still a viable project. I suspect that having a smaller CO2 source, i.e. the existing coal fired plant, will more than provide enough CO2 input to grow algae for the reactor and use the fuels produced onsite.
a_flock_of_jayhawks (anonymous) says…
georgeofwesternkansas writes,
"By his actions Brimby has created policy that will not allow KDHE to renew any coal generation air permits in 2008. With all Kansas coal plants up for renewal in 08, and knowing that 75% of our power is going away within 12 months, we have a very big problem. Is this what the owners of this state have asked for?"
Bremby has not addressed existing plants with his action. Your statement regarding whether KDHE will renew permits is not true. They might, might not, or might place restrictions or targets, so I don't agree that KDHE will not be allowed to renew permits based on the Holcomb plant decision.