Sierra Club representative Brandon Hearn, Olathe, holds a Sierra Club advertisement promoting wind energy, along with other protesters gathered for a news conference Wednesday at the Statehouse in Topeka. Representatives from the Sierra Club, Kansas Rural Center and other groups who are opposed to a proposed coal-fueled power plant in western Kansas urged the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to reject the plant.
Attorney Robert Eye, representing the Sierra Club, speaks at a news conference Wednesday at the Statehouse. the Sierra Club and other environmental groups oppose a proposed power plant in western Kansas that would rely on coal for fuel.
On the street
Are you for or against the building of coal-fired power plants in western Kansas?
I would rather they build more wind farms than build the coal plants.
Topeka — A coalition Wednesday slammed the proposed coal-fueled electric plants in western Kansas, saying the project would hurt the environment and economy.
In a news conference on the steps of the Capitol, representatives of several groups urged Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby to reject the proposal.
The alliance of environmental, religious and health organizations announced it was buying full-page newspaper ads in western Kansas that criticize the project and tout wind energy.
"It's important for these ads to run if only to let people know that there are alternatives," said Bob Eye, an attorney representing environmental interests.
The comments were the latest in a battle over whether to allow two 700-megawatt coal-burning electric plants near Holcomb.
KDHE staff has recommended approval, but environmentalists are counting on Bremby to use his wide latitude under the law to reject the project. Bremby has said he will make a decision this month.
Under the proposal, one plant would be owned by Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and Golden Spread Cooperative of Amarillo, Texas. The other unit would be owned by Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association of Westminster, Colo. Most of the energy would be sold to out-of-state customers.
On Tuesday, legislative supporters of the plants conducted a hearing where they said the project exceeded all environmental regulations, was crucial to western Kansas' economy, and that rejection would amount to discrimination against the region.
But on Wednesday, the coalition of groups sought to counter those arguments.
Carbon dioxide emissions from the plants will add to global warming and eventually lead to long-term drought in western Kansas, said Donald Worster, a Kansas University history professor and prize-winning author of "Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s."
Worster couldn't be at the rally, but his comments were read there. "So, to burn fossil fuels today to create a few jobs and company profits in the short term will mean endangering the farm economy of the whole region, and beyond," he said.
Dan Nagengast, executive director of the Kansas Rural Center, said the coal plants would stifle the development of wind energy that has flourished in other states.
"By rejecting these coal plants we open the door to a much, much wider, widespread rural economy," Nagengast said.
State Rep. Vaughn Flora, D-Topeka, said he was concerned that water rights now devoted to agricultural irrigation were being bought up to provide water to operate the plants.
"The electricity - most is going out of the state, so we are using our water to send electricity to Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas and I don't know where else," Vaughn said.
But project developers have argued that the plants would stimulate wind energy development by providing transmission lines to carry electricity to other areas of the country. And they say the plants would only use a portion of the purchased water rights.
The coalition opposing the coal-fired plants includes Concerned Citizens of Platte County, Earthjustice, Green Sanctuary Committee of All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church, Kansas Rural Center, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra Club, Sustainable Sanctuary Coalition of Kansas City, Mo., True Blue Women and 2020 Vision.
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.
KsTwister (anonymous) says…
"Most of the energy would be sold to out-of-state customers."
Just like the energy companies to put the poison where it will do the most damage with no profit for the people (or State) they place their coal burners. Heck they don't even care that this could drain the water table for all of western Kansas in short order. I only hope for the future of their children they pick a coalition (ironic name) listed above and get on board, quick. Ever try to sell a farm or home in an area that has limited water and air pollution to boot?
SeaFox (anonymous) says…
Coal plant... under fire. Get it? Like you burn coal to make electricity?
hahahahahaha.
omg, the LJW made a funny.
hornhunter (anonymous) says…
KsTwister, posted
Just like the energy companies to put the poison where it will do the most damage with no profit for the people (or State) they place their coal burners. Heck they don't even care that this could drain the water table for all of western Kansas in short order. I only hope for the future of their children they pick a coalition (ironic name) listed above and get on board, quick. Ever try to sell a farm or home in an area that has limited water and air pollution to boot?
Do you not understand, Sunflower Elect. CO-OP????
The word CO-OP in their company name means non-profitt, along with Tri-State. Their energy costs that the consumer pays is regulated the K.C.C. Also the state and local goverments both get huge TAX $$$ off of property taxes.
And for their water. A large amount of land was purchaesd that is located in the sandhills. This land had grown corn, which takes large amounts of water to grow and more since it is in sand. Once this land is removed from ag use to industrial use the amount that can be pumped is greatly reduced. Their area that you know so little about also supports a large amount of dry land farming, which also provides better yeilds then alot of irrigated land. So for your water arguement, your all wet.
And for the listed above coalition groups, thier worse then paranoid people on crack, always afraid of everything
lounger (anonymous) says…
NO coal- wind power!
badger (anonymous) says…
The answer to our fossil-fuel dependence is not, in fact, to find a different fossil fuel to depend on.
Politically, coal is marginally better than oil because it doesn't require so many deals with totalitarian governments. Otherwise, it's really no prize.
KEITHMILES05 (anonymous) says…
Hornhunter is correct.
Too much loud talking and very little understanding of the facts.
For those clammering about wind energy take a look along I-70 and other areas of the state it. It already is happening. Know the facts before opening mouth!
jayhawk2000 (anonymous) says…
Coal power, how 18th century. Where is the coal going to come from and how will it be transported?
Why not rely on wind power and solar power which are in limitless supply and non-polluting?? I'd rather live next to a windmill than a chimney.
Oracle_of_Rhode (anonymous) says…
Kansas can do better than these global warming monstrosities. We have some of the windiest places in the world here, and we should tap that free, clean, renewable resource. It's common sense. Let's not dirty our air, strip mine God's creation and needlessly overheat the globe for our kids and grandkids.
LogicMan (anonymous) says…
"Why not rely on wind power and solar power which are in limitless supply"
And we should install more, but we can't "rely" on it. Would you willingly to only use your computer, television, cell phone charger, microwave, lights, refrigerator, washer/dryer, air conditioning, etc. when the wind is blowing or the sun is shinning strongly? And maybe not be able to use them for days at a time? And likely have rationed power?
Or would you be one of the first complaining of the utilities' unreliability due to your inconvenience and spoiled food?
No, we insist on high-quality, reliable power that's on-demand. Unfortunately, all that wind and other unconventional sources do is displace some fuel usage. But when wisely applied, I'm all for such as long as my electric bill doesn't go much higher. Conservation is something we all can do now that will help much, much more, especially in peak demand hours of the day like late afternoon and early evening.
Replace all your "light bulbs" with CFLs today!
KsTwister (anonymous) says…
"Do you not understand, Sunflower Elect. CO-OP????"
Yes, obviously more so than you do. The energy is shared but the water to cool the coal burners comes from the closest source. I fail to understand where you think that abundant source is located because I guarantee you it is NOT in the other states. Just because corn grows with irrigation does not mean that the water table is unlimited there-it is not. Perhaps you need to read the quote made by Sierra Club for the Holcomb area!!???????
"Sunflower Electric has indicated they will need about 8000 acre-ft per year of water to operate each of their three proposed new 660 MW boilers. This will be needed to operate water cooling towers. These work by evaporating to the atmosphere water that is used to condense steam after it runs through turbines to produce electricity. These quantities are very consistent with what the existing 360 MW Holcomb 1 power plant has been using since start up in 1983. So the total water rights required for all four boilers will be about 30,000 acre-ft. At an average annual capacity factor of 85%, total use will be about 8 billion gallons of water per year.
This water comes from the Ogallala Aquifer.Western Kansas farmers can cut back on irrigation use. However, Sunflower Electric will need to pump continuously from the aquifer for 50 to 75 years to protect their very large investment."
By the way Hornhunter, as a youngster I had family farming in western Kansas giving us a little more insight into this water issue.
From the US Water Irrigation Project:
"The Ogallala Aquifer is a vast, finite underground reservoir covering some 174,000 square miles from Texas to South Dakota. It is a principal source of irrigation, municipal, industrial, and household water in western Kansas and parts of seven other states. Because the amount of water annually withdrawn from the aquifer now exceeds natural recharge, aquifer maintenance and sustainability are vital."
Kansas' interest in sustaining the aquifer dates back to 1992. when Kansas Secretary of Agriculture Sam Brownback created the Ogallala Task Force--a group charged with investigating ways to maintain and enhance the agricultural economy of western Kansas while reducing crop irrigation demands on the aquifer. "
So if irrigation demands are bad tell me where constant draws by Sunflower Electric are not going to be worse! Let alone irrigation won't be the source of air/land pollution additionally that will come from your coal burner. Ever see a strip mine? And I remember the panic when the water table began to continually drop prior to 1992.
Guns_R_Good (anonymous) says…
I'm going to get a good laugh at all these protesters when the proposal is turned down in Kansas and built a mile into Colorado. And yes, the wind blows our way. Global warming hasn't been proven to be man-made. Somehow everyone thinks Al Gore's words carry more weight than the Sun's activities.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
KsTwister - what is your take on the amount of land needed for a wind farm that it would take to generate the same energy produced by a coal plant? Would you rather have your family farm near a wind farm...or have your family farm taken FOR a wind farm? Coal plants just seem more practical to me. Environmentalists wring their hands over suburban sprawl but don't seem to give a crap about large amounts of land taken for wind farms that don't seem to generate a whole lot of energy. But they do a good job on chopping up birds.
staff04 (anonymous) says…
Logicman...you DO realize that we can store power, right?
preebo (anonymous) says…
"For those clammering about wind energy take a look along I-70 and other areas of the state it. It already is happening. Know the facts before opening mouth!"
"Would you willingly to only use your computer, television, cell phone charger, microwave, lights, refrigerator, washer/dryer, air conditioning, etc. when the wind is blowing or the sun is shinning strongly? And maybe not be able to use them for days at a time? And likely have rationed power?"
With statements like these it is clear that there will be no rational intelligent debate on the topic. These people making these claims know nothing of the science involved yet chime in as if they do. I guess this is par for the course here in Kansas.
Kansas your one-stop-shop for Pseudo-science.
livingstone (anonymous) says…
Why do we have to become the "sufferer" everytime? Colorado doesn't want it (being more progressive), and dumps it on us. When some wind farms out in West Kansas doesn't belong to us or any Kansas companies, or even the Tornado help efforts come from California! Wake up Kansas, Kansas got to be more progressive! Wind energy or nothing!
dirkleisure (anonymous) says…
There is no chance of this plant being built in Colorado, Oklahoma, or Texas. No chance.
That entire argument is nothing but a scare tactic, and to repeat it indicates an unwillingness to support this project on its own merits.
As for the argument that wind and solar are not sufficient for our energy needs, I say you are correct. However, do we not already have enough coal burning capacity to meet our needs in this state?
Obviously we must, as the vast majority of energy generated by this plant is unusable in Kansas. The hidden story of the power being sold out of state is that Kansas has no use for that power.
If, in the future, Kansas has a need for that power, then building these coal plants will actually serve as a detriment to solar or wind.
Why build solar or wind when we have two brand new coal plants to meet our energy needs?
jrlii (anonymous) says…
OK, how about if they buy a nice set of French-style fast breeder reactors, complete with fuel recycling services?
dano (anonymous) says…
It's a shame author Scott Rothschild chose to show a single point of view in this article. I dislike FOX News for distortions to the right, but I also find the LJWorld's distortions to the left equally unappealing.
tolawdjk (anonymous) says…
I'm curious Staff04, just exactly how do propose to "store" 2100 MW of power?
Cause that is what you would have to do if you want to supply 1400 MW, which is what this plant would do.
Enlighten me. Hell, ignore the costs, just give me a citation of power storage and distribution of that storage.
salad (anonymous) says…
Wind farms, that is REAL wind farms, are ugly. I like the wide open sky and landscape of Kansas, just imagine it with wind turbines from horizon to horizon. Ugly, and it only makes a tiny little dent in our energy needs. If everyone spent a couple weeks in central Kansas in August without electricity for airconditioning, then nuclear power starts to sound pretty good.
nuke-yuh-ler....ftw!!!!
pace (anonymous) says…
We should do this because if we don't then someone else might. That has to be the 10 year old talking in you. Listen to your mother, just because someone else steals, pollutes, lies, jumps off a bridge doesn't mean you or the state of Kansas is not responsible for the pollution, or choices they make. Making excuses is not the same thing as being responsible.
LogicMan (anonymous) says…
"Logicman:you DO realize that we can store power, right?"
It's been researched, at great lengths, for decades. Capacitors, flywheels, compressed gases, etc. On that scale, there's no economical/ecological/safe/... choices that work, unless you happen to have a far-uphill reservoir available to do pumped water storage. Battery storage, for small uses, works (with about a 10% or more loss), but we're talking a number of orders of magnitude higher needs as noted in a later post. The electrons you are "using" right now were excited a split second ago (unless you are on batteries); unfortunately, storage on a large scale just doesn't work (with a few notable exceptions).
"With statements like these it is clear that there will be no rational intelligent debate on the topic."
Really? I thought that was the purpose of this forum. Or is it "You don't agree with me, so you are unintelligent."?
KsTwister (anonymous) says…
blue73harley: Housecats killing birds greatly outnumber wind turbines,and don't forget those that get hit by vehicles. Last time I checked farmers were still raising cattle and planting crops next to Wind Turbines in Montana and Wyoming. You cannot claim farmers can do the same with a coal plant do you???
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases...
enlightenment
http://clevelandplanner.blogspot.com/...
I'm waiting for a large scale invention of this one.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
Housecats are killing birds?.....oh the horror, the shame, the carnage of it all. There's no perfect short-term choice for electricity except that we all agree to use less, and we won't. You're dealing with a not very liquid commodity that can't be stored (in large quantities) so it must be generated and used.
Safe nukes might be the option, but the last nuke in KS was Wolf Creek in Burlington, and the Burlington folks fought that tooth and nail, until it was built and was clearly the best thing that ever happened to Burlington, Ks.
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
Maybe we could employ all the homeless people and build a very long bicycle attached to a turbine......(just brainstorming to resolve other problems in the LJW). Remember, there are no bad ideas......well maybe that one was....
badger (anonymous) says…
livingstone says, in the style of Doctor Bronner:
"Wake up Kansas, Kansas got to be more progressive! Wind energy or nothing!"
Badger responds:
Is wind energy powering your computer? Cause if it isn't, then your other option is 'nothing'.
Absolutist environmental policy should start at home.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
kneejerk - It might be a good idea but we would have to figure out what would be the cost of kilowatts per fifth of vodka.
tolawdjk (anonymous) says…
Thank you LogicMan, for doing what Staff04 wasn't able to.
I think what needs to be added here is that every for of "storage" out there is going to result in 1) energy loss, and 2) energy requirements to maintain that storage. The net result being you will need to produce more power than you actually need just to make sure that the power you need is available when you want it.
The wind doesn't blow all the time, the sun doesn't always shine, and Kansas isn't Iceland with vast resources of geothermal. That means large regional generators, like Holcomb, are always going to be necessary.
One option that I haven't heard explored that I think would bear some merit is a concept of local wind farms that supply when available and then are supported by the grid. You wouldn't need the huge ammounts of transmission lines to the various spread out windfarms. It would be sort of a reverse of the exisiting "peaking" nat gas stations that are spread out around the state right now.
Oh who am I kidding, people aren't going to be happy till every coal plant is leveled into the ground and we are relying on sporadic storms to turn the lights on.
purplesage (anonymous) says…
Many years ago, while a student at Northern Arizona University, the rumor was spread that a coal fired power plant to be built at Page would obscure the San Francisco Peaks in a matter of a few years. The plant was built, regardless, and has been generating since the late 70'[s or early 80's. Guess what? The Peaks are still visible. So is the Grand Canyon. Coal generated power does not have to mean heavy smog and pollution. If you don't like coal-generated electricity, just turn out the lights.
LogicMan (anonymous) says…
"One option that I haven't heard explored that I think would bear some merit is a concept of local wind farms"
Unfortunately, unless there is a high average wind speed at the location, and even with the massive tax incentives currently in place, wind is rarely competitive. However, where the wind does blow strong, like in the southwestern Kansas and the panhandles of Oklahoma and Texas, wind makes great sense but only if long-distance transmission lines are available -- there aren't many local loads out there. The new coal plant, if built, would help since they've publicly stated that they would install extra line capacity for wind farms. Transmission lines are expensive and dangerous, and getting the rights-of-way, approvals, etc. are prohibitive to most any individual, organization, or government; utilities are the ones that know how to do 'em right.
That said, I have considered adding a big wind turbine to my own home! But the $15,000+ cost and other issues are preventing it.
And if you are wondering, no, I'm not affiliated with a utility or lobbying group. Just my own thoughts and opinions stated here, and not those of my employer.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Stop The Kansas Coal Fired Plants:
http://action.earthjustice.org/campai...
kneejerkreaction (anonymous) says…
Coal is dirty
Nuclear is dangerous
Natural gas can be expensive
Renewables are not practical and are very expensive
Choose your poisin from the above list. But the rules are that you can't have clean energy and inexpensive energy. You can have dirty/dangerous and cheap or clean and unreliable and very, VERY, expensive.
KsTwister (anonymous) says…
$4000 and you can have one of these for the budget conscious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnhpeJ...
etsi_truss (anonymous) says…
jackA$$2000-
Why not rely on wind power and solar power which are in limitless supply and non-polluting?? I'd rather live next to a windmill than a chimney.
You better start packing your bags and holding your breath son your end of the state already has the largest polluters in the country. You have to be a KU tree hugger!!!!!!!
http://www.planethazard.com/phmapenv....