Archive for Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Sebelius’ stance on coal plant, KU criticized
September 25, 2007
Advertisement
Topeka — A group of Republican House members on Monday criticized Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for opposing a coal-fired power project in western Kansas, while supporting an affiliation between Kansas University and a Missouri hospital.
The legislators said both issues represent exporting Kansas assets. But Sebelius, a Democrat, said they are unrelated.
In a news release, state Rep. Pat George, R-Dodge City, said, "Numerous times this year, Gov. Sebelius has expressed her strong support of a proposed affiliation agreement between the University of Kansas School of Medicine and St. Luke's Hospital, despite the fact the proposed affiliation indicates Kansas medical interns will be assigned to hospital rotations in Missouri.
"Meanwhile, she has spoken against the idea of a Kansas power plant selling its excess electricity for use in other states."
Sebelius said the proposed power project near Holcomb and the research and training affiliation between KU and St. Luke's are two completely different deals.
She said she supports the KU-St. Luke's affiliation because it will help KU attain National Cancer Institute designation.
And Sebelius said she opposes the twin, 700-megawatt coal plants because they would produce massive emissions.
"I also believe that we have a moral duty to be good stewards of this land, and I have a responsibility for the safety and security of our citizens, which includes health concerns. Those considerations have convinced me that massive new coal plants in Kansas are not in the best interests of our citizens," Sebelius said.
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment is expected to make a decision soon on the proposed plants. If approved, approximately 90 percent of the electricity produced will be sold to out-of-state customers.
State Rep. Sharon Schwartz, R-Washington, and chairwoman of the House budget committee, said the proposed KU Medical Center-St. Luke's affiliation would result in "shipping our medical assets out of state."
Schwartz added: "Pulling a critical mass of students out of the Kansas program to intern at St. Luke's would reduce not only KU Hospital's ability to care for its patients but also impact KUMC-Wichita, which relies on those interns."
But Amy Jordan Wooden, a spokeswoman for KUMC, said the proposed affiliation would result in the training of more doctors and offer them more diverse training experience.
The group of Republican House members criticizing Sebelius' positions also included Jeff Whitham, of Garden City; John Grange, of El Dorado; Mike O'Neal, of Hutchinson; John Faber, of Brewster. Dick Kelsey, of Goddard; and Jim Morrison, of Colby.
Top ads RSS
- Now Hiring Nights! Secure location, paid training. Jackson Hewitt Tax ...
- Office Administrator Environmental firm seeks full time office administrator. Proficient ...
- RESEARCH ASSISTANT The Institute for Life Span Studies, University of ...
- Federal Home Loan
- Groundskeeper needed for multiple properties. Flexible hours. Must be able ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Suspect in police chase faces 11 charges; court appearance set Wednesday afternoon December 3, 2008 · 32 comments
- Friends, family pay tribute to accident victim at crash site December 2, 2008 · 254 comments
- On the street: Should the city fine property owners $50 for not clearing snow from their sidewalks? December 3, 2008 · 48 comments
- Kansas site expected to be top recommendation for NBAF site December 3, 2008 · 45 comments
- Flagrant misuse December 2, 2008 · 79 comments
- Highest tide in 20 years floods Venice December 2, 2008 · 75 comments
- Lawrence police officer hit during high-speed chase December 2, 2008 · 130 comments
- White House goes green with Hallmark holiday card made in Lawrence December 3, 2008 · 7 comments
- City OKs tougher snow-shoveling rules December 3, 2008 · 31 comments
- Blog: Interactive David Bowie Song Title Game November 6, 2008 · 541 comments
- Kansas site expected to be top recommendation for NBAF site December 3, 2008
- Lawrence police officer hit during high-speed chase December 2, 2008
- City OKs tougher snow-shoveling rules December 3, 2008
- White House goes green with Hallmark holiday card made in Lawrence December 3, 2008
- Police searching for clues in sexual assault December 2, 2008
- Old-fashioned parade to trot out carriages, wagons for 16th year December 3, 2008
- KPERS loses nearly 27 percent of value; pay raises doubtful for state workers December 2, 2008
- Neighbors plan workday at burned house August 22, 2008
- Tiny technology tapped for oil extraction December 3, 2008
- Friends, family pay tribute to accident victim at crash site December 2, 2008
25 September 2007
at 12:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pace (Anonymous) says…
Cant they just stand up like men and say they are for the coal powered plant, what tiresome round about babies.. oh SHE thinks and says something different, she is bad. If they can't get attention for their own views on the issue, If they have a reason and the reasoning, they should get it passed her. If they can't approach the issues better than this maybe we won't be seeing some of them back.
25 September 2007
at 1:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pace (Anonymous) says…
While I like recycling, this is a tired press release, remember this and this, well some people disagreed so we thought we would do a press release on it. Rather than come up with action or argument . they learned from George. He released an anti Clinton press release and it didn't get much coverage but he rereleased it the Day Clinton's mother was buried and it got twice the air time. Press releases really should have some zing rather than just whine.
25 September 2007
at 6:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KS (Anonymous) says…
Well dah, Queen Kathy, yes they are two different issues, but they both have common results. Neither are good for Kansas.
25 September 2007
at 6:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…
Kansas has very high potential to be a producer, user and exporter of renewable wind power.
We need coal fired power plants like holes in the head. The C02 released by these travesties will decimate wheat growing in Kansas long term by contributing mightily to global warming. Plus, they'll deplete the Oglalla by using up massive amounts of water from the aquifer that would otherwise irrigate crops.
Oh yeah, and we here in Lawrence will be downwind from their poisonous spew.
I hope the Gov. does whatever she can to stop these earth-killers from coming online.
25 September 2007
at 8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
clandestine (Anonymous) says…
Amen, Oracle!!!
And its just not CO2: there is sulfur dioxide, mercury, and all kinds of other goodies for the environment in coal.
We don't need energy commodity produced for the next 60-years in this state: We need transmission for commodity!
25 September 2007
at 10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigDog (Anonymous) says…
We need coal fired power plants like holes in the head. The C02 released by these travesties will decimate wheat growing in Kansas long term by contributing mightily to global warming. Plus, they'll deplete the Oglalla by using up massive amounts of water from the aquifer that would otherwise irrigate crops.
____________________________________________________________
I would assume then you would also be opposed to these ethanol plants being built everywhere including one proposed around Topeka which will use massive amounts of water; water that otherwise would have flowed downstream for use in irrigation and consumption in Lawrence area.
And why aren't you working to close down the coal fired plant in Lawrence? ….. you know it is poisoning those in Lawrence area and those downwind from it.
25 September 2007
at 10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigDog (Anonymous) says…
Kansas has very high potential to be a producer, user and exporter of renewable wind power.
______________________________________________________________
That would be great but it seems like no one wants the wind turbines in their backyard or protest that they may cause this problem or that problem …… and they might kill birds that fly into them ….. they would make the Flint Hill not a scenic. Well in order for wind energy to be effective and cost efficient you have to place the turbines where there consistently is wind ….. doh
I am all in favor of wind energy but we have to stop just talking about it ….. and stop putting roadblocks in the way.
25 September 2007
at 11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MyName (Anonymous) says…
My biggest problem with these plants is that we are basically dirtying up our skies so that Colorado can keep the Rockies clean. Putting in these plants is not in our state's long term best interest.
25 September 2007
at 3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MCwzMC (Anonymous) says…
Kansas has the potential to be a massive wind power producer. Representatives like these, however, stand in the way. It's too bad that our government gives such massive subsidies to farmers. These subsidies greatly reduce the incentives for farmers to build wind turbines because they can count on massive government handouts. Its no wonder they would rather build a coal fired power plant.
Anyone know whether any of these representatives have college degrees? Given that only 30% of the Kansas House has a college degree, the odds are against it.
25 September 2007
at 3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snowWI (Anonymous) says…
“And why aren't you working to close down the coal fired plant in Lawrence? :.. you know it is poisoning those in Lawrence area and those downwind from it.”
Yes, that is a big problem. It seems like Westar wants to operate these dinosaur plants forever without tearing them down after a certain number of years. The newer coal plants are “cleaner” than the old polluting dinosaur coal plants built in the 1950s that are already over 50 years old. However, their is no such thing as clean coal.
25 September 2007
at 4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigDog (Anonymous) says…
Anyone know whether any of these representatives have college degrees? Given that only 30% of the Kansas House has a college degree, the odds are against it.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––
What does a degree mean? Does a degree necessarily equate to having intelligence or common sense?
I would like to know where the 30% figure comes from.
If you took the time to look on the legislative website, the group in the article includes an optometrist, lawyer, farmer, and several business owners. I don't know about the business people but my guess would be that it still requires a college degree to be an optometrist and a lawyer.
25 September 2007
at 4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
csgblaw (Anonymous) says…
“My biggest problem with these plants is that we are basically dirtying up our skies so that Colorado can keep the Rockies clean. Putting in these plants is not in our state's long term best interest.”
____________________________________________________________________________
For anyone who has not personally toured a new coal power plant (or at least newer than the plant in Lawrence), on a perfectly clear day in the middle of peak generation season (summer) the air emitted from the stacks has been scrubbed so completely clean that it is 100% translucent (you can not see it at all). If you were to take a stark white linen and hold it over the the mouth of the stack for an hour, it would not change color.
25 September 2007
at 4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
csgblaw (Anonymous) says…
“Kansas has the potential to be a massive wind power producer. Representatives like these, however, stand in the way. It's too bad that our government gives such massive subsidies to farmers. These subsidies greatly reduce the incentives for farmers to build wind turbines because they can count on massive government handouts. Its no wonder they would rather build a coal fired power plant.”
____________________________________________________________________________
The wind in Kansas blows its strongest and steadiest at 3am in the middle of January. KS electricity consumption is at its lowest at the very same time. If we generating a whole lot of wind electricity, all of our electricity bills would at least double, perhaps triple or worse.
25 September 2007
at 4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
csgblaw (Anonymous) says…
“We need coal fired power plants like holes in the head. The C02 released by these travesties will decimate wheat growing in Kansas long term by contributing mightily to global warming. Plus, they'll deplete the Oglalla by using up massive amounts of water from the aquifer that would otherwise irrigate crops.”
____________________________________________________________________________
Then why is the western half of the state (largely consisting of farmers) so in favor of holcomb expansion while the city dwellers in Lawrence and Wichita are the strongest voice of opposition. If your statement is indeed true, then would it not make sense for the farmers to stand in strong opposition?!
25 September 2007
at 5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
csgblaw (Anonymous) says…
“Anyone know whether any of these representatives have college degrees? Given that only 30% of the Kansas House has a college degree, the odds are against it.”
____________________________________________________________________________
What is the point of your ad hominen attack. How does it weaken their argument? Do you even have support to back up your 30% statistic?
25 September 2007
at 7:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snowWI (Anonymous) says…
csgblaw,
You obviously are unaware that the proposed coal power plants would be the largest new source of carbon dioxide in the enitre country. The technology they are using will not reduce CO2 emissions, and they are trying to rush these plants through before the regulation on carbon dioxide begins. It is true that newer coal plants are “cleaner” than older ones, but their is no such thing as clean coal.
26 September 2007
at 2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
csgblaw (Anonymous) says…
snowWI,
You are mistaken. I “obviously” have not commented on this board about CO2 emissions whatsoever. None of my posts address carbon emissions. However, I have commented on several issues including: the misconception that the new plants would “dirty up our skies,” the economic feasibility of wind generation, and the meaningless ad hominen attacks on state legislators.
The only post that responded in anyway to the issue of “carbon emissions” was addressing the alleged EFFECT of the carbon emissions. To wit, Kansas farmers do not seem concerned that the construction of the plants will result in “decimation” of Kansas wheat crops and depletion of the water sources presently used for irrigation as you would have them believe.
Rather, the vast majority of the farmers in this state appear to be in favor of the new plants. Meanwhile persons who oppose new coal power plant construction typically site massive harms to farming operations despite not being farmers themselves. Perhaps the apparent inconsistency is based in the faulty slippery-slope reasoning employed by people who emotively oppose construction of the Holcomb project and subsequently look for something to say that might back up their irrationally reached position.
26 September 2007
at 8:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
snowWI (Anonymous) says…
csgblaw,
First: Kansas does not need the coal power plants to begin with because 90% of the electricity would be sold to out of state markets.
Second: the technology that these plants are using would not have the potential to reduce the massive amount of CO2 emissions. The plants would emit over 10 million tons of CO2 every year, which would be one of the largest new sources of man-made CO2 in the country.
Third: their should be more transmission lines built to develop our wind energy industry in the state. This would help out those in rural counties far more than coal plants ever would.
Fourth: Their seems to be a massive brain drain from this state, and many young people leave the state. Therefore, their appears to be ignorance regarding newer technologies and reducing the impact that Kansas has on the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
Fifth: We are the “dumping ground” for the Front Range sprawl because Colorado has much more strict environmental laws and regulations including a Renewable Portfolio Standard that Kansas does not have.
26 September 2007
at 8:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…
Kathy is what Kansas gets with a Kansas Republican Party with Political bipolar disorder!