Archive for Friday, April 25, 2008
Stakes raised in coal debate
Legislators offer take-it-or-leave-it plan with smaller power plants
April 25, 2008
Advertisement
Lawmakers make 'last offer' on coal plants
Legislative leaders propose a new plan to allow two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas. Enlarge video
Topeka — The fight over a coal-fired power project in western Kansas on Thursday took on the tone of a high-stakes poker game.
Legislative leaders and Sunflower Electric Power Corp. gave Gov. Kathleen Sebelius a take-it-or-leave-it proposal, saying they would agree to a reduction in the size of the two plants, if she would approve the project.
Otherwise, Senate President Steve Morris and House Speaker Melvin Neufeld said, they would initiate a veto override of Sebelius' rejection of two larger coal-burning plants.
Sebelius said she would study the deal before making a decision.
"It has a number of the elements of the two bills that I have already vetoed, but I'm going to take some time and, you know, analyze the newer features," Sebelius said.
Sebelius has rejected two 700-megawatt units, citing concerns over the project's annual emission of 11 million tons of carbon dioxide and its effect on climate change.
Under the deal offered Thursday, the project would be reduced to two 600-megawatt plants, and Hays-based Sunflower Electric would promise to accelerate development of renewable energy sources.
"When you're talking about a 15 percent reduction in the carbon footprint, that's a pretty good compromise," said Morris, R-Hugoton.
But the deal would strip the power of the secretary of health and environment in acting on air-quality permits. Sebelius has been extremely critical of that proposal.
The Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club issued a statement that described the new offer as "clearly a political move, rather than a true effort at compromise."
The group said the proposal gave lip service to renewable energy while offering "only a token reduction in the size of the generating units."
Morris and Neufeld, R-Ingalls, however, said this was their last offer and told Sebelius they wanted to hear from her by Wednesday, the day the wrap-up legislative session starts. Sebelius said she'd get back with them by then.
If Sebelius rejected the deal, they said, they would try to override her veto of the bill authorizing the two 700-megawatt plants.
To override Sebelius' veto would require two-thirds' majorities - 84 votes in the 125-member House and 27 votes in the 40-member Senate. The last bill Sebelius vetoed concerning the plants received 83 votes in the House and 32 in the Senate.
The project is a partnership between Sunflower Electric and companies in Colorado and Texas. Approximately 85 percent of the energy generated will be used in Colorado and Texas.
In the past, Sebelius has offered to agree to a 600-megawatt unit, but Sunflower has said that is economically unfeasible.
More like this
- Coal plant remarks spark House ire 45 comments / April 23, 2008
- Power plant struggle resumes 43 comments / May 1, 2008
- Coal debate expected to heat up 38 comments / April 30, 2008
- Coal battle moves to court 53 comments / May 22, 2008
- Coal plant supporters hoping for override 57 comments / April 4, 2008
Top ads RSS
- Federal Home Loan Bank
- Now Hiring Experienced Sales People Must have sales experience and ...
- RETIREMENT COMMUNITY Pioneer Ridge Retirement Community is currently accepting applications ...
- FUNERAL PLANNING ADVISORS An excellent career opportunity for men and ...
- Live On Site Manager- Self storage complex in Kansas City ...
- Mandatory service November 11, 2009 · 18 comments
- Blog: I Am An Ageist. November 9, 2009 · 43 comments
- Vote supported November 11, 2009 · 9 comments
- Thanks, vets November 11, 2009 · 1 comment
- Blog: A Few Notes About How Fog Is Created November 11, 2009 · 2 comments
- Pressing need November 11, 2009 · 9 comments
- Right costs GOP N.Y. seat November 11, 2009 · 4 comments
- Hunting bow, cash reported stolen from vehicle November 11, 2009 · 1 comment
- Blog: Dillons, Hyvee, And Checkers — I'Ve Shopped And Compared. See The Results. November 8, 2009 · 215 comments
- Parental duties November 10, 2009 · 68 comments
- First blast on section of Kansas Turnpike river bridge scheduled for early Sunday afternoon November 10, 2009
- <strong>FINAL:</strong> KU gives highlight-reel performance in 103-45 exhibition win over Pitt. State November 10, 2009
- 'White Owl' held in jail in connection with protective order case November 9, 2009
- Former Kansas governor William Avery dies at age 98 November 5, 2009
- Season's greetings: Photographer’s book explores Kansas nature November 10, 2009
- Kidcast: Emma Perez November 10, 2009
- Free State soccer earns league honors November 10, 2009
- PB&J in the U.S.A. November 9, 2009
- Lawrence man charged in robbery attempt last August at mobile home November 10, 2009
- Chiefs cut Johnson November 10, 2009
25 April 2008
at 7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
c_dubya (Anonymous) says…
The Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club issued a statement that described the new offer as “clearly a political move, rather than a true effort at compromise.”Dictionary.com defines 'compromise' as the following:1.a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.Maybe the Sierra Club is playing politics rather than making a compromise.
25 April 2008
at 7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
The proposal clearly doesn't meet that definition of compromise.
25 April 2008
at 7:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mooner (Anonymous) says…
People in Western Kansas should understand there will be other jobs, other opportunities. This project is wrong for the state, and the country, as a whole, and must be blocked.Hopefully someday the Lawrence and Jeffries power plants will also be closed, but that's not up for a vote now.Here is a link to various State legislators… send them an email about what you think.http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-legisportal/help/contact.do
25 April 2008
at 8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
c_dubya (Anonymous) says…
I disagree bozo. It absolutely does meet the standard. The coal people have lowered their demands for power output, lowered the amount of carbon output and increased the so-called 'green' energy output to be paid for by the income from the coal plants. That is the very definition of compromise. The Sierra Club, and several posters on this board as well as our governor, are not interested in compromise at all. It's your way or the highway. All green or nothing. No coal ever no matter what. That is the opposite of compromise; that is playing politics my friend.
25 April 2008
at 8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
A unilateral demand is not a “compromise.”
25 April 2008
at 8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OnlyTheOne (Anonymous) says…
No Deal.It'll get so tied up in litigation they'll never get built anyway.
25 April 2008
at 8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beobachter (Anonymous) says…
It was simply a take it or else demand, just a threat.
25 April 2008
at 8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
c_dubya's comment is absolutely laughable. This “compromise” is nothing of the sort.Sunflower and its legislative backers are reducing the size of the plants because Sunflower and its utility partners can no longer afford to build two 700 MW plants. They also realize that by reducing the size of their plants they must apply for a new permit, so they are removing the State of Kansas's authority over that permit process. How is that a compromise?How is that a compromise? The “green” components of both this offer and the legislation that has passed so far are non-binding platitudes, they are talking points intended to soothe egos with no real-world results.So, any argument about reduced plant sizes is easily shot down. Any argument about “green” components is easily shot down. What is left is two additional coal fired dinosaurs being built despite no demonstrated need for their construction, and a complete dismissal of alternatives that have been offered by the Governor.
25 April 2008
at 9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lweinmaster (Anonymous) says…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/…
25 April 2008
at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
Western Kansas Rides a Wave of Propserityhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89917902More liberal nonsense. Everyone knows there are no jobs and no economic prospects in Western Kansas. The only thing that will save Western Kansas is two new 700 MW coal fired plants.
25 April 2008
at 9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
c_dubya (Anonymous) says…
You're all going to be sorry when the ice age gets here:http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.htmlhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.htmlhttp://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59588_621.htmPromote coal energy today, save the world tomorrow.I hope you all realize this is somewhat tongue in cheek; people buying into the global warming scare are no different from the 1970's folks that were just sure the next ice age was around the corner. In twenty years you'll be laughing at how stupid you were back in your younger days.
25 April 2008
at 9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tkofford (Anonymous) says…
I have a hard time with this deal. Maybe I'd feel different if Kansas was receiving 85% or more of the power from the new plants while being responsible for 100% of the pollution that the new plants would generate.Also, I have a real issue with the “But the deal would strip the power of the secretary of health and environment in acting on air-quality permits. ” part too.
25 April 2008
at 9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“people buying into the global warming scare are no different from the 1970's folks that were just sure the next ice age was around the corner.”Convenient diversion, but wrong on every level.
25 April 2008
at 10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ralphralph (Anonymous) says…
Clean. Safe. Reliable. Nuclear.Wolf Creek Unit 2.Do it.
25 April 2008
at 10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marcus (Anonymous) says…
Here is some comprimise: One wind plant and one solar. Jobs for western Kansans and not 11 million tons of CO2 every year. Did you read that people? 11 million tons per year.
25 April 2008
at 10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Clean.”Except for the mining operations and the transport of fuels, the massive construction projects, the lack of any place to deposit radioactive wastes, and no good way to decommission plants when they're at the end of their life cycle.” Safe.”Then why do they need the federal government to limit their liability in the case of accident? Or that there isn't enough manpower and equipment available to defend all of them from terrorist attack? Not to mention the potential for meltdown— remember Chernobyl? And before you say it couldn't happen here, I ask again, why does the federal government need to limit their exposure to liability?”Reliable.”Can anything with all the problems nukes have really be called reliable? I don't think so.
25 April 2008
at 10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BrianR (Anonymous) says…
“…strip the power of the secretary of health and environment in acting on air-quality permits.”No reasonable “offer” should be taken seriously as long as this goal is present. Since the Kansas legislature is touting coal as the wave of the future, I still want to know how to get tax incentives to convert my car to coal.
25 April 2008
at 10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
I still don't understand why reducing our consumption is not discussed very much.We can do so very simply and without too much discomfort.This would remove the need to build any new plants.
25 April 2008
at 11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
That's a bit harsh and broadbrush of you and dirk, isn't it, warmer?
25 April 2008
at 11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
c_dubya (Anonymous) says…
I am disgusted to be associated with elitists like the above posters. Not all Lawrencians believe the way these jerks do.
25 April 2008
at 12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“:.very telling of Lawrence attitudes, eh Bozo?”Dirk said it, and you quoted him, so it really says nothing about Lawrence.
25 April 2008
at 12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…
IGW thinks he has a smoking gun, but that is because irony escapes him.When I posted it, I was just quoting IGW. Now he's having a bit of fun, but not near as much as I am watching him post and repost.
25 April 2008
at 12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ralphralph (Anonymous) says…
Nuke is the Duke!Use wind where you can, but it cannot carry the load.Nuclear is the reliable, clean alternative.As for the waste, this has been argued forever, and I'm not going there … at least not all the way. The focus is always on how to contain the radiation for the half-life of 10,000 years, or whatever figure. I have more faith in humans and science than that, and I believe that within the next 50 years (or less) we will not only come up with better methods of storage, but with better methods of re-using the 'waste', rendering it a valuable commodity and not waste at all. In the meantime, we already have one nuclear unit sitting at Wolf Creek, on a site that was originally configured for more units – with a cooling lake, railroad, skilled workforce, and welcoming host communities all in place. Let's make use of that resource.
25 April 2008
at 3 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Lets_Be_Proactive (Anonymous) says…
Here's a compromise - I constantly wonder why people are not considering or talking about carbon capture and storage (CCS) with these plants. For people concerned about the climate, this power plant seems like a giant step backward. I tend to agree, given the current proposal. However, there is the technology available to burn coal more efficiently, which produces a higher ratio of CO2 to other gases, making it easier to capture. However, This is only beneficial if the CO2 is captured and stored. Is this possible for Kansas? The answer is yes. Kansas actually is located in “highly prospective sedimentary basin” according to the IPCC Special report on Carbon Capture and Storage. This is related geologic storage of CO2 in the saline formations and the gas and oil fields located beneath Kansas. CCS in Kansas would be cheaper than other locations because the CO2 would not need to be transferred very far.Hold on - isn't the IPCC only interested in climate? Actually, the IPCC is unique in science because it has the ability to extensively review scientific literature. In fact, the reports generated by the IPCC are essentially giant literature reviews. There are many reports generated by the IPCC, although they are less well known or talked about. As in any literature review, there is no “you should do this or that” discussion, only discussion on the current body of knowledge about a topic.Won't it cost more? I realize the initial cost is more, but with the probability of a cap an trade policy at the federal level, these costs may be offset. Who says a cap and trade system is coming? All three of the candidates for president support a federal cap and trade system.Is is safe? The answer is yes. The IPCC Special Report states that it is very likely that at least 99% of the CO2 will remain in storage for 100 yrs and likely that at least 99% will remain for 1000 yrs.In the end, the real problem with these plants is that they will employ technology that will cost the most when CO2 emissions become regulated. Why not spend the money now and employ CCS technology with these plants?
25 April 2008
at 3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Lets_Be_Proactive (Anonymous) says…
Here's the link to the technical summary for the IPCC Report on Carbon Capture and Storage.http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_technicalsummary.pdfHere's the link to the full report (433 pages).http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf
25 April 2008
at 7:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says…
Once the air permit is issued construction starts, they can't take it back and the court cannot stop it. The gov will sign the bill and claim victory, this has been the plan since february.
25 April 2008
at 7:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
This “compromise” is probably a tactic to win enough votes to override the veto. Assuming this tactic works and a bill becomes law, it will most probably face legal hurdles. Plus, what happens to the Sierra Club's and the Dean's lawsuits that are pending? Interesting. We also are about 15 months or so from a federal cap and trade law. I am skeptical that all the legal hurdles could be cleared out of the way by then.
25 April 2008
at 8:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
I wonder how much CO2 beer puts into the atmosphere?