Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, February 2, 2008

Sebelius says legislators moving too quickly on CO2 emissions

February 2, 2008

Advertisement

— Gov. Kathleen Sebelius wants legislators to slow down in trying to pass legislation to impose the state's first rules for carbon dioxide emissions but allow two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas.

"We seem to be playing a beat-the-clock strategy," Sebelius said Friday during a Statehouse news conference. "I hope they slow down."

The House and Senate utilities committees have scheduled hearings next week on separate but identical energy bills drafted by their Republican chairmen and top Democrats. The chairmen plan to have the committees vote Feb. 8 - making debates in both chambers possible the following week.

"I don't think it's especially fast," said Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, an Independence Republican. "People have been talking about this since last fall."

The legislation would make Kansas among a handful of states attempting to limit CO2 emissions, which many scientists link to global warming. But critics, including Sebelius, said the rules would be so lax that utilities from other states would be encouraged to build new coal-fired plants in Kansas, actually increasing emissions.

Also, the legislation would allow Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to build the two coal-fired power plants outside Holcomb. Sebelius' top environmental regulator has blocked the $3.6 billion project, citing the plants' potential CO2 emissions.

Sebelius has said she offered executives at Sunflower and a sister utility, Midwest Energy Inc., a compromise permitting them to build one coal-fired plant, if they would commit to developing wind farms and energy conservation programs. She said the executives rejected the deal.

Earl Watkins Jr., Sunflower's chief executive officer, wouldn't comment Friday about the negotiations, but he said building only one plant doesn't offer Sunflower's customers the same financial benefits. Eighty-five percent of the new power would flow out of state, generating revenues to allow the company to contain rates or invest in other projects.

Watkins also said lawmakers aren't moving too quickly on energy proposals.

"People have been considering issues that are before the Legislature in this bill for a long time," he said. "From our perspective, what we think this bill does is pull together years of work, not hours of work, into a consolidated, sound energy policy."

The legislation would set energy efficiency standards for new state and public school buildings and state vehicles; require utilities to allow customers to reduce their bills by using solar power; and set up a new commission to study issues surrounding electric generation.

But Sebelius strongly objects to other provisions limiting the secretary of health and environment's authority to deny air-quality permits for power plants or to impose rules for carbon dioxide emissions without legislative approval. Secretary Rod Bremby denied a permit in October for Sunflower's project.

Comments

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 2 months ago

Sebelius--all the industry you bring to Kansas is the Casino industry--apparently any heavy industry that pays a "living wage" and include health care and other benefits just does not fit into your phoney balony liberal agenda. Sebelius is showing her true colors!

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

"Limiting emissions is done best in the next 10 years by efficiency measures."

Yes and as a post above that I posted it shows (from Yahoo.news and the world energy production almanac) that in those ten years that CHina will increase their coal fired power plants from 750 by to 950 Gigawatts annually of which 80% is from Coal. So whatever we do in EE in the next decade will be undone rapidly by China alone. Oh, and in case you don't look it up and don't wnat to accept it, the China use of coal is DOUBLE what the US uses for power generation.

So look at China and look at it good, because there is wher the problem lies that is Globally. Americans WILL heed your warning and we will do these things, and it will not make on damn difference if China is not changed.

See, I am on your side, it is just that I accept reality as it is, and so I can better deal with it. I do not suck up or worship an academic, nor do I pray at the altar of Al Gore or the IPCC.

The United States is NOT the problem of the future, the rest of the world is. It is high time for Americans to understand that. We either all hang together or we hang seperately!!!

0

Bill Griffith 6 years, 2 months ago

"You are completely ignorant about China and world politics." Gee, I guess the two times I have been to China do not count. Nor do my 20 hours of college credit in the field of international studies. Nice melt down in the last paragraph when you were talking about intolerance and inept analysis, coming from one who refuses to cite sources.

If you would have read my post carefully, you would have also noticed that I did not state that ee is the total solution. Limiting emissions is done best in the next 10 years by efficiency measures. Let it soak in and take some deep breaths........

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

Did you google the followingf words yet? Plastic Pollution Ocean. I know what is going on there because I did some Environmenta Cleanup at Midway Island, Johnston Atoll, and a couple of other Islands. So If you think I am anti Environmental Regulation, I am far from that. I am also currently involved with some national environmental issues and pushing them through Environmental and Professional organizations.

"One more time. CO2 is the problem and the first and foremost answer (not the only answer) is energy efficiency."

One more time for slow people like you belexus, IF CO2 is the problem then limiting emissions is the issue, of which energy efficiency is a part of but not replacement for; limiting emissions. Energy efficiency has been needed since the 80's and I am all for it, but youneed to change the energy source, not merely limit the power demand. as for your second part: """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" "To turnaround China's coal building objectives, it will have to be an international agreement brokered by the United States. "

Good luck with that one, we cannot even get so "free trade" with China ironed out. We cannot even get LEAD SAFE TOYS produced in China, or uncomtaminated food produced in China for export controled and there is AN EXISTING TREATY and TRADE agreement!!! Man! I know you wnat this, but you know nothing about the world and China in particular. You are completely ignorant about China, and world politics. The "world politics" has always been based on jealousy of the United States since our liberation in 1776. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" "Nuclear power can not be created quickly enough for the problem of climate change."

Then the China thing is a moot point, because an agreement with them on swithching from coal will tak about 50 years because of their newly produced Coal Fired Power Plants. If nukes can't be built in the window, then NOTHING and I mean NOTHING can be done quick enough.

That is the problem with you guys, you do not have a cogent argument other than "the sky is falling, tomorrow", but nuke are out.

You are pathetic, and this is a reason that "acting quickly" may make people feel better, but may not be the wisest turn to take in concerns with the globe.

You "global Warming Nuts" think you are the only ones concerned with the globe or the enivronment. I am tired of your intolerance, and your inept analysis. Praying at the alter of the IPCC and VP Al Gore are not the determinates of whether someone is environmentally engaged for the sake of the planet.

0

Bill Griffith 6 years, 2 months ago

One more time. CO2 is the problem and the first and foremost answer (not the only answer) is energy efficiency. In the next decade, that is the only way to turnaround the US CO2 emissions. To turnaround China's coal building objectives, it will have to be an international agreement brokered by the United States. Nuclear power can not be created quickly enough for the problem of climate change. Now if your goal is energy independence, you might be able to target nuclear power plants in the northeastern United States and wean if off of heating oil. But using electricity for heat is fairly inefficient-a trade-off for not invading countries that contain a great deal of sand.

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

belexius it is just like your side to make these stupid claims. Stupid fits, is a perfect and apt description. Act all "intellectual" an all, but it still shows you cannot form a cogent argument to defend your position.

On the one hand it is immenent danger and we cannot respond fast enough with nuke plants,

but on the other hand it is not dangerous enough to compell China and India to stop with their expolding use of coal.

Which is it, is CO2 the problem? If so then LACK of CO2 emission is the goal, which is nuclear. IF CO2 emission is the problem, then CHINA and INDIA are the problem and all the other pesky little sources of CO2 emission such as Charcoal, beer production, soft drink bottling, bread production, cracker production, pet and animal foods, on and on and on.

I hav no scientific basis for this but I would bet a lot of money that someone could add up all those above CO2 producers across the globe it would be significant CO2 emissions.

As for my spelling, go fish, if that is what you judge me by rather that actual original and productive thought, your opinion does not really matter. As for "expanding my horizons, I have worked all over the globe on environmental problems.

I got one for you since you do not think I am an Environmental Activist, check out PLASTIC OCEAN POLLUTION. If we cannot address and solve our man made plastic pollution in the ocean, I doubt that we can take care of a "man made" Global Climatic Change.

But then, thaqt is just the opptimist in me.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

Merrill: "Wind energy pays back in 4 months to a year."


Merrill, you keep repeating this sentence, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. To me or others, I presume. Can you articulate what you are trying to say....

0

Bill Griffith 6 years, 2 months ago

Asbestos, let me get this straight: You will not name your sources, yet you want me to give you the page out of the IPCC report (I can) that states the target levels of CO2 that are projected to cause significant deterioration of various parts of the earth. What do I get in return? Also, there are adjectives and nouns available in the English langauge besides "lots" and " stupid". Expand your horizons. Checking your spelling could assist stretching your clout on this site as well.
By the way, if so many of the "geology field" were convinced of this purported phenomena, why were they not able to convince the world to enact a global cooling treaty? Why is it different today? I know, it probably has something to do with illegal immigration......... Still nothing on energy efficiency, I see.......sad

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 2 months ago

Wind energy pays back in 4 months to a year. Neither nuke nor coal can produce that efficient a payback. Wind is a best bang for the rate payer buck....the bottom line.

Westar Associates stated to me that becoming efficient in the home and work would begin having an effect now...yes as we speak.

Efficiency Suggestions from the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/energy_efficiency/

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

Last one:

"A nuclear plant takes 5-7 years to build. If the IPCC report is correct, and we have a short window of time ( I know you don't believe this concept, but humor me), how much money will we need to build an adequate number of nuclear plants?"

Do you think you can turn around the thinging of these countries in less time that it takes to build the nuclear power plants? If the window is truley that short then you made my argument for me. IF it is so short as to prevent the use of nukes, and the making of enough wind generators (let alone to mine for the aluminium and the copper these things take) , we are in way to deep to stop it. As China is building a coal powerplant a week, and are expected to increase their use of coal as an energy generator for the next ten years to double, CHINA is not going to shut those things down, they are going to run them for 50 years at least.

Your points if valid make no argument to China changing it's ways nor the fact that merely limiting or offsetting CO2 emissions by United States Citizens will not effect this one iota.

IF it is as you say haveing "such a short window".

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 2 months ago

Wind energy is CLEANER and LESS EXPENSIVE than coal,clean coal or nukes therefore the ratepayers do not need more of that.

Wind energy pays back in 4 months to a year. Neither wind nor coal can produce that efficient a payback. Wind is a best bang for the buck.

This creates more economical growth for farmers and other across the state of kansas: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/offmen-how-biomass-energy-works.html

This plays a significant role: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/energy_efficiency/

So now we have solar,wind,biomass and energy efficient practices available to us now at home and in business. Four different means of cleaning up our energy sources and producing new industries throughout Kansas.

Believe me if the same coal salesman were peddling wind and solar they would be painting coal and nuke power as members of the axis of evil. These coal sales people are not neither concerned about special interest tax dollars being spent on their behalf nor about ratepayers wallets.

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

"Solar Cheaper Than Coal is a huge reason to slow the process down for at least a year in order to do close examination of the sources that which would produce the best bang for the ratepayers wallet. http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanoso:"

I have alwaqys been a fan of photovoltaics, and this looks promising. But the "economy of scale" is an issue. Can we get this one up and running and replace 30% of our power needs in the 3-8 years according to the IPCC?

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'' "If the IPCC report is correct, and we have a short window of time ( I know you don't believe this concept, but humor me), how much money will we need to build an adequate number of nuclear plants?"

Humor me and tell me what is the "window of time" and what page of the IPCC report. I want to read that one.

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

"Do you have any thoughts on energy efficiency? I see you toss out the nuclear angle rather quickly. What is the cost of nuclear compared to efficiency? How about market penetration in a short period of time, say 5 years? A nuclear plant takes 5-7 years to build. If the IPCC report is correct, and we have a short window of time ( I know you don't believe this concept, but humor me), how much money will we need to build an adequate number of nuclear plants? (Since you are a nuclear proponent, I am sure you have researched how long it will take to build enough plants to retire, oh let's say, 30 percent of the present day coal fleet.)"

ANd how many wind generators and photovoltaics (which are not environmentlly friendly to produce either), will it take to replace that same amount of energy? LOTS, and the production rate cannot suppl;y that either. Your argument that nuke plants are too costly or time consuming to build shows how little you know of production of Wind Generators and Photovoltaics. Good lord the amount of copper on the windings would be the output of copper in the world for an decade!!! Wind generators take about 500 pounds of copper for a 1 MW generator winding! Mulitply that little number times the number of windmills we need to offset coal and you see that is is unattainable. What about all that mined land?

LOL!

This is the problem with you guys, you don't think and you don't know.

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

"Apparently I am of a different ilk and will read your responses. So my challenge to you is to sent me your sources. That is if you care to have me change my opinion of your posts from a person who shoots from the hip, to one who gives thoughtful and challenging arguments to mull over."

As I said , been ther don that and have mucho baseball hats. EVERYBODY on the internet blogs "shoots from the hip". Duh!

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" "What do you propose be done with the tons and tons of nuclear waste that will be toxic to anything and everything for the next few hundred thousand years, asbestos?"

Another lame-oh, BOZO heard from. Well BOZO it woudl go into the $15 billion dollar domplex at Yucca mountian that we built. Existing nuclear wastes are currently stored in the powerplants, because of Harry Reid and whacko's that do not want the waste transported to the mountian for safe storage. The argument that transport is "unsafe" is stupid and limited in terms of time. Eventually all plants will be docommissioned, wna then what will be done with the wastes? Currently there are about 4 plants in the US that are decommissined but not closed and restored becasue ther are the "storage sport" for the nuke wastes. Nice try brainiac.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'

"The difference is this: it was only a small group of researchers who believed that the earth was cooling."

You back up that unfortunately wrong statment. Sources please!!!! No it was almost the entire geology field. Look at the Geophysical Union preceedings at the time. It was a "majority concensus" at the time too.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 2 months ago

Solar Cheaper Than Coal is a huge reason to slow the process down for at least a year in order to do close examination of the sources that which would produce the best bang for the ratepayers wallet. http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheaper-than-coal/

Believe me if the same coal salesman were peddling wind and solar they would be painting coal and nuke power as members of the axis of evil. These coal sales people are not neither concerned about special interest tax dollars being spent on their behalf nor about ratepayers wallets.

Have ratepayers not had enough of getting ripped off by the energy industries?

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 2 months ago

February 3, 2008 The World A 'Bold' Step to Capture an Elusive Gas Falters By ANDREW C. REVKIN

CAPTURING heat-trapping emissions from coal-fired power plants is on nearly every climate expert's menu for a planet whose inhabitants all want a plugged-in lifestyle.

So there was much enthusiasm five years ago when the Bush administration said it would pursue "one of the boldest steps our nation has taken toward a pollution-free energy future" by building a commercial-scale coal-fire plant that would emit no carbon dioxide - the greenhouse gas that makes those plants major contributors to global warming.

That bold step forward stumbled last week. With the budget of the so-called FutureGen project having nearly doubled, to $1.8 billion, and the government responsible for more than 70 percent of the eventual bill, the administration completely revamped the project.

The Energy Department said it would pay for the gas-capturing technology, but industry would have to build and pay for the commercial plants that use the technology. Plans for the experimental plant were scratched.

Many experts say that neither the original plan nor the revamped effort, nor the few projects underway in other countries, are sufficient to set the stage for pumping tens of billions of tons of compressed carbon dioxide into the earth or sea bed starting 10 or 20 years from now.

Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide - a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed.

As I stated too expensive = not practical. The best bang for rate payers energy bucks would be wind,solar and hyropower. Huge federal subsidies would be better spent on public and higher education,National Health Insurance and developing new wealth generating industry for america.... wind and solar power are but two examples.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 2 months ago

What do you propose be done with the tons and tons of nuclear waste that will be toxic to anything and everything for the next few hundred thousand years, ASBESTOS?

0

Bill Griffith 6 years, 2 months ago

Asbestos, I fear you are the one trying to be cute. I gave cited sources, including one controlled by Republicans in Congress. I try to use as unbiased sources as possible. Anyone can throw out the term that a certain piece of research is "biased". But to be intellectually honest, that naysayer needs to back it up. Apparently I am of a different ilk and will read your responses. So my challenge to you is to sent me your sources. That is if you care to have me change my opinion of your posts from a person who shoots from the hip, to one who gives thoughtful and challenging arguments to mull over. Your choice. It is true that radicals in many countries do not care about this issue. But they are irrelevant. The countries that need to be targeted are: China, USA, India, Russia, the countries of w. Europe, Brazil, Australia, and Canada. The other countries are auxillary to the debate for the next decarde or so. If you look at Foreign Policy magazine's list of countries with regards to human rights, these places rank in the middle or the upper half-not saying there is not room for improvement, but Sudan, N. Korea, and all the countries that end in -stan are not part of the climate equation-which I can see you are a skeptic of. I will only nudge one thought towards you on your climate statement. The idea that the earth might be cooling was a theory by some scientists a few decades ago. Now climate skeptics point to this as a reason we should go slow on climate change legislation now. The difference is this: it was only a small group of researchers who believed that the earth was cooling. Today, the vast majority of climate scientists are stating the earth is warming and much of it is man-made. There is a huge difference in the number of scientists who brought forth the first idea and the ones that attach themselves to the latter. That is just one more reason governments have sat up and taken notice concerning the climate issue.
Do you have any thoughts on energy efficiency? I see you toss out the nuclear angle rather quickly. What is the cost of nuclear compared to efficiency? How about market penetration in a short period of time, say 5 years? A nuclear plant takes 5-7 years to build. If the IPCC report is correct, and we have a short window of time ( I know you don't believe this concept, but humor me), how much money will we need to build an adequate number of nuclear plants? (Since you are a nuclear proponent, I am sure you have researched how long it will take to build enough plants to retire, oh let's say, 30 percent of the present day coal fleet.) If you haven't done the math on this, there must be someone on the websites you haunt that might have some sort of idea. This is of course, if you are bringing forth the idea that nuclear power is a major answer to the climate change problem.

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

Oh, and about "sending me sources". I don't play that game here on LJWORLD blog. I spend time presenting sources, and verifying info, and then the resondent does not even read the damn thing! The other response is that the research provided has "been bought off". That could be said of the IPCC. Little countries running the world? No way is Uganda going to make global determinations when they as a country have not figured out how to feed their people and end their corrupt government. Same is true for just about every government involved. The Kyoto Protocol was nothing but the "United States and Europe Pays" Good for France, because they have Nuke plants and lower emissions, bad for the US because fringe nuts are opposing Nuke power plants. The United States can be MASSIVELY lower with the CO2 emissions, and Nukes is the way. Our country needs this plan and simple.

I would be all for the cross the board reduction of CO2 and the ending of the coal plants, if we could replace with NUKES. But the greenies goofs, want nothing to do with that and are not willing to compromise on that.

So we are going to continue using coal. It is either nukes or coal. Those are the technologies for making large amounts of centeralized power distribution. Wind generation, photovoltaics are great supplements, but not replacements.

I would like to see a real energy bill allowing direct tax reduction for all homeowners putting photovoltaic cells on their homes, drilling in ANWAR, and Building of Nuke plants, and more refinery capacity, and more biodesiel. Ethanol from corn is not a wise alt. fuel.

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

"Asbestos, I am curious where you get your data that the US has never been in the lead on CO2 emissions. I get my data from the IPCC and the Congressional record on the Energy and Policy Act of 2005."

Nice try, but spinning is not allowed in an "intellectually honest" discourse. I never did say or post that the US has "never been in the lead", I jsut stated that the rest do not have records, and most of their "emissions" are not counted because they are "exempted". IF one was truley worried about CO2 emissions from man, then you would have to look at ALL sources. Charcoal is excluded. IT may not be "energy inteensive" whatever that means, but it is widely used as a source for warming and cooking worldwide and is not even on the radar, even you are admitting that.

Your second paraqgraph is just "backpeddling" BS, very slick how you got out of addressing the fact that leaders that choose to sell their countries soul for weapons or political hegemony such as the Islamic Radicals do not care about CO2 emissions, Your response is stinking your head in the sand. You have got to realize that the rest of the world does NOT share our values and wants such as nuclear weapons, or WMD, or Islamic Governments; everything else in their mind is nothing.

Take Mexico for instance, wuld they start the CO2 emission reduction? Hardley, their economic plan is to send their poor to the US, and the governmental officials want to keep their money rolling to them, and to keep them in corrupt power. CO2 emissions are not high on the Mexican Government or any other Latin American Governments' list of priorities, nor do they care much about it.

Latin America, China, Inda, that is about half the worlds' governments and people, throw in the Islamic Middle East, and you have probably 2/3s of the population and governments. Then look at the "human rights" in these countries. They cannot even get to first base on the humanity and corrutpion scale, and you expect them to make this huge leap to "Global conscienceness" and "Global Responsibility"? This from countries that have clitoral amputation as a right of passage? This from countries that treat almost all their women as second calss citizens? This from countries that do not educate, or even have clean drinking water?

Good Luck.

0

Bill Griffith 6 years, 2 months ago

Asbestos, I am curious where you get your data that the US has never been in the lead on CO2 emissions. I get my data from the IPCC and the Congressional record on the Energy and Policy Act of 2005. If you have something that contradicts this, please share it as opposed to just making a statement with out referring to a source. While it is true that charcoal is difficult to quantify, it is also not as energy intense with regards to btu.
To your assertion that countries won't work on CO2 reduction when there own people are starving or they will invest in nuclear weapons such as North Korea and Iran, first, I will leave North Korea out of the discussion since their CO2 footprint is negligible at this juncture. There are many precedents to countries signing and attempting to enforce treaties while there citizens are living in less than ideal circumstances. ( I understand that some people are actually starving in India and China, but for most of the populace, that is not the case). The Montreal Accords and various trade agreements come to mind without doing any research.
If India and China can receive economic gain from the sharing of technology, increase the standard of living (better health for its citizens), and come to grips with the costs of climate change, then the leaders of the country will implement this strategy. Of course, the people struggling to make it through the day will not understand this, but that is not how policy is made and undertaken.

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

Oh yeah, ther is a place between Dallas and Denton on I-35 that paints those windmills. You ought to see all the barrels of coatings and prep and naptha that is used to coat these things. Another "non visible" environmental effect. How about the paint application itself? These things are huge. How many of you folks promoting wind energy have seen them paint these energy saviors??? Vissible emissions indeed.

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

Merrill the moron cannot tell the difference between an "editorial" or "op-ed" and actual research. This is good indicator of the "illuminated" thinking going on in the global warming crew. It is simply lemmings following their adored piper.

Why would EPA give up research on the remaining 35% of our power generation? Numes are bad? The Nuke plants will have lesser CO2 emissions.

That is why France and the rest of europe produce less CO2 than the United States. You idiots want CO2 reductions "like other countries using technologies" but are then phobic and intolerant of what technology replaces the CO2 emissions. GET REAL!!!!!!

Wherever this editor got their "research" is flawed. Take for instance the effects of "Hybrid" vehicles and battery technology vs. CO2 emissions. The Batteries are very bad on the environment and requires energy to clean up the mess to manufactur these batteries. The environmental impact from a Hummer lifetime is less than a hybrid and that is a fact. IT is all that acid and lead and lithium stuff to store electricity. The only drawback on the hummer is the fossil fuel it burns and the CO2 it emitts. But those are "visible" environmental impacts.

I n my opinion if these gee whiz "energy technologies" are not appropriately vetted we are going to end up with heavy metal contaminated people and places.

We need to use our brains and think our way out of this, not jusp of the first technology cliff that presents itself.

That is how we got in this mess in the first place.

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 2 months ago

EPA pulls financial support for clean coal:

Electric utilities continue to invest in conventional coal plants despite the fact that governments are moving to restrict the heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions from such plants. The risks are both environmental and financial(high dollar).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/weekin: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/fossi:

Go with new generation that will produce a ton of new economic growth for families throughout Kansas rather to only the Holcomb area.

"Clean Coal" like Nuke power will NOT produce power at a reasonable cost. Huge tax subsidies will mask the real cost as the bill that finds its' way to our mail box is bogus. Wind power on the other hand will employ far more people,produce income for farming families,be cleaner, cost far less = payback in a fraction of the time required by Nuke and Coal which is estimated 15-20 years. Bottom line "Clean Coal" and Nuke are extremely expensive technologies which will only be passed on to ratepayers.

Energy Payback Period for Wind Turbines: Two to Three Months Required

Modern wind turbines rapidly recover all the energy spent in manufacturing, installing, maintaining, and finally scrapping them. Under normal wind conditions it takes between two and three months for a turbine to recover all of the energy costs involved.

This is one of the main results of a life cycle analysis of wind turbines done by the Danish Wind Industry Association.

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

I still don't buy this thing at all. I bought the very first edition of the IPCC report in 1990. I did that at the time because the geologists at that time were actually wanting to paint Antartica and Greenland black to actually make the earth warmer because their research in 1990 stated that an "Ice Age" was comming. SO just 18 years ago the academics thought the world was "cooling".

IF "Global Climatic Warming" is truely taking place most climatic models in the IPCC report are wrong. All systems of energy go through "oscillations" to correct and reach equillbrium, planets go through this as stated in a very good book "The Gaia Hypothesis" by James Lovelock. (I am a devotee of this author, great stuff.)

Energy systems must go through this cycle, I have seen nothing in the IPCC or anything else related to the "Global Warming Consensus" about this process. All this crowd thinks is a "flip" will happen, which is NOT shown in the ice cores, the oscillations previous to and after these "flips" are ALWAYS not in the "research".

Political and agenda driven "science" adds nothing to the discussion.

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

belexius wrote:

"But the United States has been the world's leader in CO2 production since the records have been kept."

No sir, it is CHINA and they always have been. Most of the rest of the world does not even keep records. Most of China's and India's (and the rest of the world's) CO2 emissions are considered "exempt", while ALL of the United States' CO2 emissions are not considered to be "exempt". Things like charcoal productin, counted in the US, not in India and China. In India and China they have alomost 40% of cooking fuel is charcoal.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'''

"Next, rather than bashing at this point, wouldn't leadership from the United States and our influence with these countries (we have quite abit) on addressing the CO2 problem be the way to address the problem?"

In a word, NO they will not. Look at all the countries spending money on Nuke weapons while their people starve like Iran and N. Korea. Do you think they will equivicate on something like CO2? No on your life. Hell CHina violated a treaty and shot down a satelite that could have cause major communication propblems, do they care? Not hardley, and their Coal usage is skyrocketing, will they pay attention to us? Again, NO a big no. Wait until the Olympics are over, and see just how nasty CHina gets.

As for India, hell they are ship[ping their poor over here using H-1B vias fraud en masse, do you thing they will equivicate on something like CO2 again when their people are starving?

IF and that is IF this is actually caused by man produced CO2, ther is NO hope at all, because the rest of the world will NOT stop producing CO2 or reduce emissions.

Additionally, IF the scientists that support the fact that are actually correct, and their numbers are correct, if the United States stopped ALL emissions of CO2, the CO2 emissions will still rise for the next 30 years because of the increasing population use and production of electricity generated by Coal in India and China, and the rest of the "westernizing" third world countries.

Japan will come along, and some of Europe until the have a "patent" infringement or some other non substancive argument.

The majority of the rest of the world , .... no. The rest of the world has simple problems with basic human rights, and womens' equality, the CO2 thing is (to them) either not understandable, or it is irrelevant to them.

0

Bill Griffith 6 years, 2 months ago

With respect to the query on how the US can get to be a world leader on technologies, I believe an overview of possibilities can be done fairly quickly and be in the proverbial ballpark. Energy Efficiency-no technical problem in this area, we are far behind on implementation, however. Windpower-the Germans and Netherlands are ahead of us technically, but we do have enough prowess to have pretty fair market penetration in other parts of the world. Solar-Germans and Japanese have been thrashing us soundly, but with nanotechnology breathroughs this last year in Silicon Valley, I think we are going to close the gap (Germany just ordered the first year's supply of nanotechnology with regards to solar power from Sillcon Valley.) Compressed air storage for windpower-still needs work to see if and when commercially viable-could be big, not sure on this one. Plug-in hybrids, Japanese have soundly spanked us here, we are on the uptick-but Toyota has a huge lead. Electric cars, hmm...we are possibly going to be in the lead on this one. Both of these last two are very promising-I am not sure how much application would go to other countries, since we have so damn many cars here this is where this technology is best suited. However, if anyone has a great idea on how to convince a billion Chinese that they don't need a car....I am listening. So, my conclusion is that most of the technology is market ready-some needs more research and research dollars, by the way.
If this conclusion makes some semblance of sense, then the question should be framed "How do we deliver this technology to other countries in a fair and timely fashion?" What about patent rights? Do we do a so-called "Marshall Plan" that some candidates are advcocating? Should a plan such as this be viewed as an investment in our future and to assist in rebuilding the US's image abroad? Will it give us leverage with these countries in other areas (especially China)? Do we punish China with tariffs if they don't slow down on building coal-fired power plants or not sign a climate agreement with teeth? My guess is after the election next November and the carbon agreement that Congress will reach, there will be some time of effort (hopefully concerted) to reach out to developing countries. Time will tell.

0

snowWI 6 years, 2 months ago

"Could I respectfully suggest that because of your knowledge on this topic, that you should consider providing testimony to the legislative committees on this proposal."

Could you send me a link for the exact date/time of the legislative committee meeting regarding the proposal? Thanks

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

How can we get to be a world leader in developing technologies to address the CO2 problem, snowwi?

Could I respectfully suggest that because of your knowledge on this topic, that you should consider providing testimony to the legislative committees on this proposal.

If you need assistance, let me know.

0

snowWI 6 years, 2 months ago

belexus73 (Anonymous) says: "Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that China and the United States are the largest part of the problem and India is coming up in the rear view mirror? Next, rather than bashing at this point, wouldn't leadership from the United States and our influence with these countries (we have quite abit) on addressing the CO2 problem be the way to address the problem? It will be much harder for these two emerging countries to drag their feet if the US has stopped dragging its own."

I definitely agree with most of your statements. The US has to be a world leader in developing technologies to address the CO2 problem.

0

Pilgrim 6 years, 2 months ago

It's really very simple. Rod Bremby is not imbued with the power of "Because I said so." His mistaken decision must have some statutory authority for its foundation. It has no such thing.

The Chicken Littles of the world want CO2 emissions controlled. This bill will do just that, but allow the Sunflower plants as an acknowledgment that Bremby stepped in it big time. If the legislature doesn't take action, the courts will, rendering Bremby's fiat impotent, and there will be no statutory regulations in place for the future.

Me thinks the Chicken Littles better just STFU and let this thing happen, or they're going to wind up with even less than they want.

0

Reality_Check 6 years, 2 months ago

""We seem to be playing a beat-the-clock strategy," Sebelius said Friday during a Statehouse news conference. "I hope they slow down."

And that's why you have a veto pen, gov.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

And, as we all realize, the problem belexus describes is interwoven with the economic reality of this country 1) being largely dependent upon Mideast oil, as we spend trillions of dollars on a war to protect it (i.e. keep the area stabilized), and 2) having outsourced so much of our manufacturing to China to a point where we now borrow one billion dollars a day in long term debt from the Chinese.

This economic situation isn't all about 'sub-prime' loans and real estate.

0

Bill Griffith 6 years, 2 months ago

To Asbestos, clearly China is one of the two major problems with regards to CO2. But the United States has been the world's leader in CO2 production since the records have been kept. So to say that the United States is "not the problem" does not set the record straight. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that China and the United States are the largest part of the problem and India is coming up in the rear view mirror? Next, rather than bashing at this point, wouldn't leadership from the United States and our influence with these countries (we have quite abit) on addressing the CO2 problem be the way to address the problem? It will be much harder for these two emerging countries to drag their feet if the US has stopped dragging its own.

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 2 months ago

Coal is too expensive according to the EPA when they removed their support. And Nuke is neither clean nor cheap: http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/articles.cfm?ID=9720

0

ASBESTOS 6 years, 2 months ago

For some on here that are not paying attention.

China will produce 750 Gigawatts of energy per year by 2004 80% of which is coal, which is 632 gigawatts with DIRTY technology. The US i 2006 generated 310 Gigawatts from Coal.

We are going down on this and China is goin UP to 950 gigawatts by 2010, translating to 760 Gigawatts from Coal, which is DOUBLE the U.S. use of coal.

CHINA is the problem with CO2, NOT the U.S., and India is not far behind China.

Think again about "saving the world" by bashing the United States. China and India are the global environmental villians with their population numbers.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

Oh, don't worry. I'm sure KCPL and Westar are running around the Capitol trying to prevent anything from affecting their existing plants. They obviously are nervous Nellies on this whole issue. Any statement they would make would be a plea that any bill "protect our customers and investors." Their preference would be to sit in the back of the room and watch.

0

Bill Griffith 6 years, 2 months ago

I am debating appearing, albeit under a different moniker. Darned inconvenient during the work week. I have testified here and there when the mood strikes me in the past. I probably will check and see if my thoughts are in some other folks testimony. I am sure the Land Institute, or whatever there spin off group is called, will testify. Good point. I am very curious about KCPL and Westar and whether they are going to sit this one out.
As far as speed, usually most of the bills get passed the last few weeks of session, but that is neither here nor there. There are pitfalls to both sides for speed or lack there of.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

And since the Land Institute from Salina is so concerned about the issue that they have opened a Lawrence office and financed a public opinion poll, maybe they will show their face in the light of day.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

Cool..... And here is your big chance to educate some people about your "digital power line controls" issue.

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

Belexus: This will be interesting. The Governor's words are strong enough, Sunflower will need to defend with some particularity why a smaller plant does not work financially. Something more concrete that "same financial benefits." Meanwhile, some of the D support for a 2/3 override may melt away in the next few weeks.

Although the Governor criticizes the speed, a bill by the end of February has already consumed 50% of the session.

Belexus: Anyone can request to appear. Call the committee secretary. :) SnowWI..... here is your big chance. Cool.....get over there to help them with their Roberts Rules of Order.

0

Bill Griffith 6 years, 2 months ago

So a vote on February 8th, and assuming passage, would land the legislation on the governor's desk on the 9th and I believe she has 10 days to veto or sign the legislation. That takes us to the 19th, a Monday, when the votes would need to be counted and the real arm twisting would begin. Fascinating political process, I wonder who is going to speak in favor and against this bill in committee? Obviously Sunflower and the SIerra Club will be there, but who else?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.