Archive for Wednesday, February 6, 2008

House speaker: Sebelius not serious about compromise on coal power plant

February 6, 2008

Advertisement

Debate intensifies as coal plant hearings continue

Some legislators hope to modify major energy legislation, but supporters won't negotiate on two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas. Enlarge video

Audio Clips
House Bill 2711, part 2

— House Speaker Melvin Neufeld on Tuesday said that both proposed coal-burning power plants in western Kansas must be built and that Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' offer to allow one plant was not made in good faith. Sebelius vehemently denied the charge.

"The governor carefully found out what the bankers would not allow a bond for and wouldn't sell, and that's what she suggested," said Neufeld, R-Ingalls.

"That is clearly an indication that 'I'm (the governor) going to stop this thing dead cold and I'm going to propose absolutely something that can't be built, can't be financed,'" he said.

But Sebelius' office said Neufeld was off the mark.

"Governor Sebelius absolutely made the offer in good faith," said her spokeswoman, Nicole Corcoran.

And Corcoran said Sebelius' offer reflected the reality of coal-burning plant construction across the nation, was economically feasible and provided enough power for Kansas.

"It's time Kansans start asking who truly stands to gain from a project seven times larger than what we actually need," Corcoran said.

The comments came as two legislative committees are hearing measures that would allow two 700-megawatt coal burning plants near Holcomb. Under the plan, 85 percent of electricity produced by the plants would be used by out-of-state customers, while about 200 megawatts would be sold to Kansans.

In October, the Sebelius administration rejected the $3.6 billion plants, citing concerns about the annual emission of 11 million tons of carbon dioxide and its effect on climate change.

The legislation being considered would reverse that decision and also install CO2 rules.

But Sebelius and environmentalists say those proposed rules have such wide loopholes they would invite even more coal-burning plants to Kansas.

Sebelius said she tried to compromise with plant developer Sunflower Electric Power Corp. by offering to support one 660-megawatt coal-burning plant that would be able to implement CO2 reduction technology.

She said such a plant would take care of current and future power needs in western Kansas and represented a compromise.

"The framework of this proposal seeks to find a middle ground between all parties concerned and allows for the construction of one power plant that is reasonable and sensible in terms of scope and size," she said. Sunflower Electric rejected that proposal.

Neufeld and Sunflower officials maintain both plants must be built to make the plan financially viable.

Earl Watkins Jr., Sunflower president and chief executive, said that under the two-plant proposal, Sunflower could receive $95 million in "development fees" to operate the plants for the other owners, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association of Colorado and Golden Spread Electric Cooperatives of Texas.

"These upfront payments provide for the equity necessary for Sunflower's 200-megawatt portion of the plant, which will cost a total of about $540 million," he said.

But Sebelius said a smaller proposal is economically sound, and has been replicated recently in other states such as Montana, Arkansas and Oklahoma.

"If the base-load needs in western Kansas are only 200 megawatts, this extra power would allow Sunflower to sell the additional power to either Tri-State or Golden Spread, which was anticipated in the two-plant proposal, helping to lower the energy costs and repay some of the financing," Sebelius' office said.

But Neufeld said the construction of both plants, with the accompanying transmission lines, will increase Kansas' ability to export wind energy to other states. Environmentalists, however, say transmission lines will be built without the need for more coal-fired power.

Neufeld said he believes there is room to negotiate with Sebelius on the current legislation, which may be voted on in committee this week.

Asked whether he would try to have the House approve the bills next week, he said, "I'll count noses."

Comments

Corey Williams 7 years, 5 months ago

'Under the plan, 85 percent of electricity produced by the plants would be used by out-of-state customers..."

Why don't they build them in Texas or Colorado? Oh...because they can't?

situveux1 7 years, 5 months ago

What would happen if we said the state could only produce enough airplanes to provide what the state 'needs?' Last time I checked, creating thousands of jobs and exporting goods to other states was a good thing.

Who stands to benefit Sebelius? Well, I know you definitely stand to benefit if the plants aren't built because you'll be more likely to get that cabinet nomination you're vying for.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"What would happen if we said the state could only produce enough airplanes to provide what the state 'needs?' Last time I checked, creating thousands of jobs and exporting goods to other states was a good thing."

Once again this is an apples and oranges debate. Colorado and Texas don't want the plants either. It is an entire different game when we are talking coal plants compared with airplanes.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

Sebeilus offered a common-sense rational compromise, but was immediately rejected. This issue is going to get ugly in a hurry.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

its_getting_warmer had better be able to accept statistics if I offer them up again.

georgeofwesternkansas 7 years, 5 months ago

If this legislation should fail, the kansas supreme court will still hear the case. Which is, does the administrative branch of the kansas government have the authority to overrule the current law and impose its will as it sees fit. The answer is NO, the sierra club will not be there, as this argument is over a point of law and nothing more.

The fact remains that the law is the law and sunflower jumped through all the hoops and rang all the bells. Those that are now in a panic over this are a day late and a $1 short. Like it or not, want it or not, good for us or not the plants are going up.

jayhawklawrence 7 years, 5 months ago

I went to Neufeld's website and noticed he graduated from High School but no mention is made of any College education whatsoever. He has lived his entire life in the Ingalls area.

http://www.repmelvinneufeld.com/biography.html

It is a little scary that this man has gained so much influence in our state politics. I think he is in way over his head. He should stick to farming and raising cattle which I am sure he is probably very good at.

I guess if you memorize the Republican rhetoric and are good a spewing it out on cue, you can go far....

These coal plants have the look of a gigantic Boondoggle to me.

georgeofwesternkansas 7 years, 5 months ago

The part the gov leavs out is that this power has to be sold before the plant can be built. It is called a "power purchase contract" and must be in place before you can move to build the plant. What the gov did not do was promise state funding for power purchase contracts to help the folks in western kansas get the 200MW they need today.

What a dog and pony show to get to Washington.

jafs 7 years, 5 months ago

The Kansas Department of Health and the Environment exists to protect the health and environment for Kansans.

As such, it seems completely responsible and correct for them to deny permits for plants which would harm our health and environment.

They do not exist in order to create new jobs.

The legal question will more likely become "Can the legislature reduce KDHE's ability to do it's job?"

jayhawklawrence 7 years, 5 months ago

georgeofwesternkansas

Hey George. I would start to worry more about running out of water out there if I were you. These guys don't care about you folks in Western KS. They are not your friends.

Remember Enron.

Follow the money....

georgeofwesternkansas 7 years, 5 months ago

Jayhawk if you are calling Sunflower these guys, Sunflower is us guys. Sunflower Power Corp. is owned by the members of the six electric cooperatives that cover Western Kansas, and the members are the customers like myself and my neighbors, one member one vote. If you think this is not true, try and purchase a share of Sunflower, it requires an electric meter.

If your refrence to coal generation is Lawrence and Jeffery I understand your concern, they are very dirty and pollute the air you breath. The citizens of Western Kansas will never stand for that kind of crap spewing into our air just for the sake of a dollar. You cannot see any stack gasses being emitted from the current plant and the new ones will be even cleaner.

georgeofwesternkansas 7 years, 5 months ago

If jafs is right on his point ablut KDHE, we seemed to have missed the written guidelines that industry and business have to follow in order to measues expansion and new construction. Or should the guideline be, that you spend millions devloping a plan and project and we will let you know if you can build it after we look at it??

What do you think jafs??

georgeofwesternkansas 7 years, 5 months ago

jafs posted "The legal question will more likely become "Can the legislature reduce KDHE's ability to do it's job?"

So next time the administration changes the KDHE will have the ability to license 10-20 of these plants if the secretary does not consider CO2. You logic has trapped you.

Any state agency operates at the behest of the voters, and may not define its own exhistence, that responsability lies with those we have elected.

Easy 7 years, 5 months ago

Why not build them in Kansas and get the money from them. They will be some of the cleanest coal plants i the world. If we don't build them someone else will.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"Make sure and give the committee all your statistics and remind them how much better off SW Kansas is economically than Lawrence."

I gave you the statistics in a previous thread. You an interpret them however you want. You can also agree or disagree with them. However, the facts are pretty much up to date as of 2006.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"Make sure and give the committee all your statistics and remind them how much better off SW Kansas is economically than Lawrence."

EDIT: for incorrectly typed word. I gave you the statistics in a previous thread. You can interpret them however you want. You can also agree or disagree with them. However, the facts are pretty much up to date as of 2006.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"While you are at it, you might explain to them why the single-plant alternative, which had been approved by KDHE in the past, but which then could not attract financing, is now somehow a viable alternative for financing."

I am looking into this part of the issue further. I am not in favor of any coal plant, but the compromise Sebeilus made seemed fair enough given the fact that 85% of the electricity generated would still go out of state.

"Earl Watkins Jr., Sunflower president and chief executive, said that under the two-plant proposal, Sunflower could receive $95 million in "development fees" to operate the plants for the other owners, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association of Colorado and Golden Spread Electric Cooperatives of Texas."

Colorado has an RPS standard in place and does not want the plants. The problem I have with the proposed Holcomb plant is the carbon tax. At $3 a ton the carbon tax is far too low compared with European countries, and would likely drive the point home that Kansas is a coal state. This would also discourage wind energy developement compared with other states that have an RPS in place, and are expanding wind farms more rapidly.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"It's time Kansans start asking who truly stands to gain from a project seven times larger than what we actually need," Corcoran said."

I agree with this statement.

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 5 months ago

Melvin Neufeld should leave important decisions like this to the grown ups. He is in way over his head.

deskboy04 7 years, 5 months ago

Build the plants! I like having lots of electricity! It makes my house cool in the summer. It makes my tv work. I like reading books after dark. All of you who are opposed to the project need to turn off your computers and save some energy!

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"All of you who are opposed to the project need to turn off your computers and save some energy!"

The ironic thing is that better energy efficiency programs and more conservation would lead to less of a strain on the grid. Also KS needs little of this electricity considering most of it is going elsewhere.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"The one-plant option, which you admit you know nothing about, was not financially viable."

It is obsurd that it is not viable, and that turns this entire debate into an all or nothing deal. By using that logic a future plant might want to build three units instead of one because it would be more financially viable. This is a slippery slope scenario BECAUSE the cabon tax will likely be coming in the near future. Why would you build a pulverized coal plant that will be immediately obsolete? How will the ratepayers be affected?

"But Sebelius said a smaller proposal is economically sound, and has been replicated recently in other states such as Montana, Arkansas and Oklahoma."

If it has worked in those states it should be able to work here.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"Oh, and while you are learning about SW Kansas, call the folks in Ulysses to make sure they haven't run out of water again." I would really appreciate it if you stopped repeating that same condescending statement. If you are the omniscient expert regarding SW Kansas you sure like to ignore statistics that you do not like.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 5 months ago

Sebelius kills the plants, the jobs, the taxable revenue in the name of the environment without offering an alternative.

And, we're talking about base energy here, so don't anyone tell me that wind is an alternative.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

kneejerkreaction, Sebeilus did offer up a compromise, but was immediately rejected. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

its_getting_warmer, I would appreciate it if you stopped this nonsense. I appologized for that incorrect comment ages ago. You just do NOT know how to let things drop. Let's just move on.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

Hearings continue tommorrow. Click on the link to listen to various audio clips from supporters and opponents.

"After months of your research on this issue, and you didn't even know about this??"

I do know about it. Apparently you missed my post, because I said this will turn into an all or nothing deal considering the Sebeilus compromise was rejected. At this point it will be unlikely that we will see a one plant compromise given the finances mentioned in the article.

This is the issue when you have something like a "tri-state electric cooperative." It serves a rather large geographical area that covers more than one state. In my opinion we should have individual states making the energy decisions, but that is complicated by the transmission line infrastructure that spans the US.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

Yes, it's time to blame Wall Street for this current conflict! LOL I am finished with comments related to this article.

jayhawklawrence 7 years, 5 months ago

Here is a good link. It covers a lot of everyone's problem with these plants. There are many on the internet with the same sentiments.

http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/10/no_more_new_coal_please.html

The problem I have with a lot of these discussions is that the coal proponents strategy appears to be to talk you to death.

The bottom line is that Kansas has been chosen as the battle ground state for this battle over coal for political benefit (Republicans) as much as anything. They want to build coal plants and bio diesel plants and ethanol plants and suck up every last bit of water left in the Ogallala Aquifer until that and wee bit more heat in the Ocean water turns Western Kansas into another Mohavi Desert.

The bait? Empty promises for the people of Western Kansas.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"So, now, eliminating multi-state transmission and generation companies will solve the problem."

I did not say that. You interpret my statements much to literally. The tri-state electric cooperative is part of the reason why we keep hearing plans for TWO power plants. We export electricity elsewhere. Colorado and Texas don't want the plants. Therefore, they get pushed on us. In reality, we only need about 1/9 of the total electricity from Holcomb. That is why I respect the compromise offered by Sebeilus. I also agree that the issue of old coal plants must be addressed with the EPA clean air permit up for renewal or non-renewal for the older plants in the state. You have mentioned this several times. However, will the biggest utilities in the state work together?

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"This is the issue when you have something like a "tri-state electric cooperative." It serves a rather large geographical area that covers more than one state. In my opinion we should have individual states making the energy decisions," To clarify, Kansas is seen as the next best state to try to build a coal plant after they were rejected by other states. To review: Coal plants were rejected in Texas Coal plants are harder to build in Colorado because they have the RPS in place. If other states take a tougher stand on coal plants they get pushed to those states that do not take the "tough" stand.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 5 months ago

Snow, What was Seb.'s alternative to trashing the coal plant? I didn't see that one.

verity 7 years, 5 months ago

The current debate aside, my problem is the kneejerk negative reaction of the so-called conservative Republicans to everything that Governor Sebelius does, among other things saying that she does not reflect Kansans. I seem to recall that she was reelected to her office by a fairly sizable majority.

It would be beneficial to our state (and to them) if the conservative Republicans acted like adults and tried to work with the rest of the people in the state, instead of throwing tantrums like little children and insisting that everything has to be their way.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

georgeofwks says, "You cannot see any stack gasses being emitted from the current plant"

HAHAHAHAHA! The problem is that which can kill you and destroy the environment is that which you cannot see!!!!

CO2 and CO are both invisible!

You see, that's the problem. The people who are behind this effort to build the plant are either ignorant to the ramifications or know full well and stand to benefit. Your epitaph will read "death by ignorance".

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

its_getting_warmer says, "Reduce CO2 pollution: urge KDHE to intervene with Lawrence/Jeffrey Energy Centers."

Whether it happens through actions of KDHE or others, I predict that your wish will eventually come true. In fact, it is inevitable.

Baille 7 years, 5 months ago

Sounds like Melvin needs to threaten the Governor that he will call her husband up late at night with salacious accusations about the Governor in an attempt (not blackmail) to get her to change her position.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

Baille says, "he will call her husband up late at night with salacious accusations about the Governor in an attempt (not blackmail) to get her to change her position."

From missionary to....?

ASBESTOS 7 years, 5 months ago

jafs points out: "The Kansas Department of Health and the Environment exists to protect the health and environment for Kansans. As such, it seems completely responsible and correct for them to deny permits for plants which would harm our health and environment."

Funny, they don't seem to be too concerned with asbestos to enforce the regulations they have now. KDHE is the worst at enforcing regulations. Why pass another law they will fail to enforce.

Remember the gas station leak on 9th street? The KDHE violated LOTS of state regulations and also failed to enforce the leaking UST regs.

That is what is so laughable about these new "regulations"; governments cannot enforce the rules they have now, why do you think they will enforce thes new rules????

georgeofwesternkansas 7 years, 5 months ago

If CO2 and CO are invisable what is that brown crap that rolls out of the Lawrence coal plant??

Bill Griffith 7 years, 5 months ago

The brown crap that rolls out of LEC is primarily NOX and SOX. Westar is going through an evaluation of technologies to address these issues to be in compliance with the air permit process with EPA. CO2 emissions are invisible to the naked eye. There is a great deal of regulatory uncertainty for two reasons: Locally, the decision by KDHE, and nationally due to impending (two years or less) carbon regulation. I hope to find out if KDHE is going through a regulation process on CO2 to take out the uncertainty-if anyone else knows, please share the information. Westar has started ramping up their energy efficiency efforts and I predict those will accelerate in the next two years. For those of you who point to Lawrence Energy Center as a bane on clean air (rightfully so), this has the potential to drop all their pollutants (Mercury, CO2, NOX, SOX) some quantifiable amount.
While Lawrence residents to not have a direct say in what Westar does with LEC, it would be helpful if some groups of citizens from Lawrence, Topeka, etc. would ask to meet with Brad Loveless or Jim Ludwig of Westar and express their concerns about LEC.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

georgeofwesternkansas (Anonymous) says:

"If CO2 and CO are invisable (sic) what is that brown crap that rolls out of the Lawrence coal plant??"

Those would likely be soot or fly ash (SO2 >>SO4-2, sulfate aerosol, and carbon particles) along with excess steam. Other elements that can be found are uranium and thorium.

Baille 7 years, 5 months ago

"From missionary to:.?"

You would have to ask Melvin. Apparently, he has quite the imagination. :)

jayhawklawrence 7 years, 5 months ago

Westar? Now there's a company with a long history of social responsibility. Is David Wittig still incarcerated?

hornhunter 7 years, 5 months ago

flock of hawk, 'Those would likely be soot or fly ash (SO2 >>SO4-2, sulfate aerosol, and carbon particles) along with excess steam. Other elements that can be found are uranium and thorium.' Excess steam, now thats a good remark. That is not an excess of steam, it is flue gas that is hotter then the ambient air temp. BTW the fly ash content from their stack is worse then asbestos. Fly ash and all other particulates should be removed from the flue gas if equiped with a scrubber and baghouse.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

hornhunter says, "That is not an excess of steam."

The rest of your post is correct. However, practically every power generation facility that utilizes steam in the process generates excess steam along with the flue gas, etc. you mention.

Lindsey Buscher 7 years, 5 months ago

What Western Kansas NEEDS is more affordable energy and another plant, regardless of what it is (wind, coal) to meet the demand. Sebelius, the governor of KANSAS proposed a coal-burning plant to meet the needs of KANSANS. The Sunflower proposal is not in the best interest of KANSANS it is intended for economic development in Colorado.

EVERYBODY needs to pull heads out of a**es and realize that the first priority for Kansans should be other Kansans. I am against building 2-3 plants to ensure Colorado has energy and FOR building one plant for now that takes care of the good folks out in Western Kansas.

Anyone have a problem with taking care of Western Kansas right now and is more concerned with Sunflower's ability to benefit it's largest stakeholders can pack up and move to Missoura because you are not true Kansans!

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

kneejerkreaction (Anonymous) says "Snow, What was Seb.'s alternative to trashing the coal plant? I didn't see that one."

Here is the answer: "Sebelius said she tried to compromise with plant developer Sunflower Electric Power Corp. by offering to support one 660-megawatt coal-burning plant that would be able to implement CO2 reduction technology.

She said such a plant would take care of current and future power needs in western Kansas and represented a compromise."

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

its_getting_warmer (Anonymous) says: "Selling power to other states will bring Kansas and Kansans hundreds of millions of dollars of revenues, will keep power rates low, and will allow for modest future growth."

What about the potential carbon tax that could be implemented in the next few years? Why in the world would you build an outdated pulverized coal plant that has no ability to capture CO2 emissions? How will this decision affect the ratepayers? How much will the transporation costs increase for transporting the coal? These are current questions for you to ponder.

jayhawklawrence 7 years, 5 months ago

I agree with Puggy about Colorado.

Isn't ironic that the state that ripped off all of our water and left the Arkansas River almost dry now is going to trick us into using up our groundwater for their power needs.

I guess not many people know that one of the worlds largest natural gas fields in SW Kansas.

I like the idea of clean coal and believe it is possible, eventually with improved technology. I just don't like being lied to and manipulated by these clowns so they can line their pockets with cash.

hornhunter 7 years, 5 months ago

flock, Why would a power plant let excess steam just excape in flue gas???? So don't you think that the sulfur in the flue gas and the moisture in the excess STEAM might create a problem. Like say Sulfuric acid? snow, What about the potential carbon tax that could be implemented in the next few years? The key word is COULD. Why in the world would you build an outdated pulverized coal plant that has no ability to capture CO2 emissions? Your frogetting what Sunflower is trying to do with CO2, algea reactor, biofuel.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

hornhunter (Anonymous) says: "Why would a power plant let excess steam just excape in flue gas????"

Water vapor is also natural byproduct of the combustion. You are correct that the majority of the excess steam from the turbine system vents outside the flue stack, but it is not a purely adiabatic system.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"Your frogetting what Sunflower is trying to do with CO2, algea reactor, biofuel."

Yes, the so called "algae reactor." It is a relatively new technology. I have no confidence that this technology will reduce all of the CO2 emissions considering it is still relatively unproven. If it is proven I need a recent link with an update. Otherwise, IGCC has a better chance a capturing and sequestering CO2 than any algae reactor.

"The key word is COULD." It could LIKELY happen considering we will have a new administration coming into the White House fairly soon. Bush was KIND to big energy, big polluters, and big oil.

hornhunter 7 years, 5 months ago

snow says, 'Otherwise, IGCC has a better chance a capturing and sequestering CO2 than any algae reactor.' You don't sound to confident in this process either. Algea reactors have just as good a chance as your IGCC units, http://welcome.colostate.edu/features/biofuels-from-algae.aspx

flock, I did not say there was any steam in the flue gas, as I recall you did on your 4:56 post.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

hornhunter says, "I did not say there was any steam in the flue gas, as I recall you did on your 4:56 post."

You can split hairs here, but the question was concerning visible emissions, and excess steam is certainly visible as it vents (especially now at 6degF). Brrrrr.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

its_getting_warmer says, "If Jayhawklawrence is concerned about CO2, he would actively petition KDHE to address the higher rates of CO2 pollution coming from the Lawrence Energy Center."

Look, you've already made your point and there is no doubt that everyone should be concerned about CO2. To tie the LEC to the fate of Holcomb is irresponsible for a variety of reasons and no one is buying the logic or purported logic behind that. It also appears that Westar can see the headlights in their rear view and are developing a remedial approach for LEC in lieu of having one forced on them, which is wise of them.

We do need to balance the environmental impact with the economic impact, but with a clear direction toward long term reduction. It appears that the Governor's proposal is a step in that direction and it is unfortunate that the legislative leaders seem to be so short-sighted and petty in their approach. To take their tack at a time when other states and the federal government are moving in the opposite direction smacks of a group that is attempting to get in one last dinosaur before the "landscape" changes. If they were truly representing western KS, they probably would be very inclined to take the Governor's compromise seriously. It's clear that this is not their motivation.

kansanjayhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

The whole issue is this--do we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil or not?-- Low sulfer coal is one part of the solution and this whole issue is completely wrong. Carbon emissions from the proposed plant in western Kansas would be small compared to the alternative. Why should Kansas lose out to other states for production of energy that is comparatively clean and entirely domestic?

lounger 7 years, 5 months ago

Hey Melvin Kansas OVERWHELMINGLY do not want these dirty, polluting plants.

jayhawklawrence 7 years, 5 months ago

its_getting_warmer

I am sympathetic to this us against them mentality because I think Western Kansans have not been well served by this rhetoric. It is a tool of manipulation.

It has been exploited greatly by Melvin Neufeld and his cronies in the legislature. But we are all Kansans and we are all Americans and many of us once lived in Western KS.

Most Americans are looking for change, big time. We are tired of ruining our environment because of short sighted planning for quick profits. Better to think things out carefully and we are ready to investment money in alternative technologies such as Wind and Solar.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

its_getting_warmer says, "A molecule of CO2 from either plant has the same impact. "

Right, and the Holcomb addition represents more of them. Pretty simple math there.

"Another person who thinks he knows what is better for Western Kansas than Western Kansans. That attitude is offensive and paternalistic."

Actually, your attempt to use of that as a lever in the matter is offensive and really ignores the interests those who do not live in western Kansas. That is particularly rude, obnoxious, and would be wholly self-serving if it weren't for the fact that it doesn't even represent western Kansas' best interests.

You have just revealed your true motivation for harping on the LEC situation. Very disingenuous and you lose all real credibility here.

I'm sure that if Sunflower Electric, et al, were to try hard enough, they could probably obtain financing. If you have been paying attention, they have not even really tried in earnest to make the proposal work. The Governor's proposal is genuine and should receive much greater consideration than the response that they have shown to date. If and when they can clearly show that they have made a reasonable attempt to make it happen, then they might be a little more convincing. You don't seem to believe that the single plant would satisfy the needs, when there is ample evidence that it will. The fact that you cannot grasp that is not our problem.

As far as LEC, there is no doubt it will receive some attention in the near future to resolve their contributions.

Lindsey Buscher 7 years, 5 months ago

IGW... This is a response from a while ago...

IGW, IGW, IGW, bullsht, bullsht, bullsh*t! Who pays to get the plants built? (taxpayers in large part)

Can you point to any guarantees that a vast majority of the jobs will be set aside for Kansans? (because previous situations like this show that only 25-30% will be actual Kansans; a majority of qualified job candidates will either be brought in or move here from out of state)

And finally, what don't you get about ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR COLORADO AND OTHER STATES? A Kansas state Senator actually said that Sunflower wants these two plants so that they can afford a third. IF these two plants go through, they are not for Kansans, the third plant maybe. And what's more if this legislation passes, we will miss an opportunity at alternative energy and open the floodgates for more plants.

And one last thing, don't patronize blog entries artard. I've listened to what the elected State representatives of W-SW Kansas have to say, are you one of those elected officials? Does your opinion represent the citizens of that part of the State? I've heard their representatives speak out about what that part of the state wants. So don't patronize others when you are speaking out of ignorance--you do not represent any other Kansan opinions but your own.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"Speculation about what 'Westar is doing' is somewhat like SnowWI speculating about what may happen in the future."

I have a GOOD idea that a national carbon tax is in our near future as the new administration in D.C. will be less friendly to big oil, big coal, and the big polluters. The Holcomb plant is cleaner than the much older plants in E Kansas, but it still does not have a way to capture CO2 emissions or all mercury emissions. Oh, and $3 ton carbon tax is much too low, and could encourage even more coal development in this state.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"Can you point to any guarantees that a vast majority of the jobs will be set aside for Kansans? (because previous situations like this show that only 25-30% will be actual Kansans; a majority of qualified job candidates will either be brought in or move here from out of state)"

igw refuses to believe the economic statistics that continue to say that SW Kansas counties have lower unemployment rates than Douglas County. He also had no comment for me regarding the median household income figure for Finney County.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

I_G_W says, "Once western Kansans think NE Kansans are truly concerned about the environment, as in their own front yard, as demonstrated by action re LEC/Jeffrey, they will be joining you in your efforts."

It is highly obvious that NE Kansans are concerned, are taking the matter seriously, and have taken steps on their own to make things better. To deny that is to ignore what goes on here. To attempt to hold NE Kansans hostage over LEC and to withhold joining the world in the efforts to improve things is way out of whack and, despite the statements and positions you put on display here, are not representative of the sentiments of SW Kansans.

We can work together, we have worked together, and we will work together. You are a not a uniter, but a divider.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

I_G_W says, "It certainly isn't "obvious" to this writer. Or many others, either.

Clean up your own front yard, neighbor."

You continue to whine away, but we haven't seen anything toward that end in any news outlet. So, I guess it really is just you.

This writer has my money where my mouth is and I know a good number of like-minded people in this area that demonstrate their commitment. If you pay attention to the news outlets past articles, you'll see a good number of articles that reflect the actions of people in NE Kansas, so much that they have been the target of ridicule by some who just don't get it.

bunnyhawk 7 years, 5 months ago

Makes you wonder what Nuefeld's personal interests in these coal fired power plants are. When's the last time you heard anything from the Kansas Legislature about promoting economic development in the western Kansas counties who have been experiencing declines in population and tax base for the last thirty years? How can two heavily polluting coal fired power plants that have been firmly rejected by neighboring states address this problem? Simple! They won't!! But they'll make a small number of people VERY wealthy! And that's what this is about.............gee........just like the misleading stories from other Repbulicans that got us into the nightmare in Iraq! The ONLY reason to support building these power plants is if you're related to those few people who'll get rich from building them...........or if they've promised you something for your support! We don't have any way to know this, but the one thing we know for sure is that the LJW won't ask Neufeld or any Republican politician the tough questions about anything!

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

I_G_W says, "Sounds like a good idea to replace the Lawrence Energy Center, Cool. Get to work on this, please."

Hmmm, let's try your logic with this...

Once we see that there is a firm commitment from SW Kansas and Sunflower Electric, we'll join in your efforts.

Didn't sound so good, did it? Don't worry, we're taking the steps with or without you. But it seems like a waste, and we will call you out on it, if we are working toward that goal and your working hard to erase whatever progress is made.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

CO2 regulations are coming in the near future. All pulverized COAL plants including the proposed Holcomb plants will be dinosaurs. Pulverized coal plants can NOT capture nor sequester CO2 emissions.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 5 months ago

Warmer isn't really doing anything but exercising his rather juvenile persecution complex.

jayhawklawrence 7 years, 5 months ago

its-getting-warmer

So you squandered away your natural gas and you are squandering away your water with bad management and bad irrigation practices. You are probably one of those middle managers (aka Yes Men) who people were counting on to take care of their future while they beat themselves up working 24/7 to pay their bills.

If you care about the people in Western KS try to do something that is a little different than the status quo of the past (exploitation at any cost for profit) and work with Sebelius to find a compromise solution. You keep referring to these mysterious financing groups. Are they using oil money? There are other ways to finance something so important. The hard part is that you might be forced to switch political parties to get anybody to help you out. What a humbling experience that would be.

jayhawklawrence 7 years, 5 months ago

its_getting_warmer

I thought Edwards was way off track with his populist message. The people spoke. Fortunately, in the end, the American people always get it right... and Kansans are right about not wanting coal.

Thanks for doing such a good job of expressing the minority opinion.

Baille 7 years, 5 months ago

"Why is coal right for Lawrence and wrong for Holcomb?"

It's not. Our plant is dirty. It needs to be cleaned up.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

I_G_W says, "Concluding on his own what is, and is not, in Western Kansas' best interests"

Well, you sure haven't put up a very convincing argument. In fact, you're sounding a little loony...

"The people from SW Kansas want you to clean up your front yard. That is both men and women. D's and R's. Populists and non. You are the squanderer:.of our air."

Your words speak for themselves, I_G_W.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

If you can't see that this is purely a political game being played by the legislative leaders that has little to do with the welfare of Kansas or SW Kansas, that's too bad. If there were some compelling need for a plant to be built, then a) they would have no problem laying out a solid case that would stand up to scrutiny...they haven't...and b) they would be motivated to pursue alternatives...they won't.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"They did. Went they could not attract financing for a one plant scenario, they hustled and developed a larger one, taking advantage of the economies of scale and up-front costs."

I don't think so. The ratepayers are not going to be in a good position when they find out that Sunflower is using OUTDATED technology that will be in need of immediate upgrades.This is due to the very real possibility of CO2 regulation like I have said before.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

I_G_W says, "The act of using CO2 intensive power while doing nothing about it, while telling others they shouldn't: hypocrisy"

OK, time for you to put up or shut up. Either prove that nothing is being done about pollution by NE Kansans or your argument is unsupported. Up to this point, you have focused on LEC and I can warn you upfront that it is only part of the equation...meaning that if you rely solely on it in your argument, that you will have failed. Kind of like saying "if I replace this one tire on my car, I will get better fuel efficiency".

Again, cry "hypocrisy" and not only is it not true, but you are using it solely as a distraction from the matter at hand. Everyone can see it. And don't even bother mumbling "it's only about the CO2" out one side of your mouth while bellowing up a storm out the other side.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"SnowWI:: If Sunflower is using outdated technology, lets start to discuss the power source you are using to type these words:: the Lawrence Energy Center."

I said CO2 regulation will have an impact on ALL coal plants, even new ones that are the pulverized coal variety. Do you get the picture now? We all agree that LEC needs to be cleaned up without a doubt.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

igw, The way you ignored the statistics that I presented was a total hypocrisy as well. You only want to accept things that will fit your agenda, and not factual evidence.

Bill Griffith 7 years, 5 months ago

I see the Speaker of the House told Carl Holmes to stop working on HB 2711. It looks like it is going to this new committee on "Energy Future". Unfortunately, the committee is chaired by Don Myers, a long time opponent to renewables and efficiency, and Rob Olson, who seems more of the same, albeit wetter behind the ears.
There was a minor rebellion by conservative Republicans concering the carbon credits and those will probably be pulled from the bill and it will be stripped down to just a bill on Holcomb II and Bremby's authority. Apparently the testimony the last two days was quite damning to the legislation along with pressure on some of the legislators who were supposedly on the fence.

purplesage 7 years, 5 months ago

Do we want to reduce our depencence on electricity? Remember the inconvencie of ice storms. Coal is an effecient and available source of enengy today. That does not mean working toward other solutions for the future.

Kansas needs good job and Americ'a power grid needs the energy to distribute.

Hope she doesn't get so busy selling drop the soap games and posing for magazines that she forgest about the needs of Kansas and its people.d

dirkleisure 7 years, 5 months ago

http://cjonline.com/stories/020808/bre_energy.shtml

Anybody still wanna argue over the "bill was drafted in secret" discussion?

"I appreciate the leadership Chairman Holmes has demonstrated," said House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, R-Ingalls. "However, it became apparent after talking with members of our (GOP) caucus that the bill in the present form would not make it out of committee."

Well, when you aren't doing things in secret, then you take the time to work the bill in committee. Instead, the Speaker indicates he will now work on another secretly crafted bill.

Neufeld added: "We will be meeting with interested parties to work on solutions to improve the bill."

Funny, I thought that is what Legislative committees were for. I guess not.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

igw, You just ignore those statistics that you dislike, especially concerning the median household income of Finney County. The median household income for Finney County is within the top 10-15 out of 105 counties in this state. Also, the percentage of persons below poverty in Douglas County and Finney County is virtually the same. Stop making the case that the economy of Douglas County is so much better than SW Kansas. The numbers from a reputable source don't really indicate that.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

Thanks for the updates belexus73 and dirkleisure!

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

igw says, "Cute. Not sure what school you went to flock, but the one I attended warned of the practice of trying to "prove" the non occurence of an event. You can't switch that monkey to my back. You are the one asserting something. Your burden."

HAHAHAH! If you are going to say something such as "The act of using CO2 intensive power while doing nothing about it", then you have to be able to back it up. You haven't. Furthermore, you can't. So you can't prove that NE Kansans are "doing nothing about it". The fact that you put yourself in that corner is not our problem, but it takes away the basis of your argument. However, it is a very simple exercise to prove that we are doing something about it. Heck, I can prove that just in my own little part of NE Kansas.

average 7 years, 5 months ago

IGW -

I've written Westar and KDHE with my problems with LEC and JEC. I've written representatives, asking that we be allowed consumer choice in wholesale electric.

Our domestic electric use (1100 sq.ft standalone house) was 5268 kWh in the last billing year. Well below Kansas average.

I've bought "wind credits".

I've also invested a little in the nuclear industry, thinking it's probably the stopgap way forward. I'm supporting a presidential candidate who agrees.

What else should I be doing, IGW???

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

http://www.ipsr.ku.edu/ksdata/kcced/prof...

Finney County 2006 Unemployment Rate: 3.6% Kearny County 2006 Unemployment Rate 4.0% Haskell County 2006 Unemployment Rate 3.0% Grant County 2006 Unemployment Rate 3.2% Gray County 2006 Unempmloyment Rate 3.1% Hamilton County 2006 Unemployment Rate 3.3%

Douglas County 2006 Unemployment Rate 3.7%

State Average: 4.5%

Estimated percentage of people in poverty; Douglas County 2004: 13.3% Finney County 2004: 13.9%

Estimated percent under 18 in poverty: Douglas County 2004: 13.3% Finney County 2004: 18.5%

Percentage of the population under age 5: Douglas County: 5.5% Finney County: 10.0%

Percentage of the population UNDER age 18: Douglas County: 19.2% Finney County: 34.8%

(Comparison of the largest population concentration in SW Kansas compared with Douglas County) Douglas County has the advantage in terms of median family income. I will definitely grant you that one. However, Garden City (Finney County) is classified as a micro area by the Census Bureau, and Lawrence (Douglas County) is classified as a metro area. It is hard to compare metro areas and micro areas. Another factor that is a KEY is that Douglas County has more people living within its county border that commute to job rich counties. However, Finney County is still within the upper tier of counties for family income considering we have 105 counties in the state, and is doing better than MANY counties in rural NW Kansas. Median family Income Finney County 1991 34,900 . . 11 . 1992 35,700 . . 11 . 1993 36,000 . . 11 . 1994 36,200 . . 14 . 1995 36,200 . . 14 . 1996 38,900 . . 11 . 1997 40,900 . . 9 . 1998 43,100 . . 14 . 1999 43,600 . . 14 . 2000 47,200 . . 12 . 2001 49,600 . . 11 . 2002 50,200 . . 14 . 2003 44,800 . . 33 . 2004 47,800 . . 30 . 2005 48,750 . . 33 . 2006 51,200 . . 27

Median family Income Douglas County 1991 35,200 . . 10 . 1992 36,500 . . 7 . 1993 40,800 . . 3 . 1994 41,500 . . 4 . 1995 41,500 . . 4 . 1996 43,800 . . 4 . 1997 45,800 . . 3 . 1998 48,300 . . 4 . 1999 48,400 . . 4 . 2000 51,500 . . 5 . 2001 55,100 . . 4 . 2002 56,000 . . 4 . 2003 58,200 . . 2 . 2004 62,200 . . 2 . 2005 62,200 . . 2 . 2006 64,700 . . 2.

average 7 years, 5 months ago

From what I can tell, the average KS residence uses about 12,500 kWh per year. kW is a unit of rate, not of consumption, so I'm not sure where to start with your number.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

A comparison study: http://www.ipsr.ku.edu/ksdata/kcced/profiles/ Average Wage per job: Categories: DG County/KS/Rank 1990 16,625 19,791 29 1991 16,908 20,490 30 1992 17,630 21,503 . 27 1993 18,062 21,917 27 1994 18,663 22,514 32 1995 19,042 23,239 32 1996 19,444 24,096 . 32 1997 19,993 25,171 . 35 1998 21,005 26,343 . 32 1999 21,582 27,447 . 30 2000 22,801 28,766 . 27 2001 23,440 29,540 . 29 2002 24,087 30,216 . 25 2003 24,387 30,948 . 30 2004 25,169 32,240 . 38 2005 25,923 33,385 43

Average Wage per job: Categories:FI County/KS/Rank 1990 17,142 19,791 21 . 1991 17,551 20,490 21 . 1992 18,296 21,503 20 . 1993 18,883 21,917 18 . 1994 19,730 22,514 19 . 1995 20,344 23,239 19 . 1996 20,783 24,096 20 . 1997 21,852 25,171 16 . 1998 22,506 26,343 18 . 1999 23,112 27,447 17 . 2000 24,139 28,766 18 . 2001 24,805 29,540 19 . 2002 25,049 30,216 18 . 2003 26,072 30,948 18 . 2004 27,128 32,240 17 . 2005 27,436 33,385 23

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

igw says, "You are the one asserting something."

but, igw said previously, "doing nothing about it"

Nope, you did. You are asserting that we are doing nothing about it. And you can't prove it. You couldn't put up, which brings us to the consequence...shuuuuddddddup!

Honestly, we are doing quite a bit, despite your assertion that even that is not true (hmmmm...another assertion in the same vein).

Like --

So goes your LEC argument. If you can help make LEC better for all of us, that would be fantastic. Tying it to another plant is not the answer and, as I have pointed out, disingenuous. Kind of like the politics the legislative leaders are playing.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

I have sent a petition to the KDHE asking them to clean up the oldest and dirtiest coal plants in this state. Have you posters done the same?

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

IGW says, "A significant number of total anti-coal people are also total anti-nuclear"

I actually support nuclear energy as an option. Did a persuasive speech in college on the topic. Here's something we agree on.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

Also asked for certain public records that were not available online to get a better understanding of the issue before going to far with it.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

Contact/Write Douglas County Rep Sloan and say that finding ways at reducing emissions and pollution from the Lawrence Energy Center should be a priority! Westar profits off dirty coal plants in our backyard. Other information: http://www2.ljworld.com/chats/2006/oct/16/rep_tom_sloan/

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

its_getting_warmer (Anonymous) says:

"flock: If you are Ray Dean, I apologize. But I don't think so. I asked what you had done."

Hang on, you said NE Kansas, not me in particular. I wish I had such a powerful sword to wield. Apparently, I don't.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

igw says, "Even better, why not visit with the Vice-Chairman of House Energy, a legislator from Douglas County"

As a matter of fact, I may see him soon and get that opportunity. I have met him in person and spoke with him at length on different issues.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

The demographic divide between E Kansas and SW Kansas:

Percentage of the population under age 5: E Kansas Douglas County: 5.5% Jefferson County: 5.4% Leavenworth County: 6.3% Johnson County: 7.3% Shawnee County: 7.0% SW Kansas Finney County: 10.0% Gray County: 8.1% Kearny County: 7.9% Haskell County: 9.5% Grant County: 8.8% Hamilton County: 7.7%

Percentage of the population UNDER age 18: E Kansas Douglas County: 19.2% Jefferson County: 22.9% Leavenworth County: 24.8% Johnson County: 25.8% Shawnee County: 24.4% SW Kansas Finney County: 34.8% Gray County: 29.8% Kearny County: 31.3% Haskell County: 31.9% Grant County: 30.6% Hamilton County: 27.4%

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"As a matter of fact, I may see him soon and get that opportunity. I have met him in person and spoke with him at length on different issues." Here is your information: His name is Rob Olson, in Olathe Republican. http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/468407.html

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

I have sent e-mails to the KDHE over the past several months. I also have expressed concern about old coal plants in E Kansas. I am very concerned about SO2, mercury, CO2, and NOX pollution from the oldest plants.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

At least I am doing some things to make the situation better compared with cool who cuts and pastes all the time.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

I meant Mr. Sloan as well. Really nice fellow.

a_flock_of_jayhawks 7 years, 5 months ago

My point here, and I hope it is taken in the kindest of terms, is that we here in NE Kansas take the matter very seriously and are doing something about it in our own back yard. So, that's where it raises the dander when someone asserts otherwise. I can't speak for everyone in this neck of the woods, but the opposition to the Holcomb expansion is not intended at all as a slight to SW Kansans.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"Flock and I were referring Tom Sloan. But yes, Rep. Olson is on the new energy committee which evidently will be handling the new bill, presumably without ANY carbon tax."

Thanks for the update. I thought it was Sloan. Here was one of my previous posts: Contact/Write Douglas County Rep Sloan and say that finding ways at reducing emissions and pollution from the Lawrence Energy Center should be a priority! Westar profits off dirty coal plants in our backyard.

I am going to write a letter to Sloan myself regarding this issue.

Other information: http://www2.ljworld.com/chats/2006/oct/1:

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"And Snow, you are correct, Olsen is now Vice-Chair of House Energy. Sloan has been in the past. I mis-spoke earlier. Regardless, he is one of the deepest on energy issues in the House."

OK. I guess we know the name of the correct individual who is "Vice-Chair of House Energy." Thanks

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

MyNameIsJonas (Anonymous) says: "May I ask what about SO2, mercury, NOx, and especially CO that you are so worried about. "

Here we go again. I normally don't like cutting and pasting but you wanted facts. Source: http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/fasthma.asp An interesting read: http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/fasthma.asp

SO2 info: http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/so2/chf1.html http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/so2/hlth1.html http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/so2/what1.html

NOx info: http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/nox/what.html http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/nox/chf.html http://www.epa.gov/oar/urbanair/nox/hlth.html

This is why we must reduce emissions at the oldest and most polluting coal plants.

Source: http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/fasthma.asp SO2= Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide (SO2 ): "A respiratory irritant associated with the onset of asthma attacks, sulfur dioxide is produced when coal and crude oil are burned. Coal-fired power plants, particularly older plants that burn coal without SO2 pollution controls, are the worst SO2 polluters. One in five Americans lives within 10 miles of a coal-fired power plant. Oil refineries and diesel engines that burn high-sulfur fuel also release large amounts of SO2 into the air." NOx= Nitrogen Oxide "A gas emitted from tailpipes and power plants, nitrogen oxide contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone and smog. It also reacts with other air pollutants to form small particles that can cause breathing difficulties, especially in people with asthma."

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

"But at least he owned up to them. And he now generally sticks to talking about energy:not about Western Kansas agriculture" You are correct on that point. It is a great thing my relatives manage the family ranch in NW Kansas because we are two generations removed from the ranch. My relatives are the ranch experts.

average 7 years, 5 months ago

Compromise proposal theory, feel free to shoot it around. Probably all kinds of impossible bits to it:

One large coal-burner.

I don't see why this is hard to get funds for. Economy of scale? Maybe on the transmission end. It helps that the railroad for the coal delivery is already in place.

If they have a hard time getting funds, fine. The State of Kansas cosigns the note.

Conditions are:

Kansas consumers get first dibs on power generated at the plant. As western Kansas' economy grows (hopefully), they will get more and more of the electricity, with no "sorry, but 85% of it is promised to Denver".

Western Kansas consumers get wholesale power from Sunflower for 4 cents/kWh cheaper than out-of-state consumers. If they want "clean" (i.e., out of sight out of mind) power, let em pay for it and encourage Kansas industry.

The second new plant will be permitted when Kansas consumers are using 60% net total of the power generated from the already existing and the new Sunflower plants on the condition that the agreed upon emissions targets of all types have actually been met.


Personally, Sunflower isn't a great idea in the first place. There is always transmission loss. That's why power plants should be near bigger draws. I don't care how efficient the plant, it would be more efficient 10 miles from where the power is needed. There's less loss transmitting 10% of the power to the rural customers, rather than 90% of the power to the city. There are other considerations (hydro is where hydro is, nuclear has specific siting requirements and is easier to locate in low-density areas). But, as a rule, that's the fact. If the Denver region is too prissy to generate their own power, it oughta cost 'em.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

MyNameIsJonas, I appreciate your in-depth information with regards to BART. However, I doubt you can make the argument that the current coal plants in E Kansas are cleaner than the single coal unit in Holcomb right now. I don't have the data in front of me, but I know the emissions of CO2 from Jaffrey are some of the highest in the country. Also, that plant emits quite a bit of SO2, NOx, and mercury because it is quite large.

Bill Griffith 7 years, 5 months ago

Golly, I go away for a couple of days and you fellows start turning into a mutual admiration society. I have a few comments based on some of the last 20 or so posts in no particular order. First, The opinion by judge Judith Rogers criticized the EPA's arguments in support of its departure fom the mandates of federal law (mercury rules). What it means is that EPA will now have to write MACT standards for power plants instead of the tepid mercury trading rules. Also, the hammer falls for any new source as soon as the mandate issues, so states will have to do case-by-case standards for any new power plants. I don't think this would impact Sunflower much, but after the regs are set in 18-24 months, Westar could see some impacts. With regards to the Committee on Energy Future, I chuckled when I saw it was chaired by Don Myers, a long time opponent of renewable energy. Both Myers and Olson are climate skeptics, so this should be real fun to watch these Svengalis in action. With regards to coal or nuclear as future options. I would recommend folks take a look at plug-in hybrid technology as a way of feeding power back to the grid (primarily using commercial and fleet vehicles). There are some interesting studies being done on this. Valence Technology just had a 70 million dollar order placed on its new lithium phosphate batteries to be used in a commercial electric fleet. This technology seems never factored in when the discussion goes to "where will we get our baseload".

average 7 years, 5 months ago

IGW - "The Wall Street utility finance community told them no."

Well, it may be the better option for Kansas. That's why I suggested the state could cosign/help float a bond for economic development. That's the crazy idea I had above.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

average I like your idea. "Well, it may be the better option for Kansas. That's why I suggested the state could cosign/help float a bond for economic development. That's the crazy idea I had above."

I think many people disagree with 85% of the electricity going to other states. Your idea makes common sense.

snowWI 7 years, 5 months ago

I will repeat a comment I made in a previous post. It makes no sense to use outdated pulverized coal technology with CO2 regulations becoming likely in the near future. All existing coal plants will be affected. How will this affect the ratepayers when Sunflower wants to build a dinosaur that can not capture nor sequester CO2 emissions. Keep the power in KS and expand wind energy whenever possible.

bondmen 7 years, 5 months ago

CO2 rises after the globe warms - not the other way around.
As you may know, there's a very big difference! http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.com/

Bill Griffith 7 years, 5 months ago

Bondmen, Is there also a site called greatgalileoswindle.com?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.