Senate OKs coal-fired plants / LJWorld.com

Archive for Thursday, February 14, 2008

The Associated Press

February 14, 2008

A western Kansas utility won a major battle Thursday in its bid to build two coal-fired power plants.

The Senate passed a bill allowing Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to go forward with its plants outside Holcomb, in Finney County. The $3.6 billion project has been blocked since October by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' administration over potential carbon dioxide emissions.

Sebelius has strongly criticized the Senate bill, which passed 33-7, six more votes than the two-thirds majority necessary to override a veto.

The bill went to the House, which plans to debate its own measure early next week. The major difference in the two bills is that the House requires utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity with renewable resources, such as wind, by 2010 and 25 percent by 2025.

Earl Watkins Jr., Sunflower's chief executive officer, watched from the Senate gallery Thursday.

"Clearly we are very pleased with the fact that this legislation has taken a major step forward," Watkins told reporters.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

14 February 2008
at 4:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

Whoo hoo! Common sense will not bow to the Earth Liberation Front/Sierra Club crowd.
14 February 2008
at 4:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

toefungus (Anonymous) says…

So will the house. The minute this was done the way it was done, the outcome was foretold. You have to work with the legislature to enact new laws. The KDHE cannot just create them out of thin air (or thick for that matter). The sad part is that I believe most legislators would have looked favorably on debating CO2 limits and would have sent a resolution to congress asking for national limits. But a single state, acting on its own, and especially a poorer and smaller state like Kansas, is a big mistake.
14 February 2008
at 5:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snowWI (Anonymous) says…

Now the ratepayers will PAY for Sunflower's blunder. The pulverized coal plant propsed for Holcomb will have no technology available to capture and sequester CO2 emissions. New regs will come about soon enough that will render the current pulverized coal plants obsolete, including those in E Kansas. It is time to start an RPS as the 10% renewable standard is a joke. A carbon tax of $20-30 a ton is more in line with European standards. It won't matter because national standards will be coming soon regarding CO2.
14 February 2008
at 5:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

belexus73 (Anonymous) says…

A key next week is to watch the number of House members that vote for the bill. It will pass the House but is the number close to what will be needed to sustain a veto. In the Senate, 14 Senators would have to vote against the measure after Sebelius vetoes it. The Senate is definitely a long shot, Now the House is up to bat…….
14 February 2008
at 6:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lounger (Anonymous) says…

This is Sh*t! Dumb, Pathetic and just plain not smart. One of the last remaining clean air states - Goodbye Kansas-money wins again! Nice Try Sebelius- you tried to reflect the want of the people of this state (2/3rds if Kansans said NO) but I guess 1940's Germany was better represented than current day kansas. Its true!! What else can we do but lay the truth out there!!!
14 February 2008
at 7:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hipper_than_hip (Anonymous) says…

Does anyone remember that Holcomb Station is a supercritical plant that burns less coal, and that less coal burnt means less co2, less so2, and less mercury released into the atmosphere?
14 February 2008
at 8:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

belexus73 (Anonymous) says…

IGW, putting wind turbines does not make much sense as it is a class 2 area for the most part. Also, again, you cannot call the LEC a plant owned by folks from Lawrence. It is owned by a private company who really doesn't give a damn what the people of Lawrence desire. Idea number four sounds good, but if the people of Lawrence cut their electricity demand by lets say, 20%, do you think the folks in favor of Holcomb II would listen? C'mon…… Oh, please explain “municipal-based Renewable Power standards for new construction”.—I am in the dark on this one.

14 February 2008
at 8:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

belexus73 (Anonymous) says…

IGW, please fill us in on the “dirty little secret” about Sebelius and Westar. Not being the world's biggest Westar fan, I am always interested in gossip about the Evil Empire. What is Westar wanting, exactly? Do you know something we don't know about some collusion going on? Enquiring minds want to know.
14 February 2008
at 8:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

belexus73 (Anonymous) says…

Sure, Holcomb II will burn cleaner than an older plant by using supercritical boilers. But this is much like having a more fuel efficient Hummer as opposed to a Prius.
14 February 2008
at 10:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snowWI (Anonymous) says…

“Snow, those ratepayers in SW Kansas, who already pay up to twice the costs you pay in Lawrence, really can't hear you very loudly.”

Yes, I do realize you said this. However, my statement refers to the fact that all pulverized coal plants will be obsolete once new CO2 regs come into place. That means that the Holcomb plant will become obsolete. Will the ratepayers be absorbing the costs of outmoded plant if the new regs come to fruition?
I completely agree that electricity rates in E Kansas are artificially low because of the abundance of dirty old(er) coal plants. Cheap rates come at a higher price tag in terms of environmental and health concerns.
14 February 2008
at 10:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snowWI (Anonymous) says…

“I tend to believe your oft-repeated conclusion above is terribly altruistic and naive.”

Well, pulverized coal plants can not capture nor sequester CO2 the last time I checked.
I also like nuclear power a little better than coal if that is what you are wondering. I would not be too opposed to an exapnsion of Wolf Creek if it means taking an old coal plant offline.
14 February 2008
at 10:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snowWI (Anonymous) says…

Also, a few (IGCC) coal plants are in operation in the US. This is one of the best technologies currently available to capture and sequester CO2 into the ground. However, IGCC is still rather expensive.
15 February 2008
at 6:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

belexus73 (Anonymous) says…

IGW, the Municipal based Renewable Power Standard will work if there is what is called a “renewable feed law” law. Germany has this now and it works well. California is attempting it. So your thought has merit if that law is brought into existence in Kansas. However, I cannot see this legislature doing something along these lines. Net metering, which is only a pittance compared to a feed law (think of a feed law like net metering on steroids-if I may use a baseball analogy) has been shot down for almost a decade in the legislature. As far as the people of Lawrence asking for state laws to assist them in their problems with Westar, I would say that Westar has more influence in the legislature then Lawrence does. My opinion in this area has some basis in experience and close observation. Your idea is good, but won't come close of getting through the Kansas legislature, again. My guess is that Lawrence would have a better shot of opening negotiations on ee with Westar and reducing demand. Now, if Westar is found in violation of the Clean Air Act to a large enough degree where some group like the Sierra Club can bring attorneys in, now that might get Lawrence and NE Kansas somewhere. KCPL was headed down that road before settling with everyone's favorite granola-crunchers. I have a few more comments on your posts-but have to go to work. I will be back at lunch……
15 February 2008
at 12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

belexus73 (Anonymous) says…

IGW, the reason Lawrence could not stick up a few wind turbines right now is two-fold: first, the cost would be very high to place them in a class 2 wind area, the bang for the buck is in a class 3 area. Also, turbines cost about a million a pop when all is said and doneeven in a good class 3 area. A town the size of Lawrence does not have the resources for this type of investment under the current system of procuring energy infrastructure. Now, energy efficiency efforts by the city of Lawrence need to move a little faster (my opinion as viewed from afar) than they currently are and I think some type of encouragement to business owners in Lawrence to switch to more efficient lighting, heating, and cooling would be compelling at this point in time. Solar does not make sense until the legislature passes net metering. Lawrence can howl all they want about net metering over in Topeka, but Holmes and Emler are against net metering unless it is in the Sunflower legislation. I don't recall the private post, but the fog of life may have done me in. Please remind me of the jist of it if you would like by the same means of communication.