Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

No’ to plants

February 19, 2008

Advertisement

To the editor:

I read in Friday's paper that our Kansas Senate had OK'd the proposal to allow coal plants in Kansas. On the radio, the Sunflower Electric Power Corp. is asking that people call their legislators and tell them to vote for the coal-fired power plants. You can also call them and ask them to vote "no."

Kansas ranks third in the nation in wind power potential. Wind energy is an inexhaustible, affordable domestic resource. It would not have negative impacts on our air and water resources. In an independent statewide poll taken in January, Kansans supported development of wind power and denied air-quality permits for two 700-megawatt coal-burning plants in our state. So don't our senators understand the word "no"? I'm calling to tell them to vote "no."

Priscilla Hedges,

Lawrence

Comments

Esq2eB 6 years, 1 month ago

No proof that wind and sun energy are renewable...imagine it. The consequences would be horrible if we used up all the wind. And utilizing all the sun's energy would be a disaster of global proportions. It would make this global warming scare look like a block party!

0

Bill Griffith 6 years, 1 month ago

Gr, that number is based on energy efficiency programs as administered by utilities nationwide. Westar did not have that information in its docket concerning wind so I took those numbers from published reports that have been reported on across the country. I just wanted to make sure there was no confusion that those were Westar's numbers-although 2-3 cents per Kwh will hold up in Kansas in my opinion. Westar is not coming in over average on energy efficiency because ee costs can be controlled much more easily than can costs for coal or wind. Plus, Westar is just getting started with its ee program and the costs are not in as of yet-but they will fall within the 2-3 cents range.

0

gr 6 years, 2 months ago

logicsound04: "In that case, I'm sure you can provide justification for your claim of the study's bias. As of now, all you've provided is your unfounded opinion."

I thought we already discussed this, but guess you missed out on this one. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jan/23/coal_plant_developers_hoping_compromise/#c507381 Any further questions?


I asked Merrill to back up his claim of "Whereas wind reaches a payback point in about 4-12 months". I said I didn't believe he could. This would have been an excellent opportunity to prove me wrong. He responds with "The bottom line:" and trails off with emotion.

Merrill failed. Again.

Belexus came closest in a comparison analysis. His is something worth discussing.

Belexus, what do you mean by "Also, I might add that energy efficiency has been coming in nationwide at 2-3 cents per kilowatt hour wholesale"?
Does that mean Westar is coming in over average?!

0

fetch 6 years, 2 months ago

Thanks Belexus. Real information. It is valued.

Unlike Merrill who posts his typical crap: "These legislators are screwing many western Kansas communities & constituents out of money aka economic growth. Western Kansas is more than only Holcomb."

Merrill is so ignorant that he refuses to even understand why such a post of his can be perceived as being critical of SW Kansans. He refuses to believe any posts on the Holcomb topic have been critical of SW Kansans. Said exactly such in the last few days. He demonstrates his total lack of understanding with that very assertion.

Yet he posts that SW Kansans are being 'screwed' by the officials they elect. I thought it worked the other way around. That citizens elected the officials, that the officials really worked for them...on a leash. But the 'citizens are being screwd.' The only way Merrill could get explain this dichotomy is by having the belief that "all officials screw all citizens." Including his own. Since this must be true, it is a sad statement for a person who consumes so much time and electrons in his masturbatory efforts in attempting to shape public policy from the mirrors of his own mind. Neufeld may not be a person you would choose as in-law, but he is carrying the cause of his district, quite frankly.

Meanwhile, I will tell Marci and others how they are screwing Merrill, since that is what he must believe. (they will laugh) Remember, she is the one who sold out to Corporate Family interests with the Oread Hotel. Not someone in SW Kansas. Who sold out whom here, Richard.

You are really quite pathetic in the quality of your rhetoric, Richard.

Bring on the 'squelch' function to this forum, LJW. It's needed, kinda like 527 reform.

0

Bill Griffith 6 years, 2 months ago

There is some confusion on costs of different energy sources for electricity. Based on Westar's testimony to the KCC contained in their December wind docket, a new coal plant is about 7 cents per kilowatt hour wholesale. A new windfarm is about 4-5 cents per kilowatt hour wholesale. Also, I might add that energy efficiency has been coming in nationwide at 2-3 cents per kilowatt hour wholesale. Nuclear will be higher than any of these scenarios. Nanosolar just shipped their first order out to Germany at 9 cents per Kwh wholesale (commercial size not residential). Hope this helps.

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 2 months ago

The bottom line:

Kansas has wind,sun water with which to produce energy. Kansas has farmland with which to produce materials for Bio Mass energy

Why not let Kansans make more money for Kansans instead of Wyoming coal corporations?

Why haul in materials that produce extreme toxic materials and or waste?

These legislators are screwing many western Kansas,communities/constituents out of money aka economic growth. Western Kansas is more than only Holcomb. Implementing new forms of energy production is a new industry that can spread economic growth throughout Kansas.

0

logicsound04 6 years, 2 months ago

"No whoops. Biased is biased no matter how the outcome is."


In that case, I'm sure you can provide justification for your claim of the study's bias. As of now, all you've provided is your unfounded opinion.

0

gr 6 years, 2 months ago

"Whoops." No whoops. Biased is biased no matter how the outcome is.

"In an independent statewide poll taken in January" "the poll in question leaned more heavily on responses from residents in the Holcomb area." Whoops.


"I agree with Priscilla, no new coal plants because the power will be shipped out of state. "

No excess wheat because it'll be shipped out of state. No excess corn because it'll be shipped out of state. No excess manufacturing because it'll be shipped out of state.


Merrill, I read on the Danish Wind Industry Association web site the following statement: "The basic advantage of using this method instead of engineering calculations, is that we are able to account properly "

I then go to the pdf file and find more stuff that make me think, "manipulation". Kind of reminds me of those against ethanol economics.

Maybe I asked the wrong question. Merrill, in very simple terms that anyone can understand without advertisement propaganda, without the reader thinking they are being hoodwinked, explain the payback time.

Let me help you get started. Specify how much the initial setup costs. Specify how energy can be generated. This would include days of wind speed above the minimum generation threshold, kilowatts generated, kilowatt hour price used for comparison (isn't that 8 cents/kw). Specify maintenance costs. Specify lifetime. Then divide it all out giving cost/kw. We can help you on this one.

I'm betting you won't be able to provide this. Don't you think this is necessary in order to make statements such as "Whereas wind reaches a payback point in about 4-12 months"?

0

75x55 6 years, 2 months ago

"Certainly wouldn't want to make any money from selling things to people out of state."

Reciprocity being what it is....

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 2 months ago

Yea, lets stop this energy going over state lines. Plug those gas pipelines. Prohibit Westar's selling of power to Missouri, and vice versa. Yea. Cut down those transmission towers. Yea. That'll teach them. Certainly wouldn't want to make any money from selling things to people out of state.

0

acoupstick 6 years, 2 months ago

The reason coal and nuclear continue to be represented as viable "clean" energy sources is that they are heavily subsidized. Period. Not only are plants themselves heavily subsidized, so is the mining necessary to obtain the raw materials. Ditto the governments sudden fascination with corn-derived ethanol as an alternative fuel source. It is a brilliant attempt by the heavily subsidized agriculture lobby to soak taxpayers for more money.

0

Nick Vaughan 6 years, 2 months ago

notnowdear,

As I have said before, take your useless banter elsewhere. You really have no idea about power generation. You couldnt tell me where the Holcomb plant is loctated. Its an expansion to the existing site. Its not a big deal. Stop your media bandwagon whore ways. I can help you. Just ask questions.

0

fullhouse 6 years, 2 months ago

I agree with Priscilla, no new coal plants because the power will be shipped out of state. Take up the challenge to reduce your electric usage and find ways to go green. It is easy and will reduce the need for more coal power.

0

notnowdear 6 years, 2 months ago

Go live out there. Go live out there. Go live out there. Spend money out there. Vacation out there.

You all sit here and theorize and conceptualize for something that, if put in play, you will never experience firsthand.

It pisses me off when you think you can make decisions and opinions on issues that will never affect you deeply, nor daily.

Wake up! Live your concepts. Live your ideas. Live in W. Kansas.

0

notnowdear 6 years, 2 months ago

Pricilla, go buy farm land out there, and live out there, and spend your money out there, and you will be able to understand the plight of W. Kansas.

You want wind energy as long as those turbines are not in your back yard, where it ruins your view.

Oh yea, You support wind energy as long as you don't have to live around the turbines, as long as it is "out there", and not here in your own back yard.

0

notnowdear 6 years, 2 months ago

Thank the gods, all of them.

Let's work to clean up our own backyard now.

0

75x55 6 years, 2 months ago

Such curious statements about the need to keep Kansas products in Kansas. ("energy whore", "Wyoming coal corporations").

Dangerous ground to tread there...

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 2 months ago

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/how-wind-energy-works.html http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/how-solar-energy-works.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/offmen-how-biomass-energy-works.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/offmen-how-geothermal-energy-works.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/how-hydroelectric-energy-works.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html

Nuclear Power Is Not Clean or Green!

No contemporary energy source is as environmentally irresponsible, imposes such a high liability on taxpayers, or is as dangerous as nuclear power. Industry efforts to "greenwash" nuclear energy make a mockery of clean energy goals. Although nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide, promoting nuclear risks to reduce greenhouse emissions is the classic jump from the frying pan into the fire!

The Real Dirt on "Clean" Nuclear Energy

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/articles.cfm?ID=9720

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 6 years, 2 months ago

Is merrill's manifesto just a bunch of cut-and-paste links?

0

logicsound04 6 years, 2 months ago

"Except when it's not blowing."


I'd LOVE to see some statistics on the proportion of wind lull-time in the parts of Kansas that are most appropriate for wind power.

===========================================

"heard about a biased poll given to a small select few."


You must be talking about the fact that the poll in question leaned more heavily on responses from residents in the Holcomb area. So yes, the select few in question were those in the area most affected by the proposals.

And you need more than unfavorable results to declare a poll "biased". This particular poll was done by a respected and independant polling firm, Cooper & Seacrest.

Whoops.

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 2 months ago

Rod Bremby and Governnor Sebelius are the conservatives in this matter. They want cleaner,safer and the least expensive power. Whereas the coal plant people want tons of tax subsidy dollars and the OTHER bone head Kansas legislators like their special interest campaign money and are not being good stewards of tax dollars. Sebelius has always been far more fiscally conservative and much smarter about how to use tax dollars than the greater majority of Kansas legislators. Most Kansas republicans are like Bush: not the brightest cookies on the block.

0

gr 6 years, 2 months ago

"Whereas wind reaches a payback point in about 4-12 months"

Ok Merrill, put your money where your mouth is. Let's see it. What you are saying is too good to be true. Prove otherwise. Let's see a payback analysis. Need I ask, You can do that, can't you?

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 2 months ago

The Bush admin backed out recently on an agreement to fund a clean coal plant.... cost was soaring. Clean coal NOT is not cheap and would require about 15 years to see a payback point. Whereas wind reaches a payback point in about 4-12 months,

When thinking of energy for the state it will not be only wind power. Think energy producing team that which can be totally produced with local sources. Local sun,local water,local wind and local grasses produced on local farmland.

It goes like this: Kansas has wind,sun water with which to produce energy. Kansas has farmland with which to produce materials for Bio Mass energy

Why not let Kansans make more money for Kansans instead of Wyoming coal corporations?

As I have stated Westar has stated to me at the home and energy fair that Kansas does not need more power just cleaner sources. Good energy conservation practices alone would completely eliminate the need for more power in Kansas.

0

gr 6 years, 2 months ago

"I'd rather pay for wind plants than coal ones."

jafs, since you seem in the know, could you tell us how much our bills will rise with new coal plants contrasted with how much our bills will rise with new wind plants? That would be essential in making a decision. You do have that information, don't you, or otherwise, you are just making up an opinion.

"I imagine we could simply conserve our energy use and we wouldn't need them "

Are you saying that in the past when we've had "energy crisis", that you failed to conserve energy and that you've been wasting it all this time? Or that you went BACK to wasting it? Why? Otherwise, why, if you could save more, you haven't already done so? I mean, how much can one keep conserving for each conceived crisis?

0

Mkh 6 years, 2 months ago

Kansas needs to stop being the energy whore for other states. Regarless what you all think about coal verse alternative energy...energy generated in Kansas needs to start being used for Kansans!

Also tell Colorado to stop stealing our water!

0

Nick Vaughan 6 years, 2 months ago

Plants are not extremely toxic producing evironments. A substantial part of the cost to build these plants reside in pollution controll equipment. Peoples perceptive that power plants are just pollution generating facilities is Wrong. They provide the sustainable way of life that you are apparently taking for granted.

GR has it right on the money about wind energy. Its not that we shouldnt explore it, its just not economical nor sustainable to the point we rely on our current power needs. Wether Kansas uses 15% or 0% or 100%, it doesnt matter, its a company that generates massive revenue, which means big taxes for the state, which means better schools and better roads, and the ability to fund people who can afford thier electric bill. We share the same air and water as all the other states.

0

jafs 6 years, 2 months ago

There are significant costs involved in building new coal plants.

In addition, there are the ongoing costs of coal.

Also, the clear environmental problems associated with them.

The costs of building new coal plants will come out of current customers' pockets - our bills will go up.

There would be costs associated with building wind-generating plants as well, but no ongoing costs to supply them. And, of course, they'd have a lot fewer environmental issues.

I'd rather pay for wind plants than coal ones.

Finally, the plants that are being proposed would supply Kansas with approximately 15% of their output - I imagine we could simply conserve our energy use and we wouldn't need them (or any other new plants) at all.

0

gr 6 years, 2 months ago

"In an independent statewide poll taken in January"

I must have missed it.

I heard about a biased poll given to a small select few.

I wonder if Priscilla, Merrill, and others voluntarily pay an extra "green" fee on their utility bills. My guess, most do not.

There is nothing economical nor efficient about non-coal alternatives. Otherwise, why aren't they being used rather than coal? It costs more! Face it. Coal is the best thing we have available at the current time. It can't be used to produce other things as gas and oil can be. Not saying we shouldn't be looking for new alternatives, but they just aren't here, yet. There is no reason to give rolling black outs as an incentive to come up with them. And definitely no reason to make a name for yourself as making Kansas as the first to (have rolling blackouts).

0

blue73harley 6 years, 2 months ago

You can also call them and ask them to vote "yes".

0

LogicMan 6 years, 2 months ago

"Wind energy is an inexhaustible,"

Except when it's not blowing. So no electricity when you want it, like maybe right now.

"affordable"

Definitely not without massive public funding via your current and future taxes.

And they need $$$ transmission lines too -- part of the original plan for these plants was to build the extra line capacity for many wind generators. I wouldn't be surprised if that aspect goes away now -- there is a cost to everything, including bad decisions.

0

Richard Heckler 6 years, 2 months ago

Thanks Priscilla,

Kansas has wind,sun water with which to produce energy. Kansas has farmland with which to produce materials for Bio Mass energy

Why not let Kansans make more money for Kansans instead of Wyoming coal corporations?

Why haul in materials that produce extreme toxic materials and or waste?

These legislators are screwing many western Kansas,communities/constituents out of money aka economic growth. Western Kansas is more than only Holcomb. Implementing new forms of energy production is a new industry that can spread economic growth throughout Kansas.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.