Legislators fighting for coal plants
Legislators in both chambers are working on bills to help build two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas, but they're not sure how the measures will deal with a regulatory decision blocking the plants' construction. Enlarge video
The sun sets between two Westar Energy Plant towers earlier this month viewed from North Lawrence. Developers of two coal-burning power plants that were rejected by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment are seeking a compromise instead of a legal battle.
Topeka — Developers of two coal-burning power plants that were rejected by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' administration say that, for now at least, they are seeking compromise instead of an all-out legislative battle.
"It's a touchy time," said Steve Miller, a spokesman for Hays-based Sunflower Electric Power Corp. "There are a lot of people with lots of ideas about how energy matters should be dealt with."
In October, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment rejected Sunflower's request for permits to build two 700-megawatt coal-burning plants in western Kansas near Holcomb.
KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby cited concerns about the proposal's 11 million tons per year of carbon dioxide emissions and its effect on global warming.
Since then, speculation has run high that the company, with support of legislative leaders from western Kansas, would ask the Legislature to approve legislation that would overturn the decision. Last week, a legislative committee introduced a "shell" bill that some lawmakers said eventually would be used as a vehicle for Sunflower's plants.
But Miller said the company doesn't have such legislation lined up.
"That would be in keeping" with comments from Senate President Steve Morris, Miller said.
Morris, R-Hugoton, has said that he doesn't believe legislation could be made to reverse an administrative decision. Sunflower has appealed the decision to the Kansas Supreme Court.
But Morris and other supporters say they hope some kind of compromise could be worked out with Sebelius that would allow coal-burning development.
House Minority Leader Dennis McKinney, D-Greensburg, said perhaps more mitigation can be used to offset the environmental impact.
McKinney pointed to Sunflower's proposed bioenergy center, which would include an algae reactor. Sunflower says 40 percent of the CO2 emissions from the coal plants could be diverted into pools of algae and processed to produce oil for biodiesel, starch for ethanol production and protein for cattle feed.
But environmentalists say the algae reactor is unproven and wouldn't address all of their concerns.
"The reactor would be prohibitively expensive because the algae would need to be arrayed over a huge surface area to be optimally exposed to sunlight, and then it must be protected from the cold," according to an assessment by the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club.
Comments
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.
hipper_than_hip (anonymous) says…
If the energy producer wants to build an algae reactor as part of a co2 remediation process, why does the sierra club care about how expensive it is?
georgeofwesternkansas (anonymous) says…
We do need to find an energy source to replace our base coal generation, but as of today we have not found that source. Wind power will never be more than a supplement unless we completely change our way of life. For now we will need to go with the cleanest burning coal and live with it.
Even at 11 tons of CO2 these plants will produce 3 or 4 times the energy the Lawrence Dirty Coal plant produces at 17 tons of CO2.
gr (anonymous) says…
"why does the sierra club care about how expensive it is?"
Because they caaaaare about you. And what you do, and what you wear, and anything you think. Everything you do is wrong and needs to be changed - just because.
Sebelius and other enviro wackos don't care about the environment. Otherwise, they would be promoting alternative fuel sources to cut down on real pollution such as mercury (not enough kids to inject it into), other heavy metals, and sulfur or other toxins. They would also be promoting alternative fuel sources to help conserve oil which can be made into various useful products which are very difficult to create through other means rather than just burning it.
Instead, they worry about imaginary "pollution" such as oxygen or carbon dioxide with total disregard for the above. They shove probes up cow's rears, and check their breath. It's all a political kick to make a statement. Once some other object comes up, everything will be about it. Such as, we got to change our ways or a meteorite is going to hit us. Or, everyone needs to buy magno-credits (from them, of course) to prevent earth's magnetic field from changing and causing an ice age.
A bunch of poppycock with no concern for the environment and all about how big a name they can make for themselves. Even when companies follow all the made up rules, they are still denied, "just because".
blakus (anonymous) says…
gr, where did you come from?? Imaginary "pollution"... that made me laugh and cringe. Look at our rivers in Kansas and tell me they arn't polluted. Better yet, eat the fish from them and see what interesting, "imaginary", symptoms you develop.
There are plenty of intriguing developments in energy... but where does the money go to for projects that promise a cleaner future?? Ah that is right, it goes to subsidize dirty energy.
I don't know how old you are, but myself, being 24, wants a future where we have clean energy and sustainable living. That might not concern you, but I am not going to let the old guard ruin the future for my generation.
lounger (anonymous) says…
I have not seen this type of hard headed disregard for the wishes of the people of kansas in all the 26 years I have lived here --once again The majority of kansans say no-get that word NO...N-O...nada.. about these filthy plants. Please kindly take your greed elswhere.
gr (anonymous) says…
blakus,
try reading what I wrote.
lounger,
what's "filthy" about meeting all requirements?
And who's the majority?
lounger (anonymous) says…
gr- are you kidding? All polls taken are somewhere around 75% negative on these plants. Check the LJW last month. Coal is filthy just live with the truth. There are alternatives out there but no one seems to have the guts to try them!!!!
gr (anonymous) says…
I read 62%. 1000 people polled. Questions non peer-reviewed. Phrased by ones opposed to the plant. Ummm, hmm. On another topic, one said that polls don't count. But, then I don't give him much credibility anyway.
I understand these plants would be cleaner than existing ones, and meet all legal requirements. And the sole reason given for rejection being for imaginary pollution. When does simple sample majority opinion (try saying that fast) trump meeting legal requirements?
Oh yeah, Wal-Mart on 6th street. They did win over opinion, though.
As far as alternatives? Let's hear them. Like one article, the poll didn't ask if you are willing to pay double for your power. Any feasible alternatives? If so, why aren't private companies jumping all over them? Unless they aren't really competing "alternatives", but only future possibilities.