LJWorld.com

merrill (Anonymous) says…

The Gov. Sebelius administration is far more advanced in their thinking than the editorial writer. The Holcomb situation offered no opportunity because it offered none of the below:

Rebuilding economies:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renew…

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renew…

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renew…

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renew…

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renew…

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renew…

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Uncompetitive Costs
The Economist observed in 2001 that “Nuclear power, once claimed to be too cheap to meter, is now too costly to matter”—cheap to run but very expensive to build. Since then, it’s become several-fold costlier to build, and in a few years, as old fuel contracts expire, it is expected to become several-fold costlier to run. Its total cost now markedly exceeds that of other common power plants (coal, gas, big wind farms), let alone the even cheaper competitors described below.

Construction costs worldwide have risen far faster for nuclear than non-nuclear plants, due not just to sharply higher steel, copper, nickel, and cement prices but also to an atrophied global infrastructure for making, building, managing, and operating reactors. The industry’s flagship Finnish project, led by France’s top builder, after 28 months’ construction had gone at least 24 months behind schedule and $2 billion over budget.

Cogeneration and efficiency are “distributed resources,” located near where energy is used. Therefore, they don’t incur the capital costs and energy losses of the electric grid, which links large power plants and remote wind farms to customers. Wind farms, like solar cells4, also require “firming” to steady their variable output, and all types of generators require some backup for when they inevitably break.

Making electricity from fuel creates large amounts of byproduct heat that’s normally wasted. Combined-cycle industrial cogeneration and buildingscale cogeneration recover most of that heat and use it to displace the need for separate boilers to heat the industrial process or the building, thus creating the economic “credit” .

Cogenerating electricity and some useful heat from currently discarded industrial heat is even cheaper because no additional fuel is needed.

End-use efficiency lets customers wring more service from each kilowatthour by using smarter technologies. As RMI’s work with many leading firms has demonstrated, efficiency provides the same or better services with less carbon, less operating cost, and often less up-front investment. The investment required to save a kilowatt-hour averages about two cents nationwide, but has been less than one cent in hundreds of utility programs (mainly for businesses), and can even be less than zero in new buildings and factories—and in some retrofits that are coordinated with routine renovations.

Wind, cogeneration, and end-use efficiency already provide electrical services more cheaply than central thermal power plants, whether nuclear- or fossil-fuelled. This cost gap will only widen, since central thermal power plants are largely mature while their competitors continue to improve rapidly. The high costs of conventional fossil-fuelled plants would go even higher if their large carbon emissions had to be captured.

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php

not_holroyd (Anonymous) says…

cut & paste here.

merrill (Anonymous) says…

*Drilling for more oil = pollution

*USA = 5% of worlds population = 25% of worlds air pollution

*When figuring the war and military security for pipelines it is estimated americans are actually $14-$21 per gallon of gasoline….more than any other portion of the world.

*The largest contributor to increased gasoline prices is all americans who continue to buy no matter the cost.

*All americans who honestly believe the USA government can dictate the cost of doing business with oil suppliers

*Americans who are living business as usual.

* Americans who refuse to walk,bike or use public transportation when in fact that is smart dollars and sense.

*Americans who refuse to drive fuel efficient automobiles

*Americans who believe oil products do not pollute in order to justify their desire to drive gas hogs. This is called denial.

*Americans who say I can afford gasoline no matter what. That my friends drives inflated pricing which screws everyone and makes zero dollars and sense and is dumb.

*Wars for oil contol are not free!

*All americans who believe it's okay for soldiers to die or become permanently disabled so long as it is not them or their children.

*Yes folks it is us screwing up our own cost of living instead demanding and becoming energy efficient.

Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…

Maybe the Bush/war economy was good for minor media moguls — but middle class working people didn't enjoy the tax breaks and capital gains passes. We worked harder for less.

And I for one am grateful we don't have more coal plants belching poisons upwind from Lawrence. We need more wind farms, not earth-killing coal plants.

cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…

Excellent editorial. Observations:
1. The type of joint effort advocated by the writer would never receive meaningful support from the Current Occupant in Topeka. She might initially say that she would support it but would later stridently oppose it, as she did with the coal-fired plants, as soon as the enviro-fascists in Kansas and elsewhere were to organize against it.
2. Concerning the national economy, it's absolutely remarkable how resilient it has been given the far-reaching negative impact of the terrorist attacks against us on September 11, 2001, and Hurricane Katrina, which hit right when those facets of our economy that had been hit the hardest by 9-11 had just begun to recover. Citizens who are upset with fuel prices need to direct their complaints against international speculators and hedge fund executives, of whom George Soros heads the list.

number1jayhawker (Anonymous) says…

That's why George Soros is one of the wealthiest scumbags in the world.

merrill (Anonymous) says…

First, coal combustion produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are suspected to cause climatic warming, and it is a source of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, which are harmful to human health and may be largely responsible for acid rain. Second, although not as well known, releases from coal combustion contain naturally occurring radioactive materials—mainly, uranium and thorium.

dandelion (Anonymous) says…

Leaders don't follow the same old, same old. They are innovative and look for solutions to problems. I'd bet all the world would follow us as we drained our agricultural groundwater and turned western Kansas into a desert. There are already parts of Western Kansas suffering from drought conditions as those of us in eastern Kansas enjoy more than enough water. Now you just have allow yourselves to become a desert so Colorado (already stole water from western Kansas) and eastern Kansas can have more electronic toys to play with. Soon the only people living in western Kansas will be the few peole needed to keep the power plants running. Note, follow the investments and contributions of anyone who supports this stupidity.

XD40 (Anonymous) says…

Drill here. Drill now. Kansas should be building coal and nuclear power plants and become a net energy exporter. I think its smart to sell coal-fired electricity to Colorado. We (Kansans) get the benefit of their shortsightedness. The best way to rebuild Greensburg is to license a nuclear power plant there. That would create both short and long term steady, high paying jobs in an area that desparately needs them.

Puggy (Anonymous) says…

All I had to do was read the headline to know what this story was really about—more bitching bitching bitching about the coal-fired plants. get over it, it's over!!!

Federal regulations are coming, and coal energy is just going to get more expensive, and the only people who benefit from that are the stakeholders, NOT the consumers. we just want cheap electricity, that should be Kansas' ground-breaking energy policy.

I hate Dolph.

Puggy (Anonymous) says…

“Kansas can’t afford such small thinking.”

So I'm sure you'll tell us all what to think. Thank gawd Dolph owns ALL media in Lawrence because without him, no one in this town could think for themselves.

Puggy (Anonymous) says…

Dear Dolph,

You are a very bad man.

forchange (Anonymous) says…

why cant we sell wind/solar power to Colorado? Why does it have to be coal? Just because its there doesn't mean we have to zap the resources. It will eventually run out, then what do we do? Someone earlier mentioned that we have enough to last 100 years. What do we do then?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Climate change protesters hijack coal train—

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20…

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

1.) China and Cuba as well as 13 other countries are drilling in the gulf off Florida, not more than 60 miles from Florida. Why is it legal for China and Cuba to drill in the Gulf but not the US? Do you really think Cuba and China give a rat's rear if there is an oil spill in the Gulf? Do you really think those 2 countries are more “environmentally enlightened” than the US?

2.) The US has Coal, Oil Shale, and Oil deposits. WE also have technological proficiency as well. Oil and Coal are not going to last forever, however in the short run increasing this production is key. IT makes no sense to run to Saudia Arabia hat in hand when we have so much energy resources here.

3.) STOP purchasing “green energy” from the electric producers. IF you want solar energy we need it on our HOUSES and our businesses. We ned a 60% Tax break or a 60-70% grant to install solar/wind producers on homjes and businesses. We do not need to give energy producers a tax break to go to renewables like solar and wind, that should go to the people! Look up what the Cities of Austin and San Antonio have for credits , grants and tax breaks for solar energy.

4.) Home Owner Associations covenants need to be voided when it comes to installing energy saving/producing articles to homes. If you want 2 windmills on your property and solar panels, you should have a right to them, and not be penalized by the HOA.

5.) Quit buying every darn electronic gizmo that comes down the pike. Do you really need a digital toaster?

6.) Make it mandatory to install on demand water heaters in new construction.

7.) certify all “reused materials” as asbestos and lead free. This has not been done much in Kansas

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

The long vision I have is that all homes and businesses have solar and wind generators on them, and we use nuclear for the peak and overnight. We could get down to probably 20% or less coal use that way. A bunch of “wind farms” strewn across the United States is not the answer. The answer is producing the energy at the point it is used, and shifting the maintenance to the homeowner on their generation.

We need to swith from a “consumer” mentality to a “producer” mentality, and that includes energy. Look at the Power Company as a “Wal-Mart” of electricity. Produce and regulate what you consume, and take responsibility for your own power usage, use what you wnat, but produce what you use.

That is a “conservative” value there folks!

hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says…

I just wish those who have been elected to lead in Lawrence could become leaders. They spent an hour and a half at the last city commission meeting to discuss buying two buses and signing a letter. Then they couldn't make a decison on a house that needs to be torned down. LawSUEt maybe? Why doesnt Dolph take on the rascals running this town, willy nilly. As I said before: “dolph, better to expose them and sit by yourself at the Country Club alone, than to have no Country Club” Lawrence needs to become a leader in something!

Daytrader23 (Anonymous) says…

The author of this article is an idiot. How often does the wind blow in western KS? Pretty much 24-7. Yes the answer is really that simple. But NOOO, we should burn coal because it makes pretty black smoke.

none2 (Anonymous) says…

XD40 (Anonymous) says…

“…The best way to rebuild Greensburg is to license a nuclear power plant there…”

–––––––––––––—
You have got to be joking.

Try driving in the area. The towns of Coldwater, Protection, and Ashland are a ways of way and have tiny county lakes compared to Clinton, Perry, Tuttle, or Milford lakes in this part of the state. There are no rivers in Greensburg, no scenic bridges with streams teaming with fish. Why do you think they had the worlds largest hand dug well? What they do have is underground water. Try to understand, a good rain doesn't replenish the Ogallala aquafer. Water seeps down that far in very little amounts. This IS a limited resource.

Nuclear power plants require plenty of water to keep the reactor cool. If it over heats you get a melt down. I don't think anybody in western Kansas wants another Chernobyl disaster.

none2 (Anonymous) says…

asbestos (Anonymous) says…

“… 3.) STOP purchasing “green energy” from the electric producers. IF you want solar energy we need it on our HOUSES and our businesses. We ned a 60% Tax break or a 60-70% grant to install solar/wind producers on homjes and businesses. We do not need to give energy producers a tax break to go to renewables like solar and wind, that should go to the people! Look up what the Cities of Austin and San Antonio have for credits , grants and tax breaks for solar energy.

4.) Home Owner Associations covenants need to be voided when it comes to installing energy saving/producing articles to homes. If you want 2 windmills on your property and solar panels, you should have a right to them, and not be penalized by the HOA…”

––––––––––––––—
I kind of think the “buy green” energy is kind of a “feel good, but don't do anything yourself” kind of attitude too. However, I wouldn't completely leave it out of the mix. Energy needs to be diversified. Some things an individual property owner cannot do. For instance the hydroelectric plant we have in Lawrence. (I also wonder if would have been financially feasible to have generated some from the dams of the large lakes we have in eastern Kansas.) My attitude about energy is somewhat similar to yours. We should all be generators and not just users. Don't just take off the electric grid, put something back on it.

As to Home Owner Associations, people argue that if you signed it you should comply. I think HOA's should be sued by members and non-members whenever their bylaws are contrary to the interests of the entire area. If a member wants to put up a clothes line it should be their business as long as they keep the yard from looking run down. If they want to put a solar panel up, they should be able to. I remember when there was an argument in the LJWorld in one of those areas where a member wanted to replace his roof with something that was flame retardant. It is a known fact that wood shingles pose more of a fire risk. Still to the other members all they could think about was their “bylaws” that required wood shingles. I would never let myself get into such an association, but for those that do they should be able to opt out when some of the bylaws get kind of silly.

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

None 2 you know nothing abuot the requirements of a Nuke Plant. The Wolf Creek Plant is only 5,000-acres which generates almost 1200 MW, and the Lacygne Power Plant has a 2,600 acre lake, and a capacity of 750 MW. So the Nuke plant actually requires “less” water capacity per MW produced.

You anti nuke anti all energy except solar and wind and flatulence (CH4) don't worry much about things like facts, science, and measurments.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Repeal the Price-Anderson Act, require truly safe storage of nuclear waste and eliminate all subsidies for nuclear power, and let's see how many nuke plants actually get built.

notnowdear (Anonymous) says…

Two turbines to provide 12 percent of residents' electricity

By Eric Swanson
Dodge City Daily Globe
Posted Jun 14, 2008 @ 11:09 AM
http://www.dodgeglobe.com/localnews/x441…
Dodge City —
After almost two years of study, Jetmore is joining the wind
energy movement.
Last week, the town signed a contract with the Great Bend-based
company West Wind Energy to set up two wind turbines at the Hodgeman
County landfill, just east of Jetmore.
Groundbreaking for the state's first municipal wind project is set
for July 10, and the turbines are expected to be up and running within
160 days — although they could be ready even sooner.
Hodgeman County has class 4 to class 5 winds, averaging 16 to 18
mph. The highest category is class 7, averaging upwards of 20 mph,
which isn't a category in Kansas.
Jetmore's wind project will begin with two refurbished turbines
costing $250,000 apiece, said Lea Ann Seiler, director of economic
development for Hodgeman County. The turbines will feed directly into
the city's power grid, supplementing the existing energy source and
generating up to 12 percent of Jetmore residents' electricity.
The turbines will help stabilize electricity costs for Jetmore's
900 residents, giving them some protection from rising rates. But they
probably shouldn't expect to see lower utility bills.
“I know some people were getting all excited, saying, 'Well, how
soon will it go down?'” Seiler said. “And it probably won't. They
probably won't see a decrease because of this. It may help keep them
from going up, but we're not going to see a drop in prices right now.”
The city estimates it can pay off the cost of the turbines in five
to seven years, based on today's electricity rates. But if rates
continue to rise as expected, the city could see a return on its
investment more quickly.
Jetmore Mayor Bill Goebel said the town's residents seemed excited
about the prospect of holding their energy costs down.
“The people I've visited with are all pretty positive about it,”
he said. “Anything we can do to keep the utility bills down, well,
they're all for.”
Scott Brantley, West Wind Energy's CEO and owner, said potentially
stable utility bills could help boost economic development in Hodgeman
County.
“There's been such an outward migration of people from these
smaller communities, if we can keep and stabilize their power prices,
then that has the potential of attracting manufacturers to come back
to these smaller communities,” he said.

hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says…

How about a wind turbine on the lot at 1232 La? How “cool” would that be? Everytime a vacant lot pops up a wind turbine. After all, it get could get taxed unlike KU's recent building fiasco.

notnowdear (Anonymous) says…

I tried to get a turbine here at home but there is this city ordinance issue about height. They only cost around $12,000. But I am hoping that eventually household wind turbines will be as abundant as household sat dishes, and perhaps smaller than what is available today.

forchange (Anonymous) says…

go jetmore

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“Repeal the Price-Anderson Act, require truly safe storage of nuclear waste and eliminate all subsidies for nuclear power, and let's see how many nuke plants actually get built.”

You could say the same for all these “windfarms” as they are heavily subsidized, and our “ethanol production” in the United States converted 24% of the corn to ethanol from food and feeds, and only reduced our oil consumption by less than 1%.

The point is that things that look good like Corn ethanol, had some nasty unintended consequences, as food shortages. We need to subsidize “cellulosic based ethanol”, that is a technology that needs to be done, not corn.

rshrink (Anonymous) says…

Ethanol in the manner it is currently being used is a sham. It is yet another way to keep a gravy train going for current investors. Wind, however, is another story entirely. There would be no excuse for not using what is readily available. In addition, solar now has a newly discovered capacity. It can be used to drive turbines and built in a way which stores energy to be used when it is dark or cloudy, so that solar now can provide a continual supply of energy and requires no mining and there is no waste. Think about how much easier that is as well as environmentally sound and how unreliant it is on other countries. Too bad Dolph doesn't educate himself and do some actual reporting. As consumers, we need to be demanding more in product development. Here we have gas now at over $4 a gallon and car companies bragging about gas mileage which was easily achievable in the 80's. The passivity of Americans is staggering. If we want better, we will have to demand it and as long as we allow leaders who pretend to be looking out for our interests when they, like Dolph, are only looking out for their own, then we will remain stuck in this downward spiral.

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Cool likes this article? You did not read it very well then:

“There is enough coal buried beneath U.S. soil to meet the fuel and energy needs of this country for the next 100 years or perhaps much longer. The trouble is those opposed to coal for energy base their concerns on greenhouse gas emissions. Coal is a dirty fuel in their eyes, and no matter what the engineers and designers said about the design of the proposed Holcomb coal-fired plants, the governor would not budge. Even though majorities in both the Kansas House and Senate favored the power plant proposal, there were not enough votes to override her vetoes.

What a wasted opportunity.”

You need to read things cool, it keeps you from looking stupid.

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“Even though majorities in both the Kansas House and Senate favored the power plant proposal, there were not enough votes to override her vetoes.

What a wasted opportunity.””

The last point was what the author was relating.

“Positive Energy”???

Are you talkin' matter/anit-matter?

You loons have no idea on simple issues like “physics” in the energy debate, and it is clear, because you use “rhetoric” instead of “scientific nomenclature”.

Cool I am with you on getting off certian forms of energy, but the “block all but wind and solar” is simply a non-starter if you have any clue about energy demand and consumption. My main push is to have generators on every house and ***the owner pays for his system** we do not need the government “giving” anyone energy or paying their light bill. Supplement the wind and solar generators with nuclear pwoerplants. If you believe that CO2 is the culprit and man is the cause, what I proposed is the ***only*** answer.

There are multip[le ice cores that show of cooling over the duration of 200 or so years in the 1840s, 1910s, 1940s and the 1970s as validated by the polar ice **thickening** in the north pole. archeolotists have found that out, but the **al gore Global warming “scientists”” refuse to look at it. It is a select crowd and it is NOT a majority.

When gas reaches $5.00 a gallon in the U.S., and massive heating oil increases grip the east, nobody will complain too much when their house is kept at 64 degrees for the winter. This winter is forcasted to be particularly bad. Same pattern followed the 1993 flooding and tornadic outbreaks, and Iowa and upper US Flooding, and the tornadic outbreaks are almost identical. Large levels in winter snows, and huge amounts of “training” strom fronts in succession.

That is weather and it is cyclical, and variable, so yes ther is “global climatic change” it had better otherwise earth would reach a “steady state”.

jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…

One of the best businesses I have seen recently and the busiest is manufacturing and exporting product used in solar energy. The customer is China. Apparently China is on a very aggressive plan to exploit the potential of solar energy. I hear there are similarly aggressive plans in other countries at this time.

I hope we witness a revolutionary change in China from being famous for their pollution to a country famous for their green approach to economic development.

However, the pollution the United States coughs into the atmosphere is far greater than China.

You cannot find any strong leadership on alternative energy issues from the current Republican party and they are using the same kind of fear generating propaganda that has worked for them in the past.

Unfortunately, access in Washington and Topeka still belongs to those who have the cash.

We need to think about that when we cast our votes in the next election. Business as usual or a vote for a better future.

It is unfortunate that even a common sense approach to environmental responsibility is considered “tree hugging”.

scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

Can this man put pen to paper without piling the falsehoods and deception up higher than a Sunflower cablevision bill?

“During the first seven years of Bush’s administration, the economy was good, if not very good. More people were working than at any time in our nation’s history and most benchmarks showed growth and improvement in the lives of most Americans.”

An absolute lie. The point of bush's first $300 tax stimulus payment, afterall, was to suposedly reinvigorate a bad economy.

And the silly statement that the economy was good because more people than ever were working is especially annoying. More people than ever were in the mix. Using the same logic it was the worst time ever because more people than ever before were not employed.

More deception:

“Now that the war seems to be turning in favor of the U.S. effort, the strident anti-U.S. crowd has quieted down and switched to other anti-Bush crusades.”

Criticism of the worst President in our nation's history does not make one “anti-US.” Criticism of our errant, would be dictator is, in fact, highly patriotic. Perhaps it would be better if the bastard spent his remaining moments on the stage reducing the number of things for which he can criticized.

Also, the invasion of Iraq is not turning in our favor. Evidently, Dolph needs to develop a news source other than the LJW. There is a tenuous quiet there because some of the right people have finally been bribed) but, as the true agenda of this Administration ha becomes clearer and clearer to the Iraqis, there will be more, not less, trouble for the US. Things wil not truly improve until Obama is in office and troop withdrawals begin.

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“You cannot find any strong leadership on alternative energy issues from the current Republican party and they are using the same kind of fear generating propaganda that has worked for them in the past.”

Neither of the Past 2 Presidential Administrations did anything to form a National Energy Policy. You idiots cannot only blame the Republicans on this one, remember Bill Clinton had Al Gore for 8 years in his admin and did nothing with a Democratic Senate and House in His first term.

Neither party has a “National Energy Policy”.

IT is actually a combinatin of the 2 Drill and exploit domestic energy and increase production with more refineries, and have tax incentives and grants for people that want to put solar and wind energy on their property and pay them prevailing level electrical producer levels for surplus energy production. We alwo need to go Nuclear with our national electricity productin and convert coal and oil shale to the liquid fuels for mobile transport.