Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Residents rally with Sebelius against coal plants

March 12, 2008

Advertisement

— For her 14th birthday, Sarina Farb said she wanted to work against the proposed coal-fired power plants.

So the Lawrence teen, her mother and father, JoAnn and Joe, and sister, Samantha, 9, came to the Capitol on Tuesday to rally with others against legislation that would allow two 700-megawatt coal-burning plants in western Kansas.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has vowed to veto the bill, but legislative leaders have said they will try to override her veto.

"It's a really bad idea all around," Sarina said of the proposed project.

"It's just going to add to global warming, and my generation is the one that is going to be the one to suffer the consequences," she said.

Both she and her sister are home-schooled, and coming to the Capitol to speak with legislators was part of their education, her mother said.

The proposed plants would produce 11 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, but proponents of the project say it will be among the cleanest burning coal plants in the country and help revitalize the western Kansas economy.

Later, both Sebelius and Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson spoke at the rally. Organizers of "Kansas Clean Energy Day" said approximately 250 people attended events at the Capitol throughout the day.

Sebelius urged the crowd to contact their legislators to lobby against the bill.

"We are in the beginning of what needs to be a thoughtful, and careful and comprehensive conversation that will impact this state for generations to come," the governor said.

Comments

gr 6 years ago

Hmmm. Did Reality_Check check out of reality?

Wonder how the plans are coming to dictate people's room temperatures.

0

gr 6 years, 1 month ago

I thought maybe Reality_Check would get back with us. Maybe she is still checking on reality. Maybe she has problems with calculations. Maybe she was embarrassed with what she found out.

So, to help her out, I thought I would give an example since she failed to and further continues spreading emotion without facts. I may not be correct in my calculations, so please help out if you see something wrong, but at least I'm trying.

Suppose you have a three bedroom-two bathroom house. In each room, you have a 60 Watt lightbulb. Suppose you turn them all on while you are home for a total of five hours each day. This would give a total of 1.5 Kilowatt Hours (60W55h) or about 12 cents a day.

Let's see. Failure_to_Check_Reality said she could save 25%. That would 3 cents. Oh, wait, that is bulbs AND turning off electronics. Big light bulb use saver she is! Maybe we can save up to even 8 cents a day with CFLs. Not, much, but we should do what we can to save energy.

But, wouldn't you agree, if something can be just as simple, yet save even more, we should take those steps at the same time, if not prior?

I looked at the power requirements for an air-conditioner. It was rated at 220 Volts at 22 amps. Remembering your basic physics equation for power, P=IV, you plug in the numbers:

P=22*220 P=4840 Watts

Suppose your air-conditioner runs just 5 minutes each hour between 12 noon and 5:00 p.m. for a total of 25 minutes.
4.84 W * 25/60 gives 2.02 Kilowatt hours or 16 cents between 12 and 5.

Questions: Do air-conditioners run only between 12 and 5? Do they run only 5 minutes an hour? Shouldn't steps be taken to eliminate air-conditioner use during the middle of the day and steps be taken to increase the thermostat temperature to reduce air-conditioner use? Shouldn't these steps be taken way before eliminating regular lightbulbs?

What about entertainment centers, hair dryers, and on and on? Instead, people are worrying about lightbulbs?!!! It's back to worrying about the oceans overflowing because a little boy is peeing in it while ignoring the Mississippi dumping tons into it.

With talk of sidewalk police for snow, we could make use of the same ones during the summer. They could stroll around in the afternoon heat and if they hear any air-conditioners come on, turn them in.

Of course, a less hostile method would be to require all residents to purchase a timing device which prohibits air-conditioner use during the middle of the day, and a thermostat which doesn't allow settings below 80 degrees. How could that be forced? Simple. Require the power company to install them and tack it on your electricity bill in 12 easy payments. What better way to use your "economic stimulus package" than to help save the world!

0

toefungus 6 years, 1 month ago

Can I rally against Sebelius?

0

gr 6 years, 1 month ago

"I cut my electricity consumption 25% by switching to CFL bulbs"

Maybe you could inspire the rest of us by demonstrating how many kilowatts you will save by using the CFL bulbs. Assuming you do know how to calculate.

"Then ban incadescents altogether"

Really?! First let's calculate the savings. Then, with the implication that if something else is just as "simple", but should save tremendously more, then that should be legislated way before banning incadescents.

Awaiting your response, Reality_Check.

0

ilovecatsohyeah 6 years, 1 month ago

Agreed- I have used CFL bulbs now for years and have also cut usage. Agreed- We indeed did start a conservation campaign in the 70's. It helped, but then the campaign stopped.

I was personally looking forward to an adult life using lots of renewable resources but that has not come to fruition due largely in part to the use of cheap coal to fuel our energy needs/demands. Perhaps by the time I leave this earth we will have progressed further than in the last 30 years. I certainly hope so. But economically, it has to be there for the investors to bite. We are approaching that ever closer and closer.

I believe ENERGY production and getting it right will be the back bone of what fuels our economy for the short and long term. Letting status quo set and to do nothing, is NOT an option.

Take a look at the SUNFLOWER plant proposed total plan. It did not include just power plants.

http://www.sunflower.net/News/2006/NRBioenergyCenter.pdf

Recent DC happenings:(Brownback news release)

http://brownback.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=294736

0

Reality_Check 6 years, 1 month ago

No question we need coal and nuclear. (And more power transmission lines.) We have the technology to use coal in a clean manner by sequestering the CO2 emissions. We also have the technology to reprocess 97% of the nuclear waste, as they do in France. Until we take these steps, I will refuse to support more power plants. Period.

First, let's try conservation. I cut my electricity consumption 25% by switching to CFL bulbs and turning off electronics at the power strip. No reason the rest of America can't do likewise. Use tax incentives and disincentives if necessary.

For example, tax each kilowatt used by any home over the median amount. Use the proceeds to pay for subsidies, such as for the production of CFL bulbs so that they are hardly more expensive than incadescents. Then ban incadescents altogether. Give generous rebates for additional conservation measures, such as the purchase of energy efficient appliances. And increase subsidies for people choosing to add solar and wind generation to their properties.

See, we could do all this, but we're not a country that is serious about solving its problems. We started talking about all these in the 1970s, then never did anything. Therefore, we get what we deserve. If that means brownouts and blackouts and power rationing, so be it. Because our system is so very broken that we apparently can't make decisions that are in the public's LONG TERM interests until we have a crisis and the people demand it.

The swirl of America around the toilet bowl just gets faster and faster with each passing year. Hello 3rd World status!

0

ilovecatsohyeah 6 years, 1 month ago

How then do you propose to meet the increasing energy needs of our country, of our state, and of our nation? Especially during peak demand times?

All wind is not the complete answer. It is certainly a nice part of the mix, but reality is, for the technology we have currently and with the rising prices of natural gas, at least for the short term, (10-20 years), we will have to rely on some fossel fuels for our base load generation. That is reality. While I am a huge huge fan and supporter of continued wind expansion I see NO WAY for it to expand without the baseload generation to back it up when we are in peak demand times and the wind is NOT blowing.

0

lounger 6 years, 1 month ago

What a boldness and courage this 14 year old girl has! NO NEW COAL PLANTS!

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 1 month ago

Reality, rounding 61% up to 2/3 is probably a bit of a stretch, that is if you assume the poll is meaningful in any way.

Besides, my poll indicates 95% of the public wants dependable and inexpensive energy.

0

Reality_Check 6 years, 1 month ago

Good for the guv. She knows that 2/3 of the public is against the plants, so, politically, she has nothing to lose. It's the right-wing of the GOP that has everything to lose this year, so I hope they keep it up and stand for their butt kicking in November.

0

globalwarmingmyass 6 years, 1 month ago

I see the usual group of idiots is here posting. Get off your lazy a**es and do something constructive. Like chop down a tree! Open your eyes, global warming is a hoax! Hell, in the 70's you were worried about global cooling! The sky is falling. Now I feel better. Back to the real world to build a power plant!

0

its_getting_warmer 6 years, 1 month ago

Oh, the same Governor Sebelius who said:

"It's very difficult within the borders of Kansas to control greenhouse gases and global warming. I am eager to be a partner in that effort across the country, but what we know is that the Holcomb plant is likely to be built one way or the other. . ."

0

logrithmic 6 years, 1 month ago

Yeah, I agree. Let's just point out the hypocrisy and do absolutely nothing.

0

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

The truth is that these plants are far cleaner burning and in their contribution to greenhouse gasses then the plants that are currently authorized! The Governor and other politicians are just trying to create an issue when the truth is they use more than their share of energy in the form of electricity and hot air!

0

BigDog 6 years, 1 month ago

Okay, since humans and animals are a major source of CO2 emissions it is going to be rather difficult to bring emissions to near zero.

And isn't is ironic that many of the big Hollywood environmentalists fly around on private jets ..... who do they think they are Governor Arnold or Al Gore?

If they really want people to take them seriously .... they should bring their own CO2 emissions ..... I mean it is hard for many to believe it is that bad when the California Governor flies his large private Gulfstream jet back and forth (an hour flight each way) to Sacramento.

0

Nick Vaughan 6 years, 1 month ago

logrithic,

Look, stop posting these studies that have been compiled by "scientists" that say the world has gone to hell. Let me pose a question to you. These man made models that forecast the "rise in temperature" have Never been able to replicate actual historical rise and fall of the earths temperature, so what makes you think they can predict the future? They are just programs that are based on a bunch of hypothetical assumptions, that have never been able to be validated by proving to be effective in replicating known historical evidence. THEY ARE BUNK.

Furthermore, ironically CO2 levels and impact to temperature exists in a logramithic relationship. At one point no matter how much CO2 you add, the results do not vary. Think of it as sugar in water. At a certain point the water no longer gets sweeter, and the extra sugar just settles to the bottom. The same thing exists for CO2. It has a small impact, but it can only do so much.

Learn the facts. This "greenhouse" effect has been missrepresented by the media, and for all recent intent and purposes, it is a bunch of crap.

One volcanic erruption, and you will find people worried about the next ice age.....

0

Nick Vaughan 6 years, 1 month ago

I looked at our combustion analysis, its more like 10.8 million tons of CO2 for both plants. Thats almost 2% off. Anywho, that sounds like a lot, but it really isnt.

I feel bad for these home schoolers. Thier parents obviously are relaying misinformation to thier kids. Bah, they even used the word "global warming". Its inconcievable to think these plants would have any affect on greenhouse levels. The totals earths atmosphere is comprised of only 0.06% of CO2. The largest greenhouse gas is water vapor. The most harmful is methane.

A sucker is born everyday.....must be a democrat thing.

0

logrithmic 6 years, 1 month ago

The results of global warming are going to be drastic. Some speak of collapse. Imagine large migrations of Americans due to lack of water. Imagine large portions of our population unable to afford basic food. This is what is in the pipeline if we don't change our way of thinking.

Here is some more alarming news, providing substantial proof that these plants should be flushed down the sewer where they belong:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901867.html

From the link:

"The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades.

Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.

Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further."

0

deskboy04 6 years, 1 month ago

Keep it nice and cool in my house during the summer!

0

logrithmic 6 years, 1 month ago

Good job fellow citizens. Let's pressure this rightwing legislature to stop their stone age thinking.

Already, global warming is predicted to have drastic consequences, not the least, additional costs related to infrastructure. See link below:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23574601/

What's the rightwing solution? Let's pollute more and drive up our costs more. Stupid as as stupid does....

0

seriouscat 6 years, 1 month ago

Good for anyone who took the time to go down to the capitol.
And good for anyone who takes the time to send an e-mail or make a phone call (e-mails are more my speed but I believe phone calls are more effective).

We CAN do better than to build new coal plants. Let's do it!

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.