Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Another coal plants bill approved

May 6, 2008

Advertisement

— The Kansas Senate on Tuesday approved another bill that would require the construction of two 700-megawatt coal-burning power plants in southwest Kansas.

The 24-10 vote and expected approval in the House later Tuesday night will probably set up another showdown with Gov. Kathleen Sebelius over the issue that has dominated the 2008 legislative session.

Sebelius has already vetoed two bills authorizing the plants, citing concerns about the environmental effects of the project's carbon dioxide emissions.

In order to try to gain more support in a possible veto override vote, plant supporters married the project to several other economic development initiatives in one piece of legislation.

Several senators said that violated the Kansas Constitution prohibition against having more than one subject matter in a single bill.

"This clearly contains multiple unrelated subjects and therefore is unconstitutional," said Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley of Topeka.

But Sen. Nick Jordan, R-Shawnee, said all the provisions of the bill fall under the heading of economic development.

State Sen. Marci Francisco, D-Lawrence, voted against the measure, and state Sen. Roger Pine, R-Lawrence, voted for it.

Movement of another coal bill also indicated that the Legislature was marching toward the end of the wrap-up session. Lawmakers will return May 29 for the official last day of the session and possibly another attempt to override Sebelius' veto, which takes a two-thirds majority of both houses.

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 7 months ago

"A new nuke, probably at Wolf Creek, would however be a fine and sensible replacement for the dirty coal plants at Lawrence or Jefferey Energy Center."And if there were a core meltdown, well, we're all gonna die sometime, anyway.

dirkleisure 6 years, 7 months ago

A manner less expensive than other practicable alternatives is not the same thing as "making electricity cheaper." While I'm not even willing to concede the less expensive point, I'm certainly not going to allow "making electricity cheaper" to be parsed.In order to do well on college entrance exams, a student must excel in reading for comprehension.Finally, you'll find the "listen in live" link at www.kslegislature.orgYou are such a troll.

yankeelady 6 years, 7 months ago

Or possibly the southwest. Anyplace but here. We put the "fun" in dysfunctional.

dinglesmith 6 years, 7 months ago

Is the Republican majority so strong in Kansas that they can flush an entire session over one issue and suffer no consequences? At least the speaker should lose his leadership position. Maybe there's an open DA position they can appoint him to.

fletch 6 years, 7 months ago

Dear Legislature:Stop. Wasting. Time.There are a hundred other things that are more important to take care of right. You lost. Suck it up and move on.

average 6 years, 7 months ago

dialupandy - You are 100% correct that one nuclear power plant (all the 3rd generation designs are 1400-1500 MWe) would be the same power as Sunflower.There is a problem with that.See... Denver needs that power. Western Kansas... only needs about 10-15% of that power (140 to maybe 200 MW). But, Colorado is too NIMBY to build their own plants. So, that's why it's being planned at Holcomb.Why not a nuke at Holcomb, then? Simple. A nuke (or a coal plant) needs a lot of water. Actually, about the same amount of water for either a coal or nuke... but a lot.But, a nuclear plant is economically feasible with a planned lifetime of about 50 years. A coal plant is paid for in 5 or 6.No one is willing to believe that there's going to be Ogallah water to pump in 40 or 50 years to run a power plant for Denver sprawl. If the water gets too scarce in a decade, they'll just leave this plant to rust.A new nuke, probably at Wolf Creek, would however be a fine and sensible replacement for the dirty coal plants at Lawrence or Jefferey Energy Center.

Raider 6 years, 7 months ago

WHY!!!! Why won't they let it go? They've gotten nothing accomplished this session b/c they keep rehashing this coal plant bill. Ugh!!! They're like a bunch of squabbling children.

dirkleisure 6 years, 7 months ago

building these plants will then allow the huge wind-farm plans, because these plants will pay for the high tension lines to be built.----Blatantly false, proven false on numerous occasions, and no longer used by Sunflower or its elected official proponents.Also, it has never been submitted that this project would make electricity cheaper for Kansans. Not once.dialupandy, you'd be pleased to know Sen. Roger Reitz of Manhattan spoke passionately about nuclear on the floor of the Senate, and also changed his consistent position of voting for this project 7 times to voting against this bill.

bearded_gnome 6 years, 7 months ago

when CO2 is outlawed, then only outlaws will breathe. ***all this over a questionable theory that relies on poor models that don't even account for world precipitation. algore's movie was declared false on ten or eleven points by a UK judge. and, if this plant is built, our electricity will be cheaper. governor billious is saying by her actions that she doesn't care if our electricity costs go way up! building these plants will then allow the huge wind-farm plans, because these plants will pay for the high tension lines to be built.

TheBurf 6 years, 7 months ago

Let them build the freaking powerplants. Its in their backyard, they want it, let them have it. Freaking hippies.

introversion 6 years, 7 months ago

This is so short-sighted. It's almost akin to the gas tax holiday we keep hearing about. Pay now, or pay more later, folks.

snowWI 6 years, 7 months ago

"And if there were a core meltdown, well, we're all gonna die sometime, anyway"Please, enough with the hysteria Bozo.Another nuclear plant at Wolf Creek will improve the air quality in eastern Kansas if we eventually replace an old dirty coal plant.

Daytrader23 6 years, 7 months ago

I have to say thank you to Kansas. For keeping that coal emissions crap in your state and not in Colorado, but at the same time giving the power to CO. No one comes to Kansas for the beautiful nature. We all know KS. is a boring ugly state compared to, well, almost anywhere. Boulder is doing a nice job putting up wind plants and solar plants in eastern CO. Denver just needs a few more years of "dirty power" until the solar and wind plants come online. Again, thank you Kansas for letting the beautiful city of Denver and the rest of the front range wash it's hands in your state. P.s You can keep the metal that was used to build the plant as a tip.LOL

KEITHMILES05 6 years, 7 months ago

Daytrader.....you don't have your "facts" complete that Boulder will be using all this "wind and solar energy" to make things work there. However, go ahead and "think" what you will and laugh all the way to your.....living room where there is darkness.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.