Archive for Saturday, April 18, 2009

Coal plant foes applaud report

April 18, 2009

Advertisement

— The EPA’s official declaration that greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, pose a public health threat and should be regulated is another reason to abandon Sunflower Electric Power Corp.’s proposal to build two 700-megawatt coal-burning electric plants in southwestern Kansas, environmentalists said Friday.

“Sunflower’s project becomes more and more risky, and all indications are new coal plants will be a substantial burden for ratepayers and will hinder our state’s ability to move forward with today’s clean-energy technologies,” said Stephanie Cole, a spokeswoman for the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club.

Supporters of the project say that the plants will be among the most clean-burning coal-fired units in the country, and that they will stimulate the economy.

The Legislature has approved four bills that would require the state to grant permits for the project, but Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has vetoed each of them, including one last week.

Lawmakers return April 29 and are expected to try to override the latest veto.

Officials with Hays-based Sunflower had no immediate response to the EPA action. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the Obama administration wants Congress to approve a “cap and trade” system to limit greenhouse gases.

Comments

Bill Griffith 6 years, 3 months ago

This puts more pressure on Congress to bring forth a cap-and-trade or carbon tax solution in the next 12 months or so. This is also a signal to those utilities who still don't get it that the regulatory process for a new coal plant without carbon capture is a place their coal plans will go to die.

Ogallala_Kid 6 years, 3 months ago

Now maybe those dirty power thugs from Lawrence will clean up their own act.

Support Clean Coal .....Obama does http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GehK7Q...

grammaddy 6 years, 3 months ago

There's no such thing as clean coal. Obama didn't have all the facts. Right On Logrithmic!!!

devobrun 6 years, 3 months ago

Nobody has all the facts, grammaddy.

When the facts do come out regarding wind and solar, the only effect of this ruling will be a raise in rates for fossils fuels.

Everyone will pay more, the lower wage earners will be subsidized, and wealth transfer will accompany power transfer.

Guilt followed by redemption, followed by subservience to the experts. Modern day version of the catholic church.

Freedom and liberalism fade into the oblivion of the collective.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

Good to see that you're at least being honest, devo, and not cloaking your ideological arguments with a veneer of "science."

KEITHMILES05 6 years, 3 months ago

I can't wait for the day when the proven energy methods are displaced with the unproven, less technology driven, and totally underfunded methods. When this happens then everybody, and I mean EVERYBDOY will be crying uncle for "my electricity." It'll be a "right" and at that time nobody will now what to do as the wind turbines can't run due to lack of wind, etc; the sun isn't shining so solar power isn't keeping up with needs, and on and on.

Yeah, this is reality. So all you stupidily driven green ideological people better realize you will suffer, right along with everybody else.

The good news is there are many, many people who aren't this dumb and will fight tooth and nail to have affordable and decent energy needs be met.

Bill Griffith 6 years, 3 months ago

Ogallala and others-The Lawrence Energy Center and Jeffreys Energy Center-both wholly owned by Westar-not Lawrence are scheduled to complete their pollution control updates this year. In other words, the plants are being cleaned up with regards to NOX, SOX, and mercury. So your point is very nearly moot. These plants, however, will not be updated as far as CO2 is concerned which is now a recognized pollutant to be regulated under the Clean Air Act as directed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Bill Griffith 6 years, 3 months ago

Ogallala and others-The Lawrence Energy Center and Jeffreys Energy Center-both wholly owned by Westar-not Lawrence, are scheduled to complete their pollution control updates this year. In other words, the plants are being cleaned up with regards to NOX, SOX, and mercury. So your point is very nearly moot. These plants, however, will not be updated as far as CO2 is concerned which is now a recognized pollutant to be regulated under the Clean Air Act as directed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Bill Griffith 6 years, 3 months ago

Nancy Boy, based upon my readings of the lawsuits filed by the Sierra Club and others against the State of Kansas in the Sunflower coal plant expansion proposal, they (SC) have been stating that CO2 is a public health threat since 2006. At the Kansas Energy Conference that year they had a press conference and stated it as well. Probably not the first time they did this (my guess). Since the April 2007 decision by SCOTUS, a myriad of groups have been stating this position since it is now the law of the land that CO2 is a public health threat (see Massachusetts vs. EPA).

Ogallala_Kid 6 years, 3 months ago

Belexus: Exactly CO2. That which you complain about in SW Kansas.

Lawrence has been spewing it out for years, with a lot of the other pollution too. Where is the horror.

And recent redemption does not make my point moot.

Obama sponsored coal jobs in Illinois are OK with Lawrence somehow, yet coal jobs for SW Kansas are bad.

I can't smell CO2, but I can smell hypocrisy. And it is pretty strong.

devobrun 6 years, 3 months ago

If hydrocarbon is burned, it produces carbon dioxide and water. If the hydrocarbon or oxygen contain any other substance, like sulfur or nitrogen, then a potential for pollutants arises.

Modern fossil fuel combustion greatly reduces pollutants as a result of efforts over the last 40 years by people like Sierra club.

Good for them. However, now that CO2 is demonized, the only solution is to quit burning fossil fuels.

Sequestering CO2 is folly. So, burn hydrocarbon get water and CO2. Simple.

Now that we live in a world defined by computer models rather than air temperature, we accept the "science" and feel guilty. The "science" is just an excuse to feel bad for the poor in the world. To feel responsible for other people, the land, the ocean, the seas. Everything is our problem. We must band together to save the planet.

Pernicious mischief. Hubris. Arrogance of the "spreadsheet scientists".

No, Bozo, my reflections on the EPA are a result of decades of physics and engineering practice. The veneer is the political opinion. You have it backwards.

hipper_than_hip 6 years, 3 months ago

Belexus73

Only the engineering design of the AQCS improvements at the Lawrence plant will be done this year; construction will start this winter because Westar keeps pushing back the date. The construction happening now is just a Unit Five outage with some xtra site work.

Ogallala_Kid 6 years, 3 months ago

Yup, Belexus....not moot at all.

Breathe deep Lawrencians, and get some of that pollution. And smell that rampant hypocrisy.

Bill Griffith 6 years, 3 months ago

Hipper-thanks for the update, my info is probably six months old. Ogallala don't be so black and white, I said "almost moot" due cover contingencies when dealing with this big of a project. Westar must finish this to comply with the law so it will get done. What has gotten people in a lather over Holcomb II is the CO2 not the other pollutants so much. If the plant had been proposed for Lawrence there would have been an even larger outcry. BTW, hypocrisy occurs when one has control over a situation that lends itself to that sin. Westar has control over LEC not the people of Lawrence. As far as Obama is concerned, your position is confusing. I didn't know people from Lawrence ok'd Obama's position on Illinois coal. So they voted for him in large numbers-it wasn't over his position as a state senator or a federal Senator helping out his own state. Now that he is President he is clearly an enemy of coal-but will sign a cap-and-trade that has some provisions for clean coal in order to get enough votes to pass the bill. That is democracy in action. Neither the enviros nor the coal industsry will like everything in the bill but that is what will occur.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 3 months ago

The Bush admin quit funding a "clean coal" endeavor because it was too expensive. So why do some ratepayers keep screaming for more clean coal when it does not exist as a refined product and is too expensive.

Why do ratepayers want more expensive electricty? That is fiscally reckless and wasteful.

Solar,Wind and hydropower are being used all over the country. Kansas is considered the 3rd largest source of wind power in the country. It would be fiscally reckless to not get on that bandwagon that would generate far more jobs thus money for the state. Kansas is looking very stupid to anybody wanting to locate to a forward thinking state.

devobrun 6 years, 3 months ago

merrill: Don't be too quick with the wind.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5992864.ece

For those of you too lazy to read the link:

"Dieter Helm, professor of energy policy at Oxford University, believes this is too ambitious. “We could build and install the thousands of turbines and back-up power stations needed, but only at great cost,” he says. “It is bound to fail but no one dares talk about that – or not yet.”

Europe has had a significant wind program for decades. Denmark has lots of wind turbines, but "leans on" nuclear plants from France regularly.

Wind must have backup. Backup is required for every wind generator. It can't be ignored. Where is the backup going to come from if not from hydrocarbon or nukes?

You can't just invoke nebulous storage devices, or "alternative sources"....whatever the heck those are.

Throwing money at this will not repeal the laws of thermodynamics. Your feelings don't count. Hope is for sissies.

tunahelper 6 years, 3 months ago

pure hog wash, pop-science based on horse crap. stupid leftists.

tunahelper 6 years, 3 months ago

all the leftists in the Flint Hills are against wind because it will disturb the wildlife. what a bunch of idiots.

frank mcguinness 6 years, 3 months ago

blah blah blah.

The writing is on the wall.

Period

Bill Griffith 6 years, 3 months ago

The wind backup comes from natural gas at about a ratio of 10 to (wind/gas) here in Kansas. We have ng for the forseeable future for this use. However, looking down the road we will need either compressed air storage or battery technology to improve and move away from gas.

Bill Griffith 6 years, 3 months ago

Tuna, "leftists in the Flint Hills?". The Flint Hills opposition is a certain portion of landowners who do not want their viewscape marred and based on my discussions with them at various conferences and events, they are overwhelmingly Republican. I encourage you to dig a little deeper before making your assertions.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.