Environmentalists condemn coal-plant agreement as bad deal for Kansas / LJWorld.com

Archive for Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Parkinson defends agreement with Sunflower Electric Power Corp. as a victory for state

A day after Gov. Mark Parkinson announced a deal allowing one new coal-fired power plant in southwest Kansas, state lawmakers are looking to move quickly to close the deal.

By Scott Rothschild

May 5, 2009, 5:49 p.m. Updated May 5, 2009, 5:49 p.m.

Sunflower Electric coal plant

After months of debate and legislative battles, Sunflower Electric Power Corp. will be allowed to build a new, coal-fired power plant in Southwest Kansas. Trace the history of the disagreement and look back on how we got here.

Topeka — As details of the coal-burning power plant settlement between Gov. Mark Parkinson and Sunflower Electric Power Corp. emerged, environmentalists condemned the deal as bad for Kansas.

“While the country is moving away from polluting fossil fuels, Kansas has opened the door for outdated, dirty technology other states are rejecting,” said the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club.

Sunflower will be able to build an 895-megawatt coal-fired electric generation plant under the agreement signed Monday by Parkinson and Sunflower President and CEO Earl Watkins.

Sunflower had been fighting for nearly two years to build two 700-megawatt plants in southwest Kansas. But Gov. Kathleen Sebelius fought the plants, citing CO2 emissions.

Last week, Sebelius became secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, elevating Parkinson, who had been lieutenant governor, to the governor’s job.

Parkinson said reducing the project to one plant while getting renewable energy provisions made the settlement a win for Kansas.

Construction of the plant is contingent on the Legislature adopting green energy provisions sought by Parkinson, and Sunflower instituting a number of measures to offset the plant’s carbon dioxide emissions.

The Sierra Club, however, said the proposed offsets cited in the agreement “are generally questionable, unenforceable and won’t result in a reduction in global warming pollution.”

Parkinson and Watkins said that 10 percent of the plant’s fuel source will come from biomass. But the agreement spells out that Sunflower doesn’t have to use biomass if it is technologically or economically unfeasible.

And under the settlement, Sunflower may apply for more coal-burning plants after April 30, 2011.

Also, two units that Sunflower agreed to decommission as part of the offsets haven’t been used in more than 20 years.

The 4-megawatt and 8-megawatt units in Garden City have not been used because they are inefficient to run, said Sunflower spokeswoman Cindy Hertel. But, she said, they are available for use in case of an emergency.

The units can use either oil or natural gas to produce electricity, she said.

The bottom line, the Sierra Club stated, is “the new coal plant actually increases Kansas’ contributions to global warming.”

Discussion

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.

5 May 2009
at 1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KansasVoter (Anonymous) says…

Parkinson is worthless. Thanks for selling out the health of your fellow Kansans, you jerk.
5 May 2009
at 1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

guesswho (Anonymous) says…

kudos to LJW for pointing this out.
5 May 2009
at 1:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Easy (Anonymous) says…

So what.
5 May 2009
at 1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Guns_R_Good (Anonymous) says…

Global warming is a dying religion. Way to go Gov!
5 May 2009
at 1:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

collared_greens (Anonymous) says…

This is absolutely ridiculous, and I thought Parkinson was going to keep forging on Sebelius' smart, progressive path.

Did Parkinson have Sunflower on hold while he was getting sworn in?
5 May 2009
at 1:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

Once a Republican, always a Republican, apparently.
5 May 2009
at 1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marshalus (Michael Stanclift) says…

*doh*

In office less than a week, and already screwed the pooch :P

5 May 2009
at 2:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ogallala_Kid (Anonymous) says…

“Did Parkinson have Sunflower on hold while he was getting sworn in?”
_________

No, Sebelius had the state on hold, and left the state with no progress with many energy issues. Parkinson choose to be pragmatic, and achieve change.
5 May 2009
at 2:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

63BC (Anonymous) says…

Wow. He waited over a decade to betray the Republicans.
5 May 2009
at 2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

average (Anonymous) says…

“No, Sebelius had the state on hold, and left the state with no progress with many energy issues.”

–—

Which state?
5 May 2009
at 3 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Regardless of whether the plants have been used recently or not, they can be at any time. It's their choice, they choose not to because of their inefficiency. The point is, they *can* fire up the plants, and pump out the carbon emissions, any time they want.

If you buy a second car and keep the first one in your garage, you still pay taxes on it whether you drive it or not. If you own a rental house, you still owe taxes whether there's any renters living there or not. The carbon credits attached to the two GC plants are legitimate as their decommissioning means Sunflower can no longer choose to fire them up.
5 May 2009
at 3:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

That makes no sense, nota. If they're building this new plant because they needed the added capacity, why were the plants in GC never fired up over the last 20 years? BTW, that's a rhetorical question, because the answer is pretty self-evident— they don't need this new plant.
5 May 2009
at 3:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hipper_than_hip (Anonymous) says…

Hurray for more jobs in Garden City! Stimulus in action!
5 May 2009
at 3:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rooster (Anonymous) says…

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Regardless of whether the plants have been used recently or not, they can be at any time

Recently? Like within a generation of human life?

You must be kidding.
5 May 2009
at 3:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

autie (Anonymous) says…

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

Once a Republican, always a Republican, apparently.

The Sleeper awakens?

5 May 2009
at 4:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Guns_R_Good (Anonymous) says…

Great movie quote autie!!
5 May 2009
at 4:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“That makes no sense, nota. If they're building this new plant because they needed the added capacity, why were the plants in GC never fired up over the last 20 years? BTW, that's a rhetorical question, because the answer is pretty self-evident— they don't need this new plant.”

With the lunacy of your posts (even by clownish standards) over the past couple of weeks, boohoozo, claiming someone else's posts don't make sense is pretty audacious.

Rhetorical questions don't require answers, herr klowne. The fact that you've already made up your (rather limited) mind according to your ideology and don't *want* the answer doesn't make it rhetorical. So let's see: They're replacing two aged plants, with a combined 12 MW of generating capacity, and haven't been used due to inefficiency. Since you evidently don't understand what that means, it costs more to operate the two plants than they can justify by selling the miniscule output (apparently you haven't been keeping up with the news, boohoozo - oil costs a little more than when those plants were built - I'm surprised you didn't know, it's been in all the papers). The new plant has *75* times the generating capacity and will be not only cost effective, but maybe allow the company and its shareholders to make a profit! Now, I realize that in the world according to boohoozo, profits are baaaaaaad, evil, abominations in the face of communism. Goods and services should be produced only according to the minimal needs of the squalid masses and not because people want to buy them. But in the real world, herr klowne, I seriously doubt the plant would be built if there wasn't someone somewhere that wanted to buy the electricity it will generate.
5 May 2009
at 4:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Well, apparently, it will make all the whiners here happier if Sunflower fires up those two old plants and spews a few months worth of pollution into the air just so they can decommission them.

Brilliant logic, losers.

(And pssssst: Hey rooster - a “generation of human life” is considered to be about 35 years.)
5 May 2009
at 4:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KLATTU (Anonymous) says…

So Colorado gets the energy. The energy company gets the profits. I assume some Kansas politicians get paid off. Does anything trickle down to anyone else in Kansas, besides the acid rain?
5 May 2009
at 4:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

any (Anonymous) says…

So what do we get? We get the jobs, the withholding tax, the sales tax, the property tax, and any other tax those employees generate when they spend/live in the state.

And last time I checked exporting a product was a good thing. (Let the sarcasm begin now) I think the Kansas farmers produce more grain than the state can use. We'd better stop that because we don't want to give our Kansas stuff to others. We might inadvertently be producing pollution for things we're going to sell to others. Especially livestock. We can't have too many livestock creating methane and other gases when that beef is eaten by people in Colorado, or even worse Maine.

And I'm glad we have that invisible wall up to keep only Kansas pollution in the state to cause only Kansas acid rain. We wouldn't want the wind to blow our said pollution off to other areas or allow other states' pollution into our state.
5 May 2009
at 5:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“Missing the point. As usual.

“Firing up the Garden City plants just so that they could decomission an “active” plant would not make anyone who is upset by this supposed “concession” any happier.”

Speaking of missing the point, ls, what exactly do you think *would* have made them happy?

The point is that whether they *are* in use or not, they can be at any time, and presumably *would* be in a time of emergency (e.g. an accident at another plant or some other part of the grid). And whether or not the plants are in operation today, they're still entitled to the carbon credits for decommissioning them permanently.

Oh, and by the way:

“generation
Noun
3. the average time between two generations of a species, about 35 years for humans: an alliance which has lasted a generation”

or

“3. time taken to produce new generation: the period of time that it takes for people, animals, or plants to grow up and produce their own offspring, in humans held to be between 30 and 35 years”

rooster.s reference was to a “generation of human life,” and forgive my audacity for taking the definitions of the Collins Essential English Dictionary or Encarta rather than the great logicsound's.
5 May 2009
at 5:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Fugu (Anonymous) says…

There is no compromise in shutting down two plants that Sunflower would have shut down anyway. With the new plant built, they would have never had to turn these things on because of obsolescence.

This is typical corporate greenwashing, just like half of the other carbon mitigation in this so-called “compromise.”
5 May 2009
at 5:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Machiavelli_mania (Anonymous) says…

Good call, Parkinson. This is an extremely happy compromise.

The extreme left is as atrocious as the extreme right.
The extreme Environmentalists and the Extreme Anti-Abortionists.
Both will kill for their ideologies.

Let's walk the middle ground here, folks.
Let's not be makin' extreme political swings! They are not healthful.

5 May 2009
at 6:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jkilgore (Anonymous) says…

Will these plants pollute Kansas? Without a doubt.
Will very few profit financially from this? Without a doubt.
Will the illegal aliens who build the plant take more from educating their children than the taxes they pay with lower wages? No doubt there either. What a great move for Kansas.
5 May 2009
at 6:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ENGWOOD (Anonymous) says…

Great for the Western Kansas economy, Clean Coal plant,
Bio Energy Center development, transmission lines to carry
all sorts of energy including wind generation, and if the whiners in the East want green then shut down some of the 8 dirty plants in Eastern Kansas, and even Obama says we can create 5 million new jobs with clean coal technology so why not Western Kansas. Probably if any of the air from Holcomb 2 reaches Douglass county it will only make it cleaner!!!
5 May 2009
at 6:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

average (Anonymous) says…

If it meant that Western Kansas had a steady, reliable, affordable source of energy for future growth? That would be a good start.

But, sadly, 85% of the energy from the Holcomb expansion is contracted, permanently and absolutely, to out-of-state utilities. If Garden City landed a new manufacturing plant that needed a few more megawatts? Tough luck… go build another unit suckers.
5 May 2009
at 6:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Machiavelli_mania (Anonymous) says…

I don't understand why people here get so worked up over something that happens in W. Kansas while their own town houses one of the state's most polluting power plants.

Get your own backyard cleaned up and squared away before you start complaining about someone else's backyard.

Let's get the pollution stopped here first!!!!!!!
5 May 2009
at 6:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…

Too funny!
5 May 2009
at 6:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oklahoma (Anonymous) says…

But Mach, it is highly important for Lawrence liberals, having lost their hometown Gov, to scramble until a new Green Pope can be inaugurated!!

There's a religion to perpetuate here in the bluest, greenest county in the State, you see. Keep the faith dude.
5 May 2009
at 6:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

straightforward (Anonymous) says…

I'm feeling a little “verklempt”… Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic: Logicsound's thinking is neither logical nor sound… Discuss.

Going from two plants to one, decommissioning two dirtier plants, more green energy provisions, no new plants until 2011 at the very soonest (after Obama's administration will probably crack down on any new plants). It would seem like these are all compromises. Maybe logic sound's idea of compromise is doing everything he or she would like and nothing the opposition wants.
5 May 2009
at 6:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

devobrun (Anonymous) says…

Hey, Logicsound04…. quick, without looking up on Google or Wiki, how many kilowatts in a gigawatt and what is the difference between a watt, joule and a horsepower?

Or is this just about political power and not about the rate at which work can be done? Work being defined as force integrated over distance.

And what is pollution? I'll help you with that one:

From Wiki: “Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem ”

The ill effects of contaminants are impossible to define. All ecosystems are unstable, disordered and discomforted by any new introduction to the ecosystem. Therefore, everything is a pollutant.

Bingo, existing “pollutants” are evil. Future “pollutants” are evil. Our proliferation and very existence is pollution.

Transfer political power to you and away from those who have it now.

QED.

5 May 2009
at 6:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Machiavelli_mania (Anonymous) says…

OK, Let's just walk the middle ground. That is all I ask.

I vote liberal. Let's not lambast the party because we have some extremists.

The test of a true party is when there is honor for diversity of values. As you can plainly see, the GOP now isn't not able to flex with diversity within it's ranks.
5 May 2009
at 7 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“It's not compromise when one side offers what they should have done of their own voilition anyway.”

You seem fixated on this “compromise,” as if Sunflower said 'We'll decommission these two plants if you let us build a new one.' The *compromise* in question is that the governor's office issued a veto to prevent building *any* plants, Sunflower had a pending federal lawsuit to allow building both, and they settled on one. And they agreed to some, but not all, of the conditions asked for by Sebelius (e.g., the wind and 20%-renewable provisions, but not the Kansas-priority requirement). Sounds like a compromise to me.

It sounds as if the position you're advocating for, that you propose would have made the objectors happy, would have been to decommission an equivalent to what was being built - a replacement rather than any addition. That would be like wanting to build a 20,000 sq. ft. addition to your business, and the city not wanting you to expand at all, so you settle for 10,000 sq. ft. - but only if you take 10,000 off the other end. Exactly where is the compromise in that?

“And how you can get a carbon credit for continuing to NOT burn oil is beyond me.”

Okay, I won't say it.

But anyway, policy decisions such as this are generally based more on potential than actual use. Think, for example, of automobile manufacturers' fleet mileage requirements. In order to maintain a 25 mpg average, you have to sell a 35 mpg car for every 15 mpg truck. But there's no way of knowing how much these vehicles are actually being used once sold. If the truck buyer uses it for business and puts 60,000 miles per year on it, and the guy that buys the hybrid subcompact uses it to drive to the grocery store 3 miles away once per week, you obviously haven't really accomplished a 25 mpg average.

Another example, one even more outrageous than you claim this to be: In the state where I was born there is a very large lake, created and owned by the electric company and used for (among other things) a storage reservoir for electrical generation. One of the 6 cities that the lake sits on got it into their head one year to tax the portion of the lake within their city limits as usable land - it was, after all, the utility's *choice* to have the water there. Again, potential as opposed to actual use.

The fact is the carbon offset from the GC plants is miniscule even if they were operating every day, if you look at the numbers, and was hardly a significant piece of the compromise, let alone the compromise itself. The deal likely would have been made without it, and it's likely the state was more concerned with making sure they never used those plants again rather than including them as any kind of significant contribution.
5 May 2009
at 7:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“And back to “generation”—

…

“Imagine that, we're both right.”

Well, no.

First off, nobody was talking about “cultural generations” (except you).

Second, the definition you used for “familial generation” (time to “first offspring”) is only valid if both the mother and that first offspring are only children. Using every other definition of generation (including your “cultural” one), we're talking about a group of people being replaced by the next group, not a single person being replaced by the next single person. For example, the time period between when the last of a couple's children was born and the last of their grandchildren.

All of which is moot anyway, since you conceed that the overall human figure may have nothing to do with US Census Bureau figures for the age at which a mother has her first offspring. Not to mention that the definition you used is invalid for another reason - last time I checked, it takes more than a mother to procreate.
5 May 2009
at 7:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Fugu (Anonymous) says…

GPACE just posted an interesting analysis of the provisions. Some good.. some bad..

http://www.gpace.org/?p=460
5 May 2009
at 7:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

none2 (Anonymous) says…

I do not agree with some of the compromises.

That being said, do realize that Sunflower isn't some large evil corporation out to rape the land. It is exists solely for the benefits of its members which are the 6 rural electrical coops in western Kansas. Rural electrical coops exist because the large corporate utility interests choose to skip over those areas that were rural and they didn't give a squat about. Here is some info about electrical entities in the area:

1) Map of all electrical entities in Kansas:

http://www.kcc.state.ks.us/maps/ks_el…

2) Specific map of those 6 rural coops that make up Sunflower:

http://www.sunflower.net/images/membe…

(NOTE: You'll notice a difference between the state map and the Sunflower map. Basically, the state hasn't updated its map to show that Sunflower Member bought out Aquila's electrical business in Kansas.)

3) The Holcomb plant(s) were to be jointly owned by Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc.:
(http://www.tristate.coop/OurMembers/s…)
, Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
(http://www.gsec.coop/service.asp)
and Sunflower Electric Power Corporation.

The break down is that the second power station would be owned by Tri-State. The first power station would be split 400 MW for Golden, 100 for Tri-State, and 200 for Sunflower with 75 earmarked for Midwest Energy. (If you look back at the Kansas map, you'll see that Midwest is a coop that is in northwestern Kansas and west central Kansas.

http://www.mwenergy.com/images/mwe-ma…

If you forget the borders, they are simply increasing electrical capacity in the High Plains region and parts of the eastern Rockies. While that energy won't be used in eastern Kansas, it will be used in the regions near them — their neighbors.

(continued)
5 May 2009
at 7:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

none2 (Anonymous) says…

(continued)

What I don't like about it is:

1) Of the 1400MW's western Kansas is only entitled to 200 MW's. that is just 1/7th of the total capacity (14%). I would think that if western Kansas is taking water out of the ground to generate electricity for upstream states that have their own lakes (such as the John Martin Reservoir in eastern Colorado), then western Kansas should have more clout in re- allocation if the need arises. Though they took water rights way from so much land to equal that of the plants needs, that much water shouldn't have been used in the first place for irrigation farming in what is basically a short grass savannah ecosystem. Go to Garden City sometime, and see the “river” out there — Our Kansas River (spelled: Arkansas). Be prepared to bring a shovel if you are expecting to see “water”. Perhaps eastern Colorado would be happy to release some of that water that they have denied western Kansas.

2) If the coal is coming from Wyoming and Wyoming is going to receive electricity from these plants, then why isn't some of the plant capacity built there in Wyoming. Is the shipping of coal THAT cheap?

3) Why wasn't a larger portion of this dedicated to Wind & Solar generation? Perhaps 100% of our needs could never be met by renewables at the rate we consume electricity. However, a good faith effort should have been put into use renewables from the very beginning.

If the direction is or if it should be that we have a national electrical grid to move electricity anywhere in the country. Western Kansas will provide a pivotal role in joining the western, eastern, and Texas megagrids — regardless of whether these plants are built or not.
5 May 2009
at 8:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

average (Anonymous) says…

none2 -

There is also the matter of transmission losses. You lose 10 to 15% of the electricity generated via corona discharge over a 300-mile route. If anyone cared about efficiency, they'd site the generators near where the greater demand is. 10% transmission loss of the 150 megawatts needed in Kansas is far more efficient than 10% transmission loss of transmitting 750 megawatts to the Front Range.

Eastern Kansans are NIMBYs. Coloradans are colossal NIMBYs. But, pure efficient logic says it really ought to be in Colorado's backyard.
5 May 2009
at 8:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

NoSpin (Anonymous) says…

Bottom line- real economic stimulus you can count on!

5 May 2009
at 8:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

feeble (Anonymous) says…

Interesting tidbit from the gpace article:

“Regulation is not the only reason building a coal plant in Kansas right now is a bad idea. Bottom line: it’s fiscally imprudent. The coal that will be burned in the 895MW plant will come from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The cost of that coal has risen (as reported by Peabody Coal, the mine’s owner) 139% in the last year and a half. That’s a staggering number, and that increasing cost will ultimately be reflected in Kansan’s electric bills.”

If it will be built, Kansas needs to soak the heck out of the surrounding states who will be using 85%+ of the energy generated by the plant.
5 May 2009
at 8:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

average (Anonymous) says…

feeble -

Logically, that makes a lot of sense. It's primarily Colorado utilities and consumers needing the power, but Colorado voters passed ballot initiatives making such construction almost impossible. The right answer, then, would have involved Colorado consumers paying a 1 or 2 cent/kWh surcharge (as punishment for their NIMBY ways), Western Kansas consumers getting a 1 or 2 cent per kWh discount (encouraging economic development), with any excess money going to green energy projects in Kansas.

Flat out brilliant, except for the 'interstate commerce clause' in the US Constitution basically ixnaying it.
5 May 2009
at 8:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

feeble (Anonymous) says…

“That’s a staggering number, and that increasing cost will ultimately be reflected in Kansan’s electric bills.”

Except, as has already been stated and re-stated (ad nauseum), the electricity from the plant isn't going to be sold here.
5 May 2009
at 9:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

classclown (Anonymous) says…

According to Greenpeace, your pampered butts are harming the planet a lot more than this plant ever will.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment…
5 May 2009
at 9:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

WHY (Anonymous) says…

Yeah electricity.
Now I can sit at my computer and post all day long.
5 May 2009
at 9:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…

I think we all want to know if and how we have been screwed again by politicians working against our best interests.

I think the first indication is the statement that Parkinson approached Sunflower asking if there was any room where a deal could be made. The big man was taking the bull by the horns and moving the state forward.

I think this is a big lie.

I think people were lining up to petition Parkinson over this coal deal as soon as it was known Sebelius would be leaving soon. It is hard to know what promises and deals were made in the back room but I think we will figure it out eventually.

So the new era of the Parkinson term begins with the belief that you can lie to get what you want because the Kansas people are just too stupid to figure it out anyway. That is what these people think of you and me.

It was the great Melvin Nuefeld himself that taught us that they do a lot of horse trading in Topeka because that is how they do business there. That and blackmailing fellow legislators wherever and whenever possible.
5 May 2009
at 10:21 p.m.

Permalink

lounger (Anonymous) says…

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
5 May 2009
at 10:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tunahelper (Anonymous) says…

hey enviro-whackos, you lost! go back to new york and california! this is a great day for Kansas!

I love the smell of coal burning in the morning!

5 May 2009
at 11:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…

“So the new era of the Parkinson term begins with the belief that you can lie to get what you want because the Kansas people are just too stupid to figure it out anyway. That is what these people think of you and me.”

Well, since you have absolutely no facts to back up your suspicions and conspiracy theories, it's actually *your* belief that “you can lie to get what you want because the Kansas people are just too stupid to figure it out anyway.” As for the people of Kansas, you, like most of the complainers here, seem to forget that the views held by Larryvillers isn't exactly representative of those Kansans, a majority of whom elected the people you're trying to villainize.

And it may be what they think of *you* - as for me, I'm pretty happy Kathy's gone and this thing can move forward.
5 May 2009
at 11:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…

Why does it matter that most of the electricity is being sold out of state? Should we kick boeing out because most of what they make is used outside of Kansas as well?
5 May 2009
at 11:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sustainabilitysister (Anonymous) says…

I don't think Parkinson is listening to his constituents.
6 May 2009
at 12:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

sustainabilitysister (Anonymous) says…

“I don't think Parkinson is listening to his constituents.”

I don't think all of his constituents live in Larryville.
6 May 2009
at 1:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Scattered (Anonymous) says…

I live in Salina, which is far to the “right” of Lawrence, and I am totally disgusted by our new governor.

Lounger is correct, there is no such thing as a clean coal plant.

What's next for our fair state? Letting other states dump their toxic waste here?
6 May 2009
at 2:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“I would imagine the expecation of firing up a plant that hasn't been used in 2 decades is pretty close to zero, so while “policy-wise” closing the plants might count towards reducing their overall carbon footprint, the physical reality is that decomissioning the plants will not result in any less carbon output than we've had for the last 20 years.”

Expect what you will (I'd almost wager you didn't expect this deal to go through). You might ask yourself the question why the owners would keep the plant in operational condition - I would think no small expense - rather than decommissioning them years ago if the expectation of using them was near zero. Maybe they just like paying the taxes on the properties. By the way - suppose the plummeting in oil prices had continued and the price of a barrel of oil stayed at a level that made it economical to operate those plants again. Still near zero?

“You should really check back before making blanket statements like this.”

Well, I don't really need to check back - I was the one he said it to, after all. Actually, he said “a generation of human life,” and didn't say cultural *OR* familial. You did.

“I conceded that there was more than one approach to determining the lapse of time between generations.”

Speaking of checking back, what you said was “I will concede that 35 years is perhaps the species-wide expectation.”

“specifically mentioning the father is superfluous and hardly invalidates my argument.”

Well, except for that little detail that your figure does not take into account the father's age. If, for example, the average age of a male to father his first offspring was 30 instead of 25, that would mean the age at which the average human gives rise to a new generation would be 27, wouldn't it?

“That's because there's nothing to say.”

Well, no. It's because when you said “how you can get a carbon credit for continuing to NOT burn oil is beyond me,” I didn't feel it necessary to point out that indeed it was.

Apparently I was wrong.
6 May 2009
at 6:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

belexus73 (Anonymous) says…

I am going to be interested in what EPA has to say about this agreement. EPA has made an “endagerment finding” against CO2, which is the first step in regulating the gas. Also, it appears this agreement takes away the permitting process that is normally done. EPA may be highly bothered by this as well. It will take 18 months for the permit to be issued and by that time either Congress or EPA will have moved significantly on CO2. The Clean Air Act provisions will have changed and that could affect the permit as well.
6 May 2009
at 6:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

motocross (Anonymous) says…

Global warming is a freaking joke, there are just as many scientist who say that it is bogus as there are who say it's legit…..

6 May 2009
at 7:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

The Sierra Club, which is also helping to block the SLT, sucks.
6 May 2009
at 7:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…

“Almost immediately upon taking office, Parkinson said he reached out to see whether there was room for negotiation with Sunflower.”

You decide if this sounds like BS.

I know what it is.
6 May 2009
at 8:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…

“I know what it is.”

Well, I know *THAT* sounds like BS.
6 May 2009
at 8:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ogallala_Kid (Anonymous) says…

none2: “Though they took water rights way from so much land to equal that of the plants needs, that much water shouldn't have been used in the first place for irrigation farming in what is basically a short grass savannah ecosystem.”
_________________

The unspoken 1000lb elephant in the room. The environmentalists here really want to eliminate the existing system of agriculture in SW Kansas by eliminating current water usage. “We don't want that plant…and we don't wan't you to even irrigate.”

They want to eliminate irrigated corn and wheat, which in one stroke would eliminate the beef, wheat, and ethanol industries, would confiscate billions of dollars of farmer family investments, and would essentially depopulate the western third of the state.

The Buffalo Commons is their preferred use.

And Lawrence people wonder why SW Kansas thinks NE Kansas hates them so much?

Clean up your own power sources, you hypocrites. And don't be looking for hunting permits from us again.
6 May 2009
at 8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oklahoma (Anonymous) says…

Ogallala

Trust me, your preaching is falling on deaf ears. These folks don't give a hoot what goes on west of Topeka, let alone what goes on west of Highway 81. This is all about having a wake for their gal Kathy.
6 May 2009
at 8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ogallala_Kid (Anonymous) says…

none2: “If the direction is or if it should be that we have a national electrical grid to move electricity anywhere in the country. Western Kansas will provide a pivotal role in joining the western, eastern, and Texas megagrids”
__________________

None2 is an idiot. There is a reason that W Kansas is on the edge of two grids for differing systems: we have no population centers.

The two grids are like the continental divide…but for electricity. Excess rain on the west side of line goes west, & vice versa. Even most environmentalists understand that there is significant energy loss in distance transmission.

None2's view of large power exchanges of between East and West grids simply will never happen – because of the physics, and hence economics. Smaller local exchanges yes. Long substantial exchanges, no.
6 May 2009
at 9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jafs (Anonymous) says…

The concept of “off-setting” CO2 emissions by reducing them in one place while adding in another only makes sense if the reduction is real.

Using plants that are not in service to “off-set” new ones makes no sense and does not reduce emissions.
6 May 2009
at 9:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tolawdjk (Anonymous) says…

“belexus73 (Anonymous) says…

I am going to be interested in what EPA has to say about this agreement. EPA has made an “endagerment finding” against CO2, which is the first step in regulating the gas. Also, it appears this agreement takes away the permitting process that is normally done. EPA may be highly bothered by this as well. It will take 18 months for the permit to be issued and by that time either Congress or EPA will have moved significantly on CO2. The Clean Air Act provisions will have changed and that could affect the permit as well.”

1. Unless something has drastically changed, this agreement cannot remove the permitting process. I know there are provisions within 40 CFR 52.21 (the section of the federal register which contains the bulk of the federal version of the permitting rules that would apply to this project.) that allow the President to bypass the rule. I'm not sure if there is a similar provision within K.A.R. 28-19. I would be shocked if there was.

2. If Sunflower got their application in “today” and a new CO2 rule came out “tomorrow”, I would imagine that Sunflower would be able to proceed under permitting with the old rule. It depends entirely on how the rule would be written.

I encourage your to look on the web for information concerning Desert Rock and Desserat. These are two federally permitted power facilities (both are on Indian reservations) and will be litmus tests for any CO2 regs. EPA has recently stated it wants another crack at Desert Rock on CO2.

6 May 2009
at 10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

billbodiggens (Anonymous) says…

the file footage used in the newscast presented above do not appear to be pictures of any coal fired plant in Holcomb. They appear to be the filthy plants located north of Lawrence. Hmmmmmmmm.
6 May 2009
at 11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jayhawker2008 (Anonymous) says…

What a jerk! I want Sebelius back!
6 May 2009
at 12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…

I have the answer! Stop using electricity, no a/c, tv, pc or hot water, home heat or lights and we can burn wood which in this area will last….two months. Isn't this goal of the Sierra Club to move the country back 150 years. We all know there is no way solar, geo, or wind will ever supply the demand, so the only logically step is a step back. Robert Redford can't be wrong, he's an actor.

The answer is, of course, dilithium crystals. Beam me up Scottie!
6 May 2009
at 1:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sciencegeek (Anonymous) says…

I find it interesting that Sunflower can reapply in April, 2011. By that time, we'll have Governor Brownback, who is likely to support anything they propose.
If anyone thinks that date selection was coincidental, I've got some ocean-front property in Finney County that I'd like to sell them.
6 May 2009
at 1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

none2 (Anonymous) says…

Ogallala_Kid (Anonymous) says…

none2: “If the direction is or if it should be that we have a national electrical grid to move electricity anywhere in the country. Western Kansas will provide a pivotal role in joining the western, eastern, and Texas megagrids”
__________________

None2 is an idiot. There is a reason that W Kansas is on the edge of two grids for differing systems: we have no population centers.

The two grids are like the continental divide…but for electricity. Excess rain on the west side of line goes west, & vice versa. Even most environmentalists understand that there is significant energy loss in distance transmission.

None2's view of large power exchanges of between East and West grids simply will never happen – because of the physics, and hence economics. Smaller local exchanges yes. Long substantial exchanges, no.
===========================

It is obvious that you aren't a very educated individual — or at least lacking common sense.

1) SW Kansas is near the intersection of THREE grids: East, West, and Texas. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or did you think Texas was a different nation?

2) Secondly, there ARE long distance transports.

Currently, “the longest high voltage transmission power line the world begins in the Inga Falls in the Congo River to the district of Katanga in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This is the same distance as from London to Athens. It stretches an outstanding 1700 kilometers with a DC voltage of ± 500 kV and a power rating of about 560 MW.” FYI, 1700 km is about 1,056 miles.

In case you have never left your county, here is some road distance info from Holcomb:
to Colorado Springs: 254.02 miles
to Pueblo: 215.44 miles
to Amarillo: 241.45 miles
to Wichita: 216.64 miles

None of those distances come close to 1,000 miles.

3) What do you think the entire push for Wind energy is about? Do you think the goal is to just use them near your house? Of course there is some transport involved. That is why there is a push to get long distance transmission lines built out there. Some argue you cannot justify a long distance transport without more traditional power plants. I do not know all the stats on the reliability of wind, but I will state that visually I have seldom seen the Montezuma turbines not turning when I go home.

(continued)
6 May 2009
at 1:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jhawks1510 (Anonymous) says…

There isn't an environmental group out there that isn't opposed to fossil fuels on a significant level. Regardless of what environmental protections were offered, Sierra & other environmental groups would find a reason to say no. There is a lot of room for generating power responsibly and cleanly, and this is a great step. Environmentalists don't hold any water…they recently voiced opposition to solar/wind generated power here in California…in the middle of the desert. There's no pleasing them.
6 May 2009
at 1:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

none2 (Anonymous) says…

(continued)

There are also reasons to not do a national network, and I have posted those interesting opposing thoughts in earlier posts on the subject.

As to Buffalo Commons, that idea came from back east — as in New Jersey — not eastern Kansas. I've seldom have heard about it, but when I have my response has always been that wouldn't it be great to restore the forests of the eastern seaboard.

Not every farmer in western Kansas has irrigated land, there is such a thing as dry land farming. But that is ok, just make sure that you turn off the last electrical power plant lights when you have sucked that land dry of every last bit of water in the Ogallala aquifer. Yes water is life out there. It is precious and shouldn't be squandered.

Finally, show some maturity. It is an embarrassment to think I grew up in the same part of the country as you. There are times that eastern Kansas does things that are unfair to western Kansas such as the severance tax. People in the east do speak up against such injustices. Realize that there are plenty of people in eastern Kansas who have roots (family, history, even land ownership) in western Kansas. It isn't all an “us” vs “them” as you would like to portray it. What are you trying to do, alienate everybody who doesn't think exactly like you?

I didn't leave western Kansas because I hated it. I left because of the dwindling opportunities out there. For instance, when I was in high school in the 70's, Panhandle Eastern moved all their offices out of Liberal to Kansas City. (Eventually, they then moved them from Kansas City to Houston.) That really hurt Liberal and the surrounding towns. That is just one example of job losses. That move had nothing to do with using or not using ground water nor was it about some limited electrical power. It didn't even have anything to do with their natural gas supply.

Whether or not you get one or two plants is built in Holcomb won't change what has been happening out west for decades. It also won't help that the only electricity from the original plans ear marked for western Kansas is 200 MW — a mere 14%. Maybe that is is sufficient for now, but western Kansas shouldn't be locked into that low amount for the entire life of the plants.
6 May 2009
at 2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ogallala_Kid (Anonymous) says…

none2: I am embarrassed that someone who actually lived in SW Kansas actually expresses the anti-SW opinions you do.

Just because SW Kansas sits at the apex of 3 grids, doesn't mean connecting them there will make long distance production and transmission economical whatsoever, and you know it. So you shouldn't hype it as it being a panacea of any type. We've got no problem with wind production out here, and with some better lines, we can install more, and ship some more your way….but again, that is no energy panacea. Heck, lets see you wind advocates in Lawrence install some in your own county….

The people are using the water in Western Kansas consistent with the rules and laws adopt by the State. You say we are squandering it. That's a pretty sharp division of opinion with mine. You obviously really don't know that much about agriculture or water.

I don't see the Liberal City Commission passing resolutions regarding economic development opportunities in Lawrence. Why does Lawrence always think they know what is right for people in the west?

And that is why this plants have support…. not just in SW Kansas, but all around KS. Heck, even Democrats in Western Kansas support them. Hmmm.

6 May 2009
at 3:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ogallala_Kid (Anonymous) says…

Yea logicsound, this from the guy who thinks the NBAF research facility in Manhattan is all about bioterrorism and war, instead of agriculture, and its threats like hoof-and-mouth.

Let us know when you check back in with the vast middle ground of the country.

No, not all of residents of Western Kansas agree with me.

But I invite you to any and all of my morning coffee haunts to do a little informal polling. Even when we disagree out here, we are not disagreeable. But be prepared to hear things you don't want to hear.
6 May 2009
at 3:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

none2 (Anonymous) says…

Ogallala_Kid (Anonymous) says…

none2: I am embarrassed that someone who actually lived in SW Kansas actually expresses the anti-SW opinions you do.

==============================
You just don't get it. Not everybody in SW Kansas thinks of one mind. For instance, I know plenty of people back there who do not like everything that happens out there is well thought out - ie the ethanol plants like the one near Hayne.

As for Douglas County residents installing wind generators, use your head. Have you ever traveled anywhere east? Eastern Kansas doesn't have that kind of wind. That would be as stupid as suggesting that eastern Kansas harness oceanic currents to generate electricity.

Your problem is you cannot think past what is the status quo. You think of wind as being some kind of “toy” source of energy. Wind is abundant out there. I'm reminded everytime I go back. Sure, maybe it cannot meet 100% of western Kansas' needs, but to say that by 2020 Sunflower will have 20% of generating capacity via alternative energy is an insult to common sense. Montazuma's capcity is 112 MW and that was done 7 or so years in the PAST. Why will it take them 11 years into the future?

The president has made a big deal out of energy independence and alternative energy. The nation is headed that direction. Why didn't Sunflower have the forethought to get more money to get wind going sooner than later and with a larger max capacity?

Also there should be encouragement to have wind generator manufacture setup shop in western Kansas? I believe it has been said that only Texas & North Dakota can match western Kansas' wind potential. What better place to have a plant than where you can test it.

As to sending a bit of wind energy to Douglas County, you are talking about 362 miles. How come you are saying you can transmit some that far, yet going 215-250 miles is economically infeasible? The math doesn't add up.
6 May 2009
at 4:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

It seems to me that the difference between the current solution and the compromise that Sebelius offered is that the concessions that Sebelius demanded had teeth and the current concessions are toothless.

I still don't get what KS gets out of this: a temporary job surge of people mostly from somewhere else (look at the area; see a surplus of construction laborers in the area?), depletion of limited water, most of the pollution, and little of the power. How is this good for KS?

It is not very clever to lump all environmentalists together. That makes as much sense as lumping all people who call themselves Christian together.

Clean coal is an oxymoron.

Don't understand how CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Go take some classes in physics and chemistry.
6 May 2009
at 8:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tunahelper (Anonymous) says…

leftist, libtard lawrence is so full of whiny enviro-whackos! you lost, get over it!

go back to the east coast and the left coast!

only in lawrence you are still whining about the coal plants while the rest of the state celebrates the great victory of a new coal plant!

you leftist enviro-whackos are such hypocrites, why aren't you upset when China puts a new coal power plant on line every two weeks! go there and protest, the rest of the great State of Kansas is sick and tired of your whining!

Remember that tomorrow is the National Day of Prayer, we are all praying that you leftists will finally leave!

God bless America!

God bless coal power plants!

God bless carbon dioxide!
6 May 2009
at 9:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kosmo513 (Anonymous) says…

Right on Guns R Good! By the way, they are good aren't they?

Common sense finally wins the day on this issue! Can't wait to see those coal fired stacks smokin' away!

Climate change is the biggest hoax ever foisted on the USA, right after the utterly disgraceful Administration of Dear Leader, Chairman Mao Bama.
7 May 2009
at 12:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“I am not well-versed enough in the specifics of the plants to know exactly, but I do know that it is possible that keeping the plants in minimally operational condition is cheaper in the long run than the expense of decomissioning the plants and trying to sell off the property.”

Well, um - no. It may be cheaper in the *short* run, but for 20 years? Or in perpetuity (since you insist the plants will never be used)? Like to see the math you used to figure that one.

“The property taxes will remain regardless of whether the plants are operational or not, so if they are wanting to jettison the taxes, not only will they have to decomission the plants, but find a buyer to resell the property.”

Gee, ya' think? Of course, to sell the property, they'd have to decommission the plants instead of idling them, wouldn't they?

“But really, we are both speculating here regarding whether or not the plant is likely to be used in the future. The FACT is that the plants have gone 2 decades without being used and must be considered “unlikely” to be used at best.”

So, let me get this straight - we're both speculating as to the likelihood, but we *must* consider it unlikely? Interesting 'logic.'

But the FACT is that, no matter how you twist and spin, there is somewhat of a difference between idle and out of commission. As it stands now the plants *can* be operated at any time, at the desire of their owner, regardless of whether they *are* being operated. So sorry you seem incapable of understanding that definitive difference.
7 May 2009
at 12:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“Since “a generation of human life” doesn't specifically refer to either, I included references to BOTH to cover all the bases.”

*Both* covers *all* the bases? Really? Pretty limited perspective there.

“My figure is based on the standard used by the Census, which is the lapse of time between the birth of generations, which is tied to the mother's age. The father's age is a variable that would affect the data without meaning.”

“Without meaning?” Well, yeah - except for the minor detail that there would *BE* no subsequent generation without that father. And the fact that the Census uses a figure of convenience borrowed from a biology text (used in biology studies where it's impractical, and not even always possible, to determine the age of the father) doesn't define the term.

“The key word being “perhaps”. My number was actually based on collected data.”

Yeah. Using your own limited definition based soley on US figures. There's no “perhaps” about it - even using the 'first-offspring' number, the age in the UK is over 27 and in Australia it's over 30. And increasing worldwide. Seems like the almighty U.S. Census Bureau is not the last word on *human* life-cycles.

If you want one more example, how about this one from Merriam-Webster:

“3: the average span of time between the birth of parents and that of their offspring”

Please note that both 'parents' and 'children' are plural terms. The definition of 'generation' is not dependent soley on the age of one parent at the birth of their first offspring.

Anyway, arguing with you is, as always, pointless. As I said from the beginning, I think I'll continue to use the published dictionaries and encyclopedias for reference, not the meanderings of a poster to the LJW's message boards.
7 May 2009
at 2:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…

Sorry, meant “offspring,” not “children” (and yes, “offspring” may be singular, but it can also be plural, like “parents”).

7 May 2009
at 5:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tumbilweed (Anonymous) says…

“God bless carbon dioxide!”

I just had to repeat this because it is sooooooo ignorant.

If you're gonna use energy to say something, at least think about it first, tunahelper, turn off the limbaugh, and say something smart. Use your brain.