Archive for Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Kansans willing to pay more for greener energy practices, poll finds
May 13, 2009
Advertisement
Kansans are willing to pay more green to go green, according to a poll released Wednesday.
The message behind the poll is to drum up support for federal standards on renewable energy and energy efficiency, which are being debated in Congress.
“A federal Renewable Energy Standard would result in a magnitude of economic and wind development that would create opportunities for not just this generation of Kansans, but for this century,” said Nancy Jackson, director of the Lawrence-based Climate and Energy Project.
As part of the settlement to allow construction of an 895-megawatt coal-burning power plant, Kansas lawmakers recently adopted state renewable energy standards that will require utilities to produce 20 percent of their electricity from renewable energy by 2020.
But a nationwide renewable energy standard would produce demand for wind-generated energy from Kansas, which is the third windiest state in the U.S.
According to a U.S. Department of Energy study, a federal renewable energy standard of 20 percent would produce 11,000 construction jobs in the western portion of Kansas, more than 1,800 long-term jobs, $20 million in payments to landowners, and $20 million to counties where the wind turbines would be located.
It also would attract more wind turbine manufacturing plants to the state, Jackson said.
The CEP, which is part of the nonprofit Land Institute, commissioned the poll, which was conducted by Ayres, McHenry & Associates.
The survey sampled 600 registered voters across the state on April 26-29. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
The poll found:
• By a ratio of five to one, Kansans supported a renewable energy standard that would require utilities to generate more energy from wind and solar;
• Three out of four Kansans would be willing to pay between $2 and $5 more per month on their energy bills if it meant generating more renewable energy;
• Nearly nine in 10 Kansans believe that renewable energy will increase national security.
Of those surveyed, 36 percent identified themselves as Republicans, 27 percent Democratic, 33 percent independent, and the rest refused to say.
More like this
- Proposed federal wind regulations would benefit Kansas 36 comments / February 24, 2009
- Sebelius, Parkinson outline plan for solar, wind energy programs for Kansas 46 comments / January 9, 2009
- Wind farm advances said to be more friendly to environment January 4, 2004
- Energy advance 13 comments / May 12, 2009
- Get with it 3 comments / September 19, 2009
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- City caters to its increasingly diverse population with culture, food offerings November 28, 2009 · 1 comment
- Woman sees image of Jesus on her iron November 28, 2009 · 6 comments
- Quiet revolution taking place in America November 25, 2009 · 133 comments
- Survey: Pavement conditions improving November 28, 2009 · 2 comments
- 3-step approach to health care reform November 27, 2009 · 28 comments
- One dead after car-motorcycle accident near 27th and Missouri November 27, 2009 · 23 comments
- Turbine manufacturer passes on Lawrence site November 24, 2009 · 115 comments
- Band of brothers November 28, 2009 · 1 comment
- Obama to promise 17% cuts in U.S. emissions in next decade November 26, 2009 · 69 comments
- Fear tactics November 27, 2009 · 28 comments
- 6News video: SLT opponents gather for forum June 15, 2008
- Atomic veterans gaining recognition March 28, 2009
- Message warns students at Perry-Lecompton not to attend class today April 20, 2007
- Sprint completes purchase of Virgin Mobile November 25, 2009
- Tennessee Tech coach thankful November 27, 2009
- FBI agent, KU alumnus to speak at Lied November 27, 2009
- New trial sought for 1992 murder case November 28, 2009
- Technology Association sets luncheon November 25, 2009
13 May 2009
at 3:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Guns_R_Good (Anonymous) says…
Were is the breakdown by party of the 600 registered voters?? If 90% were from the Democratic party, I would say the results mean nothing. If it is close to 50-50, then maybe they have something, we need to know these facts!
13 May 2009
at 3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
nut_case (Anonymous) says…
This term “green” has gotten way out of hand.
I would be willing to pay a (small) amount more for domestic energy - ie E85 supporting mid west farmers versus gasoline supporting mid east terrorists. I would also be willing to pay a (small) amount more to help reduce actual pollution - sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitric oxides and such - from coal power plants, motor vehicles, etc.
But no way in “heck” would I willingly spend a cent more on any idiotic “cap and trade” scheme to capture “carbon”. This is the greatest scam ever put on the American people. As if Wall street power brokers getting rich from 'playing the market' and uber rich oil sheiks roaming the mid east aren't enough, cap and trade will create a new class of “eco traders” who will adapt to reap our hard earned money by trading in a colorless, odorless, harmless gas we all exhale every day!
13 May 2009
at 6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dandelion (Anonymous) says…
Guns_R_Good (Anonymous) says…
Were is the breakdown by party of the 600 registered voters?? If 90% were from the Democratic party, I would say the results mean nothing. If it is close to 50-50, then maybe they have something, we need to know these facts!
So you are saying that Republicans try and drive only gas guzzlers with high emmisions, leave the lights on, don't bother with insulation, and want to only get their electricity from coal plants, and their gas from middle eastern jerks? That is not going to attract too many people to your party.
13 May 2009
at 6:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ENGWOOD (Anonymous) says…
My in laws are Western Kansas land owners and Farmers
and have been approached by Wind generation companies and they are really reluctant to sign the contracts from these people for the use of their land for wind generation because of the mountain of restrictions put on them from these developers.
13 May 2009
at 6:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
“Three out of four Kansans would be willing to pay between $2 and $5 more per month on their energy bills if it meant generating more renewable energy;”
Change the question to reflect reality: “Would you be willing to spend between $50 and $100 a month on energy bills if it meant generating more renewable energy,” and you will see the poll results reverse.
My guess is that the poll asked that question, and no one responded yes.
This poll sets the maximum acceptable increase at $2 to $5 per month.
Expect many times that in increased expenses charged, all in the name of “green.”
13 May 2009
at 7:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jmadison (Anonymous) says…
Is the original poll with its polling methods published anywhere?
13 May 2009
at 8:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JackRipper (Anonymous) says…
“Change the question to reflect reality: “Would you be willing to spend between $50 and $100 a month on energy bills if it meant generating more renewable energy,” and you will see the poll results reverse.”
Doesn't really matter what the poll says, the chickens are coming in to roost and the facts are we can continue to burn up everything we can mine or pump and leave absolutely nothing for the future or we can start reducing our use. All the McMansions, suv's, big power boats, etc came at the wrong time in history and need to go
If we have managed to burn up massive and easy to get for the most part oil fields in a little over a 100 years, most of those years with a much smaller population of vehicle users, stored energy that took millions of years to develop, how the heck do we think hard to get out and quite limited number of oil fields left remaining and at a time the number of vehicle users has increased substantially including the coming online of two countries with a billion people each (GM sold more cars to the Chinese recently as has been reported than in the US) do we think the continued use of energy will go on as we know it?
For those who think coal and nuclear will be the easy options go watch how many coal trains go through Lawrence daily. Massively long trains and many each day and this is for what we use electricity for now. Imagine when we think we are going to power all our vehicles using coal and to think we will still be doing 50 mile commutes each day? Nuclear has many problems but appears to be the option with most potential but do we really want to deal with all the issues and how much uranium is there?
We aren't talking about electrical needs as they are today but as we switch to electric cars and potentially many more millions of people start to want our lifestyle. There has to be many more fundamental changes that go far beyond what we will be using for energy.
13 May 2009
at 8:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
belexus73 (Anonymous) says…
I went to the CEP website and they have the entire poll including cross tabs available there. The polling firm used was a known Republican polling firm according to the info garnered there. Interesting results- a little stronger than I would have thought….
13 May 2009
at 8:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
The real expense will be in the carbon tax. It is nothing more than a tax on the privilege, nay, the audacity, of living, extorted by the force of government, and transferred via “management fees” to the financial hucksters (can anyone spell Goldman Sachs?) to manage the so-called credits.
Billions of imaginary dollars will change hands trading the credits.
It is delusional to think this is about energy independence and/or saving the earth.
Follow the money. Always, follow the money.
13 May 2009
at 8:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JackRipper (Anonymous) says…
Oh now Godot it was the same government that created the same kind of schemes that created what helped us race to this point in the first place, the massive road system.
Arumer did you think if we returned to doing things locally and regionally there wouldn't be so much transportation costs? See we have to think what we gave up and replaced it with all for the benefit of those financial hucksters Godot was talking about.
13 May 2009
at 9:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
We're paying more than anybody thinks as it is as we subsidize the mismanaged energy industry. All we see are our monthly bills. Those other tax dollars are funneled through a variety of tunnels all leading to high profits.
13 May 2009
at 9:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Does anyone truly believe corporate america can safely store radioactive waste for 20,000 years?
An ongoing subsidy: Why generate expensive radioactive waste? Have we lost our minds?
washington (Reuters) - The planned U.S. nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada will cost billions more than previously estimated due to a hike in the amount of waste it will have to dispose of and inflation, the Energy Department said on Tuesday.
The Yucca Mountain program, which began in 1983 and is expected to close in 2133, is expected to cost $96.2 billion in 2007 dollars over its 150-year life cycle, up 67 percent from a 2001 estimate of $57.5 billion.
Excluding inflation, the new estimate increased 38 percent to $79.3 billion.
The Energy Department said the increased costs are due to more than $16 billion in inflation and a 30 percent increase in the amount of nuclear waste that will need to be disposed of at the site.
In addition, the department it is going to cost more than previously expected to dispose of the fuel based on an updated design of the facility.
Despite the rise in costs, the department is not proposing a change in the fees paid by nuclear utilities for waste disposal.
Ward Sproat, director of the office of civilian radioactive waste management, said the Yucca Mountain program is expensive but it is worth it.
“It's a lot of money, but I would argue pretty strenuously the cost of doing nothing is a lot higher,” Sproat told reporters.
The long delayed nuclear waste dump is expected to be opened in 2020 at the earliest, the department said in June.
Located about 90 miles from Las Vegas, the site is designed to hold millions of pounds of radioactive waste from U.S. nuclear power reactors underground and tons of leftovers from the country's nuclear weapons program.
Nuclear waste is currently stored at 121 temporary locations in 39 states across the country.
(Reporting by Ayesha Rascoe; Editing by Marguerita Choy)
14 May 2009
at 8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
Guns,
Read the last sentence of the article:
36%D
27%R
33%I
And the rest refused to say - about 3%.
14 May 2009
at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
Sorry,
36%R
27%D
33%I