Westar plans to spend millions of dollars to upgrade Lawrence Energy Center / LJWorld.com

Archive for Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Costs will be covered by ratepayers

May 20, 2009, 1:38 p.m. Updated May 20, 2009, 5:38 p.m.

Topeka — Westar Energy Inc. on Wednesday announced it will make an estimated $375 million worth of upgrades to reduce emissions at the Lawrence Energy Center.

The projects are expected to start in 2010 and be completed by 2013, the company said. At the peak of activity, the construction is expected to create 350 jobs, Westar said.

“Upgrades at the Lawrence Energy Center are just one more step in our effort to make all of our plants even cleaner while allowing us to continue to meet our customers’ energy needs,” said Doug Sterbenz, executive vice president and chief operating officer.

The cost of the projects are eligible to be recovered from ratepayers through an environmental improvements charge on monthly bills, Westar said.

The Lawrence Energy Center is a coal-fired facility that has a capacity of nearly 540 megawatts, according to Westar’s Web site. Westar is the largest electric utility in Kansas, providing power to approximately 680,000 customers.

On two generating units, the company will install two fabric filtration systems to remove particulate matter and it will rebuild sulfur dioxide scrubbers to remove more sulfur dioxide from the flue gas.

Westar said it also is improving burner systems on three units, which will improve efficiency and lower nitrogen oxide emissions.

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.

20 May 2009
at 1:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

srj (Anonymous) says…

Very good news. Waiting to see how the liberals will spin this?
20 May 2009
at 1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

What's to spin?
20 May 2009
at 2:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jafs (Anonymous) says…

Well, just for fun, I don't see anything about reducing CO2 emissions.
20 May 2009
at 2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yankeelady (Anonymous) says…

I'm a liberal (mostly) and I just want to see some returns for my energy bills. Besides legal expenses that is.
20 May 2009
at 3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Coal has got to go. This seems to me an irresponsible way to spend money considering ratepayers want cleaner energy not more expensive dirty energy. Ratepayers will be eating the cost. Why not spend $375 million towards Geo Thermal or Solar Energy?

I would rather buy my juice from the Bowersock people.
20 May 2009
at 3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pdecell (Paul Decelles) says…

jafs,

I wondered about that for a second as well. But I assume that after the efficiency improvements, the plant should require less coal to produce the same number of megawatts. I wonder how big of a gain in efficiency Westar anticipates.
20 May 2009
at 4:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

The only way to decrease CO2 emissions is to burn less coal. Increased efficiency can go a little ways in that direction, but not nearly far enough. We need to start planning for shutting down at least 2/3 of existing coal plants over the next 20 years, with the bulk of those closing in the next 10 years.

20 May 2009
at 4:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

imastinker (Anonymous) says…

What a great idea - we have something like 600 years of coal in the US and we'll stop using it all together in favor of forms of energy that we don't currently have in place.
20 May 2009
at 5:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“we have something like 600 years of coal”

Yea, that's like a crackhead saying he's got a 600-year-supply in his closet, so no worries.

“forms of energy that we don't currently have in place.”

Yep, time's a wastin', especially when we spend $billion on coal plants that will need to be shut down well before the end of their service life.
20 May 2009
at 5:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TomShewmon (Tom Shewmon) says…

“The cost of the projects are eligible to be recovered from ratepayers through an environmental improvements charge on monthly bills, Westar said.”

Speechless. I saw this coming a long, long time ago and it's only getting started. Thanks Al Gore. Thanks Carol Browner. Whip out your wallets folks. The fruits of Al Gore's labor are only starting to pay off for him–-and breaking your bank account. This is what this whitehouse and congress consider economic stimulation?

Wow!
20 May 2009
at 6:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ogallala_Kid (Anonymous) says…

It is good to see the Lawrence power providers trying to emulate the much cleaner Sunflower plant numbers. Now that the former Governor can no longer protect her political buddies at Westar, you will see them getting a little more active.

Bozo, and Merrill, and Bronze should all be protesting daily to get the Lawrence plant closed down. But they wont.

I hear that Lawrence's Best Buy sells some of the highest volumes of those energy-sucking big-screen HDTV's in the state, one of biggest drivers in increased electrical consumption at the household level. If you Lawrence people really want to get serious instead of ranting, go look in the mirror at your own city's per capita growth in electrical consumption.
20 May 2009
at 6:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ogallala_Kid (Anonymous) says…

Nancy Boy, the Lawrence people *should* absolutely be paying surcharges to clean up their act. You act like this shouldn't be. It should. They just aren't cleaning it up enough or soon enough.
20 May 2009
at 7:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Machiavelli_mania (Anonymous) says…

They should also plant trees all around the plant. It is the finest way to battle emissions.
20 May 2009
at 8:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

october 2007 update
Analysis of the House-passed 15 percent by 2020 Renewable Electricity Standard.

In August 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed energy legislation (H.R. 3221) that included a 15 percent by 2020 national standard. Although the Senate passed an energy bill in June 2007 that did not include a national standard, it has supported the policy three times since 2002 (most recently in June 2005). House and Senate negotiators will have to decide whether to include a national standard in the final bill. UCS updated our July 2007 Cashing In on Clean Energy analysis to examine the effects of the House-passed standard and found that it would provide the following benefits:

Consumer Savings
$13 billion to $18.1 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills by 2020 (growing to $27.7 billion to $31.8 billion by 2030)

Energy Diversity
Increase in clean, renewable energy capacity to between 3.6 and 4.5 times over 2005 levels

Climate Solutions
Reductions in global warming pollution equal to taking between 13.7 and 20.6 million cars off the road
20 May 2009
at 8:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

America’s current energy system is dominated by fossil fuels, which pose serious threats to our health and environment and leave us vulnerable to price spikes and supply shortages. With the threat of global warming becoming increasingly urgent, we must make responsible energy choices today that ensure a safe, reliable power supply and a healthy environment for future generations.

Fortunately, there are practical and affordable ways to achieve this goal. Homegrown renewable energy resources—such as wind, solar, bioenergy, and geothermal—can help reduce our dependence on polluting fossil fuels. These clean energy sources can also help stabilize energy prices, stimulate the development of innovative new technology, and create high-quality jobs and other economic benefits.

Strong national policies can ensure these benefits are fully realized. The policy that has proven most effective and popular at the state level is the renewable electricity standard (also known as the renewable portfolio standard or RPS), which requires electricity providers to supply a minimum percentage of their power from clean energy sources. As of June 2007, renewable electricity standards have been adopted in 23 states and Washington, DC. At the national level, the U.S. Senate has passed a 10 percent by 2020 national renewable electricity standard three times since 2002—most recently in June 2005—only to be rejected by the House conferees each time.

Momentum continues to grow for a strong national standard. A 20 percent by 2020 standard was introduced in the House in February 2007, and a 15 percent by 2020 standard is under consideration in the Senate. Using a model from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) examined the long-term effects that a national 20 percent by 2020 standard would have on the economy and the environment.

20 Percent by 2020:
The Benefits of a National Renewable Electricity Standard
Job Creation
185,000 new jobs from renewable energy development

Economic Development
$66.7 billion in new capital investment, $25.6 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners, and $2 billion in new local tax revenues

Consumer Savings
$10.5 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills by 2020 (growing to $31.8 billion by 2030)

Climate Solutions
Reductions in global warming pollution equal to taking 36.4 million cars off the road

20 May 2009
at 8:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says…

“Upgrades at the Lawrence Energy Center are just one more step in our effort to make all of our plants even cleaner while allowing us to continue to meet
our customers’ energy needs,” said Doug Sterbenz, executive vice president and chief operating officer.

The cost of the projects are eligible to be recovered from ratepayers through an environmental improvements charge on monthly bills, Westar said.

–”our customers' energy needs…like keeping them cheaper! the real news in this article: greenie wheenies lean on Westar, and our bills go up yet again!

and I don't buy the claim of the savings in Merrill's cut-and-paste analysis of the coming energy policy. capand trade will dramatically increase electricity cost in this country, Mr. Obama admitted it himself on tape.

what I really wish is that the nutbags like boozo/bronze/merrill et al who push this could be the ones who have to pay for it.

oh and while I'm on the soapbox, CO2 is no problem, global warming has happened, apparently may have peaked. furthermore, no good evidence that that was manmade. the earth has been warmer than this before in its history.
20 May 2009
at 9:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yankeelady (Anonymous) says…

Your rates will go up no matter what. In the end it is all about profits for Westar.
20 May 2009
at 9:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) says…

I wonder how much of this was motivated by expectation of stricter EPA regulation of NOx-SOx and PM under an Obama administration? Hmmm…
20 May 2009
at 9:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

barrypenders (Anonymous) says…

Mankind should lead the natural life. Coal was just put on this third rock from the sun to torture the purest at heart humans. The sun was made to fire on nuclear activity to just tick off the heavenly purest of humans.

I wonder why the planet didn't develope big fans to heat the furless human? Why didn't humans evolve furry and fuzzy to stay warm?

I wonder if God is just playin with the purests?
20 May 2009
at 10:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

djeyler (Anonymous) says…

I learned a long time ago while sitting in church that when people start telling you the date of the return of Christ they were no body you would take serious. So when those in the environmental religion say the earth is going to die in ten years unless we stop burning coal now are the same types of fools. Just reading their comments here is pretty comical and after years of hearing this global warming stuff the argument demonstrates emotion minus cpommon sense.
20 May 2009
at 10:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

If Westar doubled the cost of electricity, my electric bill would still be less than my phone bill, my gas bill, my water bill, or my vehicle insurance. If they doubled it and used the proceeds to switch to 100% renewable generation, retiring all the fossil and nuke plants, I'd be all for it.
21 May 2009
at 5:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

redmoonrising (Anonymous) says…

At the current rate of customers, allowing for no new users or other costs to produce electricity from this plant, that amounts to $551.47 per customer. Sounds like a lot if it were charged all at once. Assuming it will be spread out over time. Then again, if they do this elsewhere, more costs to us and other users. Still, in comparison to natural gas prices, it seems not overwhelming. My concern is this though, if we indeed are in the process of eliminating coal powered plants, why spend this outrageous amount. Granted a lot will go to salaries for additional workers. But are we wasting money to revive a dinosaur? If this expenditure will indeed make this a reliable, clean and efficient source of electricity for a long time, it makes sense. If not, well……
21 May 2009
at 1:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

The prime time for coal was about 1750.

21 May 2009
at 3:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KEITHMILES05 (Anonymous) says…

GCC: You are an idiot with that remark! LMAO
26 May 2009
at 6:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snowWI (Anonymous) says…

keithmiles05,

You are the ignorant one. I don't think many people want to give an even greater boost to those mega energy centers like Gilette, WY!

We must develop our energy resources locally instead of depending on dirty coal from the Powder River Basin, or in other parts of the country- the central Appalachians. The later is often mined through mountaintop removal.

A multitude of reasons are out there as to why coal is NOT clean.

Coal was at its prime in the UK during the 1800s.
2 November 2009
at 2:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Moderate (George Lippencott) says…

Interesting article. I am afraid that not enough people are paying attention to the energy efficiency agenda. It is important. First, it reflects a major budding initiative by Kansas to reduce carbon emissions by reducing energy use. Last week there was a not well covered Hearing in our legislature on this very matter. Second, it reflects a fundamental shift in our philosophy toward energy use. Historically we just flipped the switch and expected to be served.

We are moving toward an environment where that may no longer be true. As we take initiatives to not produce more energy we place ourselves in the potential predicament that when we flip the switch it will not be there. This happened in California a few years ago.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. I am just not sure many citizens understand where we are headed. As we go there, we will have winners and losers. Representative Sloan is quite correct when he reflects that we need to do this with care. We need to be fair and show necessary forethought least we disproportionately affect the innocent. If we are not attentive, this may happen. The corporate sharks and other self-absorbed interests are already in the water. Your future huge energy bill just may be a contribution to Wal-Mart’s profits.
2 November 2009
at 3:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

whatthehell (Anonymous) says…

This was a necessary upgrade to reduce emissions.

What really needs to be done is to invest in nuclear. period. Here is an excerpt from a very interesting read…

US Fed News, September 22, 2009 Tuesday 9:57 PM EST
washington, Sept. 21 — The office of Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., issued the following news release:
Communications experts say that fear is the best way to get attention when you're trying to win an argument. Groups who oppose nuclear power have certainly mastered that technique by playing to economic, environmental, and safety fears.

So I'd like to introduce a little element of fear into my argument here. I want to suggest what could happen if we don't adopt nuclear power as a more important part of our energy future- if Russia and China and a lot of other countries go ahead with nuclear - as they are now - while we get left behind. Are we going to be able to compete with countries that have cheap, clean, reliable nuclear power while we're stuck with a bunch of windmills and solar farms producing expensive, unreliable energy or, more likely, not much energy at all? The whole prospect of the United States ignoring this problem-solving technology that we invented is what I fear most about nuclear power.

Here is a link to the whole article: http://files.jwp-inc.com/Wind%20Turbi…

We are fools to let this go on. Wind and solar are OK but cannot produce enough, economically.
2 November 2009
at 3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tolawdjk (Anonymous) says…

While this sounds all warm and fuzzy, my gut is telling me this is all required by their BART permit, and not because the “wanted” to, but because they “had” to.
2 November 2009
at 3:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

belexus73 (Anonymous) says…

A couple of points: Westar is announcing major upgrades at LEC after getting tagged for alleged violations concerning NOX and SOX at JEC. Coincidence? Maybe-maybe not. These upgrades at LEC have been in the pipeline for awhile-but Westar knew the Justice Department was giving them the eye for the last couple of years. Also, these upgrades will induce a small uptick in the power that is used at LEC and thusly and ironically increase by incremental amounts the CO2 emitted from LEC.