Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Jobs pitted against environment at coal-fired plant hearing

Department hears arguments on jobs, environment

Holcomb 1, pictured above, is operating at 85 percent capacity. The Holcomb Station Project proposed by Sunflower Electric Power Corporation would add a second plant that would operate at 90 percent capacity.

Holcomb 1, pictured above, is operating at 85 percent capacity. The Holcomb Station Project proposed by Sunflower Electric Power Corporation would add a second plant that would operate at 90 percent capacity.

August 4, 2010, 6:53 p.m. Updated August 5, 2010, 8:27 a.m.

Advertisement

Debate concerning coal plant continues

The debate over whether to build a new coal-powered plant in Kansas continued in Salina Wednesday. The plant would be built in western Kansas. Enlarge video

— The debate over the planned coal-fired electric power plant aired Wednesday as state environmental officials went on the road to receive public comment.

About 100 people attended the first portion of a hearing on a proposal by Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to build the 895-megawatt plant. Another 75 people were on hand for the evening portion of the hearing.

From pipefitters to Earl Watkins, president and chief executive officer of Hays-based Sunflower Electric, supporters testified that the project would be environmentally sound and give Kansas an economic boost during tough times.

Approximately 1,500 workers would be needed to construct the facility in Finney County.

Ron Pomeroy, owner of an iron foundry in Belle Plaine, said businesses depend on the inexpensive, reliable power produced by coal-burning plants. “This project is good for Kansas families and good for Kansas business,” he said.

Controversy continues

The proposal has been simmering for years. Originally it was cast as two 700 megawatt units but that was rejected in 2007 by Kansas Department of Health and

Environment Secretary Roderick Bremby and former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius who cited the project’s carbon dioxide emissions and the effects on climate change and health.

But when Gov. Mark Parkinson took office last year he brokered a deal to allow Sunflower Electric to build one 895-megawatt power plant.

Now the process of gathering public comment is under way.

On Wednesday, officials from Finney County and several western Kansas towns lobbied for the plant.

Matt Allen, city manager of Garden City, accused people in other areas of the state who were fighting the plant, of hypocrisy.

“Please unlock the handcuffs that the state arbitrarily placed on us three years ago,” Allen urged KDHE.

Cost of carbon dioxide

But environmentalists said the jobs related to the project would come at too great a cost to the environment and future generations. Every year, the plant would pump millions of tons of climate changing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

They said Kansas should focus on developing renewable energy sources, such as the abundance of wind in the state. “To allow a coal plant right in our sweet spot (of wind energy) has got to be the stupidest thing our state can do,” said Jerry Brown of Salina.

But Watkins, the head of Sunflower Electric, argued that wind power wasn’t reliable enough because when the wind wasn’t blowing, no electricity could be produced for hospitals, schools, businesses, and homes.

Brown, however, argued that far-reaching regional coordination of wind farms could be devised. “If it’s not blowing one place, it’s blowing at another,” he said.

Others questioned the environmental impact of importing coal from Wyoming to produce power in Kansas and then exporting most of that power -- all but 200

megawatts -- to hundreds of thousands of customers in Colorado and other states.

Sister Judy Stephens of Concordia said she was concerned with the pollution and danger of coal mining. “We have abundant wind and sun with no toxic

byproducts,” she said.

Need for jobs

But a number of union members spoke in favor of the project, focusing on the jobs and economic needs of families.

Don Henry Jr. of Augusta, a pipefitter for 29 years, said his occupation put three of his children through college. And, he said, Sunflower Electric cared about the environment. “I’ve never seen an electric company more in tune with upkeep,” he said.

Stephanie Cole, with the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club, questioned how sure the project’s job forecasts were, saying that Colorado-based Tri-State Generation and Transmission, the major partner in the project, was pushing for the plant as simply an option in its pursuit of energy sources. “Kansas is spending a lot of time and resources to keep options open for a Colorado co-op,” she said.

Another public hearing conducted by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment will be held Thursday in Garden City.

The period for the public to comment on the proposed permit is open until Aug. 15. To submit comments via email, send them to SunflowerComments@kdheks.gov. To mail comments, send them to Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Bureau of Air, Attn: Sunflower Comments, 1000 SW Jackson Suite 310, Topeka, Kansas 66612-1366

Comments

parrothead8 4 years, 4 months ago

When humans argue money vs. the planet, money will win every time...except the final time.

KEITHMILES05 4 years, 4 months ago

Greenies need to be quiet and accept advances in coal technology. I can guarantee you if this close in promixity to Wichita, Topeka, or KC the nuts who are so vehemently against this project would embrace it whole heartedly.

Steve Miller 4 years, 4 months ago

You need to embrace the fact that coal is abundant, economical.. renewable energy will never replace coal or fossil fuel. The carbon print of ethanol, for example, exceeds the benefit , no gain.. Embrace, enjoy, more jobs, bigger scrubbers.. Start construction a.s.a.p.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 4 months ago

Don't forget, merrill says that brownouts are a good way to enforce energy conservation.

Ken Lassman 4 years, 4 months ago

Let's look at the real job opportunities for Kansas in the long run. This coal fired plant will provide 1500 jobs to build the thing, starting at 2016 at the earliest. What happens after that? Around 50 permanent jobs will be created.

Compare that to wind: According to information from the US DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2700 MW of installed wind capacity at 44% capacity factor would create: • $7.2 million/year in direct payments to landowners • $7.8 million/year in PILOT revenue • 4,300 new jobs during construction with $508 million/year directly to local economies • 700 new permanent operations jobs with $57 million/year directly to local economies • These are direct impacts only, and would be much more broadly dispersed across western Kansas communities and counties than a coal plant.

Natural gas is an electricity fuel that is vastly cleaner than coal and a good partner fuel for renewables. • 9,100 Kansans are employed in the natural gas and oil extraction industries. • 19,000 are employed in services supporting those industries. • Natural gas production in parts of Kansas has recently increased over previous years, and additional demand for the fuel would produce more jobs.

So it's not about creating new jobs--wind power would do much better than coal, both during the construction and during the maintenance phases.

It's not about clean energy or supporting Kansans in their existing jobs--natural gas is a much cleaner fossil fuel, and employs many more Kansans currently than coal fired plants.

Is it about getting out from underneath their 30 million dollars of unpaid and restructured loans that Sunflower Power already owes taxpayers? Are they willing to sacrifice a sustainble future for Kansans to do that?

Why should we be willing to sell our future for these guys to get out from under some bad loans?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

This assumes that the amount consumers are charged for coal-generated electricity accurately reflects its true costs, which it doesn't.

The era of cheap energy is over. Society and the economy are going to have to adjust to that reality either now while it can be done somewhat painlessly, or later, when when it can't.

Ken Lassman 4 years, 4 months ago

You make a good point, but the actual projected numbers that I've run across indicate that your point is marginal at best. Here's the cost of electricity from new sources that I've found: According to the California Public Utilities Commission, here are the busbar costs for NEW power plants: Nuclear: 15.3 cents/kwh Coal: 10.5 cents/kwh Coal with Carbon sequestration: 17.3 cents/kwh Wind: 5-9 cents/kwh

While there may be different values in Kansas, I would bet that the ranking would stay the same: carbon sequestered coal power is the most expensive kwh out there, and wind is already cheaper than new coal.

What you don't consider as well, is the negative impact of pulling 3.9 trillion gallons of water per year from the Ogallala Aquifer and the negative impact that might have on area jobs. What's that going to do to existing agricultural interests and municipalities? It's gotta increase their expenses.

Finally, the incomes of 700 folks getting local pay is much better for the Kansas economy than the coal fired scenario, where a much greater percentage is going to go toward retiring old debts and out-of-state financial institutions.

Centerville 4 years, 4 months ago

You can't be serious...that the back up for wind should be installing a bunch of combustion generators? Go live through a week without electricity...when everyone in the neighborhood has a generator going.

deec 4 years, 4 months ago

I say again, what about the the aquifer? Once this plant drains the aquifer? I don't guess people will need jobs too much if there is no water.

tolawdjk 4 years, 4 months ago

My understanding is that water won't play into this discussion as it is an air permit that Sunflower is attempting to obtain. So to answer your question...good question, wrong venue.

puddleglum 4 years, 4 months ago

This 'jobs' argument is ridiculous. the construction workers will be temporary, and all from out-of-state. (most likely, out-of-country) Once built, the plant will run on 3-shifts of no more than 18 workers at a time. All of which, are already employed by the company, at other facilites.

The 'jobs' plea usually comes up when people get desperate...remember when George H.W. Bush was searching for a good reason for the Operation desert shield? The justification changed every 10 days or so, but at one point they tried the ol' 'jobs' moniker, which was met with the most quizical looks from the press conference attendees..it was hilarious. Of course, the real reason was the threat of Iraq pushing into the Saudi oil fields-and that would be a catastrophe for obvious loss of oil control reasons....Bush didn't want to state the obvious-because nobody wants to say "we need to go to war to ensure that we can have cheap gas." This is easily understood. but once everybody figured it out, they (mostly) went along with it, and supported the movement. But 'jobs'? what a farce.

jayhawkrider 4 years, 4 months ago

Why can't the plant be built with carbon capture and use the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, something KU has been working on for over 30 years?! The DOE has grants for power plants that are being planned all over the country, and the CO2 will either be captured and transported by pipeline to oil fields or sequestored in saline aquifers. This power plant would be in a good location to provide CO2 to many of Kansas' old oil fields that could use EOR to get 30-40% more of the original oil still stuck underground. I know the air permit was filed without this option integrated, so it would ultimately delay the project a couple of years to update it with the new design. But Black & Veach is right down the road and an industry expert in "clean coal" technologies.

Ken Lassman 4 years, 4 months ago

Who's going to buy the electricity at over 17 cents/kwh (see post above)? Do you remember the earlier version of Holcomb when it first came out: they were going to take the CO2 out of the stack, pump it through a bunch of algae, feed it to cattle and take care of the sequestration that way. Only problem was that the preliminary results showed it would only capture a very small percentage of the CO2 and it would be way too expensive.

Same with every carbon sequestration project in the country: it almost doubles the cost of the electricity and increases the amount of coal you need to make the same amount of electricity--by 20%, I think.

There's a problem with the oil field CO2 solution, too: there's nothing to keep the CO2 down there--it leaks out rather quickly once you've pressurized the oil beds enough to economically squeeze out more oil. So you've extracted more fossil fuel to burn and release more CO2, then let the CO2 out of the ground. Not real attractive and certainly no solution to the problem of carbon emissions.

pace 4 years, 4 months ago

I agree, if Brownback gets to be govenor, he will do for Kansas what Bush did for the country, Unemployment will reach new heights.

blindrabbit 4 years, 4 months ago

The_Big_B Bremby will no-doubt be replaced if Smilin Sam is Gov. But one thing is certain, Melvin Nuefeld will be looking after he lost his primary. Nuefeld, as you know, embedded himself in support of the Holcomb plants. That coal kinda dirtyied him up.

blindrabbit 4 years, 4 months ago

Spelled Neufeld incorrectly, but you know of whom I speak! My mistake

Bill Griffith 4 years, 4 months ago

The reporter does what he is supposed to do and show the controversy at the hearings. However, all the talk concerning the economy and jobs is irrelevant to the KDHE with regards to this air permit. They will only be examining in depth any comments dealing with air quality-not jobs. Sunflower would definitely like to get this done before EPA regs come down in January but they just had to go back and re-do some of their meteorlogical projections since they were flawed. This will delay the process 30-60 days.

tolawdjk 4 years, 4 months ago

Finally, a voice that understands the process.

TopJayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

They always say that solar and wind are not constant enough to run an electrical grid. Now, for the hundreth time. I want to know why you can't use the electricity from wind and solar units to run a cracking plant to extrude hydrogen from water? Then store the hydrogen to use to run existing generators. No one has ever given me an answer as to why this will not work?
And why not build the coal plant for transmission lines, and then use the algea technology to clean the CO2 and use the algea to make bio-diesel? I have yet to hear an answer. Why won't that work?

pace 4 years, 4 months ago

I do not mind my taxes being used to create jobs but I do not agree that health and environmental costs should be sold to make jobs for a few. No I would not donate my liver or let them give my child cancer to create a few jobs. Nor would I trade my grandchild's access to clean water for their job creation.. Raise my taxes but health and environmental standards should not be skirted. They don't want to build the coal plant to create jobs, they want to make their product a little cheaper to sell, they want to make as big a profit as they possibly can. They would be happy if we gave them permission to dump their trash for free right into the air and water. They can argue jobs but they are angling for the bucks. At our state's expense.,

pace 4 years, 4 months ago

The more I read this headline the more pissed off I get. The company wanting to build this plant is not doing it to make jobs. They have a product to sell and want to make as much money as possible. Give me a break. The ones in power want us to buy this? That without the sacrifice of air quality and water quality for generations this company won't be in a good position to make a killing. If they want to sell their product they, not us should pay for proper disposal of their wastes from production. Those disposal costs are high, so they paint the pretty picture that Kansas needs to accept those costs, live with the reduced air and water quality for the good of the country. I would say, for the good of the company. I like business but it isn't business when they need to dump for free. Want jobs, invest in education, in power sources that aren't set up to use the air as a dump site.

independant1 4 years, 4 months ago

the energy market is highly regulated, let the market (and regulators) decide. add to Kansas surplus balance of trade plus some temp and a few lomg term jobs (better than average employer) in western KS.

Bill Griffith 4 years, 4 months ago

Actually this part of the energy market is not as heavily regulated as the investor owned utilities. Sunflower does not have to show a need for the new power through the regulatory process at the Kansas Corporation Commission. Tri-State does not need to seek permission of the Colorado PUC in order to build or invest in coal plants either-they merely have to show different power scenarios that could play out over the next couple of decades.

rtwngr 4 years, 4 months ago

What's wrong with CO2 emissions? Besides, once the Obama EPA nazis get wind of this, they'll shut it down, and everyone with Sunflower Electric Corp. will disappear on the Kansas prairie never to be heard from again.

Bill Griffith 4 years, 4 months ago

The SCOTUS ruled that CO2 is a pollutant. Doesn't matter if you, me, or anyone hawking gold believes it-it is now the law of the land. Sunflower will not disappear although they could be managed better and it would be a good idea to consolidate many of our RECs since we have more than any other state and have inefficiencies in the system but I am not holding my breath on this issue.

CheneyHawk 4 years, 4 months ago

How does the environmental impact/smog/pollution compare to the coal plant near Lawrence?

Bill Griffith 4 years, 4 months ago

It is going to be pretty close as soon as Westar finishes their retrofits out at LEC.

puddleglum 4 years, 4 months ago

and are you suggesting that we do something about that? Or just saying that we already have an inefficient coal plant here in lawrence, so lets build a couple of larger ones? c'mon-bring it.

TopJayhawk 4 years, 4 months ago

I would be more in favor of this if the energy (mostly) were to be used here. Say build this one. Get the high transmission lines up and running, then shut down some of the older, smaller less efficient ones. Stack every kind of CO2 reducing thing on it, and start in building wind and solar.
I still really would like someone to explain why you can't do the hydrogen thing like I laid out in my above post. I know hydrogen takes about as much electricity to crack from water as it produces, but we are not taking energy off the grid to do it. Just the air and wind. Hydrogen is taken into space aboard the shuttle by the millions of gallons. It must be fairly stable to store. You would have to modify existing generation systems to burn it, but that I would think should also be a thing that is already very do-able with the technology available today. Tell me why it wouldn't work.
Expensive yes, but at least our dollars would be going towards something productive instead of just Cap and Trade Wallstreet, or stock investors.

Ken Lassman 4 years, 4 months ago

As far as hydrogen storage for wind, it's being done in Laborador and Newfoundland already, but the general consensus is that the 50-60% efficiency is not as good as pumped storage (air, water) or batteries, so that's where the attention has gone. For more details, check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_ene...

The Holcomb folks looked at algae for carbon sequestration as part of a cattle-biofuels-total package that they were looking at. Unfortunately the whole thing unravelled a while back and I haven't heard a peep about that kind of scenario lately. I think there were some preliminary tests on using algae and the conclusion was that it was not cost effective and also did not capture a large enough percentage of the gas. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but it's going to be quite a few years out.

That seems to be the case with all carbon sequestration scenarios--it's going to be real expensive and quite a few years out. By that time, methane will be outgassing from tundra, temps will be jacked up for the next 1000 years, Antarctica and Greenland will slough off enough to raise the (acidified) sea level several feet, and the last thing we'll be thinking about is coal fired power.

Efficiency is still the best way to provide more power to meet growth: a penny saved is a penny earned, and we're a long way from tapping all of that. Much cheaper to spend money to save a kwh than to spend a lot more money making a new kwh.

sharong 4 years, 4 months ago

As long as those idiots in FInney County can only think about temporary construction jobs and a few permanent jobs, they can't see the big picture for the entire state that sits to the east of them. The jet stream (that moves from west to east for all of you that think it won't affect the rest of the state) will bring all of the pollution to the east of Finney County and across the entire state. We don't need this plant built when there are wind turbines that can do the same job. And for that fool that thinks there might not be enough wind in western Kansas for turbines, they obviously have never been out there. Stop the coal plant NOW!!!

independant1 4 years, 4 months ago

Nope wind turbines can't do the same job for the same $. Dependent on the wind, population centers are not in the wind zones. Turbines can produce transmission loss. you can't store and ship it efficiently either. in CO you can buy the more expensive wind generated electricity if one so chooses.

and, the folks in Finney County? a fine bunch of people, many really intelligent folk, just as intelligent as those on the east side of state or east coast for that matter.

Kansas has a trade surplus and is more than self sufficient - does not need imported food/fuel. So contrary to some who post here, Kansas does not suck, it blows in more ways than one. (That should make the wind proponenets and pervs happy.)

coal generated electricity = about 2 to 3 cents kwh (pbs.org/moyers) wind = little more than a nickel per kwh

nuclear is the cheapest followed by coal, gas. oil then wind and solar. maybe in future transmission loss and storage/battery technology will bridge the gap but it is a significant gap. wind and solar generators have to be subsidized heavily by the rate payers (it's just for the public relations of the utilitiy companys, they can say "we're green") If wind and solar were profitable somebody would set up and sell the stuff. Greed and profit motive does drive technology, if you don't beleive that then we wouldn't be posting all this stuff here. Profit motive made Gates and Ellison billionaires, democrats by association. One might argue the PC and Internet age add to electricity requirements, $6-$600/year (10 hrs/week leading edge PC to gamers who never log off)? Some say average $150 year electricity costs for PC.

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

Assuming your numbers are correct (which may not be the case), I'd be fine with wind power at .05/kwh - it's only a little bit more than your numbers for coal and less polluting.

Ken Lassman 4 years, 4 months ago

you're WAY off on your numbers, I'm afraid. Nobody can build new coal plants at 2-3 cents/kwh any more--you're talking about existing plants that are paid for. And nukes? Sorry. WAY more expensive than any other alternative, and is dependent on all kinds of socialized subsidies that fork over ungodly amounts to mega corporations to build the things. Look further up this comment section to see the REAL cost of new power, and you'll find wind is the cheapest.

independant1 4 years, 4 months ago

nuclear is the cheapest without a doubt, wind is the most expensive and not sufficient (by logitistics, quantity and price) to continuously provide electricity to homes and business. It's a technology that can make a greenie feel good though.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

Then why haven't any been built in the last 30 years?

Richard Heckler 4 years, 4 months ago

This jobs argument is bogus. There are far more long term jobs connected to wind,solar and hydroelectric power.

Not only that this coal power plant is dependent on taxpayers for construction and insurance. The risks are too great for banks and insurance companies. Too much money at risk.

Wind, solar and hydroelectric are readily available as we speak and they provide less expensive electric power.

White collar coal power executives and politicians are feeding all of us nothing but BS. Politicians get their comments direct from the industry.

Fact of the matter is politicians are the most uninformed group on the planet. Again their comments are to them by way of industry executives.

Politicians don't do homework. They take special interest money and do as they are told.

independant1 4 years, 4 months ago

Greens will not stand for hydroelectric power, easier to delay and stop than coal fired generators. They always find a mullosk or fungi to ring the alarm over.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 4 months ago

The Real Dirt on "Clean" Nuclear Energy The mining, milling and enrichment of uranium into nuclear fuel are extremely energy-intensive and result in the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.

Estimated "energy recovery time" for a nuclear power plant is about 10 to 18 years, depending on the richness of uranium ores mined for fuel. This means that a nuclear power plant must operate for at least a decade before all the energy consumed to build and fuel the plant has been earned back and the power station begins to produce net energy. By comparison, wind power takes less than a year to yield net energy, and solar or photovoltaic power nets energy in less than three years.

Thermal pollution from nuclear power plants adversely affects marine ecosystems. "Once-through" cooling systems in use at half the U.S. nuclear reactors discharge billions of gallons of water per day at temperatures up to 25 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than the water into which it flows.

The Waste Problem A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive for a quarter of a million years.

The nuclear power industry has amassed hundreds of thousands of tons of "low-level" radioactive waste (or, in industry and regulatory parlance, "slightly radioactive solid materials"), which has created an enormous disposition problem. The industry hopes to absolve itself from liability for this waste through the insane practice of "releasing" it from regulatory control, whereupon it could be sent to recycling facilities and ultimately end up in common consumer products!

Safety and Security Risks Nuclear power poses unique safety and security threats, relative to other sources of electricity. A severe accident or attack at a nuclear plant could be catastrophic.

Accidents do happen, as history has taught us at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and, most recently, the Davis-Besse nuclear plant near Toledo, Ohio, which came dangerously close to disaster when acid corroded a hole in its reactor head.

The insurance industry won’t insure against nuclear power plant accidents. Nuclear power plant operators rely on a government-backed "Price-Anderson" insurance scheme that limits their liability in the event of an accident or attack.

And Expensive Too! The Department of Energy admits that "Economic viability for a nuclear plant is difficult to demonstrate." Since the inception of commercial nuclear power in the United States 50 years ago, this industry has been propped up by huge government subsidies.

Throwing more tax dollars at nuclear power will not make it safer, cleaner or more economical. Further, these subsidies to a mature industry distort electricity markets by granting nuclear power an unfair and undesirable advantage over safe, clean energy alternatives.

independant1 4 years, 4 months ago

Nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuel without a doubt when the greens/peaceniks/lawyers are left out of the equation.Wind and solar the least cost effective per kwh.

independant1 4 years, 4 months ago

one has to be close to wind generators to get any benefit and wind does not provide constant energy, that's why it's a loser. makes the greens feel good though.

independant1 4 years, 4 months ago

take some of this out of cost to generate nuclear and it's way cheaper than coal, plus we won't run out of fuel source as predicted by the fossil fuel chicken littles. NRC 1998 fee structure (PR 98-45, April 1, 1998) is:

$2,980,000 per unit for power reactor licensees $57,300 for nonpower (research and test) reactor licensees $2,607,000 for high-enriched uranium fuel licensees $1,280,000 for low-enriched fuel fabrication licensees which manufacture fuel for nuclear power plants $14,100 for radiographers $23,500 for broad scope medical licensees In addition, the NRC assesses for license reviews.

Property taxes can result in a plant paying up to $ 15-20 million per year in property taxes. Nuclear plants are worth much more than coal plants.

Would bet a dollar to a donut, energy companies make modest profits.

independant1 4 years, 4 months ago

this stuff is from the guvmunt eia web site

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

So you'd like to see unregulated and unlicensed nuclear power plants??

independant1 4 years, 4 months ago

nope, there has to be some regulation for nuclear same for coal, oil, gas, solar, wind. but not too much.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 4 months ago

All these reflect some of the real-world costs of implementing nuclear power.

But tell me why you don't include on this list all of the massive public subsidies that nuclear has gotten over the past 50 years, and still recieves?

independant1 4 years, 4 months ago

and wind/solar don't? What we need are some public subsidies to exploit hydro to jump start that potential. Most major cities have rivers but most major cities don't have hydroelectric generating plants nearby. Larryville ain't a major city but does light the city lights and sell exess to the utility, how's that working?

independant1 4 years, 4 months ago

Exploit coal, oil, natural gas else we'll be left with a bunch of it when elec.gen. is almost all done with nuclear. There's a buck to be made if you kept the mineral rights to your "property". Where's my check?

independant1 4 years, 4 months ago

Wind? Buy it if you want it, let the market decide, the market knows best. Right now the market is asking for some electricity generated by burning coal in SW Kansas. Go for it!

jafs 4 years, 4 months ago

If you removed any and all government subsidies for existing production methods, then and only then could you see any sort of "free market" at work.

independant1 4 years, 4 months ago

you got it, and while were at it remove subsidies for sugar and milk, get government outta farming

Commenting has been disabled for this item.