Topeka — An overwhelming majority of comments sent to the state about the proposed coal-fired power plant in western Kansas are supportive of the project.
Most of those were submitted on a form postcard from labor union members, many of whom live out of state.
Sunflower Electric Power Corp. is seeking a permit to build an 895-megawatt plant near Holcomb in Finney County.
The time period for folks interested in sending comments on the proposal to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment started on July 1 and runs through Aug. 15.
Of 204 comments received by KDHE so far, all but 10 favored the project.
Of those in favor, the vast majority were sent on postcards that read: “I trust the professional staff of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to develop a construction air permit for the Holcomb expansion project that protects public health and the environment. I am a member of a labor union, and this project would give me the opportunity to use my skills. Please approve this construction air permit.”
More than half of those cards were sent from Missouri and Iowa.
Sunflower Electric’s efforts have been mired in controversy for years. Previously, the company had proposed building two 700-megawatt plants, but that was rejected in 2007 by KDHE Secretary Roderick Bremby, who cited health and environmental concerns related to the project’s emissions of carbon dioxide.
In May 2009, Gov. Mark Parkinson signed a deal with Sunflower to allow an 895-megawatt facility. The permit process again has pitted environmentalists concerned about climate change gas emissions against Sunflower.
Of the supporting commenters, there were also some individually written appeals for the project, too.
Most of those said Kansas needs the jobs, and some doubted climate change.
Nancy Hanahan of Overland Park said the environmental movement has been based on “fraudulent science” and “much political malfeasance.” She said, “We don’t drink the Environmental Kool-Aid.”
Some have criticized the project because most of the power will be sold to customers in Colorado.
Lynate Pettengill of Lawrence said, “The plant would import coal from Wyoming (instead of using Kansas wind), would send power to Colorado (not to Kansas), would pollute our air and water, and use huge amounts of water in an area that has serious water issues already.”
But Brian Wilborn of Hoisington said, “The argument was made a few years ago that ‘all of the energy would be exported out of state.’ As if that in itself is an appalling thing. Kansas exports much of what it produces from crops, beef, hogs, oil, natural gas and airplanes.”
And Bill Shrader of Jamestown, Kan., criticized those in eastern Kansas who opposed the project. “Most states are dying to get this kind of opportunity — only eastern Kansas does not know anything about western Kansas.”
House Speaker Mike O’Neal, R-Hutchinson, and the Kansas Farm Bureau also wrote letters in support of the project.
But Randi Hacker of Lawrence said the state should focus on renewable energy “not for our sakes any more but for the sake of our children and the future of life as we know it on Earth.”
People interested in sharing their opinion about the project will also have an opportunity during three public hearings. Those are on Aug. 2 in Overland Park, Aug. 4 in Salina and Aug. 5 in Garden City.
Comments about the project can be sent by e-mail to SunflowerComments@kdheks.gov or postmarked no later than Aug. 15 to Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of Air, Attn: Sunflower Comments, 1000 SW Jackson, Suite 310, Topeka, KS 66612-1366.
Comments
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.
LesBlevins (anonymous) says…
The design of the proposed Western Kansas coal plant project is based on dirty, outdated combustion technology, and the project should be rejected by Kansas because there is a cleaner process available known as gasification. As we know; direct combustion systems emit large amounts of carbon dioxide and other gasses to the atmosphere. Gasification on the other hand consumes the gasses as the fuel. The carbon gasses become the fuel and the carbon dioxide is reduced enough that the remainder can be used as a feedstock for growing algae which can be used as fuel for the plant or converted to biofuels. There is a Lawrence based company that is developing a more advanced gasification process known as oxygen-blown gasification which is considerably cleaner than simple gasification. This system can utilize municipal trash, biomass from the ag sector as well as coal as fuels for power generation and for biofuels production.
merrill (anonymous) says…
WHAT kansas people do not realize it will be OUR big government tax dollars paying for the construction and insuring this very expensive choice.
Conventional sources see the risks as beyond their means. This is reckless use of OUR big government tax dollars.
Fact of the matter is wind,solar,geo thermal and new hydro power would far far more people to work all across the state forever.
Plus the new cleaner energy sources will provide some farm families with additional income = royalty payments for the use of their property.
There is no such thing as clean coal power.
New very expensive coal power is reckless use of OUR big government tax dollars.
merrill (anonymous) says…
From Union of Concerned Scientists a group of very smart people who also know economics:
Rebuilding economies:
Economic Plan : http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
Wind : http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
Solar ; http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
Bio Mass : http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
Geo Thermal : http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
Hydro electric : http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/re...
merrill (anonymous) says…
Tell Sunflower Electric to find a bank.
Taxpayers CANNOT afford their reckless spending habits and WE do not want own anymore dirty coal power.
grammaddy (anonymous) says…
Are you kidding me? What happened to going green? There is no such thing as "clean coal"
independant1 (anonymous) says…
I say
Build it and try to go back and reinstate the permit for two plants
Trust KDHE? Nope but they'll try to do the best I'm sure.
Power sold out of state? I'm proud Kansas exports more than it imports. Kansans should be proud of this fact.
Not very expensive? Good exploit it, clean it as much as possible, minimize environmental impact.
Kansas wind? Let's face the facts, wind sucks it is renewable but just can't pay for itself with the wind/generator technology available today. But for those who wish to pay more, you can buy that energy, I want the cheaper kind of electrons.
mancityfooty (Corey Williams) replies…
http://www.kansastravel.org/smokeyhil...
independant1 (anonymous) replies…
Nice! The technology does work but even wind proponents know it's more expensive.
(out of context cut and paste from American Wind Energy Association web site)
Let's say that wind energy costs 2 cents more per kilowatt-hour (2 cents/kWh) than the rest of the electricity your utility is generating or buying—a conservative estimate. If your utility were to decide to use wind energy to generate 10% of its electricity (more than nearly all utilities in the U.S.), then the added cost to you would be 0.2 cents/kWh. An average U.S. home uses about 800 kWh per month, so you would pay an extra $1.60 per month, or about a nickel a day.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
And?
That doesn't seem like much to me.
Also, 800khw/month seems unnecessarily high to me - we don't use that much in hot summer months.
That's almost 30kwh/day.
So use a little bit less, pay a little bit more/kwh and the bill stays the same - also we can feel a little better about slowing down our destruction of the natural environment.
independant1 (anonymous) replies…
If that's all it would take then it's a no brainer. The problem, is transmission loss, and storage. One has to live close to the windmill source due to loss over distance, only certain areas can sustain wind power. The wind doesn't blow all the time. And battery technolgy just can't provide enough capacity to store enough energy to get through the periods of no wind.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
They were your numbers.
Are you saying now they weren't accurate?
IllTeachYou (anonymous) says…
Build nuclear plants instead of coal plants in western Kansas! That way, the people of Kansas get jobs, Colorado gets electricity, and I don't have to breathe the pollutants. And if something catastrophic happens, there are a relatively small number of people in the blast radius.
The_Big_B (anonymous) replies…
Clean. Safe. Reliable. Nuclear.
seriouscat (anonymous) replies…
"Blast radius"? Nuclear has been powering 80% of France's power needs for decades and there has never been a need to worry about "blast radius"!
But yes, you are correct that nuclear would be far and away a better choice than more dirty coal.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) replies…
Only if the Price-Anderson Act is repealed, and methods of safe disposal/storage are developed.
Of course, without limits to their liability that Price-Anderson gives them, power companies would never build nuclear power plants.
And if nuclear is required to spend the money it takes to make it truly safe, they are economically infeasible.
none2 (anonymous) replies…
You guys are crazy. Nuclear plants in western Kansas? Did it ever dawn on you that nuclear requires a reliable source of water for cooling? Or are you hoping western Kansas winds will suffice to blow on the nuclear plant and cool it. Also, have you forgotten that radiation fallout follows the wind patterns that blow from west to east?
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Don't forget, merrill says that brownouts are a good way to enforce energy conservation.
bkreed1960 (anonymous) says…
It said that more than half of the responses supporting this came from out of state (mostly Missouri and Iowa). How should someone from out of state even have a vote on this since this affects Kansas residents? I think these responses should be tossed out.
KS (anonymous) says…
It's pretty simple why folks support the plant. They want to keep warm in the winter and cool in the summer, along with watching TV and most importantly for this group. to use the internet!!!!!!! No electricity, no Internet.
Ill Teach You - With that attitude, let's stop bulding cars in KCK and airplanes in Wichita, if you don't like Colorado getting the electricity. The cars and planes are shipped to Colroado, Oklahoma, and whereever. You won't have to breathe pollution from those industries either. Of course, your unemployment line will get a little longer and you taxes will go up because you and I will all have to pay for that sometime. Geez!
The_Big_B (anonymous) says…
I abhor the fact that we are still building coal plants. It is, though, a foreseeable but unintended consequence of the irrational, if not utterly superstitious, opposition to development of nuclear energy. If we had spent the last 30 years working on bringing up safety and efficiency in small nuclear reactors -- instead of standing in a circle, holding hands and singing cum-bay-yah with Jackson Browne (who is a great musician, but a misguided fool ... wait, maybe that's Neil Young) -- we would perhaps be in the position to have eliminated the need for much of the foreign oil we import to the enrichment of our enemies (actually, I think it creates the enemies, to some extent), and we would not need to be drilling in deep water in the Gulf and despoiling the planet.
The foe of nuclear is the friend of fossil fuels.
Nuclear is the only smart option. If you don't recognize that, you are not really, honestly, paying attention.
Clean. Safe. Reliable. = Nuclear.
In the mean time, because of the ignorant hysteria of the "no nukes" bunch, we are going to have to build more coal plants or freeze in the dark. We may as well get started at Holcomb.
FreshAirFanatic (anonymous) replies…
Amen
dinglesmith (anonymous) replies…
You forgot cheap. Once a nuclear plant is up, it is far and away the cheapest way to generate electricity.
Tax the electricity that leaves the state at a higher rate so that it is cheaper to use in Kansas.
Cheap power that is cheaper in Kansas incentivizes industry to move here.
FreshAirFanatic (anonymous) says…
There is absolutely no way the "feel good" sources of energy can provide the amount of power we require. Even if we could store it, there would only be a fraction of what is needed because battery power density sucks. I hate to interject facts into an emotionally driven discussion, but there is simply no way.
Anyone who thinks differently should read Power Hungry by Robert Bryce. A few of his illustrative graphs are here. http://robertbryce.com/node/343 Hard to argue with data.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
How much we "require" is not a fixed amount.
If we all practiced mindfulness and conserved our energy use, we could lower our consumption.
And, if one can create a solar powered electrical system for one's home that supplies the necessary electricity, why isn't it practical?
Using existing transmission lines, you can build a "grid-tie" system.
scott3460 (anonymous) replies…
Remove government subsidy of the oil and nuclear industries and then the "feel good" choices could more effectively compete in the marketplace.
mancityfooty (Corey Williams) says…
"More than half of those cards were sent from Missouri and Iowa."
Orwell (anonymous) says…
The story indicates most of the out-of-state cards look to be the product of an organized labor effort. Anybody else notice the absence of right wing rants about Evil Big Labor?
How curious.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Nuke Power = you cannot run from radio active waste!
WHAT Kansas people do not realize it will be OUR big government tax dollars paying for the construction and insuring this very expensive choice.
The energy giants do not pay WE consumers pay = fiscally reckless
Conventional sources see the risks as beyond their means. This is reckless use of OUR big government tax dollars.
Fact of the matter is wind,solar,geo thermal and new hydro power would far far more people to work all across the state forever.
Plus the new cleaner energy sources will provide some farm families with additional income = royalty payments for the use of their property.
There is no such thing as clean nuke power no way jose'.
New very expensive coal power is reckless use of OUR big government tax dollars.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Nuclear Power Is Not Clean or Green!
No contemporary energy source is as environmentally irresponsible, imposes such a high liability on taxpayers, or is as dangerous as nuclear power. Industry efforts to "greenwash" nuclear energy make a mockery of clean energy goals. Although nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide, promoting nuclear risks to reduce greenhouse emissions is the classic jump from the frying pan into the fire!
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.
* The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has calculated that collective radiation doses amounting to 12 cancer deaths can be expected for each 20-year term a reactor operates, as a result of radioactive emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle and routine reactor operations. This calculation assumes no unplanned accidents and does not consider radiation releases from high-level nuclear waste "disposal" activities. Nor are nonfatal health impacts related to radiation exposure counted in this tally.
* 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.
merrill (anonymous) says…
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!
* Isolating nuclear waste from people and the environment requires significant energy and resources.
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. Don’t forget reports that the al Qaeda terrorist organization considered an attack on a U.S. nuclear power station.
* 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.
Big Government and blind supporters want to spend our tax dollars to promote the construction of new nuclear reactors. Energy legislation before the House would authorize production tax credits for new nuclear power plants, which would cost $5.7 billion by 2025, according to the Energy Information Administration.
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.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
The SCOTUS has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant subject to EPA regulation. Sunflower may end up getting to build this giant plant, but they'll then have to put a cork in it or build an equally-massive CO2 sequestering plant. I wonder how their customers will feel when they're stuck with a massive rate increase to pay for new pollution controls, or have to pay for a plant they can't even use while buying truly clean power from someone else?
Puggy (anonymous) says…
This bullsh*t will eventually get built as soon as the retardlicans inhabit the governor's mansion. And it will also be mandatory to believe that we were all created in seven days by a giant flying spaghetti monster and said spaghetti monster will always be there to save us from ourselves even should we scorch the earth with our blatant disregard for the environment.
grammaddy (anonymous) replies…
All Hail to His Noodly Appendages.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) replies…
Hyperbole much, pug?
Yeoman2 (anonymous) says…
It is amusing to read all the rants against providing for the future of electric power supplies. As some have said here, it is impossible under current (no pun intended) technology to provide for the esclalting needs of the population of the midwestern states (Don't kid yourself, the present power grid distributes power out in all directions already) . The fanatic lunitic fringe needs something to bitch about in perpetuity, it is their nature. If it was not coal fired power plants, it would be moss growing in the rivers, glare of the sun off of windshields or some other such frivilous "cause-elelbre". They need attention to survive and prosper and will always be with us, facts not withstanding.
I hope not to see it, but it will be very entertaining to see the flalunching and flailing when we start to have repeated power outages and power shortages start to occur thanks to the stupid and ignorant rantings of these lunitic idiots. Climate change is an over stated condition caused by cyclical periods of time that occur over thousands, maybe millions of years, but this nutwing issue has been condensed to verify the current heat wave we are expeirencing.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Well, I shouldn't bother, but ...
Concern about not destroying our environment are perfectly rational, and not a product of any "lunatic fringe".
Our power needs are not fixed, so the "escalating needs" can be modified. In fact, a Westar representative acknowledged as much, stating that if we conserved use, we wouldn't need to build a new plant.
If you're going to call people lunatics and idiots, you might want to check your spelling before you do so.
fredthemechanic1213 (anonymous) replies…
Modify the escalating needs of power all you want. Shut your lights off, unplug your electronics for a while. But these needs are exponentially expanding and your conservation will only last a little while.
Also, mispelled words or not frwent has a point and you can't disregard it by pretending to be smarter with grammer corrections.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Replacing all bulbs with compact flourescents.
Lowering the thermostat in winter and raising it in summer.
Opening windows when it's practical.
If everyone did these simple things, we could substantially affect our overall consumption.
And, he called people "lunatics" and "idiots" - anyone who does that is fair game for spelling and grammar corrections, in my book.
7texdude (anonymous) says…
Kansas folks talk about the lack of jobs and the future problems of electricity in the state, but turn their back on wind power. Why not build the wind farms with local people and the factories that build the parts for the farms in Kansas? You can also give grants to state universities to study the long-term possibilities for wind power. These students can build and grow the technology in the future. Imagine Kansas being the leader in this country besides athletic scandals.
What is wrong with that? I don't understand why we insist that coal plants are the only way to go. Importing coal from Wyoming to give energy to Colorado with out-of-state workers doing the job doesn't make much sense to me. The only thing Kansas gets is the pollution.
fredthemechanic1213 (anonymous) replies…
Wind power is great, but terribly expensive for how little power is gained from it. 895 Megawatts is a lot more than an entire wind farm creates. Our energy demands are expanding a lot faster than wind farms will ever be able to compete with until the technology becomes more profitable.
Also, Kansas doesn't just get the polution; we also get all the money from Colorado paying for the power. That money comes to Kansas.
kernal (anonymous) says…
Anyone know if there have been any studies as to how the proposed coal plant, or a nuclear power plant, could (or would) affect the Ogallah Aquifer?
ksjayhawk74 (anonymous) says…
Why are out-of-state, form letter opinions even considered?
merrill (anonymous) says…
Kansas does not need MORE electric power according to a Westar rep attending a local energy fair. Kansas does need cleaner power.
All of this talk about new cleaner sources cannot provide energy is a lot nonsense coming from politicians and their sources of misinformation aka coal power aka Sunflower Electric.
Why should WE taxpayers be financially responsible for coal and nuke plants plus pay electric bills plus provide golden parachutes plus pay shareholders plus pay obscene CEO pay packages plus pay out enormous unknown cost overruns?
Being financially responsible for coal and nuke plants says to me that WE ratepayers
own the power plants therefore WE must unload wasteful spending practices such as golden parachutes, shareholders and obscene CEO pay packages. Doing this would reduce the cost of electricity thus the cost of living across the board.
Considering WE ratepayers own the power plants we therefore vote to bring on cleaner more efficient sources of electric power for Kansas which consist of wind power,solar power,Hydro power and Geo Thermal. This approach stimulates other new industries such as manufacturing,distribution,installation and servicing = tons of new long term economic growth for Kansas = substantial new sources of employment for the blue and white collar workers of Kansas.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Merrill is right. We really don't need any new power-generation sources. Conservation and energy efficiency measures, if broadly and comprehensively implemented, could save more energy than a half dozen plants like this would produce, for a fraction of the long-term costs.
none2 (anonymous) replies…
Conservation alone will not change the growing demand for electricity. Take for instance an individual's home. One of the most electrical hogging appliances is the refrigerator. Lets say that a consumer spends a few thousand dollars to get a Sunfrost refrigerator. (Which by the way will still take a few years recoup that additional up-front cost.) (More info on Sunfrost can be found like at: http://www.appropedia.org/CCAT_sunfro...)
Then lets say that as a typical household, the homeowner decides to get a big TV screen. There goes a big chunk of the refrigerator savings. Granted, TV technologies have improved, but what happens as technology improves? Consumers then want larger tv's, more functions. TV is just one example. Our homes and businesses are wanting more convenient things in their life. Take for instance a simple faucet. There are now faucets with electric (batteries) that allow the faucet to turn on with just a touch. There are also lots of electrical devices that also take a small current even when the device itself is off.
While inventors come up with more and more conveniences in our lives, electricity will continue to be something with an ever increasing demand. Conservation is important, but most need to keep in mind that conservation is not cheap, and it will not replace the need for more electricity on the grid.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Conservation saves money - it doesn't cost money.
And consumer demands are flexible - nobody needs the latest tv that pulls hundreds of watts.
As long as most people think they do, and have some sort of right to it, we won't change our national habits much.
none2 (anonymous) replies…
You want make change by FORCE? You want to take away rights? Do you honestly think you will encourage conservation by such means?
Furthermore, conservation is not a win-win. Conservation either happens by going without something or by spending a lot more money to do the same thing that takes a little less energy. For instance, a SunFrost refrigerator will cost over $3,000.00. That isn't including shipping. Likewise, now and then you will have to defrost the refrigerator. When I was a kid, some refrigerators defrosted, but most are now spoiled with the auto-defrosting feature of 99% of modern refrigerators. So there are some inconveniences. Plus, unless the consumer has $3,000+ disposable income, they will purchase such a refrigerator on credit which will cost even more money.
Conservation is a noble goal, but the more you force it on people, the more it will be rejected. It is better to encourage conservation (not force) and to realistically expect continued increased in demand for energy.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
That's ridiculous. Check the stats, please. The ACEEE website is an excellent source for state EE guidelines as well as a number of policy fact sheets:
http://www.aceee.org/energy/effact.htm
Among the facts: US energy efficiency has improved 42% per unit of GDP produced between 1973 and 2000.
The US Dept. of Energy feels that it is completely reasonable to increase energy efficiency an additional 20% by 2020 despite the addition of new technologies and products.
Please do your homework.
Fugu (anonymous) says…
'And Bill Shrader of Jamestown, Kan., criticized those in eastern Kansas who opposed the project. “Most states are dying to get this kind of opportunity — only eastern Kansas does not know anything about western Kansas.”'
Most states are NOT dying to get this opportunity. Coal plants plans are being abandoned or put on hold all across the country. There is a reason this proposal is in Kansas and not in Colorado, where most of the energy is going. Colorado is not dying to have this plant.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Don't forget, potholes make excellent traffic calming devices according to merrill.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) replies…
Hey, snap, can you give us the link to your website for Merrill groupies?
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) replies…
http://www2.ljworld.com/users/merrill...
cg22165 (anonymous) says…
Summary:
Another coal plant to contribute to climate change and ocean acidification.
Most of the supporters are from out of state.
The money from the export of electricity to another state would go to a power company, not the local economy.
The water used to run the plant would be enough to irrigate 12,000 acres of crops, and the last I heard, western KS did not exactly have a surplus of water.
So, the fossil fuel and power companies get more money, KS gets more pollution, Colorado gets more electricity, and the farmers in the area get less water. How is this good for Kansas?
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
I thought the oceans were gonna start going down after Dear Leader's coronation.....
kernal (anonymous) says…
The story states the majority of yes votes for the new coal plant are coming from out of state labor union members. I've read that a lot of money has already been invested in the project and am wondering if the voters unions invested in the project and that's why we're getting all these yes votes from the little darlings. Just pondering here.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Who has invested the money? If more shareholders have invested they are seeking larger dividends because their money does NOT go into Sunflower Electric or the construction.
Sunflower Electric may be recklessly investing money in a misinformation campaign against cleaner sources of energy = bad business management. The coal industry is likely participating in the misinformation campaign = reckless management. This adds to the cost of our electricity.
Yes ratepayers get burned again.
If one were to buy a share of General Motors stock tomorrow, the money you pay would go to the stockowners and not to General Motors. If a large number of people were to suddenly enter the stock market, it would drive up the selling price of stock and create a windfall for those who currently own stock, but it would not provide a penny to the firms whose stock is traded. Economists Dean Baker and Bob Pollin did a study a decade ago during the IPO boom that illustrates this distinction. They found that for every $113 in stocks traded, only $1 actually went to businesses to finance real investment.
Speculation is hot and heavy.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Of course we can assume that the coal industry and Sunflower are participating in corruption with elected officials.
A very large majority of elected officials at all levels of government may well be the least informed citizens on the planet. On most any subject. Their information comes from whatever industry may be involved. Most of these people research
sources for campaign dollars that's about it.
They accept misinformation from the largest sources of campaign funding aka corporate america. Local,state and national Chamber of Commerce people the same.
merrill (anonymous) says…
I remember distinctly thanking the Wall Street Journal for condemning Nuke Power.
In the 1980's during Reagan/Bush years WSJ came out against Nuke power for very green reasons. They are big time money holes which was making them horrible investments aka money losers.
Ratepayers in Oklahoma said no way jose' to nuke power. WOW what smart people! Black Fox never broke ground.
WSJ effectively stopped new construction of Nuke Plants.
That is why big government wants to use YOUR big government tax dollars to build these money monsters. Shareholders will love them so long as taxpayers are responsible for backing these money monsters.
Is coal power any better? No way jose". Coal Power is a money hole which is why banks will NOT finance these very bad investments. Shareholders will love them so long as taxpayers are responsible for backing these money monsters.
Taxpayers and voters let's not be stupid about this!
The_Big_B (anonymous) says…
Clean. Safe. Reliable. Affordable. ..... Nuclear (just ask France)
P.S. -- Any time you "make" energy, you will also make a mess. Often, the debate really comes down to what kind of mess are we going to make and where are we going to make it. That is why Californians favor power plants in neighboring states, and electric cars with batteries manufactured elsewhere ... ... they get the benefit of the energy created, without having to be subjected to the "icky" mess that was made while creating it. In fact, the convince themselves that, because they don't see a mess, there must not be one. Wrong. There is always a mess ... it just varies in nature, scope and location.
Gimme half a point for my P.S., Merrill? :-)
DougCounty (anonymous) says…
Big B:
Clean: Still no nuclear waste repository for spent fuel rods after spending $97 billion on the failed Yucca Mountain repository, which means nukes have swimming pools full of hot fuel rods waiting for some terrorist to fly a hijacked airliner into it. Alternative? Reprocessing these fuel rods will extract plutonium, which can be made into nuclear weapons, which is why we don't do it and why we are freaked out about Iran developing this capacity. Impossible to have fuel rods without risking nuclear proliferation--no way around that one.
Safe: Well, there's that little Chernobyl incident, plus the police state that you need to create to ensure that the plant is not the target of terrorists. What's a little loss of civil liberties in exchange for some electricity?
Reliable: How 'bout looking at the numbers? Rocky Mountain Insitute reports that 21% of the 132 nukes in the US are premanently closed due to problems, 27% more have been closed for 1 year or more due to problems. Even the reliable ones are closed on the average of 39 days every 17 months for refueling and "routine maintenance." This means that those utilities must add an additional 15% capacity to their generating capability to cover for those times.
Affordable: OK, look at the numbers again: 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
Then there's the little issue of the taxpayers guaranteeing the loans of the nukes just in case the utilities get cold feet and we end up paying off the big corporations who build these dinosaurs to the tune of 5-8 billion dollars/plant. Oh, yes, and if some terrorist DOES attack, or a plant melts down, once again Price Anderson shifts most of the cleanup costs away from the utilities to--you guessed it: the taxpayer! No BP need worry about paying out of their own pockets.
Did I mention decommissioning costs, which happens when the nuke gets too radioactive to operate safely any more and the whole thing has to be encased in concrete with the hope that it'll just go away?
Oh, yeah. Um hmm. Clean. Safe. Reliable. Affordable.