Previous   Next

Do you oppose the construction of new coal-burning power plants in Kansas?

Asked at Checkers, 2300 La. on December 3, 2006

Browse the archives

Photo of David Rasmussen

“I think we need to take a close look at it. I’m wary of anything that would add that much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. I think we should be looking into alternative energy.”

Photo of Meredith Houber

“Yes. We have enough pollution in the world. We don’t need to contribute to it. I would hope that our voices will be heard on this issue.”

Photo of Kurt Ashenfelter

“Yes. Currently the existing energy laws are not being enforced. The energy companies are trying to sidestep the emission standards. They should be prevented from any further construction and have their current emissions curtailed.”

Photo of Lara Scideler

“From what I have heard about the coal-burning plants, I do oppose them. But I’m not sure that I have enough information to give an informed opinion.”


sublime 11 years, 6 months ago

LOL I see what you mean GOOTSIE---YUMMY

Linda Aikins 11 years, 6 months ago

I'd rather they construct old ones.

Anyone else think that the picture by the Celito Lindo restaurant on the home page looks like brains? Hannibal?

sunflower_sue 11 years, 6 months ago

Gootsie, I've eaten brains. (explains much, doesn't it?) They have no red to them. But you are right...horrible picture for a restaurant! (Maybe they serve their's fresh?)

etsi_truss 11 years, 6 months ago

No- We can't (and Won't) all move to eastern Kansas let us have some sort of economy in western Kansas. Why don't you worry about closing all the coal fired plants in NE Kansas before you start on our end of the state. Clean electricity from coal is good for people, allowing us to live longer, healthier and with a better quality of life. It lights our schoolrooms, powers our modern surgical suites and fuels our state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities, giving us all the necessities and conveniences that modern society needs.

Coal fuels more than 40 percent of the world's electricity and 50 percent of U.S. electricity. And state-of-the-art technologies allow us to produce electricity from coal that is cleaner than ever. Coal use has tripled in the past 30 years, while emissions have been reduced by about one-third. Tens of billions of dollars being invested in state-of-the art technologies will lead to continued environmental improvement and to the ultimate vision of near-zero emissions.

Peabody energy is developing two state-of-the-art 1,500 megawatt generating plants and adjacent coal mines. The Prairie State Energy Campus in Southern Illinois and the Thoroughbred Energy Campus in Western Kentucky would each feature more than half a billion dollars in advanced combustion technologies with state-of-the-art emissions controls.

Coal for electricity, transportation fuels, natural gas and hydrogen. Our nation's wealth of coal gives us an unmatched opportunity to improve energy security, drive down energy prices and improve the environment. Yeah: coal can do that visit

deec 11 years, 6 months ago

Wow. Coal is almost like...perfect...(end sarcasm) What about the depletion of the Aquifer? Water is sort of a requirement for like, survival. If these plants are so great, and coal is so clean and wondrous, how come they aren't being built across the border in Colorado where the electricity is actually going to be used?

Linda Aikins 11 years, 6 months ago


Etsi is passionate about this, but he/she is right. Not much economy around Dodge City (and even worse, thanks to Enron). If it provides jobs, then it needs to be seriously considered.

deec 11 years, 6 months ago

Maybe the folks over there in Colorado who will use this electricity can have the plants built over there in Colorado. It sure is nice of them to let us build these plants over here in Kansas and pollute our air and use up our water so those nice Colorado folks can have lots and lots more electricity.

lunacydetector 11 years, 6 months ago

checkers grocery store....that provides a great cross section of the population to ask such a question. why not just stay downtown?

better yet, why not head out to west lawrence where the taxpayer subsidizing population lives that provides the majority of the money for all the worthless things our fine city leaders propose and impliment.

a coal burning plant....i hope in the future they build a gasoline refinery out there, just in case we have another Katrina hit the gulf coast -so the majority doesn't have to 'eat it' at the pumps for a few environmentalist wackos -like last time.

sunflower_sue 11 years, 6 months ago

What's wrong w/ wind? Don't we have plenty of it in KS? I rather like to look of a windfarm...much preferable to nuclear looking stacks. Where are they going to get all the water necessary for a coal operation?

RI, Kd Lang sings that song on her latest cd. I think it's called "Hymns from the 49th parallel." Great cd! Also one of my favs is on that cd..."Hallelujah." (The one by Rufus Wainwright.)

Celeste Plitz 11 years, 6 months ago

There's plenty of wind in Kansas. And really, why are we considering building a coal-burning factory when in all likelyhood fossil fuel will be mined out within our lifetimes? What we should be doing is building plants for alternatives-like wind-that we could feel good about using.

etsi_truss 11 years, 6 months ago

There's plenty of wind in Lawrence

I don't hear the Lawrence City Commission whining about the K.C. Power & Light's new coal fired plant that will be located within 50 or 60 miles of them. I guess when it is down wind and down river it's ok or is it because they may have movers and shakers in the community that may profit from the construction. Maybe we can add a few WIND TURBINES to the hills around Lawrence! Oh that may clutter their landscape (not in my backyard).

Linda Aikins 11 years, 6 months ago

Etsi, there's a difference between wind and hot air. On this board, it will be hot air! hahaha

It's way windier in western Kansas my dear.

Jackalope 11 years, 6 months ago

Excuse me, but how will shifting the plant only 60 miles to the west stop the hysteria of Lawrence in this issue. Same water, same air.... Look at a map. I'm not certain where the "not in our state" argument makes any sense if the real issue is to be the environment. Southwest Kansas has more ties to other states than to Lawrence. Lawrence to them is a mere annoyance living in another world.

sunflower_sue 11 years, 6 months ago

etsi, I actually thought of putting a wind turbine in my backyard at one point but for me, personally, it was cost prohibitive. I think they're pretty. Large moving sculptures! Ahhhhh... (plus, they make awesome movie set backgrounds!)

deec 11 years, 6 months ago

Why does Sunflower want to locate them in Kansas? Could it be because Colorado has stricter environmental laws? Environmentally, it won't make a difference which state they are located in. They will still create air pollution and drain the relatively scarce water from the aquifer. They should not be built at all. Incidentally, I moved to Hays in June, and folks out here are divided on the plants. They understand water shortages, having lived with drought for several years.

etsi_truss 11 years, 6 months ago

deec. do a little research! 2 of the plants will be owned by Tri-State and operated by Sunflower. Tri-State is already laying groundwork for a 3rd plant in SE Colorado just 100 miles west of Sunflower's existing plant location and the proposed new plants at Holcomb. We could go ahead and run them out of Kansas back to Colorado, screw Western Kansas economy 1 more time and let Tri-State build all 3 plants in SE Colorado, have the same outcome and absolutly NO CONTROL over anyyhing!!! GOOD IDEA!!!!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.