Previous   Next

Would you prefer that the Legislature pursue nuclear or coal power in Kansas?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on May 8, 2008

Browse the archives

Photo of Paul Kenward

“Given a choice between the two, I’d go with nuclear. I think it’s cleaner for the now. You can at least sequester the waste, whereas with coal you can’t. Coal-burning plants seem too archaic.”

Photo of Jocelyn Camara

“I’ll go with coal. It’s cheaper for the consumer, and the resources are more readily available here.”

Photo of Mike Antonucci

“I’d say nuclear. I think it’s more efficient; it doesn’t consume as many resources, and the output is better for the environment.”

Photo of Hannah Zachritz

“I’m definitely against the use of coal-burning power plants, because it seems too much like going backward for a quick fix. But I really don’t know enough about nuclear power to endorse it as an alternative.”


Poon 9 years, 8 months ago

To the editor:Nuclear is what I would consider the ultimate in power generation: no air pollution, less digging, and the ability to serve many customers. Unfortunately, as it applies to local lobbying in both Topeka and Washington, D.C., arguing for my favorite power has become an issue. This is not because of the lack of great potential of nuclear generation in the USA, but because of the lack of knowledge of the politicians who could approve it.It never fails that when I lobby for nuclear power (Prounced nuke lee-err), the elected official goes out of their way to "correct" me with the Kansas-fied bastardization "Nuke-u-lure" Not only does this make the elected official look like a fool, it insults the lobbyist who is being corrected with an incorrect pronunciation.Poon just couldn't restrain himself...

sgtwolverine 9 years, 8 months ago

I would prefer they pursue nucular power. It seems to be gaining popularity.

ralphralph 9 years, 8 months ago

I may have mentioned this before ....Nuclear is Clean, Safe & Reliable. None of the alternatives have all of those attributes.It is the only rational choice.We need to get started now if we are going to increase our capacity to generate electricity ... Plants of ANY kind won't go up overnight.Nuclear at Wolf Creek makes sense. Let's do it now.

canyon_wren 9 years, 8 months ago

That's like asking whether you would rather have cancer or AIDS.

KsTwister 9 years, 8 months ago

Bd: And just how do you think they are going to recycle water BACK into the Aquifer? Let alone that this electricity will not be for Kansans anyway.

geppetto 9 years, 8 months ago

It is a lie that we need that much energy! But that's not the questions. I would support cleaner burning Coal. I would stay away from anything that has a half-life of at least 7,000 years. I don't want the next war to be against giant roaches!

jonas 9 years, 8 months ago

"Use the landfills to generate biogas. " . . . . is that bio-gas?Because biogas read as a contiguous word sounds pretty exotic. bee YO gez. The plural of bioga. It sounds like some sort of mutated pack-pig. But you're right, I'm sure they Would be a highly effective form of energy generator if harnessed properly.

TopJayhawk 9 years, 8 months ago

I gotta go coal. I just don't really trust the whole nuke thing... I think leaving all the radioactive waste for later is worse than leaving our kids with a deficit, or dirty air.Not that I like coal either. There just isn't any free ride when it comes to energy.

Orwell 9 years, 8 months ago

This is just like the choice they gave Gary Gilmore hanging or firing squad.And the plural of "bioga" is neither biogas" not "biogi." It's "biogae." The nice thing about a dead language is that it's pretty constant.

jonas 9 years, 8 months ago

"Although, biogas (actually, biogi plurally) is probably the way to go."Do not slander the noble bioga!UhClem: Yeah, that's the best professional terminology. Biogas is more of a vernacular usage.

conservativepunker 9 years, 8 months ago

Coal,by God. It's better for the State's economy.

Oracle_of_Rhode 9 years, 8 months ago

Wind and solar are the best options for the future of our children and our planet. But, given these limited choices, I'd pick nuclear over coal. Let's find a place for the waste, though. Perhaps Missouri...

KsTwister 9 years, 8 months ago

Both need abundant amounts of water.....................good luck with that Kansas.

ksuone1 9 years, 8 months ago

so hug a takes money to make money and that at an expense of something here that is precious to some or all....The motivation shouldn't be political or at the expense of simple folks and their simple ways or life and this is America so the "green heads" have to realize there are cost....and results...good and bad to all but you have to do something not just wait and wait until it is too late.We need power so short term...coal ....long term nuclear I say we build a coal synthesize plant here today .....

sgtwolverine 9 years, 8 months ago

Actually, freight trains are considerably more efficient than trucks.

sunflower_sue 9 years, 8 months ago

I thought biogas (biogii) were those little pockets of dough filled with cabbage and onion. Either way, you still end up with an abundance of gas. "A bun dance of gas." He, I crack myself up.

ylimeh 9 years, 8 months ago

"That's like asking whether you would rather have cancer or AIDS."Ha, you got it.I'm pretty disappointed that not one of them used "neither" as a response.

average 9 years, 8 months ago

Kansas will need more electricity. I'm pro-conservation. My electric bills are damned low. But, we will need more electricity, particularly as we start down the path of more plug-in electric cars and fewer petroleum-burning cars.Unfortunately, decades of cheap, pollution-ignored coal and fear have held us back from getting to work on improved, refined, and simplified nuclear plants.And, for those who aren't aware, Lawrencians get about 100 times the radiation dose from Uranium and Thorium emitted in the flue gases and only nominally restrained ash piles at our KPL coal plant than the people of Coffey County do from Wolf Creek.

sunflower_sue 9 years, 8 months ago

Recipe for classic BIOGAE:INGREDIENTS2 cups milk, lukewarm 1/4 cup vegetable oil 2 eggs, beaten 2 (.25 ounce) packages active dry yeast 1/2 cup white sugar 1 teaspoon salt 6 cups all-purpose flour 2 pounds lean ground beef 1 onion, chopped 1/2 medium head cabbage, chopped 18 slices American cheese DIRECTIONSTo Make Dough: In a large bowl, mix together milk and oil. Stir in eggs, yeast, sugar, salt and 5 cups of flour. Mix well adding remaining cup of flour as necessary to form kneadable dough. Knead for a few minutes, then cover bowl and let dough rise one hour in a warm place. To Make Filling: Brown beef in a large saucepan; do not drain juices. Add onion and cabbage to skillet and continue cooking until onion is soft; add salt and pepper to taste. Let cool. After dough has risen, roll out hunks of dough (about the size of tennis balls) as thin as possible. Place 1/2 slice of cheese on dough, top with filling, then place other 1/2 of cheese on top of filling. Fold over and seal like a turnover (moistening edges with water may help seal them). Place on a baking sheet. Bake in a preheated 350 degrees F (175 degrees C) oven for 30 minutes or until golden brown.

Bill Griffith 9 years, 8 months ago

Can I also say whether I prefer crack or heroin? The question assumes those two methods for boiling water are the only two choices we will have in the mid-future for baseload power.

sgtwolverine 9 years, 8 months ago

"There just isn't any free ride when it comes to energy."Now that was refreshing.

jonas 9 years, 8 months ago

Everything I've read suggests that coal pollution just leads to cancer, whereas nuclear pollution leads to sweet mutations like super strength and invisibility. So definitely nuclear.

bd 9 years, 8 months ago

Nuke'm "KsTwister!"Wolf creek does not use up our presious water!It has a recirculating cooling lake !Most coal plants use cooling towers where some water is lost through steam evaporation!

hornhunter 9 years, 8 months ago

I'll use coal. And our future alternative power can come from funeral homes, Cremation Power & Light.

labmonkey 9 years, 8 months ago

Although the electricity may go out of state, hundreds of high paying jobs will be in state....paid for by customers from other states. This money will then be spent in our state.....that's good for our economy. I don't care what kind of plants they build....I just hope they build something. Pollution is much less than most people think as the only thing that comes out the stacks of a coal plant anymore is water (gov't regulations are very, very tight). We better be the future I can just see the grid being supplied from very dirty coal plants in Mexico where the laws are much more lax and power companies don't have to worry about all the regulations they do now (not to mention the labor would be much IBEW). You don't want any plants built, be very careful what you wish for.

RiverCityConservative 9 years, 8 months ago

That's an artificial choice. Nuclear fission produces radiation with a very long half-life; coal burning impacts the atmosphere in ways that mean we don't make it to the end of that half-life. I don't think the governor is suggesting jumping from the frying pan into the fire like that. And some history--it was popular to build nuclear plants in the 1970s. That is why Wolf Creek got built despite the fact Kansas didn't need the energy it was going to add. Someone made money on that deal and I like the way the governor is standing up to the moneyed interests pushing new coal in Western Kansas. Three cheers for Governor Kathleen Sebelius! Keep Kansas green.

snowWI 9 years, 8 months ago

labmonkey,Why do you have a southern bias? Our power could just as well come from Canada instead of Mexico. We already are seeing huge oil shale developments in Canada that supply the US with our oil needs.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.