Poll: What do you think of KDHE's decision to reject coal plants for Western Kansas? / LJWorld.com

Previous poll Next poll

Response		Percent	Votes
Good		65%	656
Bad		30%	307
Undecided		3%	35
Total	998

Copy and paste the link:

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.

MariposaUnfolding (anonymous) says…

This is one of the most progressive state agency decisions I've seen in a while. Now, we can start putting our state money and tax dollars toward other energy sources, such as wind power!

It's about time we really put our efforts into finding transportation alternatives - such as a state-wide bus system and road repairs. Think of all the money and time we could have saved building a better bus system (and restricting motor vehicles) between KC/Lawrence/Topeka instead of fighting over the SLT! Then, everyone would win!

- Mariposa
October 18, 2007 at 3:20 p.m.
BigDog (anonymous) says…

Energy alternatives would be nice, I doubt many of them will bring the same kind of economic development for western Kansas though. The spending for the construction of these power plants was $3.6 billion, then whatever the ongoing jobs that they would have provided.

In reality though the state's money will now go to defending the decision in court. I expect this to drag on for a while in the court system.
October 18, 2007 at 3:34 p.m.
merrill (anonymous) says…

The economic growth will be more wide spread rather than concentrated to a small area.

Why keep generating radioactive waste that costs billions upon billions to store plus needs to be hauled from everywhere?
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nu...

According to the Wall Street Journal one of the reasons Nuke Plants have not been built is because they were declared a risky investment due to radioactive waste,too expensive to construct and constant cost overruns.

If energy is to be subsidized why not something safer and cleaner while at the same time creating a new industry that cannot be outsourced?
Hydro power with new technology,solar power and wind power.

Renewable energy basics
No single solution can meet our society's future energy needs. The answer lies instead in a family of diverse energy technologies that share a common thread: they do not deplete our natural resources or destroy our environment.

Renewable energy technologies tap into natural cycles and systems, turning the ever-present energy around us into usable forms. The movement of wind and water, the heat and light of the sun, heat in the ground, the carbohydrates in plants-all are natural energy sources that can supply our needs in a sustainable way. Because they are homegrown, renewables can also increase our energy security and create local jobs.
============

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/...

http://www.allbusiness.com/finance/44...

http://www.ecologic.de/modules.php?na...

=====

Germany shines a beam on the future of energy
Nation gambles on amped-up push for renewable power
Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer
Monday, December 20, 2004

(12-20) 04:00 PDT Muhlhausen, Germany -- A solar-power project built by a Berkeley company may point Germany toward a pollution-free future.
Set in the heart of Bavarian farmland, the 30-acre facility went online earlier this month, becoming the biggest solar energy plant in the world.
For the government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, the Muhlhausen solar farm represents a gamble that Germany, the world's third biggest economy, can replace its principal energy sources -- coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear power -- with clean, safe and renewable alternatives.
"There's a huge amount of opportunity here in Germany because the government has created a system that encourages large installations,"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article...
======
http://www.alternative-energy-news.in...
October 18, 2007 at 4:01 p.m.
ralphralph (anonymous) says…

Gosh, Merrill, you're right!
Hydro is just the ticket for Western Kansas!

.... huh? It means 'water'? Oh. They don't have much of that in Holcomb.
October 18, 2007 at 4:09 p.m.
BigDog (anonymous) says…

Seems like alternate energy is more talk than anything. Those who favor wind energy then turn around and oppose having turbines in certain areas because birds fly into them or they don't look good in the Flint Hills areas. The Kennedy's sued to stop windmills near their summer resort because it was going to ruin their view. Solar is a good alternative too ...... unless they are unsightly or birds fly into them (sarcasm).

Hydrogen works well if you have water. Ethanol plants use a huge amount of water and you actually get less miles per gallon using ethanol. I guess that is why oil companies aren't fighting ethanol.

If people are truly supportive of some of the alternative energy sources (wind, solar, etc) then they need to quit trying to keep them from happening.
October 18, 2007 at 4:55 p.m.
local_support (anonymous) says…

Isn't it awfully windy out there on the plains of Western Kansas?

I bet the region would do well if they declared themselves the "wind power capital" of the world and began building thousands of windmills.
October 18, 2007 at 4:59 p.m.
mooner (anonymous) says…

We should hope that some energy companies would see the value of the wind in the windy state of Kansas and invest.
October 18, 2007 at 6:17 p.m.
toefungus (anonymous) says…

This decision will damage the state's economic interests for 50 years.
October 18, 2007 at 6:46 p.m.
ASBESTOS (anonymous) says…

This is going to be overturned. The Secretary violated the statutes!

Do any of you research and read?
October 18, 2007 at 6:54 p.m.
Baille (anonymous) says…

You know, it used to be when people used up all the water or other natural resources of an area they would move away. Maybe it is time...

BTW, Asbestos, lead us there, buddy. Which statutes are you talking about?
October 18, 2007 at 7:04 p.m.
BigDog (anonymous) says…

logicsound

I am agreeing with you. People need to not complain about the coal fired plants and then when the better cleaner alternatives be presented whine about aesthetics. Nothing is going to be perfect. Its kind of like those who complain about cellphone services and then don't want towers built in their area because towers are ugly.
October 18, 2007 at 9:37 p.m.
lounger (anonymous) says…

This is wonderful news! Progressive Kansas...it has a nice ring!!!!
October 19, 2007 at 1:21 a.m.
Kropotkin (anonymous) says…

It's odd that a coal-fired plant proponent poster would make a sarcastic remark about the diminishing water supplies in Holcomb. The expanded plant would use a huge amount of water and that extraction of a free resource would have a substantial negative impact on agriculture, existing industrial operations and domestic supplies in the area.

To answer another poster, ethanol production from corn is but another taxpayer-subsidized scam, done for the benefit of agribusiness giants such as ADM and a horrendous drain on water resources.

If this was going to be such a great deal, why did eastern Colorado residents successfully fight siting in their towns, including Lamar, just 60 miles west of Holcomb and why did Sunflower insist on a 12-year tax abatement? Why did it let its valid permit for expansion expire?

Though they talk about "economic development" this expansion would create perhaps two or three dozen line worker jobs. The labor to build the new generating capacity would likely be imported from out of state (or the country) and I'm guessing so would be the construction supplies and equipment.

Spare us all the hyperbole. This was a ripoff of Kansas, pure and simple in virtually every aspect. Depending on the sources, only 10-20% of the increased generating capacity would have only been used in Kansas. Thank goodness Bremby declined the issuance of a permit.
October 19, 2007 at 1:36 a.m.
melott (anonymous) says…

While wind energy is "clean", it does kill a lot of birds. Basically any bird that flies through the area has a large chance of being killed. The ground under them is littered with dead birds. They don't see the blades as a threat. We have to live with this if we want wind energy. Plus, they are ugly.

This doesn't mean I'm against them. I'm proud of the coal decision, but we have to live with the consequences. Right now, every viable source of energy has a downside. Conservation is the best way to make quick progress while trying to do the research to develop better sources.

"Hydrogen" as possible now is not a source. It's only a way to move energy around like a battery. It takes energy to make hydrogen.
October 19, 2007 at 7:17 a.m.
pbutcher (anonymous) says…

I just returned from a trip to Dodge City. I drove past one of the new wind farms. It is beautiful! I could see it from miles away, and watched it as I got closer. I thought of large silver dancers. The wind turbines are truly an amazing sight. What a great way to generate clean power.
October 19, 2007 at 7:53 a.m.
mooner (anonymous) says…

I don't think birds have a problem with the newer, better designed windmills. There is an old project in California that was a disaster in that regard, the towers weren't tall enough.
October 19, 2007 at 8:30 a.m.
storm (anonymous) says…

Bremby for Governor!
October 19, 2007 at 10:30 a.m.
Pywacket (anonymous) says…

Melott~ "Plus they are ugly."

Huh?

Want to show me a lyrically beautiful conventional power plant? Anything inherently asthetically pleasing about tons of black coal emissions being vomited up out of smokestacks?

There are plenty of other points that can be argued, on either side of the issue (and people are doing a good job of that here), but I was struck by that illogical comment. Aesthetics, I suppose, are subjective--and they really have no place in this discussion. Talk about the money, the environmental impact, etc.. but leave beauty out of it, please.
October 19, 2007 at 11:09 a.m.
milkweed (anonymous) says…

Thanks to KDHE Secretary Rod Bremby for making this very wise decision. Our children and grandchildren will be much better off because of his action.
October 19, 2007 at 3:29 p.m.
happyscriv (anonymous) says…

Good Job on a well-made decision to Mr. Bremby! I hope the power company has the foresight to NOT go ahead with legal action and to realize they need to generate power from other alternative methods as mentioned. Put money and time into building wind farms, solar collection and other renewable energy sources instead of the lawyers and courts. Be Productive NOT Destructive! I would gladly let them use my roof for solar power collection. And I would pay a little more for electricity if needed. I would also switch everything to electric in my house if I knew that a lot of that power was being generated from renewables.
October 19, 2007 at 10:57 p.m.
none2 (anonymous) says…

melott (Anonymous) says:

"While wind energy is "clean", it does kill a lot of birds. Basically any bird that flies through the area has a large chance of being killed. The ground under them is littered with dead birds. They don't see the blades as a threat. We have to live with this if we want wind energy. Plus, they are ugly..."

=========================

Your comments are kind of strange. Perhaps you need to actually visit wind farms once in a while.

I have been to the wind farm at Montezuma many times and once or twice to Spearville's wind farm. I have yet to see one dead bird. I have been there different days of the week and different times. More animals die from road kill in Lawrence during one day than birds dying at the western Kansas wind farms.

As to ugly, everybody is entitled to their opinions. However I would totally disagree.

What do you think about windmills, grain elevators, water towers, radio towers, telephone polls, industrial plants, etc? There is also a lot of land blotted with residential homes, apartment complexes, and other high rise buildings. A typical downtown city is just littered with view blocking blots on the landscape.
October 20, 2007 at 12:10 a.m.
labmonkey (anonymous) says…

"Want to show me a lyrically beautiful conventional power plant? Anything inherently asthetically pleasing about tons of black coal emissions being vomited up out of smokestacks?"

Drive by KCPL in LaCygne and tell me how much black smoke you see. As long as the right technology is used, coal is failry clean and not much more than water vapor leaves the stacks. All the visitors who drive through western Kansas who think the windfarms are beautiful don't have to look at them every day (plus how many acres of land will it take to replace these two coal plants...how many windmills does it take to produce the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity to send Marty back to 1985?). And for the person who said that it would create a dozen or so line jobs has no clue how many jobs these plants create. The two units in LaCygne create hundreds of jobs for the plant itself plus other jobs for the contractor companies who are permanently attached to the plant.

The only good argument I have heard against the plants is lack of water, and that should be the only argument used against these coal units (although the lake in LaCygne is much shallower and contains much less water than the designers intended and they have done well for over 30 years).
October 20, 2007 at 5:06 a.m.
ConcernedAmerican (anonymous) says…

All you have to do is travel through northern Arizona, the Grand Canyon area, the Four Corners region at the corner of the states of Arizona, New Mexico. Colorado and Utah to see the devastation huge coal-fired energy plants do to the environment and air. So why would we want all the pollutants spreading across both western and eastern Kansas so Denver (or whoever, San Diego?) could run their air conditioners cheaply? Back in the late '70's, I built a solar adobe house and had a wind powered water pump, etc., and the powers in our government decided enough of solar credits and development of alternative energy sources, for that matter, and move on with cheap and profitable fossil fuels. Not so CHEAP but still VERY profitable today. Think how far ahead of the game we would be if that research would have been supported and promoted over the past 30 years. Has anybody heard anything else about the fuel-cell cars George Bush touted in his State of the Union address? Too bad individual inventors around the world have already made working fuel cell engines (one was murdered over his), but GM, Ford, etc. haven't rushed to knock on these peoples doors to see how they did it. They are too busy living off the profit from nonrenewable fossil fuels (the last tree!). 'nough said.
October 20, 2007 at 11:29 a.m.
none2 (anonymous) says…

labmonkey (Anonymous) says:

"All the visitors who drive through western Kansas who think the windfarms are beautiful don't have to look at them every day (plus how many acres of land will it take to replace these two coal plants:"

I would have absolutely no problem looking at windmills every day. I was also shocked by just how quiet they are. Personally, I wouldn't mind having a windmill in my back yard. Unfortunately: 1) it isn't that windy in eastern Kansas; 2) it cost a lot of money to put one up; 3) the insurance is very high if you try to put one up in a populated area.

As to the land use, yes, there has to be a road to be able to get to each of the windmills to service it. Likewise, there is also a little bit of space right under the tower. Otherwise, I saw all the land that was farmed before continuing to be farmed.

My only regret was that my great grandfather sold his homestead land in Montezuma 100 years ago. I would love to have been part of the Montezuma wind farm project.
October 20, 2007 at 2:13 p.m.
snowWI (anonymous) says…

"Drive by KCPL in LaCygne and tell me how much black smoke you see. As long as the right technology is used, coal is failry clean and not much more than water vapor leaves the stacks."

That is not really true. They have cleaned the coal plant up recently, but the CO2 emissions are massive at over 10 million tons a year. The only good thing recently is that KCP&L put state of the art pollution control devices on the La Cygne plant. That is a very good thing because the prevailing winds often come from the south and blow into the Kansas City metro area.
October 20, 2007 at 2:47 p.m.
none2 (anonymous) says…

DotsLines (Anonymous) says:

"...Does anyone really think that a technology that is efficient and safe enough to be placed in a 300 foot long steel cylinder inhabited by human beings and able to sustain 30 years of violent manuevering underwater can't be built and operated efficiently and safely on the ground?"

============

Until they can better manage nuclear waste, I don't think nuclear is a good option. Sorry, but I don't like the idea that some radioactive wastes have a half-life of centuries. Furthermore, I wouldn't want the wastes in my back yard nor would I want trucks/trains/etc transporting those wastes through my area on their way to the eventual permanent storage facility in Nevada. The environmental mantra is reduce, reuse, recycle. So why would we want to increase nuclear wastes when so far we cannot do much to reuse or recycle those wastes?

Personally, I don't think they will ever make nuclear fission that safe. What we really need is for technology to expand further to the point where science can eventually create a sustained, controlled, affordable nuclear fusion reaction.
October 21, 2007 at 8:28 a.m.