My column today talks about a recent lecture in Wichita by Donald Worster, a distinguished historian at the University of Kansas who wrote a landmark history of the Dust Bowl. He warns that history could repeat itself unless Kansas gets serious about tackling global warming. And the issue staring Kansas in the face is the proposed Holcomb electric power complex.
By the way, I would highly recommend a book I’m reading now, “Coal: A Human History,” by Barbara Freese, a fascinating and evenhanded account of how coal unleashed the Industrial Revolution and its material benefits but also poses a darker, increasingly dangerous threat to our civilization.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
47 Comments
Global warming increases the amount of moisture taken out of the soil. Since the Kansas economy is highly dependent on agriculture such effects would be devestating to the economy. However Kansans will still vote for Republicans who want to do nothing about this issue and slowly see our economy fall to bits.
EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps Pat is too busy fixing the intelligence surrounding the fixed intelligence to make a committment, either way.
92% of the new power at Holcomb will go outside of Kansashttp://kansas.sierraclub.org/Wind/WhoGetsHolcombPower.htm
A big drawback of “centralized” power stations is energy is lost sending it over long distance powerlines.
Distributed generation (smaller power plants close to end-users) are more efficient.
How long will it take to pay off the costs of building the new Holcomb plants? Long-term financing? Several decades?
Global warming might force the plants to shutdown before they’re paid off.
Cheaper power from efficiency, renewables, etc could greatly reduce sales from Holcomb (and their profits). A carbon tax might be levied on coal power, further hurting their sales/profits.
So does that mean that Global Warming back in the 30’s caused the Dust Bowl?
About coal. We have plenty of very low sulfur coal that can be extracted using surface mining and land replinshing technqiues. But that coal is in Republican states. We still have to use the high sulfur coal in dangerous mines that have killed tens of thousands of people alone, but they are in Democrat States like West Virgina, where the Congress will still allow no restriction on the extraction and use of that coal for economic purposes, but slam the western states for their clean coal for political pay back. Is that in your book?
How ’bout we use nuclear power?Oh, can’t ’cause it’s too dangerous.How ’bout we use wind power?Oh, can’t cause it kills too many birds and they are ugly.How ’bout dams and water power?Oh, can’t cause it messes with the eco-system.And on and on.Far left eco kooks = anti-capitalists
I’m pro-wind & water power fleets enema.
pmom-I could give a shit.
Flett & Joe- All the BS you two put out ought to be able to make a lot of energy!And it’s green, so to speak.
Well you say liberals don’t support that, and I’m telling you we do.
Or we could use manure for energy.Oh, can’t. It smells and comes from abused animals.
pmom-Maybe you do. Real libs don’t.
I have the ULTIMATE power source.
Get a Republican. Put republican on a treadmill attached to a generator. Dangle dollar bill just out of reach of republican.
Or just hook any of the gasbags up to a generator. Should work.
jr-Maybe you are right. The Democrat won’t work for it. It must be handed to him.
LOL who peed in your post toasties this afternoon fleets?
There is some very interesting biomass research going on right now with algae. Algae grows into biomass about 250 times more densely than soybeans, and doesn’t need a whole lot of nutrients or clean water. I think that will be part of the solution, along with slow moving wind turbines (birds can dodge slow blades) tidal energy, solar hot water heaters, increased efficiency, improved gas mileage, and shorter commutes. None of these does it by itself, but together they could make a real change.
Higher energy efficiency is our cheapest “source” of power.
Combine efficiency with renewable energy sources, and we don’t need much (or maybe anything) from fossil-fueled power plants.
Energy experts at Rocky Mountain Institute have been doing real-world examples.http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid306.php
fleettwood,
Properly sited newer designs of wind turbines kill very few, or even no birds. Even some tall antenna towers kill huge #’s of birds.
New nuclear plants haven’t been built because they are too expensive, and financially risky.
Wind Farms: Three are currently operating in Kansas. One is located near Montezuma, southwest of Dodge City. One is near Spearville, northeast of Dodge City. The third is perhaps 70 miles east of Wichita somewhere near Beaumont, Ks.
Frankly, previously, I haven’t given much attention to wind farms because I presumed they couldn’t crank out much power compared to regular power plants. However, as I looked into it, these modern wind turbines do generate a lot of electricity but of course the wind does have to blow.
I know, this subject lends itself to a lot of hot wind jokes.
As I was told, wind farms should be located near the large existing power transmission lines which are super expensive to build. I don’t yet have a map of these existing lines.
I can think of some rather desolate areas in Kansas that are visited by very few human beings and are not considered tourist destinations. These might be potential locations.
So, currently, in my mind, wind farms have the most potential for Kansas for energy generation. I hope to accumulate more information on this subject perhaps from you bloggers. JWink
The only bad thing about Nuclear is the waste. When the DOE agreed that Yucca mountain would be the safest depository of waste, after spending $7 billion dollars on the project already, after studying and preparing the site since 1978, it’s a no-go!
Senator Land Scam Harry Reid said Yucca Mountain is dead after he gets in office.
30 years in the making and poof! It’s gone with a quick snap from Land scam Harry Reid fingers. I guess he expects to sell more land property around it making him and his developer buddies even more rich!
The obvious problem with ethanol plants is their water requirement further draws down our Kansas underground water aquifers. Also the water used for irrigation for growing of corn or other biomass for producing ethanol.
Obviously the pressure is on to produce alternatives to importing petroleum from the middle east and elsewhere but we can’t afford to destroy our living space.
Nuclear power plants — of course, we have one operating in Kansas now, Wolf Creek northeast of Emporia. Don’t know what its water requirement is. As I recall, this nuclear plant was built as a joint project between Kansas City Power and Light which served the K.C. metropolitan area and a part of the company that is now Westar Energy Corporation. It does have a finite operating life but don’t know when that will expire.
I tried to check on the Westar power plant located ouside of Colwich but information was sparse. Apparently it burns natural gas. The problem with power plants using natural gas is that raises the cost of the natural gas we use for residences and shortens the life of the natural gas fields in southwest Kansas.
But natural gas can be piped to the user location whereas coal must be hauled in from Wyoming on those 100 car railroad trains that zig-zag across Kansas.
We can do local generation. Individual homeowners or neighborhoods running windmills when the wind is blowing and small natural gas generators when the wind isn’t blowing. Less distance to transmit=more useful energy recovered.
Ben Huie, comment on this proposal.
Joe Williams,
Do you WANT to pay higher rates for electricity?
http://www.oilendgame.com“In round numbers, electricity from new light-water reactors will cost twice as much as from new windfarms, five to ten times as much as distributed gas-fired cogeneration or trigeneration in buildings and factories (net of the credit for their recovered heat), and three to thirty times as much as end-use efficiency that can save most of the electricity now used.
Any one of these three abundant and widely available competitors alone could knock nuclear power out of the market, and there are three, with more on the way (ultimately including cheap fuel cells).”—-
Yucca mountain has fault lines, and a nearby aquifer. Studies on the site were not properly done.
Hastert’s $1.5 Million Profit,http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/15/hastert-pictures-of-corruption/
Bloviating here too heartlander?
heartlander,
http://www.smallisprofitable.org has some info re distibuted generation.
Harry Reid
Contacts from Jack Abramoff’s lobbying firmSee also: Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandalIn the wake of the 2006 corruption conviction of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, media criticism led over four dozen Congressmen, as well as President Bush, to return campaign donations associated with Abramoff.[18] Reid did not receive any contributions from Abramoff, but Reid had contact with clients and lobbying partners of Abramoff,[citation needed] and Reid’s campaign received over $60,000 in contributions from these groups, including about $50,000 from Native American gaming interests.[19] Several times, Native American tribes that were clients of Jack Abramoff donated money to Reid after Reid’s votes produced favorable results for the tribes. According to an Associated Press article, “Reid collected donations around the time of each action. Ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in collecting contributions around the times they take official acts benefiting donors.”[20] Among dozens of contacts between Abramoff’s lobbying team and Reid’s office, were several discussions about a bill to raise the minimum wage of the Northern Mariana Islands.[21][22] Reid supported the bill, which Abramoff’s clients opposed.
Reid said that the contributions and contacts were legal and his actions were proper. He also described the Abramoff affair as “a Republican scandal,” referring to Abramoff’s felony conviction for making illegal contributions to Republican Congressman Bob Ney and his close affiliation with the Republican K Street Project.[23] A spokesman said that Reid had never met Abramoff personally, that neither Reid nor his campaign has ever received money directly from Abramoff, and that his legislative work was done on behalf of his Nevadan constituents.
[edit] Boxing ticketsIn May 2006, John Solomon of the Associated Press erroneously reported that Reid had accepted free tickets valued at hundreds of dollars each for three boxing matches between 2003 and 2005 from the Nevada Athletic Commission,[24] though it was later reported that Reid had in fact received “credentials” intended specifically for public officials, which, not being retail tickets, have no selling price.[25] At that time and afterwards, Reid, a former amateur middleweight boxer and boxing judge, supported legislation to create a federal boxing commission, which had the potential to dilute the state commission’s authority. After receiving the tickets, Reid voted for the legislation, which was opposed by the state commission.
Senate ethics rules permit gifts from such governmental agencies, but advise caution “where it appears” that the gift is an attempt to influence, and also state that repeatedly taking otherwise permitted gifts should be avoided. A former House ethics lawyer said that it would have been “the more cautious thing, the more prudent thing” for Reid to have paid for the credentials or refused them. However, the promoter of the fights said that it would have been illegal for Reid to have paid for the credentials.[25] [3]
[edit] Las Vegas land dealThis article documents a current event.Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.
Harry Reid collected $1.1 million on land he owned through a limited liability company (LLC). In 1998 Reid bought a plot of land for $400,000. One of the sellers was a developer who arranged a land swap that Reid supported. In 2001, he transferred title of the land to the LLC in exchange for a $400,000 equivalent ownership percentage of the LLC. When the LLC sold the land, Reid made a profit. [26]
The deal was structured by long-time friend and former casino attorney Jay Brown,[26][4]. Reid’s failure to disclose the earlier sale to a company owned by a friend and his subsequent ownership interest in the company violates Senate rules according to former Federal Election Commission overseer Kent Cooper. In addition, Brown paid a small portion of Reid’s taxes on the ownership stake. Reid continued to report to Congress that he still owned the land for 3 years after he transferred title to the LLC he partially owned.[26][27] Reid’s staff stated that he did not initially disclose the transfer of the land to the LLC because this transfer was not a change of ownership, but was simply Reid owning the land through an LLC instead of as an individual.
Reid directed his staff to amend the 2001 financial disclosure forms to reflect the transfer of title to the LLC. He also disclosed two other land transactions on the amended reports. [28]
[edit] Condo giftsOn October 17, 2006, the Associated Press reported that Reid had used campaign donations to pay for $3,300 in Christmas gifts to the staff at the condominium where he resides.[5] Federal election law prohibits candidates from using political donations for personal use. Reid’s staff stated that his attorneys had approved use of the funds in this manner but that he nonetheless would personally reimburse his campaign for the expenses. That action notwithstanding, the Conservative group Citizens United announced it had filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission to investigate the matter.[6]
[edit] Earmark AppropriationsHarry Reid has added earmarks to many spending bills. One such bill was for building a bridge between Nevada and Arizona that would make land he owned more valuable. “Reid called funding for construction of a bridge over the Colorado River, among other projects, “incredibly good news for Nevada” in a news release after passage of the 2005 transportation bill. He didn’t mention, though, that just across the river in Arizona, he owns 160 acres of land several miles from proposed bridge sites and that the bridge could add value to his real estate investment.”[29]
“How ’bout we use wind power?Oh, can’t cause it kills too many birds and they are ugly.”
Fact: Sierra Club has endorsed wind and is pressing to implement it.
Fleettwood = LIAROr we could use manure for energy.Oh, can’t. It smells and comes from abused animals.”
Fact: environmentalists support use of manure and other biomass for energy.
Fleettwood = Ignorant Luddite
“How ’bout we use nuclear power?Oh, can’t ’cause it’s too dangerous.”
As you know, I have long favored nuclear. The environmental community is split on the issue; primarily being concerned with handling of waste.
“
“We can do local generation. Individual homeowners or neighborhoods running windmills when the wind is blowing and small natural gas generators when the wind isn’t blowing. Less distance to transmit=more useful energy recovered.”
It’s called Community Wind. I have seen some good presentations on it at KDHE conferences. I think KState has looked at it. Makes a LOT of sense for a lot of reasons.
When I discussed this with some of the people involved I mentioned structuring it as either a Sub-chapter S Corporation or an LLC under Sub-Chapter K for tax purposes.
I think part of the reason KState would be pushing this is from their Extension involvement in rural areas.
Ben: What is the name of the ranch located near Kinsley that the State of Kansas considered purchasing in order to protect its water rights? I’m wondering if that site could be used for a windfarm? Since its not far from the existing Spearville wind farm, the transmission lines must be nearby.
Wish some group such as K-State Extension, Sierra Club, or Ben Huie would sponsor a wind farm seminar in Wichita.
Is there an expert here in Wichita?
The Shepard Center at East Hts Methodist is sponsoring a series of talks – I will be doing one of them on climate change. A friend will be doing wind. Sierra Club has had resentations on wind several times.
I think it is the Circle K. One problem there is that there IS a location concern with ‘viewsheds’ in parts of the Flint Hills. Since the footprint of a turbine is so small there is no reason not to put them on farms and ranches. The cattle can roam underneath them. Western Kansas really has the wind!
As long as Nebraska sucks and Oklahoma blows (periodically switch roles) we will have lots of reliable wind.
If we can’t have a safe nuclear waste depositoray (No more Yucca Mountian), you have NYIMBY on the transportation of the waste between states, either on highway or rail, what can we do?
I think the best approach is to try to close the loop. As you know, my push has been to use discarded warheads back-mixed with depleted uranium as fuel. Even though there will still be issues there will not be any ADDITIONAL waste problems. The warheads etc already have to be dealt with.
We can also enlist scientists to help both in dealing with the technical problems as well as selling it as reasonable.
KFG knows alot about Circle K.
What about turbines along the current lines of transmission? They might not be optimum for wind production, but the infrastructure and rights of way are already there.
We have issues with land/water use. Indeed there are those who suggest abandoning farming in large areas of the west. What about solar farms as use for this fallowed land?
Bingo JR. Something I would like to see out west is to return much of the land to prairie and riparian habitat. With an increase in game population more hunting permits can be supported per acre. Then allow landowners to buy them wholesale and resell them.
Chicago lawyers will pay a lot of money for hunting. Provide the entire package – pick up at the airport, lodging, guide and even gun if needed.
Actually I first proposed that for Prairie band to use their casino hotel. Then you can siphon money out of their pockets day and night!
All of this can be done with turbines overhead.
Ben: I agree, it would be a shame to harm the view in the Flint Hills from Manhattan, south to Cottonwood Falls, on south to Oklahoma. Also same for the Gypsum Hills east and west of Medicine Lodge/Barber County.
I believe the Circle K ranch is near Kinsley but not sure exactly where. Is it on the east or west side of the Arkansas River? In any case, that is not located in either the Flint Hills nor the Gyp Hills. I was raised at Pratt and occasionally hunted jackrabbits on Saturday mornings northwest of Pratt towards Byers and north of Cullison. Some pretty sparsely settled areas exist around there that might offer good sites for another wind farm … if transmission lines pass through the area.
I’m not sure JW. All of these have to be looked at.
By the way – since my hunting idea is so capitalist I have to add:
Environmental Scientist = pro-capitalism
That is for Fleettwood.
Joe Williams,
“If we can’t [blah, blah, blah]… what can we do?”
Ohhhhh…. what pitiful moaning, and hand wringing!!
Joe, you’d KNOW what we could do, if you’d read the Rocky Mountain Institute and Oil End Game links I posted upthread, instead of wasting time copy/pasting Wiki on Reid.
It’s incredibly simple, and logical.
Emphasize the cheapest solution, higher energy efficiency — and use renewable energy sources.
I wonder if the water level in the “World’s Deepest Handdug Well” in Greensburg is fluctuating? Greensburg, if it hasn’t moved, is roughly 40 miles west of Pratt on historic old Highway 54.
That deep well was dug by the Santa Fe or Rock Island railroad back in the 1880’s to provide water for their steam engines.
I suspect the well’s water level would provide a barometer of the Ogallala aquifer in that vicinity. Is state legislator McKinney listening or anyone with any knowledge of the Greensburg well?
Solar has several problems. Most solar generators use intense amounts of resources (especially the PV cells that generate electricity directly). It is only recently that a PV cell generates more energy over its lifetime than it takes to produce the unit. The mirrors heating up a fluid are much better, but still not great. Personally I think solar is better used to grow biomass. Most of the biomass is discussed as growing plants that will be converted to replace petroleum products (ethanol and biodiesel especially). What about growing the material to burn in a traditional power plant?
Chad,
“It is only recently that a PV cell generates more energy over its lifetime than it takes to produce the unit.”
That seems to be a myth.http://www.seia.org/mythsandfacts.php has an old study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory — claims energy payback of only 1 to 4 years, and energy return of 30+ years.
“What about growing the material to burn in a traditional power plant?”
Carbon dioxide, etc. emissions?
It’s an odd claim to be pro-environment yet anti-capitalist. It makes good business sense to research and develop renewable energy producers. Currently the leaders in solar research are placing like Japan, Germany and South Africa. They’ll develop the patents and if we want to develop anything we’ll have to pay them for the use of their technologies.
On the other hand if we develop them and because the world leader then we have a competitive edge. The so-called capitalists thought that it was a bad business decision to develop fuel efficient cars. Currently America is losing mass amounts of market share because of our fuel inefficiency. We can’t sell our cars in China because they have higher fuel efficiency standards.
Imagine the market of the future when energy prices are much higher. We’ll have to increase prices on consumer goods because of the cost of oil which increases the overhead. Other countries that rely more on renewables won’t be slaves to the oil market and can outcompete us.
It is no wonder more and more companies are taking efforts to install more energy efficient systems. It makes good business sense to reduce the overhead as much as possible. It’s a good economic model that’s encouraged by the environmentalists, the wasteful business plans are the ones who continue to lose money.
Doug – the accusation you refer to is made by an ignorant anti-science Luddite who only knows how to sling around his mindless name-calling. So, just consider the source.
Cosmos – biomass-to-fule, if issues like water and fertilizer can be dealt with, becomes net-zero for CO2. One idea I have liked woul be to capture power plant effluent (high in both CO2 and water vapor) and grow stuff like kudzu in it. Use a thin-film polyethylene inflatable greenhouse.
A number of wells in Kiowa County and elsewhere are monitored. Those further east show less decline than those in western Kansas since there is more natural recharge. Unfortunately, that recharge doesn’t help western KS.
Ben,
Considering our high (and increasing) CO2 levels, my philosophy is trap as much carbon as possible, and release as little as possible.
On your idea of “power plant effluent” — Rotterdam is doing it to heat and feed CO2 to 4,000 hectares of greenhouses. Adds a new meaning to GHG’s?
It’s shown about 4 minutes into film “What are we waiting for?” at http://www.localpower.org/resources/multimedia.htm
The film makes good arguments against building the proposed Holcomb power plants.
Despite progress in reducing particulate air pollution over the last decade,citizens are still suffering from its adverse health effects. Over the pastseveral decades, medical researchers examining air pollution and publichealth have shown that air pollution is associated with a host of seriousadverse human health effects, including asthma attacks, heart attacks,hospital admissions, and premature death. The adverse healthconsequences of breathing air pollution caused by emissions from utility power plants are severe and well documented in the published medical and scientific literature.
One of the air pollutants most carefully studied in the last decade is fine particles. Fine particles, such as those that result from power plant emissions, can bypass the defensive mechanisms of thelung and become lodged deep in the lung where they can cause a variety of health problems.
Indeed, the latest evidence indicates that short-term exposures cannot only cause respiratory damage, but also cardiac effects, including increasing the risk of heart attacks. Moreover, long-term exposure to fine particles increases the risk of cardiac, respiratory, and lung cancer death and has been estimated to shorten life expectancies of people living in the most polluted cities relative to thoseliving in cleaner cities.
In recent years, researchers have documented fine particle-related mortality at low concentrations, demonstratingthat there is no lower threshold for premature death from the long-term inhalation ofparticles.
WHAT ARE FINE PARTICLES?Fine particles are a mixture of harmful pollutants (e.g. soot, acid droplets, metals) that originate primarily from combustion sources such as power plants, diesel trucks, buses, and cars. In 1997 EPA set national health standards for fine particles (referred by EPA as “PM2.5” or particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (2.5 millionths of a meter in diameter – less than one-hundredth the width of a human hair and smaller).Fine particles are either soot emitted directly from these combustion sources or formed in the atmosphere from power plant sulfur dioxide (SO2) or nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. Among airborne particles, the smallest (fine) combustion particles are of gravest concern because they are so tiny that they can be inhaled deeply and be absorbed into the bloodstream, thus evading the human lung’s natural defenses. Individuals dying prematurely from exposure to particulate matter lose an average of 14 years of life.
Wind can allow particles to travel far and wide not to mention the acid rain effects.
This new activity will no doubt shed some light on reasons to phase out our local coal fired or certainly cut back dramatically. Solar and expanding our local hydro producing source would be the opportunities.
What can populations do now?http://www.b-e-f.org/GreenTags/
Tax subsidies would be wisely spent developing new jobs by providing a positive boost in the existing energy industry.Multi billion dollar exisitingenergy giants do not need nor deserve subsidies. Our government has provided avenues to outsource jobs yet has failed to replace jobs for hard working americans. Here right before our eyes is one practical solution. Apply the subsidies to a practical solution.
Looks like Nepal is already getting hammered by the global climate crisis.
‘Himalayan communities face catastrophic floods as weather patterns alter’http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1962363,00.html“Anecdotal observations are backed by scientists who are recording in Nepal some of the fastest long-term increases in temperatures and rainfall anywhere in the world.
At least 44 of Nepal’s and neighbouring Bhutan’s Himalayan lakes, which collect glacier meltwater, are said by the UN to be growing so rapidly they they could burst their banks within a decade. Any climate change in Nepal is reflected throughout the region.Nearly 400 million people in northern India and Bangladesh also depend on rainfall and rivers that rise there.”