Our editorial Saturday welcomed Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ State of the State focus on developing renewable energy, including wind power and biofuels. She’s right: There’s no reason why Kansas shouldn’t lead the nation in wind energy production.
(Unless, of course, state leaders continue to show a lack of vision and leadership.)
Perhaps the most promising plan is to boost energy efficiency and conservation efforts.
Other states are realizing that energy efficiency is perhaps the cheapest new power source around. But nationally, Kansas ranks near the bottom in energy conservation programs and incentives.
This being Sebelius, the plan isn’t as bold as we’d like. But after her lackluster first term on energy, let’s hope this new push provides a needed jump-start to the state’s energy future.
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
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Too many exemptions
- Phantom on Too many exemptions
- situveux1 on Too many exemptions
- Pleefer on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
23 Comments
It all sounds good but certain groups’ of people and big energy corporations are holding progress back.This state has always been very slack on improving energy conservation not because of the political leadership but because simply the people of this state are not motivated enough in making improvements for themselves that would benefit the community as a whole.
Well, I made the footlights today! The Wichita EAGLE published my letter-to-the-editor in this mornings EAGLE, “Ethanol production has big downside.” Looking forward to your comments — which WE Bloggers are not short of.
Maybe Sebelius can erect a methane producing biosphereric landfill next to a Coal-Fired plant. That way we can have a large portion of air contaminants and energy production side by side. :)
Read the other day Chinese had positive energy flow from a thermonuclear reactor; next goal; a 1,000 second run. It’s coming folks; we’ll be gods, or at least the Chinses will.
What does that mean DoorKing? (1000 second run/positive energy flow)
Good article JW – right on point.
Doorking – we have been reading for decades that thermonuclear is right around the corner. While I would LOVE to see it I’m not holding my breath.
Whatever happened to Tokamak?
Randy seems to forget the fact that Sebelius is not pro-environment. she is pro-power and money. why do you think she signed off on and encouraged the building of another coal-fired plant in sw kansas?
jobs?money?power?
yes yes yes
she is not pro-environment.
but the double-standard lives – if a republican governor or whatever approved off a coal-fired plant and had as bad an environmental record as sebelius, people like scofield would be hollaring for more eco-rights.
whatever. joke.
Great letter Wink!!!!!!
And poindexter, dont forget the political debt she owes DEMOCRATS in Ellis county where Sunflower electric is based. Remember, she launched campaigns with an appearance in Ellis county. She and Ed Hammond at Ft. Hays are long time political buddies.
And Steve Irsik in Garden City. Governor leadership’s point man on the Kansas Water Board and her patron in the ill conceived and ill carried out “Prosperity Summits” at the beginning of her first term. No payoff there. Uh-uh.
Governor Leadership has been using water as political currency since the very beginning of her first term. Hays and Russell plotted to Cedar Bluff, and the Smoky, and the result is that Hays and the ethanol plant in Russell sucked the water up before it reached Kanopolis.
All with the FULL blessings of Governor Leadership. She even went so far as to remove high level dissenters to the proposed rape. How?
She even fired Clark Duffy, long time civil servant and the head of the Kansas Water Authority, after being given her marching orders by Eber Phelps and Janis Lee. Both prominent western Kansas democrats who represent parts of Ellis county. They asked for Clark’s head, and governor leadership gave it to them. On a silver platter.
Why fire Clark Duffy? Someone with experience and a known proponent of sanity at the Water Office?
‘Cause Clark opposed the rape of the Smoky. And he favored sane policy by keeping the water in Cedar Bluff. He issued a letter to Russell and Hays putting the stop to their plans to drain Cedar Bluff.
Governor leadership, at the request of Phelps and Lee, fired him withing days of the issuance of that fateful letter. The LAST letter issued from the water office that dared to say no to Hays and Russell.
SO… to make matters worse, after Governor leadership fired Clark Duffy, she installed Darth, er, I mean Joe Harkins to get the dirty deed done for Hays and Russell. Closed meetings and secret contracts were the rule of the day under Darth Harkins.
And so the draining of the Smokey began, in conjunction with Hays City Attorney John Bird. You will remember him as a former state party big wig, last known as the head of the Clinton Gore campaign in Kansas. Governor leadership even nominated his wife last year for a judicial appointment, but later withdrew.
Politics dictating governor leadership’s water policy? Oh yeah, it doesnt stop there…
Dont forget the debt she paid to John Montgomery, former publisher of the Hays Daily News, now a Harris V.P. in Hutch. He is democratic royalty in ks. Remember his Dad, John sr. was also a democrat good ol’ boy. Former state party chair, yadda yadda yadda. Just like Bird.
Yep. Water has been political currency since November of 2002. That is when Hays and Russell formally announced their intention to drain the Smoky, starting with Cedar Bluff.
Y’all are late to the party on this subject. You walked in on a rape in progress….
There were good reasons Sebelius did NOT get Sierra Club’s endorsement for re-election.
By “thermonuclear reaction” are you talking about FUSION (as opposed to fission) reactors?
This is totally do-able if we had gov’t backing it.
Look at it this way–if we were spending 2 billion a week on fusion instead of in Iraq, we’d have it by now.
thermo would be fusion. Doable? I don’t know …
Heck, if we were spending 2 billion a week putting out solar panels on everyone’s house and promoting energy efficiency like the Japanese do we’d reduce our polluting energy consumption by more than 50%. Through energy efficiency alone the Japanese reduced their energy consumption by 30% over the past 30 years.
very true doug …
I would love to see Wind Farms throughout Kansas.
I would start first putting them next to state owned property and buildings, thusly encourage private developers to get in on the action of cheaper/cleaner energy.
They have to do something Doug, their National Debt is 170 percent of their GDP, more than any major economic country in the world. :(
Japan’s national debt is 158 percent of GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._public_debt
I suppose having an economy that is fuel by foreign energy sources it can rise and fall with fuel prices. America didn’t learn much after the 1970s when America was held hostage by OPEC.
Today we still continue to be slaves to the Middle East serving as bitch and mercenary for Saudi Arabia while the money we give them is used to fund terrorism. How simple it would be for them to turn off the oil faucet as Russia did with Belarus to get what they want. Considering so many Republicans and Democrats are bought by oil interests we can continue the energy incompetence.
Kansas is a lot like Japan in the sense we have to import most of our oil and all of our coal and uranium. People complained when prices rose when Hurricane Katrina restricted fuel supplies and increased prices. The best solution to preventing price spikes is more domestic production and by domestic I mean here in Kansas.
Something as simple as improving the net metering law has been met with ignorant opposition. Kansas is one of ten states that still haven’t matched other states that required utilities to purchase residential produced power at retail rates rather than wholesale rates. The only reason to oppose the change was for the utilities to maintain their monopoly.
I wonder how much longer our politicians will sit back and do nothing as the problem grows.
Speaking of debt – this is interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
Debt by US presidential terms. Debt/GDP ratio went down under Clinton; way up under Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2.
California issues tax credits for solar energy devices, and some forward-thinking building owners have installed them. These don’t generate power at night.
What if wind generators were placed atop some of Wichita’s taller buildings? You get stronger winds aloft, and you can generate power at night. Somebody would have to do a year’s worth of wind studies, and crunch the cost-return numbers, but it might be worthwhile to at least examine. Could generators atop taller buildings pay for themselves in reducing grid-tapping? Could they generate self-sufficiency for the buildings overall (building generators feeding the grid, getting energy credits and then using grid energy when winds are low)? Could they generate an energy surplus?
We must find ways to conserve energy before its too late. Every little effort we do is big enough to make a change and help preserve our planet.
We must be responsible to take care of our environment or say sorry for what we have done, and the effect could be irreversible.
If you want to know more about helping our environronment, check out these links: http://gohybrid.blogspot.comand http://greenfuelpower.blogspot.com
Western Kansas farmers could become financially better off by providing power to most of Kansas byauthorizing Wind Farms on their properties. Their property values could increase substantially. This could be done without using the Flint Hills which is in of itself worth plenty in tourism dollars.
It is said that nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different.
In the US, where much of the world’s uranium is enriched, including Australia’s, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming.
Also, this enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93per cent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the US. The production and release of CFC gas is now banned internationally by the Montreal Protocol because it is the main culprit responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilises large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages – the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste.
In summary, nuclear power produces, according to a 2004 study by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, only three times fewer greenhouse gases than modern natural-gas power stations.
Contrary to the nuclear industry’s propaganda, nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so.
These unregulated isotopes include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm and cause genetic disease.
Tritium, another biologically significant gas, is also routinely emitted from nuclear reactors. Tritium is composed of three atoms of hydrogen, which combine with oxygen, forming radioactive water, which is absorbed through the skin, lungs and digestive system. It is incorporated into the DNA molecule, where it is mutagenic.
The dire subject of massive quantities of radioactive waste accruing at the 442 nuclear reactors across the world is also rarely, if ever, addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 33tonnes of thermally hot, intensely radioactive waste per year.
Nuke Power is neither CO2 emissions free nor wallet friendly
I would go with Hydro Power over Nuke Power any day.
WE HAVE A PROBLEM:• More nuclear power means more disasters like ThreeMile Island and Chernobyl. Since 1986, the year ofthe Chernobyl accident, there have been 200 nearnuclear accidents at 50 reactors in the U.S.• Radioactive contamination could spread across40,000 square miles in the event of an accident.2• Nuclear power is expensive. The first 75 reactorsin the U.S. cost $100 billion over budget and U.S.tax dollars paid for much of it.• Nuclear power provides the material and know-how for nuclear weapons.• There is still no safe way to take care of nuclear wastewhich will remain dangerous for 240,000 years.SOLUTION:• No New Nukes! Shut down nuclear reactors andphase out nuclear power.
• More renewable energy such as wind and solarpower. These options combined could meet 40percent of America’s energy needs.=============================================
*****• Increase energy efficiency and cut the massive waste of electricity. VERY IMPORTANT Replace Windows/doors/insulate/turn off lights/go with95% HVAC Units==============================================
WHAT YOU CAN DO:• Tell Congress, your governors and legislators thatyou don’t want nuclear power.• Insist that nuclear subsidies are switched torenewable energy.• Demand stronger energy efficiency laws.“The idea that the atom is safe is just apublic relations trick.” 1James Watson, Nobel Prize winnerand co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule
Exposing the myths 2: Nuclear power does not produce CO2
Nuclear power is not greenhouse friendly. While electricity generated from nuclear power entails no direct emissions of CO2, the nuclear fuel cycle does release CO2 during mining, fuel enrichment and plant construction. Uranium mining is one of the most CO2 intensive industrial operations and as demand for uranium grows CO2 emissions are expected to rise as core grades decline.
According to calculations by the Öko-Institute, 34 grams of CO2 are emitted per generated kWh in Germany . The results from other international research studies show much higher figures – up to 60 grams of CO2 per kWh. In total, a nuclear power station of standard size (1,250MW operating at 6,500 hours/annum) indirectly emits between 376,000 million tonnes (Germany) and 1,300,000 million tonnes (other countries) of CO2 per year. In comparison to renewable energy, nuclear power releases 4-5 times more CO2 per unit of energy produced taking account of the whole fuel cycle.
Also, with its long development time a nuclear power programme offers no short-term possibility for reducing CO2 emissions.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/kyotonuc….
More data:
Nuclear Power is still expensive to generate and build:
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/productiontaxcredits.htm
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/pnucpwr.asp
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0519-04.htm
Additionally:
How can we possibly be thinking about building new nuclear reactors? Just one of the following would be reason enough for “No New Nukes!”
Bush’s Plan: Taxpayers Foot the Bill
You’d have thought that the prospect of suicidal terrorists attempting to blow up a nuclear power plant would have made the nuclear industry the Bush Administration think twice before offering up a second generation of nuclear reactors at taxpayer expense.However, despite the nuclear industry’s abysmal economics and atrocious safety record and the added threat of nuclear terrorism, President Bush and the U.S. Senate are prepared to dole out billions of taxpayer dollars to Vice President Cheney’s friends to construct new nuclear reactors.
Never mind that these new reactor designs are unsafe, uneconomic and unnecessary. The Bush administration is willing to have the U.S. taxpayer split the cost for new nuclear reactors that the industry would never build on its own.
Bush plans to provide the nuclear industry billions of dollars in guaranteed loans. However, the Congressional Budget Office has found that the risk of nuclear-industry default on these government loans is extremely high, well above 50%.
An Economic Disaster
If the nuclear industry and Wall Street financiers are unwilling to assume the economic risk of constructing new nuclear power plants, why should the American taxpayer?
Perhaps the Senate is betting that these new reactors will be better than the one hundred and three reactors that already exist? But consider the economic and safety meltdown experienced by the nuclear industry over the past thirty years. The Department of Energy (DOE) compared nuclear construction cost estimates to the actual final costs for 75 reactors. The original cost estimate was $45 billion. The actual cost was $145 billion! Forbes magazine recognized that this “failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster of monumental scale.” According to Forbes, “only the blind, or the biased, can now think the money has been well spent.” Despite the $100 billion cost overrun, Senator Pete Domenici wants to again give the nuclear industry billions in taxpayer dollars and guaranteed loans.
However, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the prospects for a second generation of nuclear reactors are equally abysmal. According to the CBO, the Department of Energy could provide loan guarantees for up to 50% of the construction costs for seven new nuclear power plants. However, the CBO considers the risk of default on these loans to be very high – well above 50 percent. It is little wonder that the three nuclear corporations that are attempting to site new nuclear reactors, Dominion Resources, Entergy and Exelon have stated that the numbers for new nuclear construction just don’t add up.