In the next decade, America’s rural electric cooperatives plan to spend $35 billion to build coal-fired power plants, which during that time frame would produce enough carbon dioxide to undercut all state and federal efforts combined to combat greenhouse gases and global warming, reports the Washington Post.
And the coal-plant boom is being financed by taxpayer dollars, in the form of low-interest federal loans.
Two planned 700-megawatt coal-fired plants near Holcomb are among the beneficiaries of these federal subsidies.
How is this a wise use of taxpayer dollars?
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
- ProudMan on Too many exemptions
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
32 Comments
Clearly the energy companies are scrounging, they need the money. We can pay more in health care related costs so we get doubly screwed. Aren’t you Kansans glad you voted for Bush and Tiahrt so you can give more of your money to rich energy companies?
The water requirement alone from our Kansas underground Ogallala aquifers immediately makes these proposed coal fired Holcomb power plants a disaster waiting to happen … not to speak of the carbon dioxide effluent that will be produced. Put them in Wyoming near the coal mines.
You’re barking up the wrong tree, JWink, but I bet you’ll have the board’s pseudo-water expert/economist coming along sometime today to agree with you.
What a hoot.
My dad’s fond of telling me that some folks will travel great distances – just to ride a bandwagon on a cause they know nothing about.
This is a popular bandwagon, indeed.
These plants should be stopped and all future coal plants banned. Only nuclear should be allowed going forward.
It would also seem there are people who spout out against things they know nothing about. There is a water shortage due to the overuse of both the aquifer, http://www.springerlink.com/content/n2w408r8vn35080n/http://academic.emporia.edu/schulmem/hydro/TERM%20PROJECTS/Ringler/HPA%20system%20web%20page.htm , and the Colorado river.
The Arkansas river is polluted, http://www.springerlink.com/content/q21251n1h4705824/http://www.wichita.gov/CityOffices/Environmental/River/ with farm runoff,as well as heavy metals, so it’s use as a drinking source is suspect.
Water will cost much more in the coming years as the climate changes in Kansas. Whether or not man is causing global warming, it is happening, and that means droughts and water shortages.
The coal fired plants being considered in western Kansas, at taxpayers expense, is just wrong on too many levels. Water and CO2 being just two of them.
While fossil fuel nutjob GS gets her profits from pollution, she laughs at other people’s bandwagon?
J M, I wasn’t aware that there were any certified Hydrologists represented here on the WE Blog.
I knew one (PhD) in Arizona and he was constantly miffed at Geologists for screwing up water table data statistics and other like things.
Randy,
You do realize that this blog is powered by ELECTRICITY?
We need power, where else do you think it is going to come from?
When we can’t build Nuclear Power plants, there is not enough wind power to support our need, we couldnt feasably cover our entire country in Solar Panels to support our need…
Well, that leaves Coal and Oil. Which are still the leading providers today.
Actually water for power plants and ethanol plants can be recycled. The real waste is in irrigation, where water is just poured out and evaporated with no reclaim.
Republican – there is one licensed hydrogeologist here on the blog. And yes, we do have serious water problems in Kansas. Ironically it is a perverse combination of flood and shortage. It CAN be addressed but we are choosing not to do so.
Actually Joe,
Out in western Kansas I’m afriad the water for the cooling towers is lost forever.
I would imagine that the cooling water for the steam plant is cooled by cooling towers. You wouldn’t believe how much water it takes to supply a cooling tower. It all goes away.
Hank
Sunflower Electric’s own proposal says it will use 30,000 ACRE FEET of water PER YEAR. There is no way this region can support that amount of water loss without others going thirsty.
It doesnt take a water expert to understand THAT!!!!
And Ben, that flood/drought thing you talk about really doesnt apply much out here. Although I notice predictions are that our rainfall out here will decrease over time and the rain we get will start coming in fewer and fewer downpours that will mostly run off.
Yes we need electricity, but coal is not the way to go. And if companies decide to use coal, the plants should be located where water is more plentiful.
Same with ethanol, although it really is a negative on engery production. If this country wants to chase it’s tail on corn produced ethanol, at LEAST put the ethanol plants where there is more pentiful water.
And where the grains dont have to be trucked in to the plant.
Heheheheeh. So now the water shortages are a “bandwagon” to be jumped upon?
heheheheheheehe. Jesus wept.
Notice how republican and gs provide NO backup for their water baloney?
Could that be because the evidence doesnt support it? Funny, that never stops them.
I think Pmom had it right. Social Dominance Orientation.
“There is no way this region can support that amount of water loss without others going thirsty.”
———
Please provide some backup for that water bologna. And concentrate your response upon the ‘thirsty’ aspect of your claim.
I think I am opposed to the Holcomb plants, because I haven’t heard stong arguments in support of it. The fuel/raw materials are railed in, the plant impacts the water supply, and the electricity it produces as I understand it will be sold in other markets.
The arguments I have heard in support is that new coal plants are cleaner than legacy coal plants, and that new electrical carrier lines will be built that will enable wind farms to export electricity.
On balance, that doesn’t seem a compelling argument for building the plants in that location.
Hey, has anyone told Al Gore about this? He needs a new movie title. How about, “What’s Wrong With Kansas?”
Is General Electric building those plants? I read somewhere that the new Coal Fire plants they are building, pretty much reuse any expelled gases and contaminants spewed out by the burned coal.
Dunno, but saw an article on it.
So Walker’s links arent good enough? Good grief. Ok, just this once. But I’m not playing your games today gs.
http://www.accesskansas.org/kda/dwr/wa/hp/HighPlainsAbstractPage.htmlGroundwater supplies are being depleted as a result of long-term withdrawals that exceed recharge. The total amount of water in storage that is available for use by normal pumping methods is between about 6 and 8 million acre feet. Annual recharge rates indicate annual recharge to be 70,000 acre feet or less. During the 6-year period 1990-1995 reported annual water use ranged from 198,000 acre feet in 1993 to 389,100 acre feet in 1990 for an average of 292,800 acre feet. Assuming a sustained average withdrawal rate equal to that reported and an annual recharge rate of 70,000 acre feet the supply would be exhausted in 25 to 35 years.
It is not likely that the withdrawals would continue at rates of the recent past but it is also possible that recharge rates may be less than the estimated 70,000 acre feet.
However, the thickness of the aquifer and the withdrawal rates are not equally spaced throughout the area. Water supplies in some areas would be gone in much less than 25 years.
In Kansas, parts of the High Plains aquifer will be used up within the next 25 years, and vast areas of land will have no usable groundwater in the next 50 to 100 years, according to the Kansas Geological Survey.[10]
So… if the ANNUAL RECHARGE rate for the aquifer is 70,000 acre feet or LESS, and the coal fired plant will take 30,0000 acre feet annually, that is almost half the annual recharge.
Do I really have to explain why that would leave others “thirsty”?
Probably. But I’m not doing it.
Google western kansas + water shortage and see what ya get.
Like most cons, when it comes to examples, one’s too many and a hundred’s not enough…
… and if I remember correctly, the Holcomb plant is NOT being built with the scrubbers republican is talking about.
But once again, I dont feel like taking “homework” assignments today. Do your own research.
“Do I really have to explain why that would leave others “thirsty”?
Probably. But I’m not doing it.”———–
You’re right – you’re not.
You try to pass off your claim as some sort of ‘expression,’ and yet the word, ‘thirst,’ has a definite meaning.
All the grandstanding, the fear-mongering, and sure enough, when anyone calls you out – you fold like a cheap church newsletter.
Jesus winked.
Again.
Oh please, GS, like usual, one example is too many and a hundred isnt enough.
So now… do you have any proof the Holcomb plant will NOT have any adverse effect on groundwater?
I mean, for god’s sake, if the Holcomb plant takes up HALF of the annual recharge, who will make up the shortage? How?
Ok, little miss fossil fuels, take out the word “thirsty” (although the threatened cities and homes might take exception).
My post still holds true. And if thirsty doesnt work, what would you substitute? Shortage?
Ok, use shortage. Use rationing. Hell, I dont care what word you use. The Holcomb plant is still a water hog in an area that needs to REDUCE water consumption.
Funny, when they cant attack the substance of a post, they love to either nit pick a word or attack the poster. I dont mind, but it is pretty funny….
I guess gs thinks there is NOT a water shortage in western Kansas? Please provide proof. The Holcomb plant wont make that shortage worse? Please provide proof.
Oh, I forgot. Repukes dont answer questions, they only ask them. heheheheheheeheheheh!
That is why we start putting in more Nuclear power plants..
Very costly.. But much better option
They are closed system units requiring little to no new water introduced to the system. ..They are the cleanest and safest type of energy production..
30,000 acre-feet translates into about 9.7 billion gallons. That’s about the same annual water usage as all of the communities in the geographic western half of Kansas combined.
I guess I’d have to side with those who question the wisdom of putting a water-cooled powerplant in a desert.
Maybe a better idea would be a partnership where the state gov’t issues bonds to build some transmission lines and private companies are tapped to put wind turbines out in western Kansas instead to sell power to the lucrative Colorado market. Seems like a bigger winner to me.
Nathan,
“You do realize that this blog is powered by ELECTRICITY?
We need power, where else do you think it is going to come from?
When we can’t build Nuclear Power plants, there is not enough wind power to support our need, we couldnt feasably cover our entire country in Solar Panels to support our need…
Well, that leaves Coal and Oil. Which are still the leading providers today.”—-
Why do you WANT to pay higher rates, as coal and nat gas costs continue to rise? Why do you WANT to pay carbon taxes in the future?
Higher energy efficiency IS the cheapest “source” of energy, regardless of the fuel.
The fuel “costs” of solar and wind are constant, and FREE.The costs of photovoltaics, wind turbines, efficiency, etc are dropping.
100% solar energy host, since 1997.http://www.aiso.net/solar-powered-environmentally-friendly-green-web-site-hosting.asp
Nuclear is the cleanest and most abundant source..
it’s just that when it comes right down to it nobody wants to pay for it..
Wind is unpreictable and solar will make the enviromental problems worse with the Batteries required to store the power at nights..
Cosmos,I work for a company that produces polycrystalline silicon. They just announce Phase III (with Phase II in progress). Upon completion, we will triple output. We used to sell primarily to chip manufacturers – the high quality product – and everything else went to solar. The solar folks want high quality now. They are advancing the technology enough that the solar cells are much more efficient.
Right now, for 6 panels of high quality, you can run your house with no problem. Instead of batteries, you stay connected to the grid. When you are producing more than you consume, the excess is fed into the grid and your meter runs backwards.
I have a long commute thru farm country. I can’t help but notice the roof surface area on the pole barns. When the cost per panel drops, I can see farmers making a second income by selling their electricity.
Hmmmm…..
I guess gs couldnt back up her water bloviation?
heheheheheheheheheheheeheheehheeh
Now if we could just get all the idiots in the world to inhale all that greenhouse CO2, we could solve at least three problems at once!
Jed,
We do not want “all the idiots in the world to inhale all that greenhouse CO2″, and remove it from Earth’s atmosphere.
That would trigger an ice age,http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/wethring.htm“The rise of the Appalachian Mountains may have caused a major ice age approximately 450 million years ago, an Ohio State University study has found.
The weathering of the mountains pulled carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, causing the opposite of a greenhouse effect — an “icehouse” effect….It also reinforces the notion that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a major driver of Earth’s climate.”
But perhaps all the idiots could just inhale enough CO2 to drop it back to around 280 ppm?
Cos,This is going to take a lot more calculation than I initially envisioned, and runs the risk of leaving some idiots unsuffocated. Perhaps there’s a non-greenhouse pollutant we could convince the remaining idiots to ingest, possibly in the form of snack foods?
Convince all Liberal Democrats to stop breathing out and expelling CO2 would help the problem Jed.
Publican,That would work better on conservative Bushllits who are already holding their breath and waiting for victory in Iraq! This may be offset by the methane production from Congress who asked repeatedly for Rice but got beans. We could serve those reactionary Neo-Convicts some nice Strawberry Phosphates and Mercuric Custard Polymerengue Pie or Yellow Cake!