Some GOP lawmakers’ patience is fraying on Sunflower Electric Power Corp.’s long-delayed state permit to expand its coal-fired plant near Holcomb. Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, wants the Legislative Coordinating Council to authorize a panel to look into the delay.
And 39 Kansas House Republicans sent a letter Wednesday to Rod Bremby, KDHE secretary in Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ administration, expressing confidence in the plant’s planned design and water use and touting the jobs it will bring. “Without your approval of the permit as proposed by Sunflower, our state and its citizens will lose access to the low-cost energy source and millions in economic development,” the lawmakers wrote. The Wichita-area lawmakers to sign the letter were Reps. Steve Brunk, Mario Goico and Joe McLeland of Wichita, Don Myers of Derby, John Grange of El Dorado, Dick Kelsey of Goddard and Ted Powers of Mulvane.
Meanwhile, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups are trying to flood the governor’s office with anti-plant postcards.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
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
- gster on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- minutelady on Open thread 11/24
- minutelady on Open thread 11/24
72 Comments
The people who will be paying higher utility bills for the construction of the new Holcomb coal-fired plants should make the decision.
Not to mention their even higher utilty bills in the future, when carbon taxes are added.
And not to mention their paying off the costs of the new plants, if/when the plants are forced to shut down early, due to global warming happening faster than is currently projected.
Higher energy efficiency, and renewables, would give those consumers lower utility bills.
The Governor is smart enough or bright enough to sneeze. She is a “Puppet” to every issue and the Politicians and Lobbiest around those issues. She only looks at, “what will she get or how much will she personaly recieve for her vote”?? People excpect the Truth and Honesty out of Liars and Crooks. Who ends up being more stupid?? Her or us?? Herbert West III, Publisher/Journalist,west.herb@yahoo.com
She should cancel the plant. It is not needed and will pollute the air and use up water.
Gee let’s see: Steve Brunk has stuck his neck out for something besides abortion and realtors, Joe McLeland decided to stand for something besides having California wines sent to his home, Don Myers is all over the board on issues, John Grange is trying to make a name for himself so he jumps on every issue that will put his name in the press, Dick Kelsey is only in the legislature to line his own pockets with foster care money so he probably thought he should look like he stands for something else and Ted Powers is not coming back to the legislature.
What will the Governor do?
Rhonda’s underlined link to th postcards….
Sebelius takes one from the left
This coal plant story just won’t end.
The Sierra Club and various partnering environmental groups are sending postcards to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius urging her to reject Sunflower Electric Power Corp.’s application to build a large coal-fired power plant out west.
The cards strike a dire tone, warning that “we are running out of time to address global warming” and accusing Sebelius of a “contradiction” by pushing renewable energy like wind while remaining on the sidelines of the coal plant debate.
The Sierra Club is hoping to have some 5,000 of these cards mailed to the governor. Tuesday, at the state’s annual Renewable Energy Conference in Topeka, student environmental groups from most of the state’s public universities held a press conference and said they’ve each filled out hundreds of the cards. (Let’s hope they’re printed on recycled paper.)
With friends like these, coming as they are from one of Sebelius’ most solid bases, who needs Republicans?
Cute Rhonda. Especially the shot about recycled paper.
A REAL journalist would have told us how to get one of those postcards. I know I want one. Can someone do Rhonda’s job and tell us how to get one? We don’t need this coal plant.
An article by Congressman Jerry Moran in the Sunday Wichita EAGLE entitled, “New power plant is needed …,” spins and dances around the truth. SHAME ON CONGRESSMAN MORAN.
Half way through the article, Moran states, “As part of its commitment to reduce the carbon footprint, Sunflower (Electric Power Corporation) has purchased 34,000 acres of irrigated cropland that will be converted to grassland. This not only will REDUCE THE USE OF WATER but also remove carbon from the air and will trap it in the soil.”
What Congressman Moran is really saying is Sunflower Corporation has purchased the land AND THE WATER RIGHTS TO THE OGALLALA AQUIFER WATER DEEP UNDER THAT LAND FOR ITS TREMENDOUS WATER NEEDS FOR ELECTRIC PRODUCTION.
By way of comparison, 34,000 acres of land is larger than any ranch in Kansas. It is some 53 square miles in area. Withdrawing all the water from the underlying aquifer could provide a virtual dam to the gradual southeastward seepage of this ancient pure Ogallala water towards central Kansas and Wichita.
Allowing these power plants near Holcomb/Garden City and ethanol plants scattered through Kansas will eventually relegate Kansans to drinking recycled sewage bilge water.
IS THE PUBLIC GOING TO WAKE UP SOON TO THIS ASSAULT ON OUR KANSAS PUBLICLY OWNED WATER RESOURCES?
REGARDING ETHANOL, the Sunday EAGLE printed an article, “Distillery glut may turn ethanol boom to bust.” The article was by-lined in Nevada, Iowa so not directly related to Kansas.
The article mentions a number of reasons the current expansion of the ethanol production industry might be burning out.
While the value of ethanol itself is questionable … its use of our relatively pure, ancient, underground water in Kansas and surrounding states is no joke. It threatens our future drinking water.
WE CAN ONLY HOPE THE ARTICLE PROVES CORRECT.
Wouldnt it be funny, after sebelius encouraged republicans to take over the democratic party in Kansas, that she…
…switched over to being a republican?
‘Cause if she lets these bozo’s dictate her policy, she may as well. Her “base” in the democratic party is VERY unhappy. If she runs for higher office, (and you know she will) WHERE will her support come from?
You got it. Republicans.
Much like Hillary, she doesnt give a buggered rat about her “base” in the party. They are sheeple, and all she has to do is drop her hankie and they bow to her every command.
I said this months ago. She’s making herself a real red state record on the environment.
And BTW, MOST of the electricity will be going out of state, mainly to Colorado. Stopping this water sucking monster will HARDLY impact Kansans.
But letting it go forward will affect us all, for generations.
Whatever will governor “leadership” do? She’s already lost her ability to “lead” on this issue.
Not that she ever would, of course…
As CF once noted, this might give us a clue if Steve Irsik, he of the TEN THOUSAND dollar campaign contributions, got his money’s worth when he bought and paid for kathleen.
I wonder if he kept he receipt?
Water as political capital. The hallmark of the sebelius administration…
I guess if I were the governor, I’d want my legacy to be about what I DID, not what I didnt do.
And the list of what sebelius HASNT done is getting way longer than the list of the good things she “led” the way on.
…and as for governor “leadership” and her other pet project…
“Bill Spiegel
October 1, 2007
Harvey County Commissioners last week approved a special-use permit for an ethanol plant to be built near Newton. Days later, two brothers from north central Kansas announced that they wish to build an ethanol plant in Kansas, with a site near Hesston – in Harvey County – one of five proposed locations…
Terry and Gerry Frager, Morrowvile, head up North Central Energy Group. They are working with a company in Kansas City to build one plant, with locations near Hesston, Perry, Concordia, Wamego and Morrowville…
The attraction of the site near Hesston is that the land is available for purchase, there is plenty of water available and the area grows enough grain to support the plant. They plan to work with the Kansas City group to build the plant and hope to gain funding from farmer-investors and federal grants, according to the Hutchinson News… ”
P.T. Barnum was correct.—–
Ksfarmgrrl: Thanks for the information. Hope these would-be ethanol plant developers read the article I mentioned above in the Sunday EAGLE.
Since Hesston is fairly close to Halstead, I presume the “plenty of water available” is from the Equus Beds aquifer from which Wichita currently gets about 1/3 of its drinking water but might increase if Zebra Mussels reduce the usage of Cheney Lake water.
Strangely enough, Wichita has spent a lot of money creating a treated water recharge system into the Equus Beds aquifer up around Halstead which could feed this treated water to the various ethanol plants being developed in Harvey County.
SO, ONCE AGAIN, WHAT’S OUR CHOICE … DRINKING WATER OR ETHANOL?
“Strangely enough, Wichita has spent a lot of money creating a treated water recharge system into the Equus Beds aquifer up around Halstead which could feed this treated water to the various ethanol plants being developed in Harvey County.”
HEH! You think the ethanol guys, and lite gov parkinson and joe harkins dont know that?
Remember these are the SAME guys responsible for two competing ethanol plant proposals around Concordia. The holdup?
Water rights. There’s not enough for two. Kinda like The Highlander.
“In the end, there can be only one.”
I haven’t seen anyone other than the legislature or Governor Sebelius that supports this Coal Power Plant.
There are more unanswered questions about it, than answered. Since it is going to be a polluter that will affect a multi-state area, all should be concerned.
The water issue is very important to Kansans and I think it would be better to safeguard our resources than to sell out to a temporary “more jobs” plan.
As I understand it, the energy produced will not go to Kansas, but to other states. So, what is the point of building it here? I’m sure the panhandle of Oklahoma or Southeast Colorado have plenty of land they can use.
If they want to use the water hose in my backyard once, that’s fine. But if they hook up their power plant “swimming pool” then they are going to have a lot of extra fees and better have a conservation plan on the table.
Can someone actually tell me when the Gov came out in support of it? I’ve been searching around and i don’t find anything either way, just some news reports that says she did, but nothing actually quoting her.
“It will create jobs.”
It sure will!
Somebody’s got to treat all those kids with mercury poisoning . . .
AND there will be jobs in clearing all the dead trees once the water table sinks.
It’s time for the Gov. to stand up and show she’s not the Gov. for a multi-state area!
“If they want to use the water hose in my backyard once, that’s fine. But if they hook up their power plant “swimming pool” then they are going to have a lot of extra fees and better have a conservation plan on the table.”
Posted by Kansas.
How is “Kansas” going to make them pay a “lot of extra fees”, when they’ve already purchased 34,000 acres of water rights?
The only applicable water “conservation plan” is building the plants with air-cooled heat exchangers — they plan to use water cooling.
And if they encouraged their customers to use energy conservation, and added renewable energy, they would NOT need to build the new coal-fired plants.
…and just for the record…
Sunflower is a member owned cooperative. Owned by other cooperatives like Midwest Energy, Lane-Scott, etc.
It is NOT farmer owned. Have you looked at Midwest Energy’s territory? Hays? Colby? Hello?
But it makes for a good story that it’s “farmers” that own Sunflower. I see that P.J FELL for charming Steve Miller and his press releases. And NO mention of how much water this alge-culter takes?
I think P.J writes the ethanol stories too, no?
Let Randy take a crack at it…
forgot the linky
http://www.kansas.com/101/story/188195.html
I think Sebelius will approve the plant.
Coal fired plants are the best way to help make the USA energy independent.
The GW issue is ridiculous. Tell that couple in Lawrence to sue China and India and Russia.
China, alone, opens an new coal-fired plant every week.
Getures and symbolism is all the GW crowd has to offer.
If the USA does EVERYTHING that the GW Chicken-Littles want, they can NOT tell us what benefits we might see.
Even if the rest of the world remained static, or did not change their carbon use, the GW crowd can not tell us what effect their proposals will have on climate.
However, the REST of the world will NOT remain static.
The REST of the world will do what is best for them, they will expand their energy sources as fast as they can, and they will pass the United States in productivity.
And, if the rest of the world goes full-speed ahead on coal, what purpose have the domestic coal-restrictions served?
In fact, the rest of the world will simply purchase US coal, as our domestic restrictions will actually make the price of coal cheaper.
Coal fired plants are the best way to help make the USA energy independent.
What an asinine statement.
Coal does NOTHING to make America less energy dependent. Research into alternative infrastructure and energies would.
There are no brown outs. We are not expecting some sort of population boom. Devices are getting more energy efficient not less. There is no demonstrable need for this plant.
There is no demonstrable need for this plant.
Posted by: J R | October 01, 2007 at 01:09 PM
So then why is it being built? IF there is no need, there should be no customers. If there are no customers, the business loses money. So, is it your contention that the reason for this being built is to lose money?
They WANT to build it I suppose for redundancy. You know, the kind of redundancy that Enron used to play at brokering electricity and CAUSING blackouts.
The new coal-fired plants are not needed.
http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org
In the “Media/Docs” 2006 press release archives,
http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/media/pdf/Tri-State%20report%20update%201pr.pdf
“But the WRA analysis demonstrates that the company is dramatically inflating those forecasts to justify the plants.
…According to the WRA analysis, Tri-State’s wholesale rate could spike 80 percent above current rates by 2011 and 160 percent by 2019 as a result.”
Colorado needs the energy, they will pay Kansas to produce it and endure the environmental burden that results, too. For Colorado, it is a solution to a NIMBY problem.
I predict Sebelius will not permit this to happen. If she allows this to happen, can we impeach/recall a governor?
Colorado needs the energy, they will pay Kansas to produce it and endure the environmental burden that results, too. For Colorado, it is a solution to a NIMBY problem.
Posted by: Steven Davis | October 01, 2007 at 02:18 PM
That certainly makes sense to me. It’s the same everywhere, even locally. Sedgwick county elected to dump their garbage in Harper county, no matter that they had already paid an inflated price for land near Furly, and the Harper county site had a watger table that was much closer to the surface. NIMBY. the law of the land
“Colorado needs the energy,…”
Posted by Steven Davis.
Do you have proof of that?
http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/media/pdf/Tri-State%20report%20update%201pr.pdf“· Tri-State already has sufficient capacity to meet the growing power demands of its members without building any of the new plants.
· Any growth in member demand that has occurred is not nearly as large as the company claims, and those increases can be characterized as suburban-type seasonal demand, which doesn’t require additional baseload capacity from coal.
· Much of Tri-State’s growth plans are speculative at best. In fact, according to its own projections, Tri-State will have 1,200 megawatts more in total power obligations than it needs simply to meet member co-ops’ energy demands, yet it is not saying for what. In all, the 2,100 megawatts it plans to build will result in capacity exceeding total power obligations by a whopping 1,600 MW.
· Tri-State’s long-term commitment to new coal-fired power is a huge financial risk, for reasons ranging from rising costs for coal and rail delivery to millions of dollars in additional costs for controlling greenhouse gas pollution.
“Tri-State doesn’t have any solid justification for building even one of these plants,” said Rick Gilliam, senior energy policy advisor at WRA and author of the report.”
‘Federal Loans for Coal Plants Clash With Carbon Cuts’http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301105_2.html
“May 14, 2007
A Depression-era program to bring electricity to rural areas is using taxpayer money to provide billions of dollars in low-interest loans to build coal plants even as Congress seeks ways to limit greenhouse gas emissions….Among those asking for federal loans:…? A group of rural cooperatives plans to build two, 700-megawatt plants in western Kansas.”
Elsewhere…
‘Ontario to Go Coal-Free in Seven Years’http://www.desmogblog.com/ontario-to-go-coal-free-in-seven-years
“26 Jun 07The Ontario government set its climate targets Monday, promising to close the province’s coal plants and reduce emissions to below 1990 levels. Premier McGuinty said to reach the proposed targets, Ontario’s coal plants will shut down by 2014.”
Cosmos-
I don;lt know if they need it or not. It appears WRA is not necessarily an unbiased source. One statement, near the end, seems to lead me to that conclusion.
SOmething like”Dollars spent on coal could be spent on windpower instead”
Why spend it on windpower? There is no need for more capacity.If that is true, there is no need to spend money at all on generating capacity. My suspicious nature (admittedly) says that WRA has a different agenda. Like having the electric companies abandon the millions spent on current generating plants, to only spend millions more on more “eco friendly” generation schemes, like wind power.
Just for kicks look at Holcomb in Google Maps or Mapquest aerial.
See all those green circles? Kiss them good bye.
And where is the 34,000 acres going to come from? Look at all that land in production around the plant!!!!!
JR
ENRON was a LIBERAL green-loving company.Enron execs were buddies with Bill Clinton.
Littlejohn,
It seems to me it’s about meeting future demand, and/or replacing other existing coal plants.
NREL does reliable studies.
“We’re watching a great opportunity for local benefits slip away,” said Gilliam. “Every dollar spent on coal is one that could have been invested in things like rural wind farms here.”
Preceded by,
“There are, however, alternatives that are far less costly and more reliable that would benefit many of the rural areas Tri-State serves. According an earlier WRA analysis, released in April, energy-efficiency measures alone could cut 500 megawatts from Tri-State’s demand by 2019….In fact, according to a study by researchers at the National Renewable Energy Lab (www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/37720.pdf), the cumulative impact payments to landowners, property tax revenue and job creation makes windpower more economically beneficial than coal or natural gas projects of equal size in Colorado.”
Biomass, and solar also have lots of potential locally.
Ah, so Clinton was the one who named Ken Lay Kenny Boy.
Silly me, here I thought it was, as the captain puts it, the worst. president. ever
If there is no need, which was the original argument, then there is no need. Consuming dollars, and energy, building a windpower plant for excess capacity, serves to accomplish nothing. Building a more “eco friendly” production facility when needed, wouild be far more efficient, at least IMHO.If there is a need, then by all means, build a plant that does less “harm” to the envirionment. If not, don;t build anything.Consider this anaolgy, and admittedly, maybe not the best, but points out some of the hindrances.My wife owns a 10 year old car. It is paid for, it gets about 20 mpg, and is driven about 10,000 miles per year. To be environmentally friendly, she could have that car crushed, and buy a new Prius. Say it gets 40 mpg–esperienced numbers have varied, but let’s use that as a baseline. So, She will save 500 gallons a year. About 1500 dollars. The car cost 21,000. So, how long will it take to recover these costs? 14 years. Past the life expectancy of the car. Then, there is the carbon footprint of actually making that car, and all it’s associated parts.
So, how is it helpful for me to scrap my wifes car and buy a Prius? Short answer. Not. Much in the same way as taking out of production existing power plants, and building more energy efficient, and eco friendly ones.
“Much in the same way as taking out of production existing power plants, and building more energy efficient, and eco friendly ones.”
Except existing coal-fired plants put out huge amounts of CO2, plus sulfates, mercury, etc. Some of them are old, and near the end of their design life. And soon, coal will have a carbon tax.
If your wife’s car was burning a quart of oil every few hundred miles, and needed expensive repairs, it’d make sense to scrap it, and get a less polluting car.
“Some of them are old, and near the end of their design life.”
Then by all means, replace them with something cleaner, but economics must also come into play.And as for the carbon tax, like most special taxes, that’s just another way to force some change.
using tax policy to force change. My opinion, I hate it. Either it’s useful, or not. Either it’s on par economically, or it’s not.In the meanwhile, if there is no need for the excess capacity, as was the initial statement, don;t build anything.
How much CO2 (In addition to other things) does ONE “Mud Volcano” emit????
http://www.travel-images.com/az-mud-volcanoes.html
How much CO2 does one standard, “magmga” volcano emit?
Sorry it’s long. There is no link. Came from:
Psssst!
A legal opinion released Friday by Attorney General Paul Morrison opines that Gov.Sebelius’ administration has wide latitude to reject a coal-fired electric power project in western Kansas. The opinion launched a flurry of action surrounding the proposal by Sunflower Electric Power Corp. to build twin 700-megawatt plants near Holcomb next to its existing 360-megawatt plant. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), which is considering permits for the plants, immediately sought to delay litigation filed by a Lawrence couple who want to stop the plant’s construction. And KDHE announced it would make a decision on the Sunflower permit within 30 days. KDHE is led by Secretary Rod Bremby, a Cabinet official appointed by Sebelius, a Democrat.Meanwhile, western Kansas legislators, mostly Republicans, who want the plant built said they will appoint a panel next week to find out why the permits for Sunflower Electric haven’t been granted yet. And one of them said Sebelius’ opposition to the project has politically charged the decision on whether it goes forward. “The bottom line is that politics has held this up for a ridiculously long time,” said Sen. Jay Emler, R-Lindsborg, and chairman of the Senate Utilities Committee. Emler said, “It will be denied and it will be all politics.”KDHE said, however, that political considerations would not play into its decision and have had no effect on the length of time it has taken to decide on the permits. “The secretary is reviewing the permit application and reviewing all the comments that have come in,”said KDHE spokesman Joe Blubaugh. Sunflower submitted its air quality permit application on June 1, 2006, and the period for hearings and public comment on the proposal ended in December 2006. Morrison’s legal opinion, which was sought by KDHE after the agency was sued over the plants, allows the agency to consider the effect of unregulated pollutants such as carbon dioxide when granting air quality permits. In other words, KDHE could reject Sunflower’s permits “to protect the health of persons or the environment.” But the opinion said KDHE probably couldn’t delay the issuance of permits if it decided to try to adopt regulations on carbon dioxide emissions. In other words, the agency’s regulatory scheme at the time of the permit application is what governs the outcome.Once the A.G.’s decision was announced, Sec. Bremby asked a Shawnee County District judge to delay oral arguments scheduled for Oct. 12 in a lawsuit filed by Sarah and Ray Dean, the Lawrence couple that sued KDHE to force it to impose restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, which many scientists believe causes disastrous climate change. Bremby said KDHE needed more time to analyze whether Morrison’s legal opinion would have any impact on the lawsuit. Of course, the A.G.’s opinion is just a lawyer’s opinion, not a court finding . . . but it is based upon careful research by knowledgeable attorneys. “Because of the pending litigation and the importance of this issue, we felt it was appropriate to seek an opinion from the attorney general,” Bremby said. “This guidance will now be analyzed and deliberated throughout the remainder of the decision-making process.”Rhetoric has increased about the proposal. Last week, dozens of Republican legislators wrote KDHE, urging the agency to permit the facility, while Sebelius and Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson continued to publicly state their opposition. Environmentalists say pollution from the plant will cause health problems and add to global climate change.
They also warned that a large part of Kansas residents live down wind from the proposed plants. After speaking at a renewable energy conference earlier this week, Parkinson told reporters that development of the project would hurt efforts to increase wind energy. And Sebelius has said one reason she opposes the Sunflower project is because about 90% of the energy would be sold out of state.Supporters say the plants will be among the cleanest-burning coal facilities in the nation, and help the western Kansas economy.
Posted by: Palm Trees for Sale | September 30, 2007 at 10:26 PM
“can we impeach/recall a governor?”
Steven, from your lips to god’s ears…
It’s just a matter of whether Sebelius wants to be elected governor or anything elss. If she builds the plant she will have lits of time “spend with her family”.
And dont forget, in addition to Colorado getting rid of a NIMBY problem, they also get a second crack at our water, once it crosses the state boarder.
Recently Kansas has been pushing for the enforcement of Colorado’s water usage laws and regulating how much water MUST flow into Kansas. They were a long time complying, and I think, much like Nebraska, they are STILL not in full compliance.
Anyway… they are having to let more water flow into Kansas. So… by producing the power in Kansas, and sucking up over 30,000 acre feet of KANSAS water, they get the same benefit as if that water had stayed in Colorado.
I’m tellin’ ya, the future is here, and it is ALL about water.
More on Same,
Thanks for the info – someone needs to “wash their hands” on this project and they are all sitting in Topeka.
“help the western Kansas economy”
Oh PUL-EEEEEEZE!
A handful of permanent jobs vs. 30,000 acre feet of water per YEAR?
Jesus WEPT. WHO did that math?
“Meanwhile, western Kansas legislators, mostly Republicans, who want the plant built said they will appoint a panel next week to find out why the permits for Sunflower Electric haven’t been granted yet.”
That’s actually pretty funny when you think about it.
The republicans think if the permit is rejected, they can “hang” it on sebelius?
hee hee hee heeheeeeee!
First off, they NEVER elect democrats down there. Boogy boogy boogy man.
Second, oh yeah. PLEASE hang it on Kathleen. That would hurt her, um… how?
I suspect Steve Miller sees he may be losing the fight with the governor so he is leaning on his long time friends in the legislature.
Dont forget, Miller was behind the efforts of wKREDA to recruit dairy farms to southwest Kansas. They owe him down there, and he never forgets it. Or lets them forget it either.
Steve Miller doing an end run on governor leadership? Say it isnt so…
Oh, and given the shenanigans over WATER in this state, NOW the repukes wanna hollar about politics, permits, and water?
heheheheheheheh!
I guess it’s true. It really DOES depend on whose ox is being gored.
Prediction:If the permit for the Kansas plant is declined, it can easily go to Oklahoma Panhandle.I think their groundwater, down there, is available.Also, OK is already “pro-Energy” and OK will then get the huge property tax income from a Utility.
Just fine with me Paulie.
I drove through the pan handle of OK once. A power plant would be positively scenic there. Still, it’s too bad we are building plants that are not needed.
Well, the point is that any enviro impact will be identical, or perhaps worse.
(Are we getting the coal from up North? If so, it will take longer to get it down to OK)
And — we will not get the tax revenue.
(Are we getting the coal from up North? If so, it will take longer to get it down to OK)
And — we will not get the tax revenue.
Posted by: Econ101 | October 01, 2007 at 05:16 PM
I read somewhere that it was Wyoming coal or was supposed to be if the coal plant was to built.
Kansas
That means that the GREENS will force the rail service to haul TONS of coal for an even longer distance.
I know the reputation that Okies have. But even they might not welcome a power plant to produce electricity that Colorado does not need. Kansans seem to get it.
Econ101,
If Tri-State builds the new coal-fired plant in OK (instead of encouraging higher end-use energy efficiency and renewables) then Tri-State is responsible for the costs to haul “coal for an even longer distance”.
BTW: OK does not seem to want coal plants either.
‘Okla.: Coal Plant Application Rejected’http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/09/10/ap4101678.html
“State Treasurer Scott Meacham came out publicly against the proposal, saying he was concerned about global warming and its impact on agriculture and the state’s future economy.”
Cosmos
LOL, you really are SLOOOWWWWWWWWW sometimes —
If the coal is hauled for a longer distance, it will:
TAKE MORE ENERGY TO HAUL IT!
AlsoThe Oklahoma panhandle is part of the HUGOTON Natural Gas Field.
That Field stretches from Dodge City, Garden City and Liberal all the way down to Amirillo TX.
However, the Southern Kansas and OK Panhandle portions are pumping a lot of salt water, from what I hear. They are playing out.
Those gas wells are some of the oldest in the world.
The Panhandle might want the jobs.
The Panhandle might not have as much opposition as the urban areas outside OK City.
BTW
I couldnt help noticing that the Natural Gas interests help kill the OK City Coal plant.
Just like when Enron was around, natural gas interests fund and support the left.
Here you go, greens, why don’t you pass some laws against Volcanic Eruptions:
“Carbon dioxide (CO2)Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This colorless, odorless gas usually does not pose a direct hazard to life because it typically becomes diluted to low concentrations very quickly whether it is released continuously from the ground or during episodic eruptions. But in certain circumstances, CO2 may become concentrated at levels lethal to people and animals. Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas; breathing air with more than 30% CO2 can quickly induce unconsciousness and cause death. In volcanic or other areas where CO2 emissions occur, it is important to avoid small depressions and low areas that might be CO2 traps. The boundary between air and lethal gas can be extremely sharp; even a single step upslope may be adequate to escape death.”
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
“How much CO2 (In addition to other things) does ONE “Mud Volcano” emit????
How much CO2 does one standard, “magmga” volcano emit?”
Posted by: Econ101 | October 01, 2007 at 04:32 PM
Are you STILL trying to prove that the recent global warming is not human-caused?
‘It’s volcanoes (or lack thereof)’http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=28
“As far as CO2 goes, volcanoes emit only 0.3 Gigatonnes of CO2 per year – about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 26.4Gt per year.”
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/programmes/landres/segs/downloads/VolcanicContributions.pdf
Econ101,
No, you’re slow. By “costs” (PLURAL) I meant both $ and environmental. The $ amount of transporting the coal increases because it’s a longer distance (takes MORE energy)
There’s also a greater chance of derailment, etc which could cause problems.
The longer the grid route, the more electrical energy is lost — another “cost”. That a big advantage of distributed generation.
I suppose 0.3 Gigatonnes from the UK Geologists (instead of the United States Geological Service) could be accurate, if co2 was the only weather influencing substance that volcanoes spew, but it isn’t. :)
How many “gigatonnes” is 130 Million tons?
Volcanoes release more than 130 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.
gigatonne is a billion metric tonsor tonnes as they say in the U.K.
How much CO2 does one, modern, coal plant realese in one year, again, compared to the 130 million tons of CO2 released by volcanoes?
330 million tons (U.S.)is approximately 0.3 gigatonnes.
“… if co2 was the only weather influencing substance that volcanoes spew, but it isn’t. :)”
Posted by: Kansas | October 01, 2007 at 07:07 PM
The cooling effect is explained at link I gave earlier,http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=28
(Zielinski 2000), etc.
Scientists also tested climate models by using data from the Pinatubo eruption.
Econ101’s link has a slightly lower amount of CO2 from volcanoes than the U.K.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
“Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes–the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)!”
“How much CO2 does one, modern, coal plant realese in one year, again, compared to the 130 million tons of CO2 released by volcanoes?” Posted by: Econ101 | October 01, 2007 at 07:30 PM
One medium-sized (500 MW) conventional coal-fired plant emits approx. 3.2 to 4.0 MMT CO2 a year. (MMT=million metric tonnes)
1. Emissions Source: US Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2005.2. Building Sector Data Source: 2006 Building Energy Databook, EIA.3. 1 Quad (quadrillion Btu) = approx. 60.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMT CO2).4. One medium-sized (500 MW) conventional coal-fired plant emits approx. 3.2 to 4.0 MMT CO2 a year.5. One billion square feet of existing building area in the US is responsible for approx. 7.68 MMT CO2/yr.. Every Household:a. There are 110 million households in the US today.b. Changing one 60-watt incandescent light bulb to a compact fluorescent saves approx. 156.6 pounds of CO2 each year.
10. California:a. California, which makes up over 10% of the country’s new vehicle market, passed legislation to cut GHG emissions in new cars by 25% and in SUVs by 18%, starting in 2009.b. A 25% reduction of emissions in cars and 18% in SUV’s sold in California in 2009 is approx. 2.3 MMT CO2.
14. From 1973 to 1983 approx. 19.7 billion square feet (bsf) of residential building and 13.3 bsf of commercial building were built. (Source: US Census, EIA)15. Total US energy consumption in 1973 was 75.7 quadrillion btu (Qbtu) and in 1983, 73.0 Qbtu. (Source: EIA)16. Total US CO2 emissions in 1973 was 4685 million metric tons (MMT) and in 1983, 4331 MMT. (Source: EIA)
http://www.architecture2030.org/current_situation/coal.html
Click on photo of smokestack for stats re SO2, mercury, etc,Other 3 photos have other stats.http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html
In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:
3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming — as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
And here’s a YouTube that Econ101 will enjoy,
Coal: Cheap, Abundant, Clean (LOL)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71kckb8hhOQ
So —
It would take more than 35 Coal Fired electric generating plants to equal the C02 generated by all the world’s volcanoes, on an annual basis?
So paulie, if the volcanos cause SO much damage, wouldnt it be better to STOP the coal plants from creating MORE damage?
Good grief! IF something is bad, it’s ok to do something else to make it WORSE?
And paulie, exactly how much NEW property tax will be paid by the new plant?
(Hint: It’s in the proposal submitted by Sunflower)
I mean, since you are HOWLING about property taxes, SURELY you know how much they will be?
hehehehehhe….
Econ101,
Do you have a way to shutdown volcanoes?
We can shutdown coal-fired plants, by using more energy efficiency and renewables.