Bad news for anybody hoping the dispute between Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and GOP legislators about the coal-fired power plants would blow over quickly: “I think we will deal with it the entire session,†state Rep. Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence, told the Lawrence Journal-World. She is concerned “that it is going to be an east Kansas versus west Kansas thing. The people who are supporting these plants are very passionate, and they can demonstrate the need.â€
The Legislature reportedly might respond to the decision of Sebelius’ Kansas Department of Health and Environment to reject the proposed plants by abolishing the agency or taking away its authority to issue permits, making that a legislative power.
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
- 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
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
24 Comments
As KsFmGrrl keeps reminding us on this WE Blog … IN KANSAS, THE CONTINUED FLOW OF OUR RELATIVELY PURE UNDERGROUND OGALLALA AQUIFER WATER MUST BE CONSIDERED ALONG WITH POTENTIAL FOR AIR POLLUTION BY CARBON DIOXIDE AND OTHER POLLUTANTS.
Do we want these decisions made by those without any scientific education? Do we want to turn over the design of our bridges and viaducts to legislator/politicians? Do we want to turn over operation of our hospitals and schools to legislator/politicians?
OBVIOUSLY THE ANSWER IS NO … TOO MUCH OF THAT IS DONE ALREADY.
Decisions about the proposed power plant near Holcomb/Garden City must be made and double checked by those with a real knowledge about how power plants work … or we will have a catastrophe on our hands here in Kansas.
AND TO ME THAT MEANS GOING WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL TWIN POWER PLANTS UNTIL THEY CAN RECEIVE THE BLESSING OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AS WELL AS ALL KANSANS.
Hmmm….
So, legislators who are elected are bad, but appointed Public Administrators are good.
I fail to see the difference.
Nathan: I will concede that it would be better to receive the best thinking of our 125 Kansas state representatives PLUS our 40 Kansas senators properly overseeing the input/advice of the states’ scientists and technical staff.
Over the years, I have known many people at both levels in Topeka and outstate.
I guess I’m afraid this proposed power plant project is in the hands of BIG MONEY INDUSTRIALISTS FROM OUT OF STATE so the best interests of the people of Kansas might easily be ignored.
As a long time Kansas moderate Republican, I see the importance of protecting our environment in Kansas or we won’t have a place left worth living in. We all must be able to breathe clean air and drink clean and safe water from our public water systems.
Eastern Ks. folks aren’t being given enought credit for intelligence!
Has anyone polled the citizens of KS to determine how we want our power to be generated? That seems to me a necessary first step. We all breathe, and we all use electricity, so we all have a dog in this fight.
The people of Kansas did not want this power plant.
There was no need demonstrated for the building of this plant.
But here again is Rhonda, right wing waving in the breeze. Ever the apologist for commerce and industry keeping a fight going that has already been decided.
Get a job at FOX news Rhonda.
Near as I can tell, wind farms don’t spew pollution into the air, don’t suck water from the aquifer, and could power all the air conditioners in Kansas with a zero carbon footprint.
But the outfits who advocate coal-powered generations plants are like the guy whose only tool is a hammer; everthing starts looking like a nail.
Western Kansas coal-fired power plants would exist only to provide upwind Colorado with electiricty. Downwind, the polllution generated by the plants would further gegenerate the wnvironment and quality of life.
The irony is: the very winds that would spreat coal-fired polution over several stats and around the world could provide power without a carbon footprint.
But that would take a tool other than a hammer; something Big Coal doesn’t have.
Three major issues in my professional opinion all argue against the plant:
Water – The Ogalalla is under tremendous pressure; this plant would make that worse. KsF is right.
Mercury – the plant would add a significant Hg load to the local area environment; Hg is a potent neurotoxin.
CO2 – We all know about this one. Anthropogenic CO2 is already having a deleterious impact on climate and. through that, on agriculture. They reaognize that; that is why they added their suppsoed bio plant (micro-algae). However, that experimental pilot plant would be a drop in the bucket AT BEST. This is nothing more than window dressing.
The Legislature reportedly might respond to the decision of Sebelius’ Kansas Department of Health and Environment to reject the proposed plants by abolishing the agency or taking away its authority to issue permits, making that a legislative power.
Not a bad plan at all. We elect one, the other are croonies.
We already pay our legislatures to make decisions for us at the statehouse. Might save a few bucks abolishing the office altogether.
Jwink – Bremby did not make a scientific decision. He does not have a science background. He did what the Governor told him to do or he would lose his job. He cannot afford to lose his job because he and his doctor wife filed for bankruptcy this year.
So much for science.
Bremby might not have a science degree but many of us who DO have such degrees find his decision to be scientifically sound. Since his background is more skewed toward health I might guess that the mercury issue was important to him.
The Republicans will reward polluters for their dishonest ads by making it easier for them to get their multi-billion dollars mercury, carbon spewing plants built to send the energy to Oklahoma and Colorado. No surprise every legislature will be cashing huge checks from the coal companies.
Corruption is still status quo with the Republicans.
Again, has anybody polled the citizens of KS to determine how we would like our electricity to be generated? And if you have a source, please cite it.
At the dawn of the atomic age the people of this Country were told of the great potenial of the Atom. Atomic power would be so cheap it would not even be worth metering or charging for. Now we are being told the same thing about wind power and other “renewable” sources of energy. But just wait until the big “green” energy companies demand and receive huge rate increases for these wind farms. Once again those hurt the most will be the poorest among us who the watermelon people claim to care about.
the watermelon people? What the heck kind of code is THAT Mac?
The increase in cost to the consumer for wind is simply because the power companies think they can get away with it. The coal plant would cost $3.5 billion and continue to add costs with imported coal. The wind farms will cost less to build and don’t require importation of fuel yet we are told that this will increase our bills while coal won’t.
How does this math work?
Doug – I suspect that the capital cost per kilowatt for wind might be somewhat high; however as you correctly note they don’t have to be fed.
I don’t think anyone has addressed the question of why it would be fair to apply this law to only one profession and not all that may interact with children.We have gotten off on a tangent about drunk driving, but that really isn’t the same as someone who has a beer or two and gets pulled over. In many cases the person probably wouldn’t even be demonstrating signs of impairment.
OOps posted to wrong thread, gotta watch that alcohol!
Ben, watermelon people are green on the outside and red on the inside. However, some varieties are yellow on the inside.
And you Mac are a greasy slippery brown on the inside. The stink of petroleum has poisoned your soul.
Oh and Ben?
Our petrochemical drone didn’t invent the term.
It’s bandied about by the mindless denizens of AM talk radio.
“Atomic power would be so cheap it would not even be worth metering or charging for. Now we are being told the same thing about wind power and other “renewable” sources of energy.”
Posted by: Chris from Mac Town
That’s true re nuclear power, but false re wind and other renewable source.
And saving energy with higher efficiency is the cheapest “source”.
That’s why smart utilities are encouraging users to become more efficient, instead of building expensive new power plants.
People, remember this:
oil comes from Saudi-Arabia, Iran, … (middle-east, muslim, and undemocratic)gas comes from Quatar, (middle-east)a nuclear reacter costs $2billion for about 1 GigaWatt
But coal you can find everywhere in the ground, also in democratic contries, it’s cheap (no $100/barrel for coal like for oil and gas) and a coal plant of about 1 GigaWatt costs $250 million dollar, which is rather cheap for a plant.