Because it fell 11 short of the veto-proof 84 votes, the Kansas House’s first-round approval Monday of a bill to allow the coal-plant expansion near Holcomb fell short of ensuring the plants will be built. The process is far from over, but for the moment it looks like the Sebelius administration’s denial of the plants’ air-quality permit could stand. If so, that would be a political victory for the governor. More important, it would be a victory for the 2-1 majority of Kansans in a recent poll who approved of the plants’ rejection.
One disappointment out of Monday’s action on the issue: that 66 House members followed their Senate brethren and voted against setting even basic limits on the new plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. “I think people are beginning to discover that this is not settled science,†said state Rep. Forrest Knox, R-Altoona.
Anybody else think state lawmakers don’t know much about science?
88 Comments
Apparently some of our Kansas legislators in Topeka don’t care if Kansans are able to continue to drink clean water from the underground aquifers. The power plant and ethanol industries are using every conceivable excuse to continue and increase drawing down the Ogallala aquifer under most of central and western Kansas.
Eventually Kansans will only be able to drink recycled sewage treatment effluent from our Kansas surface rivers such as the Arkansas River. Currently the City of Wichita takes no drinking water from the Arkansas River … only from Cheney Lake (north fork of the relatively pristine Ninnescah River) and the Equus Beds aquifer up near Halstead.
Bottled water anyone?
Is there anyone here who thinks our state lawmakers are representing wants of the people?
In their letter to the Eagle some time ago Neufeld and Morris claimed that the so-called bio-energy pilot plant would “have rendered the expansion nearly carbon-neutral.” That claim is, quite simply, false. I pointed out this lie in my sunsequent letter to the Eagle. The fact that Neufeld and Morris have abandoned that bogus claim seems to be an acknowledgement that it was a lie all along AND THEY KNEW IT.
IF Sunflower has this magic technology they claim let them demonstrate it on one of their many existing plants. IF they can show “carbon-neutral” then they can make the carbon issue moot. However, they cannot do that; their claim is false.
Typical politicians ; pandering to big business and ignoring the will of the people even though the vast majority do not want this plant; vote em all out
So Rhonda I guess the majority of our state representatives are stupid?
It is just plain silly to think or want our politicians to be more proficient handling a test tube, than handling legislation.
It would also be stupid for Kansas to leap like a froggy and pass CO2 standards before completion of the study to determine/establish CO2 emissions baseline (a study they DID approve).
Further, many believe that if Kansas is one of the first in the nation to establish CO2 limits, it will discourage economic growth. With a slowing economy, Kansas needs to attract as many new business ventures in the state it can to keep us employed.
Of course, we KNOW newspaper writers and editors know more about science than everyone else.
Interesting to watch the politics playing out here. Labor unions vs environmentalists. Economic practicality vs nebulous global warming concerns. Water conservation vs…. I guess no one is advocating for concerns about the effect on the aquifer.
JWINK,
Was there anything in the legislation mentioned in the thread topic about ethanol industries?
I’m for the Sunflower plants. I think the more electric plants we have the more competitive will be the cost. Global warming, carbon credits and greenhouse emissions are proven or disproven by scientists. The Eagle like me, are not scientists. It seems our emotions get in the way of the energy issues. We don’t want to be like California subject to blackouts.
Are you doubting Rhonda’s scientific credentials?
Oh my! You mean, you don’t TRUST Rhonda?
I’m sure she doesn’t expect us to take her word that this plant is going to destroy the planet. Science is squarely behind Rhonda on this one. Right?
For starters, she could have given the answer to this question: How many nano degrees will this coal plant raise global temperatures over the next 100 years?
Maybe some peer reviewed commentators out there can give Rhonda a hand here.
rfl – the climate issue is the cumulative effect of all of the ‘Holcombs’ out there. In fact, Neufeld and Morris tacitly admitted that when they tried to use their lie to obfuscate the carbon emissions issue. We need to be making a strat in reducing (or at least not increasing) carbon emissions. And Holcomb is a good place to start.
Let Sunflower demonstrate that magic technology they claim. Let them show they were not knowingly lying about it.
AmWay – “Of course, we KNOW newspaper writers and editors know more about science than everyone else.” NO, but it sure seems like some people think that politicians know more about science than scientists do.
“…I guess the majority of our state representatives are stupid?”
Or on the take.
or both
RE: ‘We don’t want to be like California subject to blackouts”
We already have blackouts, in the Legislature. That’s where the problems start, i.e. “ground zero”.
They need to experience unemployment first hand!
As anticipated two quick and easy flippant posts on the integrity and intelligence of our elected representatives. If you personally knew some of these people, you would realize that not everyone in our statehouse is a crook nor stupid.
For the most part, they are decent men and women who care deeply about Kansas. Democrat and republican.
There are always those who say they mistrust government, of any form, yet cry for the protections and social change that very government provides.
They seem to be guarding their wisdom carefully.
JR
You are disloyal to your Union roots now, aren’t you?
Organized labor supports the Holcomb plant expansion.
And Rhonda
The “poll” you quote is bogus.
Not at all scientific, very leading.
Paulie, Rhonda didnt even say which poll she was quoting. But you just know it is worthless? hehehehhe.
And arent you the one who is always saying “polls dont matter”?
I guess any poll that doesnt end up the way you want it is just worthless and the others dont matter?
WTF?
“If you personally knew some of these people,”
Actually I know quite a few of them rather well.
Remember, that’s eight, eight ounces of recycled river effluent per day to stay healthy.
I couldn’t agree more; that’s why the Kansas Legislature is held in such high regard nationally , and not only for the entertainment value therein. Haven’t you noticed the long line of people coming from everywhere to study and hopefully emulate our fine system? They’re everywhere!
“Actually I know quite a few of them rather well.”
And your posts were on target discussing the issue, not just calling them crooks and stupid.
AmWay – and I also duly noted that Morris and Neufeld knowingly made blatantly false statements in their Eagle column.
What this issue is missing is factual information.
Both sides need to limit their discussion to truthful information.
I posted last week a discussion from the Statehouse regarding why they did not want to move forward AT THIS TIME with carbon limits.
The legislature wanted more FACTS, before acting what could be considered rashly and end up hurting the Kansas economy.
They agreed to determine: “What are the carbon emission levels today?” from all fuel burning generation throughout the state.
This would provide a baseline on which:
1. To initially establish acceptable amounts (limits)
2. A foundation overall, and by emission producer types which will allow future analysis to measure degradation or improvement.
3. Hopefully, eliminate the ability from either side on the argument to present inaccurate (false) statements, not supported by facts.
I thought this was a very rational approach by our legislature.
To not rush in, is a disappointment to people who want results NOW, but in the long run it could lead to a better environmentally sound program.
American Way, a rational process; thought so last week when you posted it. Following thereon, there should be no rush to approve the Holcomb plants until such time the data are compiled, IMO.
VT – good point. Approval will ‘cast it in concrete’ – a delay would still allow for future expansion. Who knows, maybe Sunflower could even find a way to make their ‘magic algae’ work and make honest men out of Neufeld and Morris!
Agree VT.
Coal Plants – no
Wind Turbines – yes
Absolutely. The great thing about turbines is you don’t have to ‘feed’ them. There is a large capital outlay up front and ways need to be found to deal with that.
Wind Turbines – yes
Not as simple as it sounds. There is a cost to development, and the wind farms required to match energy needs (or those produced by coal), are a big print on the landscape.
This has been a problem for the NIMBY groups, opposed to the loss of the horizon view, landscape, and land utilization.
It has promise as “part” of an overall approach.
If you want to make a direct comparison between coal and wind Regular, I wonder:
1. How many windmills = coal production energy
2. Cost of delivery from each source (transmission lines/emminent domain)
3. Land/space requirements for each
4. cost comparison for equal development
5. Energy consumption/cost to produce using each
6. and of course the carbon signature
We have an awful lot of coal to just ignore.
The thing I have against Coal Fire plants is because of their size and environmental influence.
If there was not a pebble of coal burned at the plant, the physical size and support infrastructure (railways, truck routes, storage facilities) of a coal plant’s footprint is enough to have disruptive influence on the environment.
“We have an awful lot of coal to just ignore.”
We have an awful lot of Negawatts, wind, and solar energy to just ignore.
coal plant’s footprint is enough to have disruptive influence on the environment
-Regular
Speaking of footprints, Have you done any thought as to how many acres of Wind turbines will replace one coal plant?
However, the negativity against Coal either justified or not is a force to be reckoned with. Wind power is the safe bet right now.
While the geography needed is huge the real footprint is small. Remember, the land under the turbine can still be used for farming, grazing, etc.
When it comes to Public Safety versus the Greeback, the all mighty dollar will triumph everytime. You can place the blame at the doorstep of those supporters of CFEPs!(Coal Fired Energy Plants) They are smittened with the chance at business coming to that region, all because of the energy plants! Guess again, Westeners! No big business in their right minds would even touch the ground their much less bring their business there! Why would they subject their employees to the carbons and smoke dust created by those plants. Wanna make a guess where they would put their business? It’s a good bet they would build in cities such as Hutchinson, Great Bend and Wichita! Get Real, Westeners! They AIN’T coming your way because of the CFEPs! They know the energy those plants produce won’t be coming your way. While other cities outside your circle is basking in “Reddy-Kilowatts” you’ll be strugglin’ to get a few SPARKS!!!
Why not just let them buy carbon credits. seems to work with Al. Okay, I am being sarcarstic, but only midly so. Why not? Those who profess a green nature often profess the caarbon credit purchase theology. Me, I think carbon credit purchases is a shell game at the best, a con game at the worst.
Conservatives are either ignorant or corrupt but to be fair they can be both.
#
rfl
Posted February 19, 2008 at 11:19 am | Permalink
coal plant’s footprint is enough to have disruptive influence on the environment
-Regular
Speaking of footprints, Have you done any thought as to how many acres of Wind turbines will replace one coal plant?
However, the negativity against Coal either justified or not is a force to be reckoned with. Wind power is the safe bet right now.
——————————————-
The biggest problem I have with Wind Turbines, although I don’t see it being too much of a problem if proper land management is done are “Wind Vortex Alleyways” created by swirling wind created by the turbines. (drying of ground surfaces may cause erosion)
They could always tie in some environmental “caretaker” legislation that would be required in order to establish a wind farm.
The US is blessed with great coal deposits and these plants make good sense, until at least the subject of CO2 emissions are made a part of the law, which has not happened. These plants meet all requirements under the law. We must remain a nation under the law, not whims or chaos ensues.
The wind doesn’t blow all the time, and we can’t store electric power, with wind generation we would still need backup generating capacity and these plants won’t eliminate the development of wind generated power when and where it makes sense. These companies are in this to make a profit, they are not going to do things that don’t make the most sense financially, and right now these plants do.
If we are going to limit coal generation we need to legislate that after careful study and the trial of these other methods, not just jump to something because it sounds nice. Existing law presently is being met by the proposed coal plants in Hugoton, to not approve them is to have one set of laws on the books we don’t follow and go off on some other as yet unspecified course. That’s bad for future business in Kansas, too much risk involved for companies if they know we don’t even follow are own law. Coal is the cheapest form of electric generation at this time. Sure, lets do wind, but lets not shoot ourselves in the foot being in a hurry and let’s follow the law or change it.
“The wind doesn’t blow all the time,”
Actually it does. Perhaps not in any one spot but over an area it does.
I agree that we need to update the laws; however I would also note that existing law gives the Secretary discretionary power in cases such as this.
Ben Posted February 19, 2008 at 11:49 am | Permalink
“The wind doesn’t blow all the time,”
“Actually it does. Perhaps not in any one spot but over an area it does.”
Sure, somewhere in the country or world but NOT necessary somewhere in Kansas or within a practical distance to transmit or move the power. Power is lost due to resistance when transmitting over distance, so just because the wind is blowing in Montana or South Dakota does not help Kansas at all. We still need back up generation regardless of the number of wind turbines scattered around.
“We have an awful lot of Negawatts, wind, and solar energy to just ignore.”
I don’t disagree Cosmos, but we have coal now ready to go. If they can burn it, and reduce emissions, there is no reason to exclude coal from the solution. Unless you decide to set the mark too high, where they can never meet it.
“The “poll” you quote is bogus.”
“Rhonda didnt even say which poll she was quoting.”
Econ101 is there a link or source for the poll you are referring to, or to Rhonda’s?
Thanks
Boxlock posted February 19, 2008 at 11:42 am
“… these plants make good sense, until at least the subject of CO2 emissions are made a part of the law, which has not happened. These plants meet all requirements under the law. We must remain a nation under the law, not whims or chaos ensues.”
Coal plants are a large investment, and have a lifetime of 5 or 6 decades. Carbon taxes will become law within a few years, and should be factored in before building expensive new plants
“The wind doesn’t blow all the time, …
Wind is a supplement, not a replacement for base power. Base demand can be reduced with higher end-use efficiency (Negawatts), which is cheaper than building new coal plants.
“These companies are in this to make a profit, they are not going to do things that don’t make the most sense financially, and right now these plants do.”
Coal plants do not “make the most sense financially” when you include future carbon taxes, the cheaper Negawatts, renewables, and distributed generation.
The consumers will pay for the new plants, with higher utility rates.
The companies want to build coal plants because they built coal plants in the past.
Wise utilities are cancelling proposed coal plants.
“Coal is the cheapest form of electric generation at this time.”
It wont be in the future, when carbon taxes are added. We shouldn’t invest $3.6 BILLION in something that wont be cost competitive in the future.
Again, Negawatts are cheaper than new coal plants.
Remember, the land under the turbine can still be used for farming, grazing, etc.
-Ben
I’m not familiar with co-utilization of wind farm acreage. As long as there is plenty of land undesirable for farming, grazing, and living, it might not be an issue. But that will change if windmills are expected to provide all new electricity demand.
In Europe, the wind mills that are installed in forested areas effectively slaughter the surrounding trees by ice that forms on the blade and is then flung off.
Another issue preventing farming might be that irrigation systems as currently designed are not suitable for navigating around the stationary windmills.
Cosmos-
I have to disagree with your post about coal plants. I think that they are part of the long term solution. I think that to try and factor in carbon taxes, which are currently nonexisteant and may or may not come into existence, and may or may not be high, is playing at economics. Primnarily because they are the plaything of politicians, with whom I have little trust in doing anything they say, one way or the other. Negawatts may be a viable alternative, but at what time frame, and at what cost to develop? Negawatts currently are not very financially attractive for many. Also, to throw in the mix, could they not buy offsetting carbon credits? Why not? I think that first we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That means increaed petroleum type fuels in this country. It also means incresing things such as wind farms, and increasing alagae research and increasing biomass energy. And etc and on and on. It also means, in my opnion, adding nuclear power. As research continues into alternatives, they will become economically viable past petroleum products. But we need not only fix the problem, we need bandaid measures for now. I have no beef with alternatives, I just dont think they are there yet economicaly.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_plants_cancelled_in_2007
“More plants are being abandoned than rejected: Of the 59 projects listed below, only 15 were rejected outright by regulators, courts, or local authorities.
In the remaining 44 cases, the decision was made by utilities themselves. Reasons for abandoning plants include (1) rising construction costs, (2) insufficient financing or failure to receive hoped-for government grants, (3) lowered estimates of demand, and (4) concerns about future carbon regulations.”
cosmos-
It appears that there are still more plants being built than abandoned, and the reason for many of the abandoment were economic. Although there were some due to environmental concerns, and a few more to “political uncertainty” and even some due to regulators being more friendly towards other methods of production, including natural gas.
When it comes right down to it, there will be opposition to wind power whereever proposed by the NIMBY:
“Topeka — Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on Friday endorsed an increase in wind energy production, but called for “restraint” in developing wind projects in the Flint Hills in order to preserve the Tallgrass Prairie.
Energy experts, however, said it would be difficult to develop as much wind energy as Sebelius wants without using the Flint Hills area, which has been cited as potentially one of the top wind energy locations in the nation.
“I think it’s encouraging in asking the utilities to look at upping their amount of renewables, but implementing it is going to be tough,” said Donna Johnson, a renewable energy consultant who is president of Lawrence-based Pinnacle Technologies.
“Where do you get the wind from is going to be the issue, if you don’t use the Flint Hills,” she said.”
LJWORLD
“Both Sides Now
Among traditional environmental groups, the Audubon Society opposed development; the Sierra club, historically a supporter of wind power, has taken no stand on the Flint Hills.
A map of the tallgrass prairie lands by the Nature Conservancy is used by both sides to support their positions.
Some ranchers are excited at the prospect of leasing their land at approximately $2,000 per year per turbine. Others, like Ritchie, who has a 20,000-acre ranch in the Flint Hills, say the installations would foul the scenic vistas for landowners and tourists.
“Kansas is presently promoting and enjoying tourism across these areas,” Ritchie said. “People won’t come to ride the prairies under 35-story wind towers with rotating turbines and blinking lights on top,” he said. Explorer” AAPG
“Topeka — A Lawrence-based company that wants to build wind turbines in east-central Kansas said it was weighing its legal options two weeks after Wabaunsee County officials voted to ban the machines.
J.W. Prairie Wind Power, a subsidiary of a German renewable energy firm, has worked for more than a year on the proposed Munkers Creek Windfarm on the Wabaunsee-Morris County line.
Company officials said last week they did not plan to file suit against the Wabaunsee County Commission, which voted June 28 to shut out wind energy development projects. LJWORLD
Natural allies clash over wind turbines
By JOHN HANNA | The Associated Press
TOPEKA – Environment-alists and local preservationists seem natural allies in debates over clean energy, but they’re split when it comes to bringing new wind turbines to Kansas’ scenic Flint Hills.
Backers of wind-power projects see them as a way to generate electricity without burning coal or natural gas or splitting atoms. But critics contend allowing turbines to sprout will severely damage the nation’s largest remaining swath of tallgrass prairie.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is in the middle of the debate, considering proposals to promote the development of wind farms in most of Kansas while protecting the prairie.
“Developing wind power is right,” said Joe Harkins, the governor’s top natural resources adviser. “And preservation of a natural resource that has such great significance to the ecology and culture is right.” Morning Sun Net
Not saying the NIMBY is wrong and windpower is right. I am suggesting there are many obstacles in the path to windpower as part of an overall solution. Even local governments stand in the way.
cosmos, in reference to your post;
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/02/pro-plant-vote-still-allows-for-pro-planet-hope/#comment-297158
Again, you are living in your own little future dream world, a world of your own imaginative making, which may or may not, and probably will not, come to be. You site more ‘what if’s’ than fact.
I, as well as those investing and building todays actual world, employing people, and creating the fruits of production tend to laugh at you as you are I imagine not producing anything to benefit others, but simply ‘giving advice’ we really don’t much value. But if it makes you happy just keep it up.
Boxlock, I wouldn’t laugh too hard. Cosmos provides a needed perspective from the extreme on these pages. If they have their way, and right now I’d say the pendulum is moving their way, we will be giving up our economy and redirecting our resources in such an extreme to protect the environment, that could put businesses, and workers on the streets.
It is important to listen and hear what opponents from all sides are saying, in order to resist environmental extremists. There is no happy median
with extremists.
I may disagree with Cosmos, but I see him and his kind as being dangerous.
It is important to listen and hear what opponents from all sides are saying,
-Am Way
It is important to note that those who are lobbying the loudest to oppose infrastructure that will increase the supply of energy to our growing economy are still turning on the lights when they get home, still heating their homes with natural gas, still driving gas powered automobiles and buying food from grocery stores via diesel powered semi’s.
It seems that they dream of a world where those things do not exist but for some reason unexplained to me, continue using those things feely. They are forced to participate in this modern era even though they profess to hate every bit of it. How do you come up with solutions when dealing with such people?
The posts from Boxlock and rfl are excellent examples of projection and straw man building.
Boxlock to cosmos: “Again, you are living in your own little future dream world, a world of your own imaginative making, which may or may not, and probably will not, come to be. You site more ‘what if’s’ than fact.”
Uh huh. Actually, from the post you are presumably replying to, I see little “what if’s” and a lot of statements about the need for long term thinking. That is what is in critical short supply. For that matter, I’ve noticed some coal companies and (not to mention Wall Street investors) seem to agree with cosmos as to what he thinks is likely coming on the horizon, especially with regards to carbon taxes.
“I, as well as those investing and building todays actual world, employing people, and creating the fruits of production tend to laugh at you as you are I imagine not producing anything to benefit others, but simply ‘giving advice’ we really don’t much value.”
You have no idea what cosmos does or doesn’t do (for that matter, neither do I). This is worse than attacking the person, this is creating a straw man and then attacking that. “I am investing and building in today’s actual world and you’re just a naysayer.” You don’t know that. Period.
rfl: “It is important to note that those who are lobbying the loudest to oppose infrastructure that will increase the supply of energy to our growing economy are still turning on the lights when they get home, still heating their homes with natural gas, still driving gas powered automobiles and buying food from grocery stores via diesel powered semi’s.
“It seems that they dream of a world where those things do not exist but for some reason unexplained to me, continue using those things feely. They are forced to participate in this modern era even though they profess to hate every bit of it. How do you come up with solutions when dealing with such people?”
Again, classic straw man projection. Create a hypocritical creature and then claim that that is who you are opposing. What is particularly and outrageously wrong in what rfl does is that he makes those who disagree with him sound like luddites. You know, the people who actually support the scientific consensus position.
I have not seen anything from cosmos that indicates that he supports a luddite type of outlook.
What is particularly and outrageously wrong in what rfl does is that he makes those who disagree with him sound like luddites. You know, the people who actually support the scientific consensus position.
-ksagnostic
Show me a peer reviewed paper where the scientist can show with 100% confidence level that manmade CO2 emissions are without doubt causing elevated temperatures changes.
Okay, so we see what it means to be called a “consensus”. That means the proof is not in the harbor yet folks, scientists are still speculating and guesstimating. Which means, people who reject any and every scientifific theory (people like Cosmos) that is opposed to the “consensus” are guilty of rejecting science themselves.
There is science AGAINST the manmade induced global warming hypothesis. It is not called a “consensus” for nothing.
If you pointedly reject every scientific theory that is at odds with the current one, without even attempting to provide a scientific rationale, you are guilty of rejecting science. Such actions are not the actions of a true scientist that considers all possible sources of the trend, even the ones that are outside the rhealm of conventional thinking.
Consider the science contained in both sides of the debate ksagnostic.
Ascribing to only one scientific theory and insisting that all policy be formulated based upon its assumed absolute truth before it is even proven to be truth, is ludicrous if not luddite.
Boxlock,
You’re the one living in a “dream world”.
My 12:26 pm post is based on facts and reality. Utilities are cancelling proposed coal plants, and are instead investing in higher end-use efficiency and renewables.
Do some research, and a reality check.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/fossil_fuels/carbon_risk.html
rfl posted February 19, 2008 at 3:53 pm
“Which means, people who reject any and every scientifific theory (people like Cosmos) that is opposed to the “consensus” are guilty of rejecting science themselves.”
Science has a detailed methodology — research, observations, data, hypotheses, peer-review, more research, etc. Scientists are the most skeptical people in the world.
There is no science that refutes the AGW consensus. The opposition to the consensus is just opinions, unsupported theories, and pseudoscience.
American Way posted February 19, 2008 at 2:21 pm
“It is important to listen and hear what opponents from all sides are saying, in order to resist environmental extremists. There is no happy median
with extremists.
I may disagree with Cosmos, but I see him and his kind as being dangerous.”
You seem to believe that utilities that have cancelled coal plants, and are instead investing in efficiency and renewables are “environmental extremists”.
Do you work in the coal industry?
Cosmos wrote
“Science has a detailed methodology — research, observations, data, hypotheses, peer-review, more research, etc. Scientists are the most skeptical people in the world.”
Yes, it does indeed have a detailed methodology. However, the statement that “scientists are the most skeptical people in the world” does not come down to a factual statement. Many scientists are, many scientists are not. Same as anyone else. many are out to prove thier own thoery, and disregard the rest, or prove the theory of their funder, as Cosmos has freqauently pointed out in his disagreement with certain scientists “in the ploy of their corporate taskmasters.
WEll, outta here for the rest of the evening. Tons of stuff to do, and places to be. Ya’all have a good day now, ya hear!
Why would any industry other than the coal plant go to western Ks. when they can receive the power in pristine Colorado?
I chided elsewhere that our State House and Senate leaders will look out for our health by insisting that the Holcomb plant be strictly non-smoking (employees only).
“There is a large capital outlay up front and ways need to be found to deal with that.”
True enough, but, there will be huge costs in taking the wind turbines OUT of service as well. The operators of these windfarms need to be forced to pay as they go into a fund to take them down when technology improves, or they become worn out and dangerous, if not abandoned.
By the time they need to be taken out of service, there will be no one held accountable. That is why there needs to be a pay as you go fund. Otherwise? Some rural counties and/or the state will eventually be left holding the bag.
But in the rush for “economic development” no one thinks that far ahead. Just to the next election. And you all are correct. The holcomb project will create temporary construction jobs, but few permanent jobs. Same for wind and ethanol plants. And if MOST of the power is contracted for export out of state, it wont be available for any businesses that DO locate here.
Not that they will. The shortage of workers in western Kansas is far more real and will bite sooner than any supposed shortage of electricity.
And did I mention that no one will locate here if there isnt enough water to operate?
Almost all manufacturing takes lots of water. And workers. And workers wont move out here without water, for drinking AND recreation.
Talk about chasing yer tail and using circle logic.
Sounds more like a circle jerk…
. . . and circle jerkin is the soup de jour among the power crowds.
My question is does western Kansas need much more than agriculture, and the support system? Can it stay competitive on the world market by doing so? I think by taking control of the water (something the m damn easterners would prefer not happen), and growing food products for foods sake, would benefit them to no end. But hell, what do I know; I’m just a city boy from L.A.:-)
“Show me a peer reviewed paper where the scientist can show with 100% confidence level that manmade CO2 emissions are without doubt causing elevated temperatures changes.”
Boy, is that a revealing statement. Scientists deal with probabilities, not “100%” certainties. You are asking for something that is nonsensical.
“Okay, so we see what it means to be called a ‘consensus’. That means the proof is not in the harbor yet folks, scientists are still speculating and guesstimating. Which means, people who reject any and every scientifific theory (people like Cosmos) that is opposed to the “’onsensus’ are guilty of rejecting science themselves.”
Consensus is arrived at when study after study, using similar to identical methodologies, reveal the same thing. That is what has been happening with global warming. Also, someone with a Ph.D. after his/her name is not refutation science. Cosmos has been very much on point in discussing the science. Pay attention to what people are saying and writing. Look at the Inhofe list, there is no coherent agreement among them. Why? Because the list was created for a political purpose.
“If you pointedly reject every scientific theory that is at odds with the current one, without even attempting to provide a scientific rationale, you are guilty of rejecting science. Such actions are not the actions of a true scientist that considers all possible sources of the trend, even the ones that are outside the rhealm of conventional thinking.”
You are confused. “Considering all possible sources” or rather competing hypotheses, is not the same thing as assigning equal weight to very possible Rosanne Rosanna Danna idea. Evidence favors one hypothesis or set of hypotheses over others. It is particularly important to be aware of this when there are competing financial, and honestly in this case knee jerk political reactions, that explain some of the competing hypotheses (particularly when such hypotheses are in serious disagreement with one another, and are lacking in evidence). I DO pay attention to the scientific process and the language used by scientists in both my field and others. That is part of the process of refinding one’s bullsh*t detector.
By the way, none of what you wrote actually addressed the point you quoted. You tried to make those who support the global warming consensus position are people who oppose modern technology even as they benefit from it. That is creating a straw man.
And I stand by that point.
“You seem to believe that utilities that have cancelled coal plants, and are instead investing in efficiency and renewables are “environmental extremists”.”
Cosmos I never said that. You did note a few months ago that the power company announced it was ceasing all wind power development?
ksagnostic simply loves to use the accusation of “projection and straw man building” in his arguments. And does so over and over without ever providing any evidence that it isn’t justified and correct.
Further he states “You have no idea what cosmos does or doesn’t do”. I know one thing for sure, he couldn’t be doing very much of anything contributory or worthwhile for his cause, or anything else, probably as all he and you do is blog all day long apparently. Functional people are primarily occupied with productive activity unless in or entering retirement, or independently wealthy, and ’straw man’ building or not I venture to say neither one of you are in either situation. Likewise neither is doing ANYTHING about their boggy man of AGW except talk. As ‘rfl’ so very accurately stated, both agnostic and cosmos “are still turning on the lights when they get home, still heating their homes with natural gas, still driving gas powered automobiles and buying food from grocery stores via diesel powered semi’s. It seems that they dream of a world where those things do not exist but for some reason unexplained to me, continue using those things freely. They are forced to participate in this modern era even though they profess to hate every bit of it.” Perfect analysis ‘rfl’. Normal people don’t obsess on AGW perpetually, yet they do no more harm contributing to it than those two do. And conversely cosmos and agnostic do absolutely nothing more of benefit to slow the ‘damage’ to the environment with their shallow little lives as those that don’t give AGW a second thought. Both cosmos and agnostic are basically hypocrites, and totally ineffectual in effecting or changing anything related to their own cause except sit around and blog.
If I’m wrong boys prove it, I hope I am, but doubt it.
Boxlock,
You’re predictable. You can’t refute that energy efficiency and renewables are displacing new coal plants, so instead you make baseless, false attacks at me.
You should read the book ‘Natural Capitalism’, Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, at http://www.natcap.org/sitepages/pid5.php (free pdf’s).
And have you heard of multi-tasking? I’m usually working on other things when I post here.
Like what cosmos…..gees, what do you take us all for?
cosmos, you are doing absolutely nothing more than anyone else to further your all consuming AGW hysteria. Do you ever think of anything else or have any other interests?
Heck man, I’ve put those slow to start, won’t hardly start in the outside cold at all, mini-florescent bulbs everywhere, insulated, drive a reasonably efficient vehicle for my work, have a 90% efficient furnace in the house and put in a near $3000.00 Norwegian direct-vent high efficiency stove to replace the wood stove because of reduced vent output. Heck, what else can I do, start eating Gas-X so I don’t manufacture and release any gas personally?!!!! I know, I know….that’s carbon neutral. Give it a rest. You, and I going to be so dead and gone nobody will even have a record of us every existing or care by the time there is any appreciable change.
Look I don’t care you are so passionate about it, in fact I’m glad someone else is so I don’t have to be, but don’t be so righteous the in way you go about it and scold everybody that doesn’t share that passion. I am simply being practical, I can’t do much more so I don’t worry about it. See?
Boxlock,
You can’t refute that energy efficiency and renewables are displacing new coal plants.
You can’t support your baseless, false attacks at me.
So you instead brag/complain about what you’ve done.
Individual efforts, while admirable, are insufficient.
And it’s not “righteous” to point out the fact that Negawatts and other solutions are much better than building new coal plants.
“You, and I going to be so dead and gone nobody will even have a record of us every existing or care by the time there is any appreciable change.”
There already are noticeable changes caused by AGW. I probably will live at least a few more decades, and the changes will be very “appreciable” by then.
“Because we don’t think about future generations, they will never forget us.” Henrik Tikkanen.
If the most important question of this legislative session is whether global warming can be made worse by coal plants…
We shoulda saved our tax money and canceled the session.
You can see from this blog that scientists and those who fight science will never reach a compromise or resolution.
If the fate of the Holcomb plant rests on the questions surrounding global warming, is it man made and can we do anything about it… it will come down to which party’s daddy can beat up the other party’s daddy.
hell of a way to run a railroad.
And THAT is why I focused on the water issues from the beginning. There can be NO DOUBT the water supply in western Kansas is rapidly diminishing and rapidly reaching its useable end. The “science” of it is not in question. The reality of it is not in question. It is not part of the culture wars. Water is water, it can be measured, and the supply is rapidly disappearing.
No dispute about THAT from any quarter.
So… we can piss away an entire legislative session arguing about global warming, or…
we can cancel the plants based on water issues and be done with it.
The anti coal people lost this battle the day they hung their case on global warming. Conservative republicans have been trying to discredit science in this state for years, starting with evolution. And global warming. The righteous right vs the tree huggers. At least that is how the legislature sees it. No end to THAT tug o’ war anytime soon.
Had the case against the plants been framed around water issues, we could have disposed of this Holcomb issue right away. Our water supply is going, and it IS going because of human overusage. No dispute or facts in doubt.
But… if the REAL issue (and not a side issue) is bringing jobs to western Kansas, there are a hell of a lotta better ways to do it than to build a damn coal plant that creates lots of temporary construction jobs that send the money “back home” to headquarters and their out of state hometowns.
As noted on threads this week, water based recreation creates far more first tier jobs and second tier jobs than any single coal plant or ethanol plant. And brings in outside dollars to these western Kansas communities. And keeps those dollars circulating. In contrast to the temporary construction jobs that will be gone, leaving only a handful of first tier jobs and very few second tier jobs.
And besides, why do we focus soley on JOBS in economic development? I think we have lost sight of the fact that we started focusing on jobs TO BRING PEOPLE TO OUR COMMUNITY TO LIVE. Population. That was the original be all and end all of economic development. But it got lost in creating jobs as a way to do it. The means became more important than the end. Mostly because business realized it could get away with ANYTHING, including the rape of our natural resources, if it was sacrificed on the alter of the almighty jobs to be created.
Jobs for the sake of jobs is just another way of chasing our tails. If we want to bring population to western Kansas, we MUST focus on quality of life, which includes jobs, but also PUBLIC education, water issues, equality issues, housing issues, etc.
But those are too complicated, too emotional, and too charged with ideology and partisanship as issues for the pea brained voters and elected officials. Better to boil it down to jobs, which everyone understands, ’cause everyone has one.
Forget jobs. It isnt working out here. Focus on population and you will GET the desired results of economic development. You can get population without creating jobs. Telecommuters, entrepreneurs, etc. bring their “jobs” with them. But as a state and region, we dont recruit people. We recruit businesses thinking they will bring jobs, which will bring people. Just bassackwards, as one would expect in Kansas.
Forget carbon emissions. Focus on water and the plant will take care of itself, ALONG with the carbon issues. Focus on quality of life and support of small business and entrepreneurs. The people will follow.
Sorry for the long and convoluted post. We are what the poster said in the seventies.
“we are the unwilling, led by the unqualified, to do the unnecessary for the ungrateful”.
Let’s do what is right. Preserve the water and focus on population. In that frame, the Holcomb plant will take care of itself. And we will all be better for it.
cosmos,
Again…all you are doing is talking, and that’s not doing anything.
What are you personally doing to improve the situation you are so passionate about that I’m not doing except talking about it, which circularly is doing nothing?
This is as old as anything I can remember…ie, the old saying that everybody talks about the weather but nobody every does anything about it”. It’s an ancient joke, but it’s just not funny anymore. Get off me about it.
And Boxlock again fails to understand that “individual efforts, while admirable, are insufficient”.
Also, “… the old saying that everybody talks about the weather but nobody every does anything about it”. ”
Human added GHG’s are changing Earth’s climate, and the weather. New coal-fired plants will cause even more changes in the future.
Good post kfg.
Kathy has the call.
It’s simple really. It plays to conservativism even.
What do we lose vs. what do we get.
If these plants are built, we lose water from our already dwindling resources. We get to breathe the pollution from western Kansas where the plants would be built all the way to eastern Kansas. So that “get” is a lose.
What do we get?
Well we get to export energy to Colorado. MAYBE we even get to be coal central and export even more energy?
I’ve not heard of any energy shortages in Colorado or elsewhere.
Indeed, the only power shortages in recent memory came as the result of Enron and their brokering of electricity for profit. There was no shortage of power, just a expedition into greed.
The greatest source we have in energy is the conservation of it. The second greatest is that which blows and flows about us every day.
We don’t need to build 100 year old technology.
We NEED to face the future.
ksfarmgrrl,
Very good post at 10:30 pm, except I suggest considering both water and GHG issues.
Coal mining releases lots on methane, a potent GHG. Transport of coal currently relies on diesel trains.
Higher end-use energy efficiency, and renewables would create more, better, and longer lasting jobs than the new Holcomb plants.
And ksfarmgrrl, if you haven’t read yet, I suggest chapter 11, ‘Aqueous Solutions’ at http://www.natcap.org/sitepages/pid20.php
Also, chapter 10, ‘Food for Life’.
“ksagnostic simply loves to use the accusation of “projection and straw man building” in his arguments. And does so over and over without ever providing any evidence that it isn’t justified and correct.”
Debate 101. The person who makes assertions is the one who needs to provide evidence to support them. You are the one attributing motives and thought processes to cosmos that are not evident from what he posts. I was commenting on the fact that such attributions are projection. The evidence for THAT is in the very posts of yours I quoted. Requesting that I provide “evidence” that your ramblings are wrong is argumentatively illiterate.
“Further he states “You have no idea what cosmos does or doesn’t do”. I know one thing for sure, he couldn’t be doing very much of anything contributory or worthwhile for his cause, or anything else, probably as all he and you do is blog all day long apparently.”
Blantant hypocrisy. Count your own posts on this thread verses cosmos and myself. By the standards of your ad hominem evidence, you aren’t doing anything constructive either.
“Perfect analysis ‘rfl’. Normal people don’t obsess on AGW perpetually, yet they do no more harm contributing to it than those two do. And conversely cosmos and agnostic do absolutely nothing more of benefit to slow the ‘damage’ to the environment with their shallow little lives as those that don’t give AGW a second thought. Both cosmos and agnostic are basically hypocrites, and totally ineffectual in effecting or changing anything related to their own cause except sit around and blog.”
Note the ad hominem and attempts to put cosmos and I on the defensive for what we do or don’t do. I address arguments, Boxlock attacks the person, and once again, he attacks strawman constructions of the person. The idea that those who agree that the consensus position on global warming is supported by evidence are somehow opposed to modern technology is entirely a construction of people like Boxlock and rfl. Once again, there is NO EVIDENCE from anything that cosmos has posted, much less myself, that we oppose the use of technology. Indeed, the solutions for reducing human impact on global climate change are largely technological.
“If I’m wrong boys prove it, I hope I am, but doubt it.”
We are not obligated to “prove” that your baseless charges against us are “wrong”.
“The anti coal people lost this battle the day they hung their case on global warming. Conservative republicans have been trying to discredit science in this state for years, starting with evolution. And global warming. The righteous right vs the tree huggers. At least that is how the legislature sees it. No end to THAT tug o’ war anytime soon.”
Agreed. However, I notice that neither “side” wants to talk about the water issue, at least among the politicians. I suspect that part of this might have to do with the agribusiness concerns (particularly ethanol and feedlots) that are intensive water users. Opening the Holcomb water use issue opens up the whole ugly picture of unsustainable water use in western Kansas (and therefore the rest of the state which is downstream). You’re right, the water use issue alone justifies not adding coal plants for the “economic benefit” that comes primarily from transient workers and a relatively small number of plant workers. It’s using resources that we don’t have to benefit, by the way, a state that is already been stealing water from Kansas.
Whether the global warming issue flies, however, is another question. The pro-coal plant legislators have to count on the hope that the rest of the state isn’t really invested in the idea that the plants are unnecessary. Their hopes may be well founded, but IMO it is too soon to tell.
BTW, ksfarmgrrl, excellent post about economic development.
To me, economic development in the eyes of too many people is like the way some wealthy doners see charitable giving. Both want to see bricks and mortar. Building equals ecomonic activity, and the bigger the building, the bigger the economic activity.
Reality is much more complicated.
The idea that those who agree that the consensus position on global warming is supported by evidence are somehow opposed to modern technology is entirely a construction of people like Boxlock and rfl.
-ksagnostic
I brought up the reality that it is futile to come to terms with people who fight new energy producing capacity, while consuming the same energy that they profess is destroying the planet. Where is the strawman in that? Is it true or false?
Attacking a position that is a true representation of reality can NOT be construed as a “strawman argument”.
agnostic offered up his own little debating tactic by adding to my original statement. He incorrectly claimed that I insinuated that Cosmos is a luddite and then proceeded to make me prove something that I never even said.
However, agnostic correctly assesed this behavior has hypocritical back in post: ksagnostic
Posted February 19, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Cos, I completely agree with you on the emissions issue. It’s just so tied up with the conservatives and the religious right and the republicans that ANY discussion immediately sinks to culture war status.
And agnostic, you are correct. Water has already become the third rail of kansas politics. And it isnt even really on the public radar screen yet.
Ks has “first in time, first in right” water laws. I wonder how “old” the water rights are the Sunflower bought, and where they will fall in the line of seniority. They may just trump ALL water rights out there, including municiple and agricultural.
Now wouldnt THAT be the ultimate joke on the local yokels supporting the plant in the name of economic development!
And, some of us have been agitating for the “beneficial use” consideration concerning water rights. Meaning that seniority or “first in time” could be trumped by the common good, or the most “beneficial use” of water.
It is something the kansas water office, and the ks dept of agriculture dont want to talk about.
So.. follow the “logic” on the Holcomb plant water usage. When push comes to shove on not enough water to go around, and the plant was built on the scam of economic development….
….even if beneficial use is considered, Sunflower will argue that the jobs created by their plant are MORE valuable than any other use of the water.
Checkmate.
I’m tellin ya, these guys are ten steps ahead of the public, and the legislature, and governor “leadership”.
And the game hasnt really even started yet.
Oh, and btw.. using the dwindling water supply to produce power sold at a profit by Sunflower…
If that isnt SOCIALIZING the costs while PRIVATIZING the profits, I dont know WTF is!
Neocons are so damn OBVIOUS!
“I brought up the reality that it is futile to come to terms with people who fight new energy producing capacity, while consuming the same energy that they profess is destroying the planet. Where is the strawman in that? Is it true or false?”
It’s false because it is in fact based on a straw man argument. That simple enough for you?
“Attacking a position that is a true representation of reality can NOT be construed as a ’strawman argument’.
“agnostic offered up his own little debating tactic by adding to my original statement. He incorrectly claimed that I insinuated that Cosmos is a luddite and then proceeded to make me prove something that I never even said.”
All right, let’s analyze this a little.
Premise and conclusion: “I brought up the reality that it is futile to come to terms with people who fight new energy producing capacity, while consuming the same energy that they profess is destroying the planet.”
Translation Premise 1: Some people who consume energy are fighting new energy producing capacity.
Translation Premise 2: These people oppose new energy production because they believe it is destroying the planet.
Translation Conclusion: Therefore it is fruitless to talk to people who consume the energy that they claim is destroying the planet.
Why is it fruitless to talk to such people rfl? My guess is that you see this as so self evident you are actually wondering why I am asking you this.
You assume that people who want to reduce human effects on global warming oppose energy consumption (a false assumption, by the way). Therefore, if a person uses energy even while they oppose energy consumption, much less the addition of more energy producing capacity, they must be unreasonable because they use what they oppose. The only way to avoid being unreasonable while opposing “new energy producing capacity” is to not use energy, or at least any energy that consumes CO2.
You are arguing that the people who oppose new coal power plants in the name of reducing the human impact on global climate change need to not consume energy to be self consistent. Therefore, you are in fact imposing the luddite position as the only reasonable position for those who disagree with you.
I stand by my interpretation of your remarks as being reasonable and correct. Your imposition of this position on those who oppose them is also still a straw man (because solutions to reducing the human impact on global climate change are in large part necessarily technological and will involve some energy use themselves). Therefore, the correct answer to your rhetorical question is “false”.
And let’s be clear on something here. The argument that people who consume energy are being unreasonable for opposing the Holcomb plants is utterly without merit. There are mutliple reasons to oppose these plants. I see no reason to rush into construction in relationship to greenhouse gas concerns, true, but my primary reason for opposing the building of the plants is the added depletion of Kansas’ most important resource, fresh water.
ksagnostic posts;
““If I’m wrong boys prove it, I hope I am, but doubt it.”
We are not obligated to “prove” that your baseless charges against us are “wrong”.”
And you can’t, as they are not baseless and not wrong. You two are impotent at your own game and cause.
cosmos Posted February 19, 2008 at 11:16 pm
“And Boxlock again fails to understand that “individual efforts, while admirable, are insufficient”.”
But what cosmos fails to understand is that he is confirming just what I am saying and so sick of hearing out of his argument, that “individual efforts, while admirable, are insufficient”. So at the end of our lives he will have accomplished exactly the same and no more than I, and I will not have spent my life obsessing about it.
Boxlock,
1) You do not know what my “individual efforts” are. This is an anonymous blog.
2) I have not spent my life “obsessing” about it.
3) Reducing GHG’s will also require efforts from companies (Wal-Mart, etc) and governments (R&D, fleet purchases, etc).
cosmos,
Thank you for your reasonable response and without responding by attaching back. No I’m not setting any traps here.
I would like to converse with you more about this subject to a point, not now…ha, we’ve done enough for now, as you seem to have studied extensively. I think what set my trigger is what I considered to be a rather ‘flaming’ post directed to me so far back I couldn’t even find it. Who knows, maybe I started it. We all have our ‘battles’ to fight and this simply isn’t one of mine beyond what I explained I have tried to do personally with conservation but which I consider to be totally effectual at best. And I have enough guilt in this life and don’t want AGW as one more.
I have no disagreement with alternate forms of power production at all, think wind mills are kind of fascinating, and welcome it unless it causes hardship through greatly increased cost, that in turn only the companies being force to use it must suffer. Or the cost to the consumer, both personal and business rises significantly lowering our quality of life. In addition business will not look favorably to Kansas as a place to locate if energy costs are higher. If those conditions don’t happen, then fine use all the Negawatts, wind, and solar energy or whatever you want.
We must respect the law though. I think it simply immature, and dangerous, to have laws or guidelines on the books and simply ignore them, going off on another as yet undefined course without first establishing new rules or guidelines necessary for companies to plan and expand.
I think Bremby and the Gov have done just that. We need to set the guidelines first.
“You assume that people who want to reduce human effects on global warming oppose energy consumption (a false assumption, by the way).”
-ksagnostic
Again you are adding to my statements and then showing something that I never said to be false.
Here is what I assume:
I assume that people who oppose the production of energy that is derived from processes that they claim to believe is harmful to environment would in fact refrain from using that same energy.
Certaintly I am not saying that AGW believers oppose energy consumption. I’m saying the opposite! They use it even though they say it is bad! AGW believers simply have a pie in the sky idea of where the energy they themselves are using comes from. They do not understand the effect that their own actions coupled with the actions of everyone else has on the demand equation for fossil fuels.
How can we then go to these people for solutions when they demonstrate by their own hypocritical lifestyle that they do not understand the scope of their own energy demands?
While preaching efficiency and negawatts, they go on living a lifestyle that is not supported by renewables and efficiency improvements. They go on living that lifestyle paying prices that are not possible in the future if they get what they want by preventing future capacity.
A grand solution would be to discretize the sources of energy that produce electricity so that those who really believe that coal is bad, can only purchase electricity from say wind turbine generators and THEY can pay for all the accompanying costs involved with such infrastructure.
ksagnostic, in a perfect world, we can have all we want, all the technology, without making a single depression on the environement. But that is just not reality and we ALL have to understand that. Energy has environmental costs involved no matter how you get it. Until the evidence unequivocally indicates otherwise, CO2 emissions is by far NOT the worst byproduct of power generation.
You are arguing that the people who oppose new coal power plants in the name of reducing the human impact on global climate change need to not consume energy to be self consistent. Therefore, you are in fact imposing the luddite position as the only reasonable position for those who disagree with you.
-ksagnostic
You correctly demonstrate that AGW believers SHOULD in fact be luddites. I never said they were but if they wanted to be consistent, you are right, they would be pure and simple luddites.
But in practice we know they are just like the rest of us. So we can not call them luddites, only delusional for failing to realize the scope of their own energy consumption or out right hypocrites.
You are arguing that the people who oppose new coal power plants in the name of reducing the human impact on global climate change need to not consume energy to be self consistent. Therefore, you are in fact imposing the luddite position as the only reasonable position for those who disagree with you.
-ksagnostic
You correctly demonstrate that AGW believers SHOULD in fact be luddites. I never said they were but if they wanted to be consistent, you are right, they would be pure and simple luddites.
But in practice we know they are just like the rest of us. So we can not call them luddites, only delusional for failing to realize the scope of their own energy consumption or out right hypocrites.
2 Trackbacks
petroleum refining process…
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin…..
Pee Female Pee Pee Hole…
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view…