The next round of Kansas’ coal war began today, as Gov. Kathleen Sebelius vetoed the bill meant to let Sunflower Electric Power Corp. add two coal-fired power plants to its operation near Holcomb. The bill also would undermine the authority of Kansas Secretary of Health and Environment Rod Bremby, who had angered many lawmakers by denying Sunflower’s air permit based on its anticipated carbon emissions. “Instead of building two new coal plants, which would produce 11 million new tons of carbon dioxide each year, I support pursuing other, more promising energy and economic development alternatives,†Sebelius said in her veto statement. The Senate is expected to override her veto, but it remains in doubt whether the necessary two-thirds majority can be reached in the House.
As Congress moves toward mandatory controls on greenhouse-gas emissions and Wall Street frowns on new coal plants, do Kansas lawmakers really want to stake their reputations on forcing through these plants, which would pollute Kansas and mostly power other states?
-
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
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Republican convention thread 9/4
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 9/4
- Jed on Is Palin taking on too much?
- Predestined on Republican convention thread 9/4
- Chas on Open thread 9/4
- Predestined on Palin more than pulled it off
- Monkeyhawk on Palin more than pulled it off
- BlueJay on Palin more than pulled it off
- Regular on Palin more than pulled it off
- BlueJay on Palin more than pulled it off
112 Comments
I hope not… If the house does manage to get enough votes to override, it just proves that anything can be bought in this state.
“it just proves that anything can be bought in this state.”
Or, that a large number of people think that Bremby/Sebelius was wrong.
“it just proves that anything can be bought in this state.”
Or, that a large number of people think that Bremby/Sebelius was wrong.
I see Dr. Professor Neufield is now claiming that if Cessna moves it is Bremby’s fault for Holcomb. I wonder when he will blame Bremby for the Tanker decision?
“Or, that a large number of people think that Bremby/Sebelius was wrong.”
Actually, Kansans are AGAINST the Holcomb plants by a two to one margin.
Good news! I hope the veto holds! Our legislators don’t have a good track record of caring about their constituency once they’re elected.
First poll found, still looking
“In a recent Kansas Chamber poll, we asked 500 Kansans their opinions about Bremby’s Holcomb plant ruling. Only 28 percent of respondents agreed with his denial of Sunflower Electric’s application, while 47 percent disagreed, saying the permit to build the plant should have been approved.
In that same poll, respondents were asked whether their legislator should vote to overturn a possible veto by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of the Holcomb bill. Nearly 60 percent said their legislator should vote to overturn her veto.”
Governor Sibelius,
Good work. And good politics, since it is very much as WSClark says: a majority of voters do not support the proposed laws.
However, it now is time to begin thinking seriously about how to link the energy needs of all Kansans with the need for economic development for Western Kansas. In other words, the time has come for preliminary discussions about the development of renewable energy infrastructure in the part of the state that needs it most (Western Kansas), for the benefit of all Kansans.
Kansas is uniquely positioned to be a leader in the field of renewable energy. This issue provides an occasion for the Governor to be a national leader, and for the members of the Legislature, including Speaker Neufeld, to work for the long-term good of their constituents.
Second poll found, but older
“A different poll, done in November 2007 by Cooper and Secrest Associates, showed that 62 percent of Kansans surveyed support Bremby’s decision and 31 percent oppose it. “
littlejohn,
A Kansas Chamber poll? Please. What were the questions, and how were they worded? And do you have a link?
Got any NONPARTISAN polling to add on the subject?
Polls don;t lie, but they frequently are wrong, or in direct opposition to each other. Hmmm maybe they do lie. Or maybe it’s just the way they ask the questions. Or maybe it;s the weather, or maybe….or maybe…or maybe..
littlejohn,
OK: that’s more like the numbers we’ve seen.
Kansas representatives:
You are being watched.
Kansas does not want this plant. Allow the veto to stand.
Link for first poll
http://www.kansas.com/business/perspectives/story/339875.html
Link for second poll
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2008/2008-03-12-092.asp
I would suggest neither are nonpartisan, or nonintersted. I take all polls as mostly bs. For instance, according to some polls I have seen, Wal-mart is nearly as close to the seat of satan as you can find. By the same token, the poll of where money is spent, seems that Wal-Mart is spender heaven. Polls lie, as do pollsters, and those responding
I did a poll of Sierra Club members and found 100% agreement with Brmeby’s decision. So, that more than cancels out the Chamber poll.
littlejohn,
OK: that’s more like the numbers we’ve seen.
SO, that is the correct numbers? and why would you say so? Because you agree with them?
I honestly do not know the numbers for the state of Kansas. Nor do I know if they should be built. My point was neither. Just that it is possible that there are a large number of people, according to polls, who are in favor of building the plants. ANd that could be why politicians are voting the way they are. Of course, some lawmakers can always be bought. Maybe not for money, for for an easy path for their favorite legislation
Ben-
I did a poll of electrical workers that I know They were 100% in disagreement with Bremby’s decision. So what. Neither focused sample has anything to do with the sentiment of the entire state.
Another split between organized labor and the Democrat Party.
The Greens are against those people who work in manufacturing, energy and transportation.
The Greens are anti-labor.
littlejohn,
I’m not a statistician. But neither am I in the business of cherry-picking numbers for the sake of looking right, as you want to impute to me.
When polling numbers are produced that diverge widely from the prevailing numbers, the former numbers become suspect.
What makes the numbers “right” is not the fact that they happen to support my political preferences. What makes them right is that they accurately represent what they purport to represent, and that they aren’t massaged to support predetermined policy conclusions.
That’s why I don’t trust the numbers from the Chamber of Commerce: it’s obvious that they want the plants, and their questions are narrowly tailored to deliver results that favor that policy. Media-outlet conducted polls tend to be more nonpartisan, and that’s why they count for more.
BS paul.
Econ101-
That was not my point. Nor does it support what you posted.
Econ101,
Another typically stupid post from you. You get it factually correct on one level, only to draw a sweeping and vapid generalization on another.
Way to go, Econ101! But do answer me this: if Greens support renewable energy development, and support the hiring of union workers to accomplish it, does that then make them “pro-labor?”
C2FK
littlejohn,
I’m not a statistician. But neither am I in the business of cherry-picking numbers for the sake of looking right, as you want to impute to me.
When polling numbers are produced that diverge widely from the prevailing numbers, the former numbers become suspect.”
I neverimputed any such thing. And I cited two polls, widely divergent from each other. The which one you choose to beleive is not based on anything but your particular bias. One poll in disagreement is not “prvailing numbers” I would be more than happy to look at other polls. By the way, the earliest poll (in opposition to Holcomb)–it was never mentioned in the article that it was a media driven poll,, or who sponsored it. Just who did it. I could just as easily speculate that it was an anti group, no?
“
“The Greens are anti-labor.”
Bullshit.
That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements ever. If the anti-greens had their way, EVERY environmental issue would be decided based on the position of big business. There would be NO environmental regulations.
My whole response here has not been for or against the Holcomb plant. It has been in response to:
“Tony
Posted March 21, 2008 at 11:23 am | Permalink
I hope not… If the house does manage to get enough votes to override, it just proves that anything can be bought in this state”
and
“WSClark
Posted March 21, 2008 at 11:29 am | Permalink
“Or, that a large number of people think that Bremby/Sebelius was wrong.”
Actually, Kansans are AGAINST the Holcomb plants by a two to one margin.”
I posted the results of the two polls I found
and
Has anybody figured out what Neufeld’s educational background is?
Sunflower has bent over backwards and met all regulation requirements. There is no reason according to the regulations set forth by KDHE for this plant NOT to be built. It is not being built because of political BS.
The Sierra Club…
One of the most litigious organization in the U.S. Solely responsible for costing the government and private Enterprise Trillions of dollars of bad debt.
“and”
I stand by my statement - Kansans oppose the power plants by a wide margin - my original info came from the Eagle - not always the best source, but better than a COC poll.
“Sunflower has bent over backwards and met all regulation requirements. ”
If this is true, then, no matter if you agree with the outcome,
“It is not being built because of political BS
”
is true also.
CF
Green supported energy production is more expensive and less efficient, which will hurt the economy.
We have to face international competition.
You can wish for green technology to employ people, but if our manufacturing base and transportation industry are destroyed by idiot green supported energy taxes, your good intentions do not translate into pay checks!
You have the “good intentions” of putting all of the people who lose their jobs, due to environmental rules, into “new” jobs?
Those new jobs do not, yet exist.
Those new jobs, if they ever are created, will be in far smaller numbers, since —
You are sending our jobs to India and China, who will NOT go “green” if it means that China and India will starve.
“I stand by my statement - Kansans oppose the power plants by a wide margin - my original info came from the Eagle - not always the best source, but better than a COC poll.”
As you so often state, please post a link
Actually, I’m against building the Coal fired Plants.
Reasons because of pollution (real pollution not co2) and its huge demand for water from the aquifers and surrounding wells.
Secondly, because the building of Coal-Fired plants diverts investment away from alternative energy sources like Wind Power.
Link to an article about polling and the Holcomb plant. I agree with WSCLARK,it depends on how you ask the questions.
http://www.kansasra.org/blog/archives/51
“You are sending our jobs to India and China, who will NOT go “green” if it means that China and India will starve.”
Since when do we lower ourselves to the “standards” of China and India?
“Green supported energy production is more expensive and less efficient, which will hurt the economy.”
NOT TRUE.
This veto represents nothing more than policitical ambitions by our governor. The facts in this case were never considered, only the “political correctness” now overtaking our country. The facts are; wind generation or any renewable energy source will not meet the energy needs of Kansas or the country. It is predicted by experts in the field that we will experience an increase in demand for electricity of 30% to 40% in the next thirty years or less. Wind, solar or biomass generation cannot meet this need. The Holcomb plant’s production will benefit Colorado because the utility companies there have financially invested in the construction of the power plants. Our governor has decided to eliminate coal generation in our state based on science that is not universally accepted but rather politically driven. In addition, the governor or the Secretary of KDHE have not proposed anything of substance to replace the generation capacity of these proposed plants, except conservation and renewables. History has shown Americans rarely conserve and renewable fuel sources will not meet the forecasted needs of consumers. This veto and the position the governor has taken is simply adhering to the current popular polictical climate and a means of gaining national exposure to further her political career after her term as governor. Kansas will suffer for her decision and if the citizens of Kansas actually understood the complexities of electric energy production we would all realize the consequences.
littlejohn,
“The one you choose to believe is not based on anything but your particular bias.”
I won’t deny that I support Sibelius’ decision. But it does seem to me, littlejohn, that a larger sample size is likely to generate more reliable results. And it is the case, littlejohn, that the poll showing Kansans disfavor Holcomb by a margin of 62% used a random sample of 1000 Kansans, versus the 500 used by the other poll.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2008/2008-03-12-092.asp
Here’s some more about the particulars of the earlier poll:
“The work of politicians in the Statehouse will occur in wake of the Land Institute’s telephone poll of 1,000 likely voters indicating 62 percent of Kansans approved of KDHE’s action on Holcomb, while 31 percent opposed the move.
Support for KDHE was strongest in the 3rd District in the Kansas City area at 70 percent and was weakest in the 1st District of western Kansas at 51 percent.
In the 2nd District that includes Topeka, 62 percent agreed with KDHE and 28 percent disagreed with the agency. The numbers were similar in Wichita’s 4th District: 62 percent agreed, 30 percent disagreed.
“The strength of agreement there is fairly significant,” said Alan Secrest, of polling firm Cooper & Secrest Associates.”
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/010408/sta_231366254.shtml
That dip in support in the 1st District seems consistent with what one would expect. It may be worth looking at the internals of the Chamber’s poll, to see whether they are similarly uniform.
CCR,
Lots of opinion masquerading as factual assertions. Put up or shut up: got any grounds?
8 billion dollars used for Wind Power instead of Coal-Fired Energy would create a lot of jobs and energy.
“It is predicted by experts in the field that we will experience an increase in demand for electricity of 30% to 40% in the next thirty years or less.”
Link?
LJ, I just find it wrong for the State to say “to build a facility you need to meet X, Y, & Z requirments.” So the facility exceeds those requirements, KDHE excepts it, and then Bremby pulls rank and says no based on things outside of the current rules. So should government be allowed to make up new rules as they go?
If these proposed power plants are such a GREAT idea, why aren’t Texas or Colorado building them? Most of the power is going to them anyway.
Econ101,
If green energy “hurts the economy,” then why are wind and solar being implemented in Great Britain and Germany as basic to their national energy infrastructure? Are you going to try to tell me that those economies don’t face “global competition?” Please. No surprise to see the rest of your post devolve into a rant against things you don’t like.
CF
Different countries have different resources.
America is blessed with vast coal reserves.
We should use that coal.
Energy prices will continue to go up, due to demand and due to liberal opposition to the production of low-cost energy.
The high cost of energy will be another campaign issue against Democrats.
“The high cost of energy will be another campaign issue against Democrats.”
And the high cost of energy is the fault of the Democrats HOW?
Cole Hargrave Snodgrass & Assoc. who took the poll - look who Mr Cole is:
Cole is a major figure in contemporary Oklahoma politics….Cole served in the Oklahoma State Senate from 1988 to 1991 as a Republican, resigning mid-term to accept a job in Washington. From 1995 to 1999, he was the Oklahoma Secretary of State under Frank Keating… He has also served as Chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party…
Cole has been heavily involved in national politics as well, having served both as Executive Director of the National Republican Congressional Committee and as Chief of Staff of the Republican National Committee. He also spent two years working as a paid consultant for the United States Chamber of Commerce. But Cole’s primary involvement in politics has been as a political consultant. His firm (Cole, Hargrave, Snodgrass and Associates) played a large part in the reconstruction of Oklahoma’s political landscape, and backed a number of candidates that took office during the Republican Revolution of 1994. Among their clients have been Frank Keating……..
I am not saying he cannot do a fair poll…. BUT….
Econ101,
Yeah, and Republicans have been SO GOOD at keeping down the cost of energy. You really are grasping at straws, Econ101. It’s getting harder and harder to take you seriously.
As for who has what energy resources, we have wind and solar on a scale that Great Britain and Germany could only dream of. And when one factors in the back-end costs of coal, it is hardly anything like “cheap.”
Regarding the polls-
Yes, I would suspect a larger sample would garner a closer answer to reality. But I disagree with polling for the most part for that very reason, and i have been subjected to polls. Before. They are very much abouot how they are written. I would suggest that even 1000 people, out of a population of nearly 3,000,00, is nowhere near large enough. But i don;t trust polls to start with. My guess? 2/3 of the populaiton of the state of Kansas could give a shit, one way or the other.
littlejohn,
While I agree, to some extent, about the use of polls, I actually disagree with your final claim: I think people in Kansas, when made aware of what’s at issue with the Holcomb proposal, actually do care. They get that it is likely to impact their health, and that of their children, in big ways.
“LJ, I just find it wrong for the State to say “to build a facility you need to meet X, Y, & Z requirments.” So the facility exceeds those requirements, KDHE excepts it, and then Bremby pulls rank and says no based on things outside of the current rules. So should government be allowed to make up new rules as they go?
”
I happen to mostly agree with this statement. I do recognize that the AG gave the opinion that Bremby was entitled to do so. My opinion, want to change the rules? Change the actual rules (regulations).
I was involved in a situation with KDHE. Someone insisted on a higher standard that was set out in the regs, at a cost increase of 100s of thousand of dollars. His personal opinion. That was all. It was fought. The regulator lost, but refused to sign it until the very last day he was required to. at a cost to the local authority of many thousands of dollars because of delays and the higher cost of money. Regulators should just follow the damn law, or get it changed.
Green energy hurts the economy? That’s nonsense. Look at Iceland. It switched to fueling the entire nation on geothermal and hydro so it no longer needs to import as much coal and oil. The economy improved greatly now that 70% of it’s energy needs are produced locally.
It just makes economic sense to stop importing energy needs. It also improves national security and lowers unemployment since the energy production jobs and investment would be in America. Negative health effects from pollution would be decreased as well.
But that’s just liberalism for you, self-reliance and efficiency. Only someone seriously clueless about the issue would advocate for more pollution and higher energy costs by relying on unrenewable energy sources.
CF2K-
“They get that it is likely to impact their health, and that of their children, in big ways.”
BS- The additional plants will not cause health problems in a “Big way”. I lived within miles of the existing Sunflower plant from construction until 2007. Haven’t had a single health problem. I had the flu a couple of times, but I am pretty sure it wasn’t from the plant.
“It just makes economic sense to stop importing energy needs. It also improves national security and lowers unemployment since the energy production jobs and investment would be in America”
I agree. More muclear power! More drilling for oil in the US until alternative fuels/energy systems are fully on line! More coal plants?? I dunno. Since the plants at Holcomb seem to be geared towards supplying Colorado, let Colorado have them….in Colorado. I am against the whole
“yes, we need……, but not in my back yard!”
And if you live in SEdgwick county, exporting all your damn trash elsewhere, after spending millions on land near Furley, you have complicit in the same mindset
6 miles
econ101 posted March 21, 2008 at 11:57 am
“The Greens are against those people who work in manufacturing, energy and transportation.
The Greens are anti-labor”
How long will Paul continue to live in his fossil-fueled fantasy world of denial?
Higher energy efficiency and renewables would create more and better jobs than the capital-intensive $3.6 BILLION coal plants.
Higher end-use energy efficiency and renewables would eliminate the need to spend $3.6 BILLION on dinosaur coal plants, at a lower cost.
The energy future is higher efficiency and distributed generation — not massive, expensive, centralized, inefficient, steam from burning coal plants.
“Energy prices will continue to go up, due to demand and due to liberal opposition to the production of low-cost energy.”
Actually no. During the energy “crisis” in California in 1999 demand did not increase but prices skyrocketed. That’s because the power producing companies shut down a third of their generators simply for the purpose of increasing price.
Demand is easily limited by increasing efficiency. It’s the conservatives that oppose increasing efficiency in an effort to increase demand and lower supply. That’s why prices increase. Liberals encourage more efficiency in order to lower demand and to diversify energy production to prohibit market fluctuations of particular commodities. The cost of providing wind to wind mills and sun to solar arrays will always be zero.
Prices on coal and oil are kept artificially low through billions in subsidies. Remove those subsidies and we’ll see a true price comparison and you’ll see how much cheaper wind and solar is. Currently the Republicans have blocked measures to permit net metering which would allow people to get around the utility monopoly.
HERE IS THE COLE POLL QUESTION - notice the biased opening line….
2. As you may or may not know, a political appointee may have acted beyond the scope of his authority when denying an application that would have allowed the building of a new power plant near Holcomb, Kansas that would use coal as a primary energy source. This permit denial prevents the creation of hundreds of jobs and the investment of $3.6 billion and it creates uncertainty for businesses operating in Kansas. From what you know about this issue, do you agree or disagree with the denial of this application? (After response, ask:) Would you say you strongly (agree / disagree) or only somewhat (agree / disagree)?
Strongly agree……………………………. 20%
Somewhat agree…………………………… 8%
Somewhat disagree……………………… 19%
Strongly disagree…………………………. 28%
Undecided (vol.)…………………………. 25%
3. The State Legislature recently passed a bill that would allow the power plant near Holcomb to be built, but the Governor has threatened to veto that bill. Do you think your legislator should or should not vote to overturn the Governor’s veto?
Should overturn veto…………………….. 46%
Should NOT overturn veto……………… 32%
Undecided (vol.)…………………………. 22%
ANTI,
Did you live downwind from the coal plant? If so, I suggest that you get tested for mercury, etc..
“More nuclear power! More drilling for oil in the US until alternative fuels/energy systems are fully on line!”
Oil and nuclear are limited commodities. Increasing our production in those will still result in higher prices. Nuclear has never been profitable and relies heavily on subsidies.
In 2003 uranium cost $7 a pound, it went up to $140 a pound last year. It simply isn’t cost effective.
America consumes way too much oil to ever be able to drill enough to satisfy our needs. Thanks to Republican efforts to prohibit increases in efficiency we continue to be reliant on foreign sources and their ability to restrict supply. So the problems will still remain even if we manage to drill in ANWR and delay our addiction for another six months.
Cosmos, yes I lived down wind. Garden City is down wind and people are not dying off left and right or flooding the hospital with health problems related to the plant. The fear of environmental and health problems has been greatly exaggerated to sway opinions.
I got tested for mercury a few months back and my levels were low. For $25 and some hair clippings you can get tested too.
http://www.sierraclub.org/mercury/get_tested/
Cosmos, also I have been tested for mercury, however it was because of exposure to a site remediation project at an old chroming plant. Oh, and I am fine, thanks for asking.
‘TOP 10 (or 11) Reasons Not to Build a Coal Plant in Kansas ‘
http://kansas.sierraclub.org/Wind/Top10Reasons.htm
jimmymac posted March 21, 2008 at 12:08 pm
“The Sierra Club…”
And jimmymac can prove(sic) his false claim about the New Orleans levees, by adding a false, fictional paragraph to a copy/paste.
CF2K,
I base my information on projections provided by the U.S. Dept. of Energy concerning the growth in electrical demand in the U.S. However, the real issue concerning the power plants is not simply the necessity for the additional generation capacity, but also the economics. Coal is our most abundant fuel source and the least expensive (besides hydro) and it is not controlled by foreign countries hostile to the U.S. Another troubling issue is the politicians and environmentalists that work so hard to attack the use of coal have not proposed any effective, realiable or realistic alternatives to replace coal for electric generation. Ther is no doubt we can generate electricity without coal, but the price will be significantly higher, which will add to the economic distress of Kansas consumers.
CCR posted March 21, 2008 at 1:35 pm
“Coal is our most abundant fuel source and the least expensive (besides hydro)… ”
Higher end-use energy efficiency is our least expensive “source”.
Costs of renewable energy are dropping. For example, advances in nanotechnology will make photovoltaic cheaper than coal within about a decade.
Costs of coal are rising — coal transport costs, plant construction overruns, future carbon taxes, etc..
Wise utilities are cancelling coal, and instead using efficiency and renewables.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_plants_cancelled_in_2007
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_plants_cancelled_in_2008
Increased efficiency is fine, by all means, do it. But not by the false “economy” of raising taxes to feed the robber barons of the federal government. Do it without subsidies, and do it without taxes.
“Costs of coal are rising — coal transport costs, plant construction overruns, future carbon taxes, etc”
Future carbon taxes– a panacea for the masses. BS. Carbon taxes are the same rip off as carbon offsets. Just another way to make a dollar for the fng government. They never did see a tax they didn;t like. And if so, let the coal fired plants BUY carbon offsets! Just like the elite! Why the hell not!
another reason they are cancelling them? the biggest, in my opinion? Politics. Politics in seeming “green” and politics in not being certain regulatory bureaucroats will follow their own regulations, like in Kansas. Or, change them in the midst of building the plants, after approvals have been made. For those in disgreement with the power plants, great thing, huh? Just wait until the Nazis in control of the Bureaucracy decide they don;t have to follow the law or regulations of thier state in some project that you support.
In any case, I am out of here. I do appreciate all the viewpoints, and believe it or not, I learn from each. Thanks
The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during climatological winter (December 2007-February 2008) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC, thanks to a strong La Nina.
Does Al Gore know about La Nina?
Parkie is branching out from all abortion all the time to a new field.
Wow!
If only cosmo would branch out.
Aww the energy shills are having a bad day.
Hey editors?
Twist the knife on them a little…
Run the plant picture with a big, red X superimposed over it!
parkay,
ENSO causes interannual and decadal variabilities.
AGW causes long-term warming.
If only fleettwood was not the BDP.
“If only fleettwood was not the BDP.”
And vigorously defends his title everyday.
I take it back.
Run the plant photo with a big GREEN X over it!
X X Print the X!
Good on the Governor!
Regular
Posted March 21, 2008 at 12:08 pm | Permalink
The Sierra Club…
One of the most litigious organization in the U.S. Solely responsible for costing the government and private Enterprise Trillions of dollars of bad debt.
Solely Responsible? Trillions? (Your thinking about the War in Iraq) Without organizations like Sierra Club, our national parks would be oil fields, forested naked with a McDonalds and a strip mall every 10 miles —-
if nothing else you inflate your numbers to make it seem likely — but then again we should expect that with your inflated image of yourself …
Cosmos,
In case you had’t noticed the price of everything is increasing. The argument you use to discredit coal as a high priced fuel can also be applied to wind and solar. High steel prices, cost of transmission lines, the amount of real estate needed to house solar panels and wind generator towers, and the most important, the high cost of replacement power when the wind is not availalbe. Solar power only works when the sun is shining and wind generation only when the wind is blowing. So what do you use when we have no wind and no sunshine? You might want to check with the state of Texas. They lost over 1,700 MW of wind power last month when the wind stopped blowing in west Texas and the system operator had to call an emergency for replacement power. That replacement power came from fossil fueled power plants. Wind is subsidized by tax breaks as is solar. These alternatives are and will be needed as part of the overall energy mix, but renewables and alternatives sources are not the solution to our future energy needs, we will still be dependent on fossil fuel powered generation for base load demand and coal fired power plants are reliable economical base load plants.
parkay - coolest since 2001 but still among the warmest on record globally:
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/
For a meterologist’s take on the question “If global warming is occurring, why was the winter of 2007-2008 so cold and snowy?” see:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=916&tstamp=200803
ANTI,
Nice to see a reactionary like you choosing a name that accurately reflects his dominant personality trait.
Anyway, with regard to the health effects of exposure to pollutants generated by coal, these are well-documented, well-understood, and not undermined in the least by your anecdotal testimony.
Here’s a concise capsule summary of the negative health effects of sulfur dioxide, mercury, and nitrogen dioxide.
http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5433
Glad you’re feeling well. Too bad that other folks who have been exposed to coal smoke, long-term, have a different story to tell.
CF2K-
Thanks for the kind words. As far as health problems in URBAN Dallas, TX caused by Coal Plants. Tell me how they nail down the coal plant as the cause, and not the many health related hazards in an urban environment? As I stated before- specific to the Sunflower Plant, I have seen no health impact in a “big way” as per my many years in the area.
I beleive your post to be “reactionary” to further your belief through unneeded fear.
Also- lovely unbiased source.
The new plants(KS) are designed to exceed KDHE regulations. TX standards do not apply in KS, or you would probably notice more health related problems.
CCR,
Did someone con you, and convince you to mail monthly payments to the ‘Sun God’ and ‘Wind God’? “Fuel” costs for sun and wind are fixed, and free.
Coal is usually transported long distances via rail (diesel) — those costs are rising.
The costs of higher end-use efficiency, such as improved building techniques, insulation, etc. are lower than building new coal plants.
Photovoltaic costs are dropping fast with economies of scale and nanotechnology improvements.
Wind farm costs are dropping with economies of scale and improved designs.
The recent “emergency” in TX was also caused by fossil-fueled plants not generating according to schedule. Demand increased more than wind power dropped.
And btw, coal-fired plants shutdown for long periods of time, to do maintenance.
A great example about EIA’s electricity use projections.
And carefully read the last three paragraphs.
‘Poof! 132 coal plants disappear
The magic mouse of Guy Caruso’
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/20/163145/310
ANTI,
I suspect that it is very difficult to disaggregate the specific health effects of point-source pollutants from non-point or mobile source pollutants. Duh. But that in no way disproves the negative effects of coal-fired power generation.
As for your knee-jerk objection to my former source, who cares? It was fact-based, whether you like the ideological slant or not.
Here’s a Sierra Club fact sheet, with documentation of factual claims. And if you try to pre-emptorily reject it on the basis of an ad hominem fallacy, ANTI, then I win. The only refutation that counts is a refutation ON THE FACTS AND ARGUMENTS THAT ARE PRESENTED AND DOCUMENTED.
“Dirty Coal-Fired Power Plants and Air Pollution
Power plants are a major source of air pollution, with coal-fired power plants spewing 59% of total U.S. sulfur dioxide pollution and 18% of total nitrogen oxides every year.4 Coal-fired power plants are also the largest polluter of toxic mercury pollution5, largest contributor of hazardous air toxics6, and release about 50% of particle pollution.7 Additionally, power plants release over 40% of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, a prime contributor to global warming.8
Smog and Ozone
Power plants are second only to automobiles as the greatest source of NOx emissions.9 When nitrogen oxide (NOx) reacts with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and sunlight, smog (ground level ozone) forms. Of the six major criteria air pollutants regulated by the EPA, NOx emissions have historically been the hardest to control. One of the contributing factors is that NOx emissions from huge dirty coal plants in one region can easily pollute areas hundreds of miles downwind. The American Lung Association estimates that almost half-48% or 140.5 million- of Americans live in areas with unhealthy levels of smog.10
When inhaled, smog can cause a wide range of health problems, including immediate symptoms like shortness of breath, chest pains, wheezing, and increased susceptibility to respiratory problems.11 Smog can also cause many more serious problems like increased risk of asthma attacks and lung inflammation. Recently, scientists concluded that exposure to smog can be deadly. Smog affects everyone, but is especially dangerous for children, the elderly, and those with respiratory problems.
Even our national parks have not escaped the smog and ozone pollution caused by coal-fired power plants. Many parks already experience unhealthy air days, and the problem is getting worse.12 Smog concentrations have increased at 22 of 31 National Park Service monitoring sites since 1990. This persistent ozone pollution can harm plants and vegetation by damaging leaves and disrupting growth.13 Along with other pollutants, nitrous oxides can also chemically alter soil and water, leading to acidification and other serious problems that harm plants and animals.
Particle Pollution and Soot
Coal-fired power plants are also the largest single source of sulfur dioxide (SO2), releasing about 2/3 of the total SO2 pollution each year.14 Sulfur dioxide, which can travel long distances in the atmosphere before falling down to the land, can cause problems on its own as well as when it combines with other pollution to form other dangerous compounds.15 In addition to acid rain (see below), SO2 can combine with nitrogen oxide (NOx) and other particles to form particulate matter, which is sometimes called soot. Particulate matter, which can also be released directly from the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants, is often divided into categories based on the size of the particles-coarse, fine, and ultrafine-but all three are hazardous to your health and the environment.16
Particle pollution is one of the most dangerous air pollutants, and over 64 million Americans are estimated to breathe air that has so much particle pollution that it puts their health at risk.17 Particle pollution can trigger heart attacks and strokes, lead to cardiac arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat), cause respiratory irritation, and worsen asthma. Both short-term and long-term exposure can cause premature death. In fact, particle pollution from power plants in the U.S. leads to over 30,000 deaths each year-a shocking figure when compared to the 17,000 homicides committed each year.18 Cutting power plant emissions by 75% could avoid more than 18,000 of the deaths caused by particle pollution.”
(snip)
“Air Toxics and Mercury
Coal-fired power plants are the largest single man-made source of mercury pollution in the U.S.26, and are the largest contributor of hazardous air pollutants.27 In smokestack tests, coal-fired power plants were found to release 67 air toxics, many of which are known or suspected carcinogens and neurotoxins that can cause development problems, respiratory problems, and aggravate asthma.28
Of these air toxics, one of the most dangerous is mercury. Mercury from coal-fired power plants is released into the air through the exhaust system when coal is burned. The primary exposure for Americans occurs when this mercury falls to the earth and runs into our lakes, rivers, and streams and contaminates the fish.29 Humans can be contaminated when they eat these fish and shellfish. In 2004, 47 states and territories had fish consumption advisories for mercury for at least some of their waters.30
Mercury is a developmental toxin, primarily affecting fetal development.31 In unborn children, it can cause brain damage, mental retardation, blindness, and many other problems. Infants are also exposed to these dangers through contaminated breast milk. While the dangers of mercury are most often associated with women and children, eating fish high in mercury has also been found to put middle-aged men at a greater risk for coronary heart disease.32″
(snip)
“Citations
1. U.S. Department of Energy, “Coal website.” Accessed August 8, 2006.
2. , Joel A., “‘Treading Water’: A Preliminary Assessment of EPA Enforcement During the Bush II Administration.” October 2004. 34 Environmental Law Reporter: 10933-10953.
3. Clean Air Task Force, “No Escape: Can You Really Ever Get Away From the Smog.” 1999.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report.” 2003. Appendix A.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fact Sheet, “EPA to Regulate Mercury and Other Air Toxics Emissions from Coal- and Oil-Fired Power Plants.” December 14, 2000. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/fact_sheets/fs_util.pdf
6. Clean Air Task Force, “Children at Risk: How Air Pollution from Power Plants Threatens the Health of America’s Children.” May 2002. Available at http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Children_at_Risk.pdf
7. Ibid.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005,” April 2007. Based on calculation of CO2 emissions from tables 3-1 and 3-3.
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “NOx: How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the Way We Live and Breathe.” September 1998. EPA-456/F-98-005. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/noxfldr.pdf
10. American Lung Association, “State of the Air: 2006.” 2006.
11. American Lung Association, “State of the Air: 2006.” 2006.
12. U.S. National Park Service, “Air Quality in the National Parks, Second Edition.” September 2002. Available at www2.nature.nps.gov/air/pubs/aqnps.cfm
13. U.S. National Park Service, “Effects of Air Pollution on Ecological Resources.” Accessed August 7, 2006 at www2.nature.nps.gov/air/AQBasics/ecologic.cfm
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report.” 2003. Appendix A.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “SO2 - How Sulfur Dioxide Affects the Way We Live & Breathe.” November 2000. Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/so2/index.html
16. American Lung Association, “State of the Air: 2006.” 2006.
17. American Lung Association, “State of the Air: 2006.” 2006.
18. Clean Air Task Force, “Death, Disease and Dirty Power: Mortality and Health Disease Due to Air Pollution from Power Plants.” October 2000. Available at http://www.cleartheair.org/fact/mortality/mortalitylowres.pdf
19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Particulate Matter Website.” Accessed August 10, 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/index.html
20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “How Air Pollution Affects the View.” April 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/visibility/pdfs/haze_brochure_20060426.pdf
21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Acid Rain Website.” Accessed August 9, 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/acidrain/index.html
22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report.” 2003. Appendix A.
23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “NOx: How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the Way We Live and Breathe.” September 1998. EPA-456/F-98-005. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/noxfldr.pdf
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “NOx: How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the Way We Live and Breathe.” September 1998. EPA-456/F-98-005. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oar/noxfldr.pdf
25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Effects of Acid Rain: Lakes & Streams.” Accessed August 9, 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/acidrain/effects/surfacewater.html
26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA to Regulate Mercury and Other Air Toxics Emissions from Coal- and Oil-Fired Power Plants.” December 14, 2000. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/fact_sheets/fs_util.pdf
27. Clean Air Task Force, “Children at Risk: How Air Pollution from Power Plants Threatens the Health of America’s Children.” May 2002. Available at http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Children_at_Risk.pdf
28. Ibid.
29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Mercury Human Exposure Website.” Accessed August 10, 2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/mercury/exposure.htm
30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, “2004 National Listing of Fish Advisories,” September 2005. EPA-823-F-05-004.
31. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, “ToxFAQs for Mercury.” April 1999.
32. American Heart Association, “Mercury, Fish Oils, and Risk of Acute Coronary Events and Cardiovascular Disease, Coronary Heart Disease, and All-Cause Mortality in Men in Eastern Finland.” November 11, 2004.
33. Energy Information Administration, “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004.” December 2005. Report #: DOE/EIA-0573(2004)
34. Population Reference Bureau, “2005 World Population Data Sheet.” 2005.
35. Energy Information Administration, “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004.” December 2005. Report #: DOE/EIA-0573(2004)
36. U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States.” July 2000. Available here.
37. Environmental Information Administration, “U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Sources 2005 Flash Estimate.” June 2006. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/pdf/flash.pdf
38. U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electric Power in the United States.” July 2000. Available here.
39. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers.” 2001.”
http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp#cite9
Are you a trained scientist or medical professional, ANTI? If not, then you are in NO POSITION to draw any inferences, positive or negative, concerning the impacts of coal burning in Garden City or anywhere else. If all you have is anecdotal evidence, you may as well surrender with some dignity intact.
Turn out the lights, the party is over!
All you Global Warming nuts turn out your lights and shut off your PC’s now!
Lots of info,
‘Cost of coal power is rising’
http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/538962.html
CF2K,
I think ANTI is okay with the health problems and deaths caused by coal plants, unless it causes a whole lot of obvious illnesses and deaths.
ANTI posted March 21, 2008 at 1:22 pm
“Garden City is down wind and people are not dying off left and right or flooding the hospital with health problems related to the plant.“
I think everyone is OK with turning their lights out, shutting off their PC’s, going without air conditioning and heat, washers and dryers, and dishwashers.
Signing off now in order to save the world.
Max,
You shutting your mouth “saves the world” in more ways than I can count.
As Congress moves toward mandatory controls on greenhouse-gas emissions and Wall Street frowns on new coal plants, do Kansas lawmakers really want to stake their reputations on forcing through these plants, which would pollute Kansas and mostly power other states?
only if you show ‘em enough money.
build it in outdoor oriented colorado.
An EXCELLENT op ed in this mornings (Saturday) Eagle.
“Off for an hour”
Everybody everywhere should turn off their lights on March the 29th betweeen and 8 and 9 PM.
Check out Phillipa Read’s good op ed and also http://www. earthhour.org.
I’m in. I think I’ll take a walk under the stars while I show the electric company that the consumer can make a difference.
The greatest source of energy we have is the energy we waste.
An hour off? Ridiculous. Like not buying gas from foreign owned gas stations.
Practice conservation daily, and the problem will be greatly diminished.
In fact, take that hour off and go for a ride in your SUV or pick up truck. Burn more energy.
I drive a hybrid. Why doesn’t everybody?
I just wrote it on my calendar and a walk will be good too! Thanks for the excellent suggestion of how to use the hour.
Are there “things” in my house that need more than just being turned off. Not trying to be difficult just showing my true lack of knowing. I’ve heard if they’re plugged in they’re drawing some power and don’t know which things or if it’s even true.
http://www.earthhour.org/
Darn it. Can’t seem to get an active link.
The website is COOL! I’m gonna shut off everything in the house for that hour.
Then, I’m going to very selective in what I swith on again.
Oh good my link does work.
DO visit that website.
Good for you linda!
That’s next Saturday.
TV on Saturday at that time is dead.
Couples! Spend the time in the dark romantically.
Parents? Learn the name of a star (the ones in the sky) or two and share with your kids.
Next Saturday, huh?
Here’s my promise and admission. Admission first - I love college basketball! Promise - If there IS a game at that time I think I can’t miss I will give TWO hours at another time.
Hey while we are at it?
Editors? We are a little late hearing about this.
Thanks again to that op ed writer in Saturday’s Eagle for bringing this to us.
This would be a GREAT topic for a thread! Get the word out as to the event, discuss various ways of conserving energy etc.
“Higher end-use energy efficiency is our least expensive “source”.”
-Cosmos
Cosmos has a keen imagination when dreaming up ways to maintain his lifestyle simply by theoretically increasing energy efficiency.
Increasing efficiency only means increasing consumption to a point that does not inflict major pain on a consumer’s budget.
Let’s look at the gains in efficiency in the automotive industry to see if oil consumption has declined as cars become more efficient.
The oil shocks of the 1970s — in both price
and availability — spurred improvements in auto
energy efficiency within the U.S. as well as worldwide. On average over the
past 25 years, the typical power train of gasoline fueled automobiles in the U.S. has improved in efficiency by about 1% per year. 1% improvements may not appear to be much, the compound improvement in the typical U.S. automotive engine over 25 years has been about 30%.
So there have been significant improvements
in automobile power train efficiencies over the past couple of decades. But have these improvements translated into any overall reduction in demand for fuel? No. In 2007 motor fuel consumption in the U.S. was high as it has ever been.
So with that, I agree with Cosmos and believe higher end use efficiency is the way to go. I think all cars should be made out of unobtainium. Unobtainium you may have never heard of, but it is as light as a feather and as strong as steel. It takes no gasoline to move it, it simply floats from your house to work with ease.
I think Congress should pass this law now so that we can continue to live the American dream AND save the planet 100 years from now at the same time.
rfl - most of those improvements happened in the first 10 years of that period - we have subsequently plateued or even dropped. With currently available technologies we could be using plug-in hybrids and composites to significantly improve efficiencies.
rfl,
Do you enjoy living in the state of denial?
Reagan rolled back CAFE mpg standards in 1985, and the standards have basically been stagnant since then.
Ever thought about the huge air drag of the big steel girder frames under most SUV’s?
We could double the mpg of most vehicles, using available components, materials and technology.
We could quadruple it, with start-of-art materials.
And we are able to build super-insulated homes, for example, with R-60 walls.
RFI and Ben: And in your personal vehicle of the future made of an unknown compound, UNOBTAINIUM … add a pillow of gas, HYDRO/HELIUMATIC, a non-flammable, much, much lighter than air gas, with an atomic number of (-10), to elevate the vehicle slightly above the ground. Utilize a pedal-operated rear fan to push the vehicle down the road when there is no wind.
Collisions?? Just bounce off the other vehicle and keep on pedalling.
We could double the mpg of most vehicles, using available components, materials and technology.
We could quadruple it, with start(sp)-of-art materials.
-Cosmos
If it just weren’t for those darn oil lobbyists preventing Ford Motor Co, Toyota, Honda, and the other auto manufacturers from using these “state-of-the-art” materials and technology on their internal combustion powered vehicles, we would have the 4-fold increase in MPG that Cosmos speaks of.
I know, according to Cosmos, its a vast carbon filled conspiracy to make all cars suck oil. It’s odd that he bought one of those cars though. I wonder which oil company twisted his arm? Exxon, BP, Halliburton?
Or maybe, its the technology that is dependent on oil as its fuel that the consumer, including GASP! Cosmos, demands?
The only way you can make any significant gains in efficiency in regards to transportation (the single largest carbon emitter in the nation by far) is to reduce weight. With available materials (state-of-the-art included), and safety standards maintained, you are dreaming if you think a 4-fold increase is imminent. Keep dreaming though, just don’t expect the rest of us to believe you.
With increasing demand, you will need increasing supply or else the price for energy (electricity from Sunflower included) will continue to increase parabolically. I’ll live with it just like everyone else (that is if I can make it through another freezing winter as predicted by the impeccable Global Warming models).
rfl posted March 22, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“The only way you can make any significant gains in efficiency in regards to transportation (the single largest carbon emitter in the nation by far) is to reduce weight.”
If rfl saw a $20 bill on a sidewalk, he’d say it couldn’t be real because someone would’ve already picked it up — and he’d leave it there, and walk on by.
http://www.suvsolutions.org/blueprint.html
http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
The Earth is cooling?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
X !!!
Print the big green X over the plant!
And give us a thread about earthhour.
JWink
Posted March 22, 2008 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
RFI and Ben: And in your personal vehicle of the future made of an unknown compound, UNOBTAINIUM
——————
heh heh - love that name - UNOBTAINIUM
econ101 posted March 22, 2008 at 4:00 pm
“The Earth is cooling?”
That’s right econ101 — a La Nina, and a solar minimum caused Earth to cool in 2007.
2007 got so cold, it tied the the big warm spike in 1998, that was caused in part by a record warm El Nino.
Just ask your biologist,
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jennifer_Marohasy