I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….

Ya DO paulie?

Really?

WHERE? Surely you can share with us your personal encounters with coal fired plants given that you live and work in Wichita.

That does NOT include additional water that complex might gulp out of the Ogallala aquifer for an ethanol plant that has been suggested for the site or for irrigation of crops that might be grown on Sunflower’s site there.

If anybody knows better water usage figures, please state on this blog.

Some of the proponents of these power plants such as my friend, Senator Phil Journey, and state legislator Don Myers from Derby, keep saying, “Oh, well, most of the water will be recycled like in an automobile radiator.” Sorry, boys, that’s wrong.

I apologize for not reading your “modern, recently built” typed between “various” and “coal”.

“I drive by various coal fired generating plants all the time.”

Next time, don’t use white text color, and zero font size. It’s hard to read.

And even the newest plants still release mercury, other toxins, soot, and of course, huge quantities of CO2. “Clean coal” does not exist.

“I drive by various coal fired generating plants all the time.

They do not “smell” —

They are not “dirty” —”

Right… roll the video of young children happily running around in a beautiful, flower-filled meadow. /sarcasm OFF

http://kansas.sierraclub.org/Wind/Coal-MercuryFactSheet.htm
“Summary. Coal fired power plants are currently the largest single source of airborne mercury emissions in the United States. Airborne mercury emissions travel tens to hundreds of miles before depositing, primarily in rainfall, into lakes and streams where it accumulates in fish that may be eaten by people. This adds to uptake via seafood consumption.
The EPA recently announced that 1 in 6 women of childbearing age in the US have blood mercury levels that could be harmful to a fetus. Fish mercury levels in Kansas lakes have been increasing. …”

I drive by various coal fired generating plants all the time.

They do not “smell” —

They are not “dirty” —

Please quit acting as if the coal industry has not made any progress over the years.

No SHIT if we had a repuke governator, the plants would be half built already.

Link please to us needing more baseload power in Kansas? Any reason a stinky, water sucking coal plant cant be built in EASTERN Kansas to satisfy that “demand”?

Ben is exactly correct on this:

” prove the carbon capture technology they say they have works,”

They can’t. That is why Neufeld backed away from his lies.”

They dont HAVE workable technology ready. Maybe sometime in the future, but it is no more ready for production than switch grass ethanol. Nice thought, but not based in current reality.

If I were a legislator from western Kansas, I’d be positioning myself AND my community for largess. I’d switch my pro vote to a nay vote in exchange for a HUGE economic development project in my district.

Because the best way to shut up the whiners that this is needed development is to give them MONEY for REAL development. But.. who wants to bet the legislators from out here dont WANT real development.

Real development takes work and committment to do something other than create temporary construction jobs. And besides…

…real development doesnt pay NEARLY as well as big coal does for pushing their agenda.

And Mary is right about the trees. Dont even get me STARTED on mountaintop removal. If you think Hays and Russell raped Cedar Bluff, that is NOTHING compared to what mountaintop removal does.

The deep underground Ogallala water aquifer will DRAIN AT A FURIOUS RATE threatening the high quality drinking water under western Kansas all the way to Wichita. Wichita’s two sources of drinking water, the Equus Beds aquifer near Halstead and the Cheney reservoir fed by the north branch of the Ninnescah River, are both dependent on the Ogallala aquifer.

SO WHICH WILL IT BE … Wichita’s water supply OR build two new Holcomb coal-fired power plants to provide electricity to Denver and the front range cities?

bush doesn’t think.

How do coal plants kill the trees in the Smoky Mountains?

now
that must really annoy bush.
how can he generate big lumber payoffs if the trees are dying from polution from his coal pals ??

One of my pet peeves about certain types of energy producing plants.

Kansans do not want these plants.

How do coal plants kill the trees in the Smoky Mountains?

They can’t. That is why Neufeld backed away from his lies.

We could move forward on this deal If Sunflower would:
• build one plant that would provide additional base load for Kansas,
• demonstrate that they have the financial strength to withstand pending carbon taxes,
• leave the regulatory exemptions out,
• prove the carbon capture technology they say they have works,
• agree to a three year delay on the second plant.

However, it is an all or all deal for them.

We are coming up on a time when we will need additional base load for Kansas consumers. I don’t know where or when it will be built, but we will have to permit a coal fired plant at some point. It would seem that we could meet the economic needs of western Kansas, use the newest technology, and expand our domestic supply of electricity with this suggested compromise.

“And all you GW supporters need to stop using fossil fuels immediately.

“Or are you expecting someone else to do what you are unwilling to do?”

The idea that someone should not oppose additional coal plants on the bases that they are unnecessary, a drain on natural resources in an area of the country that already is short of the needed resource, water, and yes, because it adds additional carbon into the atmosphere that we don’t need, unless they are willing to give up all fossil fuel generated energy is ludicrous.

So to review:

False dilemma. Childlike black or white logic.

Yep.

A straw man with a lobotomy.

Max does indeed = scroll over territory.

Farmie is correct. This fight is just beginning.