Comments on: Regulatory uncertainty not a Kansas thing

By: mrbill

mrbill — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:20:30 +0000

Makes absolutely no difference what we bitch about here…China is building over 2 per week and are currently some 500 plants behind. Will be increasing the build rate until they catch up.

So continue harping about your little teeny powerplant while the rest of the world moves on. Even France which has 80% of power from Nukes is starting a big Coal power plant building spree…Why, cause its cheaper and quicker…and they know they will NEVER meet their Kyoto signed nonsense.

They have NEVER met ANY of the signed pieces and have never had any intentions of doing so. Most of the signees know it was never meetable to start with. Just being asshats to give them something to throw up at the US anyway.

By: BlueJay

BlueJay — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:04:30 +0000

“A Missouri utility company has abandoned its plan to build a new coal-fired plant because of rising construction costs and an uncertain regulatory climate. ”

Hmm. Now how does this prompt the quite clueless post at 6:39 AM?

“That’s an easy one to answer we have the same group chicken littles going from state to state lying to everyopne they can and hoping if they tell the same lie long enough they will gather enough uninformed people to buy into their deceitfulness.”

Try thinking instead of reacting.

By: Phantom

Phantom — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:45:49 +0000

Maybe Missourians aren’t as dumb as people think, and are watiching Kansas Legislature,waiting to see if they can farm out their dirty plant to Kansas!

By: ksfarmgrrl

ksfarmgrrl — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:17:32 +0000

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

“Because Colorado takes all the water from the Arkansas River already.”

And we let them. And then we do their dirty laundry for them down at Holcomb.

Kansas… as dumb as you think!

By: darkanonm

darkanonm — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:07:58 +0000

Because Colorado takes all the water from the Arkansas River already.If you live in Denver or Colorado Springs, Please flush. Kansas needs the water.

By: ksfarmgrrl

ksfarmgrrl — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:16:26 +0000

Hehehehehe. IIRC, Sunflower and steve miller put in an application of some sort to BUY power from this proposed Missouri plant if Holcomb didnt happen.

A threat to support the coal industry and dump pollution, no matter WHAT Kansans think? A shell game to pump up the numbers for the Missouri plant? Do the utitlities do this for each other to get their permits passed?

And WHY is no one proposing to build such a plant in the states that NEED the power, like Colorado?

Not enough water in Colorado to generate the power they need?

Send that population growth to Kansas!

By: ksfarmgrrl

ksfarmgrrl — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:40:31 +0000

SSITL, Sunflower’s own proposal says it will NOT reuse water. It will use about 8000 acre feet per tower. USE, not re-use. Then there’s the extra water that SUNFLOWER says will bring its total water usage to 30000 acre feet EACH YEAR.

Sunflower says that. Why dont you ask THEM about their water usage and their magic algae plant that exists only in the mind of steve miller?

By: SSITL

SSITL — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:06:13 +0000

True a coal fired plant does use a certain amount of water which is turned to steam to drive the turbines.
What happens to the steam?
Dah it condense back to water to be reused.

By: Regular

Regular — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:52:51 +0000

dead horse - beaten

By: BlueJay

BlueJay — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:59:23 +0000

SEE?

It is not just Kansas.

The attitude EVERYWHERE is changing.

Kansans do not want these plants built to supply power to to Colorado, which ALSO does not want them. Oklahoma does not want them. Missouri does not want them.

That leaves?

Nebraska.

Nah I don’t think they want dinosaur fuel plants either.

J R sings

“Ch ch changes….”

By: Boxlock

Boxlock — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:38:55 +0000

Burning coal for power in a modern plant (?)…I’m unconcerned and think because of all the available coal, at relatively cheap cost, they should be built. Especially since they meet or exceed all regulatory requirements in place today. We need to follow the law. Change the law if it is ‘proven’ to be harmful over their benefits.

The water aspect concerns me though, not enough to deny the applications, I would like to see measures in place that capture and condense the steam and return it to the aquifer or use it in a closed system over and over again. Either of which should be possible.

By: JWink

JWink — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:03:51 +0000

The bottom-line about these TWO proposed coal-fired power plants near Garden City/Holcomb is THEY WILL ADD IMMEASURABLY TO OUR ALREADY DANGEROUS LEVEL OF AIR POLLUTION AND GULP UP MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF OUR DRINKING WATER PERHAPS EQUIVALENT TO THE WATER USED BY SOUTHERN KANSANS.

So ask your state legislators to JUST SAY NO TO THESE PROPOSED POWER PLANTS IN THEIR LEGISLATIVE WRAP-UP SESSIONS BEGINNING LATER THIS COMING WEEK IN TOPEKA.

AND ASK YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS WHO HAVE ALREADY VOTED AGAINST THE POWER PLANTS TO STAY THE COURSE FOR THE GOOD HEALTH OF ALL KANSANS.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:00:25 +0000

“Regulatory uncertainly” - what a load of garbage. Bremby accepted and approved something like 2500 other applications for permits during the same time period. This is just another Republican spin-machine buzz phrase to try to influence the 2008 elections, and to throw every conceivable political roadblock they can devise in the way of the Governor.

By: SSITL

SSITL — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:39:31 +0000

That’s an easy one to answer we have the same group chicken littles going from state to state lying to everyopne they can and hoping if they tell the same lie long enough they will gather enough uninformed people to buy into their deceitfulness.

But then they have people like you Phillip that will continue to try and endorse this nonsense.