Posted on 10/19/2007 5:40:47 AM PDT by peggybac
TOPEKA | Delivering a stunning victory to those concerned about global climate change, Kansas’ top regulator rejected a proposal to build a coal plant in western Kansas.
The decision puts Kansas squarely in the center of the growing debate over global warming and energy policy, and adds the state to the small but growing list of states where plants have been rejected based on their carbon emissions.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
Stupid fools.
As the price of electricity goes up and up.
Try “stupid zealots”.
This happened in TX, too. I would never have guessed that it had anything to do with ‘those concerned about global warming’ though...
If bloviating about global warming is what caused Algore to bloat, then I think I would hush up about it already...
Idiots.
That said, build Nucs.
There is only economic benefit in that FEDERAL TAXPAYER FUNDS must be used to subsidize the propeller farms, so Kansas can have the rest of us pay for the greenie's power.
Since the existing regulations were all met, and the Staff recommended approval of permits, the individual who denied the permits is another activist making a "social statement", with no basis in fact.
Sunflower should take this to the courts and challenge it (although they will probably run into an activist judge who will try to implement the upholding of "Global Warming" agenda interests). The Carbon Credits' traders will win this one with their support of the market, with no conclusive scientific basis for this whole farce, and, as always, the consumers and taxpayers will be fleeced.
Flip-I Support it
December 2006
“I am eager to be a partner in that effort across the country, but what we know is that the Holcomb plant is likely to be built one way or the other. It’s a question of does it gets built in Kansas or Oklahoma?”
Flop-No I don’t
September 2007
"...Sebelius said she opposes the twin, 700-megawatt coal plants because they would produce massive emissions. ‘I also believe that we have a moral duty to be good stewards of this land, and I have a responsibility for the safety and security of our citizens, which includes health concerns. Those considerations have convinced me that massive new coal plants in Kansas are not in the best interests of our citizens,’ Sebelius said."
Finally, the biggest flip-flop during her 2007 State of the State Address
“But any economic success would be hollow if we don’t act as One Kansas. There is no reason for the future of rural Kansas to be one of faded signs and empty storefronts. The challenges faced by these communities require cooperation between families, businesses, government and organizations that focus on rural areas.”
A study by Fort Hays State University found that the proposed power plant is estimated to create 2,000 jobs during its construction and 400 permanent jobs. It has an estimated revenue of nearly $63 million and an annual tax revenue of $1.7 million.
Modern technological society requires electrical energy production, and lots of it. This is madness.
That said, as others have noted, we should be building nuclear plants, instead. But the same enviro-whackos that got this shot down would oppose that, as well.
“That said, build Nucs.”
Nope, the environ-whackos don’t want those either. They basically want you to stop using electricity, I guess.
I am amazed at how nutty environmentalists have held this country back. I look at how quickly most of the interstate highway system was built. Now, if anyone wants to build a road, they have to go through 50 years of environmental impact assessments before they can build anything. I'm all for trying to be as clean as we can be, but even in the end, we need power, roads, and other infrastructure. How did we let ourselves get into this mess?
“rejected a proposal to build a coal plant in western Kansas”
I’m sure glad to hear this. We have too much energy already. Luckily this will help raise everybody’s heating bills. /sarc off
When I find out who voted against the plant I’m going to tell them that when my electricity goes away I’m moving in with them!
I don’t know how to do it, but I would like to see states forced to live with their own decisions. If they won’t build enough power plants, if they won’t allow oil and gas development off their coasts where they have deposits, they should be penalized through interstate commerce surcharges or forced to live with their own, self imposed, limits.
Puking my guts out over the opening phrase. What a bunch of smug, self-satisfied a$$hats.
Being typical goverment hacks, they will still be spouting “global warming” and “carbon emissions” 20 years from now as the ice sheets cross the Canadian border.
We land a man on the moon in 1969 but we can’t figure out how to clean emissions from a coal plant in 2007. I don’t think we’re trying to figure it out very hard !!!
And the greenies will be the first ones to scream from the rafters when the brownout's start happening.....
Wait till the utilities start delivering those stunning power bills. Maybe the government is supposed to pay for those to.
More intended consequences via a Boor for Gore.
Those vague, slick pronouncements that don’t really say anythng - gotta love politicians!
Hey, it’s not the first, Crist in Florida got two coal plants canceled for the same reason. Instead of coal plants, we will be building a $2 billion monument to hurricanes, consisting of windmills and solar panels.
Don’t vote for the faux because you can’t defend it if they win. The liberals way is if they can’t elect the full fledged liberal, then they try and elect the GOP LIBERAL, AKA Rudy.
Dastardly trick to marginalize conservatives.
Our idiot Democrat governor put the kibosh on the proposed wind mill farm that would have been built in the Flint Hills region of the state. These kind of people are ignorant, superstitious, narrow-minded zealots.
I agree. We need lots energy production and transmission capacity. We need a cost effective energy industry. China is not constrained by this GW nonsense. The Chinese are building nuclear and coal plants at an impressive rate. In 20 years, they will have a huge industrial advantage if they do not choke on their own pollution.
The dim vision is energy mandates across the country. Energy is one of dim target industries. They want to develop a new energy economy in which they dictate the energy mix, provide huge development subsidies, and take credit for job growth. The unseen will be much more important than the seen. The full costs (including transmission and backup power) of these renewable plants will need to be paid, probably on industrial users. The cost of industrial production and employment will substantially increase leading to even more outsourcing and lost employment.
And Oklahoma just turned down the Red Rock plant in Oklahoma. We can live with brownouts can't we?
A lot of this is in promotion of the Italian firms wind farm proposals as this is the KS Sierra Club’s agenda.
However, a wind farm in the northern flint hills north of Manhattan was turned down a year ago due to NIMBY concerns as I recall.
The Sierra Club has raised cooling water drain issues on the Ogallala Aquifer (always a concern to Kansas farmers) as well as CO2 emissions and other issues all to try and kill coal in general.
The biggest issue is that this increase to the 360 megawatt existing plant will sell only 15% of its additional capacity in Kansas. Most of it will be committed to southeast Colorado, northwest Oklahoma and perhaps northeast New Mexico.
If it was rural Kansas Cities in need, it would have more political support.
Therefore, what will happen is that the capacity won’t be built and rates will stay high for rural development and if it comes along that those cities grow in the high plains, the capacity won’t be there when it really is needed.
Kansas contractors and suppliers loose as well as Colorado or Oklahoma will end up building the plant.
I would be surprised if the Governor was NOT supported heavily by windmill interests in his campaign, and probably recipient of DNC funds that were provided by the Greenie lobbyists.
The greenies complain that this technology is "too unproven" and oppose the plant, regardless.
Coal power is dirty power. That being said, if we have to build something, then Nuke power is the only choice.
how do they propose meeting their present and future energy requirements? with wind mills??
“Don’t vote for the faux because you can’t defend it if they win. The liberals way is if they can’t elect the full fledged liberal, then they try and elect the GOP LIBERAL, AKA Rudy.”
“Dastardly trick to marginalize conservatives.”
As I’ve stated in several previous posts, I was shocked when I moved back to Kansas from Los Angeles and the state was full of RINOs.
Yes, they always seems to have their shorts in a wad -— what to do, “let’s have bio-fuel, then again, let’s NOT.”
And on wind energy...
Flip—I support it "She says she'd like to see Kansas navigate a complex energy era by focusing on wind energy and conservation..."
And on wind energy... Flop—Maybe
"In 2003, when wind developers were eyeing sites in the Flint Hills, Sebelius put a hold on any new construction while a blue ribbon panel studied the issue. As a result, the governor designated a 60-mile swath as off-limits to wind farms. "
"Developing a safe and dependable mix of electrical generation to support growing demand not just in Kansas but worldwide, is an enormously complex issue for which there is no silver bullet solution."
www.ksgop.org.
The emissions from coal fired plants are infinitely cleaner than they were in 1969 -- unless you consider CO2 to be a pollutant. If so, we all need to stop breathing.
Read up a little on all the advancements made with SCRs, Scrubber technology, particulate control etc. and you would realize why the anti energy socialists had to begin the push the CO2 junk science.
poor leadership, for sure
I do believe politicians are the ruination of our nation
Generally they are crackpots and idiots, who cares what they think.
AGW™ ping
They just have to tap into all the “positive energy” augmented with ethanol to generate all the electricity they’ll ever need.......
“The biggest issue is that this increase to the 360 megawatt existing plant will sell only 15% of its additional capacity in Kansas. Most of it will be committed to southeast Colorado, northwest Oklahoma and perhaps northeast New Mexico.”
Yep! So they build it in Oklahoma - and Kansans in need of electicity will pay for it’s transmission to them, if they can afford it.
Industry increasingly cannot (and don’t) rely on the electric grid as an afterthought. If you’re thinking of putting an industrial facility in Kansas, excess base-load capacity would make you smile.
I suppose the self-imposed hardship that this represents will be offset by increased farm subsidies.
“Coal power is dirty power”
Coal is the cheapest electricity you can generate - so I suppose you think that money is “dirty” too?
“I do believe politicians are the ruination of our nation”
That’s why the founding fathers insisted on limited federal government. We’d do well to return to that, but it’s not going to happen any time soon.
That said, the good citizens of Kansas will one day freeze in the dark - the same politicians will explain how “big power” has been ignoring Kansas. Then a power plant will quietly get built.
“Coal is the cheapest electricity you can generate - so I suppose you think that money is “dirty” too?”
Actually coal is one of the cheapest in terms of generation cost. In increasing order it is nuclear, coal, oil, then gas, but to address the misrepresentation that coal is “dirty”, there have been numerous advances in exhaust gas cleaning over the last 30 years, albeit, these technologies do add some generation cost using coal as the fuel. The US has literally centuries worth of coal.
But you are quite correct, the money is not dirty. If you want to find dirty money, check out the politicians pockets.
“In increasing order it is nuclear, coal, oil, then gas,”
Nuclear and coal are alternately cheaper, depending on whose environmental regulation you use. Nuclear should be MUCH cheaper.
Point being, the environmentalists keep trying to force the cost per kW of coal and nuclear UP (using government regulation) to the point where “alternative” energy sources are competitive - which of course will never happen, because costs for “alternative” sources of energy really are dependent on the cost for traditional base-load sources like Nuclear and Coal.
It’s like ethanol- it will never be cheaper than petroleum fuels because it requires petroleum fuels and fertilizer for it’s manufacture - subsidies and forced markets are what make up it’s “profit” margin - without government, ethanol fails on price and technical concerns.
“Nuclear and coal are alternately cheaper, depending on whose environmental regulation you use. Nuclear should be MUCH cheaper.”
Agreed, but you are probably referring to construction cost (capital cost), while I was referring to operating cost. In any event, we are on the same page regarding the alternate technologies. Simply stated, these technologies are “not ready for prime time”.
What is the real shame is the lack of understanding that the pedestrian has regarding how power is actually generated, and in particular, with regard to nuclear safety.
“What is the real shame is the lack of understanding that the pedestrian has regarding how power is actually generated, and in particular, with regard to nuclear safety.”
Amen to that. Now, I fully expect the good people of Kansas to oppose the construction of electrical transmission lines that will bring the high-priced priced power from adjacent states that they will require.
The bottom line to the general public’s understanding of the electrical grid and it’s underlying complexities is really distilled down to this: Electricity comes from the wall socket.
In their mind, an ugly power plant and/or the unsightly transmission lines associated with a stable electrical grid are in no way related to the good ol’ wallsocket into which plug all of life’s modern conveniences!
“The bottom line to the general public’s understanding of the electrical grid and it’s underlying complexities is really distilled down to this: Electricity comes from the wall socket.”
Well, I can explain how the wall socket thing is done very simply. You see, when you flip your light switch, at the power plant they have a bunch of elephants that suck the darkness right out of the room.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.