Coal-fired plants
Sharon Morrisey
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
THIS IS BEING RUSHED far too quickly. In the first place, the folks of Kansas need more say on the quality of our air. Secondly, we need to be made aware of just whom is the beneficiary of these plants. Thirdly, we need to be apprised of the customer base of the projects and how that will benefit Kansans.
There should be plenty of time and a forum provided for legitimate debate about the cost/benefit of coal-fired plants compared to various alternatives. There are probably a number of interested constituencies who’d like to have some “input” on this issue.
The only justification I have seen thus far is a highly questionable report from some folks out in western Kansas whose primary funding comes from the coal industry. That is not enough! We’d like to know how this project compares to similar approaches from the people in the solar, wind and natural gas industries. And we’d like to know just why it is so urgent that we decide on this RIGHT NOW. An energy plan based upon long-term strategic goals is seemingly of greater benefit to Kansans today. Our state is not growth-oriented at this point and that should be another topic that is subject to debate. Do we need a lot of growth or can we continue to be a good place to live with only moderate growth? Do we have to change everything RIGHT NOW? (This approach seems to fly in the face of conservative principles of moderate change.)
Sharon Morrisey
Emporia
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
Sharon Morrisey is absolutely right on everything she says here. There are alternatives to coal plants which will be available in the not so distant future. The pollution and byproducts of coal are not just discomfiting any longer, they are deadly.
We must take a more responsible stance with anything that impacts our environment than we have in the past. No more coal plants should be built at all and of these, we do have some choice. The legislature needs to back off, give this more consideration, and then leave it alone.
February 15, 2008 at 1:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
I was a landowner that would have liked to have had some wind turbines on my property, but can't now thanks to Sebelius. Seems like everyone talks about alternatives, but no one wants them. My own feeling about the two coal plants is that Sebelius is blocking them to further her own ambition with her party, so she can look back in future national elections and point to the way she fought these two coal plants that would have contributed to global warming, against overwhelming odds. I don't disagree that there are probably some cleaner alternatives, such as wind,but if you can't have turbines because they spoil the view, what can you have? Many people including myself are not totally comfortable with nuclear. We all want electricity at the flip of a switch, but we don't want increased generating capacity unless we can't see, hear or smell it, and it is 100% clean and green. The alternative energies have not been perfected yet. I can't say I am for the plants, but I don't believe even for one minute they were blocked for the good of Kansas, they were blocked as a political move.
February 15, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
Note that the passing of this bill will remove any restrictions on “greenhouse” emissions. Are we comfortable with the impact these additional coal plants will have on our environment and energy costs? Sebelius blocked the coal plants for this reason. “Can’t see, hear or smell it?” Sounds like nuclear to me. The NRC needs to re-consider the use of Pebble-Bed reactors. I don’t think coal is the answer (coal is a very limited resource that is mined either by tunneling or strip mining the earth’s surface). By the way, there are radioactive isotopes in coal that are discharged as radioactive gases when the coal is burned (far exceeding any releases from a nuclear plant, which are 0). Whether we’re willing to admit it or not, our environment is not getting better. We’re trashing our landscapes, polluting our air & water and yet there are those skeptics that continue to insist that there is little or no impact on the global environment (warming). How bad do we need to let it get?
February 15, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
Alfalfa's comments point out the often existing unfairness of any kind of control of such public infrastructure. He is right that obscuring the view of the beauty of the Hills causes no actual harm to anyone, the coal plants are a different story entirely.
The state administration stopped construction for objectively valid reasons, I think. Pollution of the planet is everyone's problem and, given the potential consequences of global warming, adding greenhouse gasses becomes a moral issue.
Other countries such as China have no current intention of controlling their contribution to this kind of pollution. Our federal government has actually abetted the polluting industries and ignored and denied the problem altogether.
We must now take more drastic steps as a consequence of that and banning new coal plants is logical and necessary.
February 15, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )