Coal power costs a pocketbook issue
Emerson Lynn Jr., The Iola Register
Saturday, July 18, 2009
KANSAS HAS CHIPS in the energy bill being debated in Congress. If the law passed imposes costs on carbon emissions, the cost of generating power at the Jeffrey Energy Center near St. Marys, Westar North’s main plant, will rise. Kansans will pay more for power every month as a consequence.
At present, the rate increase would fall primarily on users in the north part of the state. The Wolf Creek nuclear plant at Burlington produces power for its retail customers, while most of Iola’s electricity comes from coal plants through the Kansas Power Pool. The Jeffrey plant emits about 16 million tons of carbon dioxide a year. Wolf Creek emits none.
Northern users are asking the Kansas Corporation Commission to equalize the rates between the two halves of the state to avoid disproportionate power rates across the state.
Regardless of whether the KCC will acceed to this request, what Kansas should focus on is the cost of climate control and ways to control that cost.
Three ways to control the amount of climate-changing carbon dioxide shot into the atmosphere are under consideration. Cap-and-trade legislation is under debate now. The House passed it; the Senate will consider it. Cap-and-trade requires power plants such as the Jeffrey Center to stop emitting or buy pollution credits from other plants. Under that law, Jeffrey will incur additional costs that would be passed on to consumers.
A simple carbon tax would be another way to go. Every emitter of carbon dioxide would pay an annual tonnage tax, providing a strong incentive to harness emissions.
The third and best solution is to reduce emissions to zero with non-polluting generation. In Kansas, that would mean more nuclear power, more wind turbines and more solar power.
THE PROSPECT of seeing the climate-control cost of coal-fired plants show up monthly on utility bills may change the power debate in Kansas.
For reasons unexplained, when building two massive coal-fired plants at Holcomb was under debate, lawmakers gave very little consideration to the impact that federal controls on carbon emission would have on the cost of power produced by Sunflower Electric there.
Not only was it likely then that the uncertain additional costs of taxing carbon emissions, directly or indirectly, would drive up the cost of financing the plants, it is almost certain today. Interest rates on the massive amount that must be borrowed for very long terms must be high enough to cover those unknown and unknowable costs.
What Kansas should do is find creative ways to build new nuclear plants, see that the power transmission network needed is built to open up the state to wind farms wherever they are feasible and encourage through tax incentives construction of solar and wind installations on a scale large enough to significantly reduce the need for coal-fired generation. Not just to slow climate change, but also to save every Kansas business and family from escalating power costs.
The handwriting is on the wall in grade school-language. Read it, Kansas lawmakers, and act.
Emerson Lynn Jr.
The Iola Register
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
It suprises me not that you would print this liberal gibberish. The Obama administration in cahoots with Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of their Washington gang will increase our taxes one way or the other, and put the finishing touches on destroying our economy at the same time. Co2 has not been proven to be changing the climate to any degree. Cap and trade will dramatically increase our taxes and energy bills, that is admitted by the messiah and will be proven if passed. What would be good for Kansas and the U.S. would be more nuclear plants, wind generators, solar power, and more clean coal technology. Why not say "Let's find creative ways to burn our abundant coal", instead of saying "Let's find creative ways to build new nuclear plants"? I repeat "Co2 has not been proven to be changing the climate. The article you printed from the Iola Register article is based on scare tactics by Al Gore and some scientists that stand to gain by this Cap and Trade nonsense. Goldman Sachs is pushing for it as they stand to make a lot of money. Hasn't the taxpayer given them enough money yet? Wasn't George W. bad enough without now having to deal with this current administration?
July 19, 2009 at 9:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
The world is going to burn one way or another, be prepared.
Have a nice day.
Seriously R. Folks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me6RER...
July 19, 2009 at 10:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
With cap and tax...err trade, the price of energy is going up no matter what. So as the saying goes, Bend Over Here Obama Comes Again, and BOHOCA, and BOHOCA...
You asked for it America, enjoy!
July 20, 2009 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hopsing (anonymous) says...
For way too long the coal interests have been able to shift the indirect costs of burning coal onto the population at large - Have you ever heard of any industry-paid-for program to tackle mercury pollution in the water supply or CO2 emissions? - A carbon tax of ANY sort would go a long way toward rectifying that unfair advantage. You can use any power source you like but their cost should reflect the total costs, not just the incomplete costs with someone else picking up the environmental costs.
Nuclear picks up the threat of another melt down in the form of higher construction and insurance costs. Coal picks up next to nothing - except their ad campaign to convince us there's something called clean coal and the direct costs of lobbying politicians,
July 20, 2009 at 8:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
amish
July 20, 2009 at 10:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
hopsing, I agree, a carbon tax is the way to go! T hen the greatest taxer yet, Obama, can tax us both for the Co2 we emit when we utter what you just said. Darn coal interests. They have, for way too long, been selling us cheap energy.
July 21, 2009 at 7:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dougdstecklein (anonymous) says...
For well over 50 years now we have ignored the indirect costs that go along with dirty cheap energy(coal, oil...). Our health and our environment have paid a hefty price for our "cheap" energy addiction. I know that it is hard to change your ways after doing the same thing for so many years but it is time to move on. Reluctance to change will kill an economy a whole lot quicker than paying somewhat higher direct energy prices.
July 21, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
Dougdstecklein, I like your statement, "For well over 50 years now we have ignored the indirect costs that go along with dirty cheap energy (coal, oil..). Our health and environment have paid a hefty price for our "cheap" energy addiction." Your indirect costs are "pie in the sky", too. Al Gore & Goldman Sach's profits aren't "pie in the sky", though. They are both set up to make billions, wiht a capital B. I also am interested in how you you came up with the "well over 50 years". There is no proof that made Co2 is polluting the atmosphere, but these charlatains have many people thinking, "We must do something". You might also send me the "hefty" bill that I assume is from your doctor, that shows how you are polluted. Your statement "Reluctance to change will kill an economy a whole lot quicker than paying somewhat higher direct energy prices" is more "pie in the sky stuff". I would also add that "somewhat" will be an understatement. The messiah has already admitted we would see your "hefty" increases on our energy bill, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Have you any idea how much the energy price increases will affect all aspects of our economy. We will be seeing your "hefty" price increases on almost everything. I'm not buying into what you've obviously bought into. Incidentally, I have a little seaside property here in Kansas that I might sell, if you're interested. I'll need all the money I can get just to pay taxes after the messiah gets done with us.
July 21, 2009 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dougdstecklein (anonymous) says...
Oxen,
first of all you must believe that we can pump billions of tons of any gas into the atmosphere and have no cosequences at all from The sound of your response. It probably just floats into outer space or something. After all you can't see it, it must not be there. Oh, and the oceans are huuuge. Why don't we just dump all our trash and toxic waste there. We'll never see it again and it's way cheaper. To say that burning coal has no ill effects on our health is ridiculous. They probably had just as many asthmatic children and red ozone alert days back in the 1800's, right? Oh and mercury is completly safe.
July 21, 2009 at 8:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Why "need" energy? Go Amish!
Seriously though, oxen shoot me a pm about the seaside property here in Kansas you have. I may be interested. I always wanted to learn to surf.
Seriously R. Folks
July 21, 2009 at 9:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
Doug, I do believe in taking care of our city, county, state, country, and planet. There are many things we could do, and should be done to improve and much more could be recycled. I, at the same time don't believe in jumping into the hair-brained schemes of the ultra rich. If you want to, feel free.......jump away. To take more taxes (that's what it basically amounts to) and giving it to the ultra rich doesn't do our planet much good, but it might make some people feel good about themselves. Of course we should try to do what we can for our planet, but again, jumping into these hair brained schemes to benefit the ultra rich isn't for me. Oh, and I know what's wrong with me, I did play with Mercury as a kid. Most of the kids I knew did the same. We had it at our school. Hmmmmmmm.... I must have died a long time ago. A little disclaimer: That doesn't mean that I want my grandchildren playing with it. ........And, knowing that most of our electricity comes from coal fired plants, how can I still be alive (again) and healthy? I suppose you think that Goldman Sachs hasn't already received enough money from taxpayers, we should give them more?
July 21, 2009 at 9:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
I think we should take a closer look at getting all of our energy needs from rainbows. If we can harness the power of rainbows that would be really cool and beautiful. Coal is ugly and dirty. I don't like coal, it puts almost as many toxins in the air as second hand smoke and killing our people half of twice as much as what the hard evidence on second hand smoke says which is 3 times more(less) than people with negative attitudes.
Make sense?
Go Rainbow Power!
July 22, 2009 at 7:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
under_score (anonymous) says...
Seriouslyfolks,
Don't fall for that scam! I bought some supposed ocean front property in Americus several years ago, sight unseen. It's not all it's cracked up to be. Looks like a small pond to me and never has any waves! You'll definitely want to have an outdoor shower nearby as well because it's next to impossible to get the smell off of you after a nice swim. This past summer health services came out and made me put up a chain link fence around what they kept calling the "lagoon". Must be some fancy word for ocean. Anyway, my guess is that all of the good ocean front property is taken.
July 22, 2009 at 7:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
Seriouslyfolks,
I kind of like your writing, but seriously folks, don't you think there's still room for a little more selling, just a mite more?
July 22, 2009 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
under_score,
Don't give up on the ole swimming hole.
I hear a lot of them are good for fishing. Some good North American brown trout have been spotted here abouts.
July 22, 2009 at 8:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
I guess I should add that I think that hopsing just loooves taxes. Seriouslyfoks, I really think you should show him your waterfront property in Americus. One selling point might be the low taxes for a waterfront property. On second thought, you had probably forget it. Hopsing might not want it without the high taxes. Oh, well. Maybe I can get Hopsing to help the environment by holding his breath?
July 22, 2009 at 8:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Paying taxes is "patriotic" so some say. It's hard to keep up with all the changing definitions. Redistributing wealth used to be socialism but now you can't call it that. It's a good thing Al Gore invented the internet because it's easier to change definitions online than to reprint dictionaries every couple of months. I think that's why Bush was so unpopular because he kept making up words and they had to print so many special additions of dictionaries (since Bush doesn't know about computers and such). I personally think that strategery is a good word but some don't. What are you going to do? Be "patriotic" I guess.
July 22, 2009 at 9:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bizquikboy (anonymous) says...
I don't know why you are all so caring about this. YOU won't have to pay higher taxes. It's the people who make all of the money who will pay! The government won't let the utilities raise our bills without giving us something in return.
As far a coal power goes I think we should stop killing our world with carbon. We are on the brink of wiping all life out on our planet due to global warming!
July 22, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Too funny.
July 22, 2009 at 10:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
bizquikboy, Please, I can't take it.
July 22, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )