Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah! Why pursue alternative sources of energy when we can buy all the oil we want from our mid-eastern Muslim friends for $102.00 a barrel. No coal plants or nuclear facilities in our back yard, by golly! No more ugly babies! Save the whales! Save the trees! Save the world!

Posted by gayzettesux (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

it's funny no one threw a fit when they decided to put a plant near emporia that's basically the same as the southwest kansas one. perhaps because it's going to generate revenue here? it's all fine when it helps you but let it help someone else and of course forget about it.

Posted by shoehorn (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The plant being built near Emporia is going to be powered using natural gas. It's a "greener" form of fuel.

Posted by dsjohnson (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lobbyists have deep pockets and politicians have thin skin.
Guess who gets their way? Hopefully the list will be printed of how each voted so we'll know come election time.....

Posted by wirewatt (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think you have done your homework very well. If we don't get started building some replacement power plants the lights won't be on on a hot summer day. If you think the greener fuels is the answer you should put up a wind mill to provide service for your home. I imagine when its 100 degrees outside and the wind is not blowing, you would be screaming the loudest. The wind is not the answer and is very expensive. I sure want to see how they voted because when we have blackouts, I want to see whom was not smart enough to help the state. The unit being installed near Emporia requires scrubbers as it burns fossil fuel.

Posted by Hillbilly (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK wirewatt, explain what the scrubbers are, and why it needs to be done, and how its done, and how often it needs to be done, JUST wondering ,,,, thanks in advance

Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The issue here as far as Barnett, Hill and the others are concerned(in my opinion) is that the plants met the existing regulations, but were still vetoed by the KDHE, perhaps under some pressure from the governor. What I believe they are saying is why have regulations if one or two officials can say no to something that meets requirements set by the government for that particular business, in this case a power plant. It is nice to talk about green power, but so far none of the alternatives have proved very affordable. These coal plants will be state of the art and would meet current emission standards. If they are up to code, then as far as I am concerned the people in a given radius(50 miles?) should be able to vote on whether or not to build them.

I have to grit my teeth when I hear the radio commercials talking about alternatives like wind power, there seem to be plenty of people who don't want to live next to wind turbines either. There is no perfect form of power, we are going to have to "pick our poison". As far as the wind issue goes, I priced a small wind turbine at the Topeka farm show, with every intention of buying it, until I learned it would provide only enough power to meet half the needs of my home (when the wind was blowing), and it would take 25 years before I actually saw any financial benefit from owning it. Economics are still the driving force when it comes to energy, global warming or not. I am no big fan of coal, but it is proven and affordable at this time. Alternative power has to also be affordable power.

Posted by wirewatt (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The scrubbers clean the impurities out of the air when the units are running. The tall stacks at the coal plant nw of Topeka, a coal plant has them. We need a mix of generation to keep the prices down. When the Gov. forces the power companies to put in wind power she is costing us a great deal of money. The power companies must meet the needs of people at any time. They need to make a profit, when its a seventy degree day replacing power with wind when the plants run much cheaper doesn't help anyone.

Posted by ozland (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can see everyone's point-but it is a fact that Westar Energy does not care who they hurt-one thing is for sure these plants will be in areas where the surrounding residents will be easy to exploit. After all, if people are poor and illiterate-why not build toxic plants near them. Sen. Barnett would not allow one in his area. Whose going to help "those" people anyway-stick it to those of the low end of the human scale-we are Americans that is what we do.

Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, ozland, if, as you say, power plants are built in areas where residents are "easy to exploit" and where "people are poor and illiterate" or on "the low end of the human scale", our area should soon see a flood of good jobs as all those new power plants begin construction around Emporia.

Posted by nutsaboutools (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wirewatt, I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. I don't think coal is the best choice to generate electricity. The amount of "non-green" gases that are produced, the radioactive gases (yes, there are numerous radioactive isotopes in coal that release radioactive gases when burned) and the fact that coal is a very limited resource (how much land are we willing to destroy/tunnel to get the coal we need) just doesn't make coal a very good choice for our future. The technology exists for large output generation (nuclear, fuel cells, geothermal and biodiesel are just a few of the obvious examples). The technology also exists for independent home generation (wind generators, solar, fuel cells and/or some combination so that you're not solely dependent on one source). The other problem is our current distribution system, it simply cannot handle much more load (regardless of how more generation we create).

Posted by ozland (anonymous) on March 1, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bjnemp-
That’s right. Emporia has always exploited people. Those jobs should be coming. Westar is the leader in sticking it to the unsuspecting. Their new plant and their old ones in town are built around the naive. Keep it that way; after all you don’t want a plant near you, nor do I. Let the churches pray for those suckers.

Posted by reservist (anonymous) on March 1, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Who gets the power? If they build a coal plant in Kansas is the power going to stay in state or go across our borders? I dont like the idea of using coal for power generation. Looks for a good way for big business to say we're having a coal shortage and raise our rates higher than they are already. I like the idea of wind power. I've seen many giant wind generators in Iowa. When the wind doesnt blow for a period of time I can see a blackout happening. Maybe we should try to have both types built that way when we dont have wind we could run off coal. What would be wrong with another nuclear power plant? We alread live close to one anyway.

Posted by wirewatt (anonymous) on March 1, 2008 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The coal plants where they are going already have the railroad contracts and other facilities in place to build the power plants. I agree ,I would like to see another atomic generation, or hydrogen generation plant built next to wolf creek. The best is to have a good mix. I don't believe wind will ever be a good deal until its power can be stored and used when needed.

Posted by roger (anonymous) on March 2, 2008 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wind power can be stored in the form of hydrogen. Hydrogen and oxygen are seperated from water by an electric charge. When the hydrogen is burned the waste product is water. The wind generators could be used to make hydrogen to run any number of things. Also I heard there has been a major breakthrough in solar cells. Alfalfa, You need a bigger wind turbin and it could pay for itself in several years.

Posted by timcann (anonymous) on March 2, 2008 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

hopeful this will bring jobs to emporia maybe this is a good start on better things to come

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on March 4, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Coal is the most abundant fossil fuel in the United States. Westar does not own the company proposing to put in the coal power plant. It doesn't make a difference if the power is used in Kansas, do we have a shortage of power? Maybe we could store all of that energy in a flux capacitor. Global Warming is NOT caused by humans. Where do you think all of the ice went to during the Ice Age? No humans had power plants or cars as far as I know. Rice paddies and cattle herds are the biggest producers of methane gas into the atmosphere.

Posted by roger (anonymous) on March 5, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We could use the tax revenues.

Posted by ozland (anonymous) on March 6, 2008 at 6:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

roger-what tax revenues-what portion? Wouldn't this mean higher taxation?

Underscore-how well do you know Westar? Their fingers are in this pie. They do have an interest in all power facilities.