Kansas Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson speaks Tuesday -Earth Day -during a panel discussion on energy at Emporia State University. The forum was part of ESU's Green Week activities.
In Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson’s eyes, alternative energy research needs to be a higher priority with the federal government. To illustrate his point at an energy forum Tuesday — Earth Day — in Emporia State University’s Memorial Union, he used an offbeat number for fiscal comparison: spending in the Halloween industry.
“In the United States, every Halloween, we spend $5 billion a year on costumes and candy,” Parkinson said. “The federal government’s spending $2.5 billion a year on alternative energy research ... I mean, it tells me our priorities are way, way out of whack.”
Parkinson appeared at the panel discussion as part of Green Week activities organized by the ESU Young Democrats and the Environmental Club. Also on the panel were Joe Spease of the Kansas Sierra Club; Chris Cardinal of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy (GPACE); Ray Hammarland of the Kansas Corporation Commission; and Brad Loveless of Westar Energy.
The panelists talked extensively about the most-debated issue of the current state legislative session: The proposed expansion of the Sunflower Electric coal plant in Holcomb, which passed the House one vote short of the majority needed to override Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ veto. Other issues discussed included hybrid and electric vehicles and ethanol.
The first part of the forum, which featured most of the Holcomb discussion, featured the emcee reading submitted questions at the podium. All panelists expressed views against the Holcomb expansion. At one point, Spease was asked about specific adverse environmental effects that would result from the Holcomb expansion and was also asked to explain any concept behind clean coal.
“There really is no such thing as clean coal,” Spease said. “There’s cleaner coal, but as long as you have the carbon dioxide emissions coming from coal plants here and anywhere, there should be a moratorium.”
Spease said there were so many specific adverse environmental effects to such a plant that it was hard to know where to begin. He cited a Stanford University study that looked at the different pollutants generated by coal plants and addressed potential medical problems, including asthma and respiratory and heart diseases.
“Not just the carbon dioxide problems, but the carbon monoxide problems, the sulfur dioxide problems, the nitrogen oxide problems, the mercury problem — it goes on and on,” he said.
Parkinson said he had no idea whether the governor’s veto on the plant would be overridden, since it would require just one member of the House to change his or her mind.
“Multiple entities have indicated that if that takes place, there will be lawsuits, and there will be all sorts of challenges made to building these plants,” he said.
When the discussion turned to oil and the future of hybrid and electric vehicles, Parkinson said the development of an alternative engine was extremely close to completion.
“The technology for electric vehicles is right around the corner,” he said. “That’s an area where we really need research and development. We need additional research on storage and lithium batteries, and once we get that, we will have pretty much cracked the entire oil issue.”
The second part of the forum featured questions and answers from audience members. No spectators challenged the core views of the panel. One audience member turned the topic back to Holcomb, asking Parkinson why anyone supports the plant expansion. Parkinson mentioned the short-term economic benefit but downplayed the long-term benefit.
“But, for four or five years while the plant is being built, every limited-stay hotel in Garden City will be overfilled,” he said. “Every restaurant will do great. And then those people will all be (gone).”
Parkinson said the one area where he disagreed with the rest of the panel was that he felt that if Kansas isn’t able to conserve effectively and demand continues to increase, “we will have to build new baseload power in Kansas,” either through nuclear power, natural gas or coal.
Green Week will continue tonight with a showing of the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car?” at 7 p.m. in Science Hall room 72. The final Green Week event will be Thursday’s Green Picnic at 5 p.m. on the Morse Lawn.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by fudgesickle (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We live in a state with some of the best wind energy potential in the country(only North Dakota and Texas are better) and extremely good solar energy potential as well. The state of Kansas could feasibly power half of the United States or more just with our own renewable and clean resources. I am appalled that our state government is so backward thinking when it comes to energy(or any level of science for that matter). Oh well, I guess when we are all paying 10-15 dollars for a gallon of gasoline as the middle east continues to put on the squeeze even the big pockets of the politicians might start feeling the strain and they might pull their heads out.
Posted by admireed (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
nuclear.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
According to KVOE's website, our Lieutenant Governor had this to say as an explanation for his opposition to the proposed electrical generation plant near Holcomb: "Parkinson says the plants are a mistake because of carbon and water concerns and the long-term job boom it could fuel in eastern Colorado." (www.kvoe.com/news, April 23, 2008) He opposes a "long term job boom"?
Note the Gazette article (above) in which our Lieutenant Governor is quoted thusly: "Parkinson said the one area where he disagreed with the rest of the panel was that he felt that if Kansas isn’t able to conserve effectively and demand continues to increase, “we will have to build new baseload power in Kansas, either through nuclear power, natural gas or coal." Conserve electricity effectively? Stop any increase in demand? Meaning what, that our population further decreases?
Let me see if I understand all this correctly. We are opposed to this $3.5 Billion Dollar project, with the associated tax collections, jobs, school aid, highways, and cheaper utilities to avoid a long term job boom; BUT if demand continues to increase in Kansas, we are going to have to build these plants anyway?
It is absolutely and unquestionably clear that this Governor's administration opposes economic development in Kansas in order to promote herself with eastern liberals in order to be the vice presidential nominee of her party. For that, the rest of us suffer. Shame on her.
Posted by emp205 (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks ESU Student for bring this issue and discussion to our community! Way to go students.....
Posted by blulitespecial (anonymous) on April 23, 2008 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
nuclear
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)