By CAROLYN SZCZEPANSKI
In Kansas, the battle over a pair of new coal-fired power plants in western Kansas has gridlocked state politics for nearly two months. But on the Missouri side, officials aren't too concerned about a little inconvenience like global warming. Yesterday, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources said: Show-Me more coal!
The new plant will be built by Springfield-based Associated Electric Cooperative Inc. in Norborne, a small town 60 miles northeast of Kansas City. Company spokeswoman Nancy Southworth says the plan was scrutinized by the state and has plenty of pollution controls to protect the environment. "The plant is equipped with the best technology on the market," she says.
But Melissa Hope, development director with the Missouri Sierra Club, says local residents aren't interested in more dirty, coal power. "The folks making the political decisions are really not listening to the public, like in Kansas," Hope says. "In Missouri, we want to move toward clean energy. This puts us 50 years in the hole."
The Sierra Club is planning to appeal the DNR's decision. But, in addition to the legal angle, Hope says the Missouri Clean Energy Coalition is encouraging a grassroots uprising aimed at the power co-ops themselves. Through the group's Web site, residents can send an e-mail directly to their power providers, encouraging them to dump coal in favor of renewable options, like wind.
With plenty of Missouri Republicans happy to deny the existence of global warming, Hope says, there's little chance of a political debate in Jefferson City like the one raging in Topeka. So to stop this coal plant — just a short drive from Kansas City — it will take some serious firepower in the courts or an avalanche of protest from pissed-off citizens.
Showing 1-7 of 7
Great article! Now that these plans are history, KS should follow MO's lead. Plants across the nation are being shelved as people accept the reality that coal plants are expensive, dirty & OUTDATED! Let's move on already. There is no need to continue to find a way to use a resource like coal when we have other options available.
Nice to see The Pitch covering these issues.
By the way, the picture at the top is a bit misleading. Of the seven towers in the foreground which appear to be emitting smoke/pollutants, five of those are cooling towers for nuclear generators. The emission you see is steam and nothing else. The pic really supports my previous argument that nuclear is the way to go...
Without coal, your choices are: 1) Immediate use of nuclear power for all new power plantsl or, 2) slowly losing the ability to supply the nation, or this region, with electrical power. Sorry, but wind, solar and any other renewable resource you can think of, just doesn't supply enough electricity to replace coal or nuclear power. Germany, which has made massive investments in wind power, receives only about 7% of its electricity from wind. ANd remember, its GLOBAL warming. Look at the coal plants being built in China now and planned for the future...over 200!! And with nowhere near the environmental protections found in the US. On the scale of things, this plant is an insignificant drop in the bucket...
MDNR says that carbon dioxide is not a regulated pollutant so it can't consider it in making its decision. Kansas has done just that with the proposed Holcomb plant. Kansas had four proposed power plants, and so far, none of them have been approved. Missouri had three in the works and two are under construction and Norbourne has just received its air permit. How sad that MDNR and Missouri's republican administration won't stand up to the fossil fuel industry. Maybe those who made this decision will not be affected by the worst results of global warming, but their children and grandchildren will. Won't they ask why we didn't do anything?
As a resident of Independence and a part time resident and electric coop member near Warsaw, I'm very dissappointed in this decision by AECI and the Department of Natural Resources. The pollution would have the most immediate affect on health within 50 miles of the plant. This includes NE Independence, Sugar Creek, Sibley, Buckner and Levasy, which are just the populated areas south of the river and close to KCMO. The annual death rate due to living near coal plants is greater than the rate for AIDS, drug overdose, murder or drunk driving. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Good luck getting a MO resident to protest the MDNR sellout to AECI.
1. Despite Ms. Southworth's claims, she's the PR person for AECI. Does anyone actually believe she would give an objective statement? The truth is, and MDNR is fully apprised of this, no studies or mathematic projections have been performed to support any claims of "clean", "efficient", or how much will pass through these so-called controls.
2. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Carbon Dioxide IS a pollutant subject to regulation. However, the EPA has yet to act on this. When it does, perhaps Ms. Southworth can give us an explanation on how this 6+ million tons/year pollutant will be controlled?
3. MDNR has consistently ignored EPA's and their own guidelines to date. Why would they start compliance now?
Naturally, the entire plant, its so-called control systems, rail spurs, and transmission lines will be paid by coop consumers. The subsidiary coops could care less...they pass the cost to the consumer. AECI, if they can push this project to completion stand to gain immense profits!
Rural Missourians will be paying the financial cost, the loss of fertile land an ground water, and the guaranteed health effects!
like
dislike
