That didn't take long. Not even a week after the U.S. Senate confirmed Kathleen Sebelius as secretary of Health and Human Services, and
1) [Parkinson] was talking last week about how a federal RES, being debated inMeanwhile, Kansas' leading democratic blogger, Kansas Jackass, feels "betrayed," although he's backing off a little. The Jackass recaps the reaction of the Kansas media and quotes Josh Rosenau of Thoughts from Kansas, "I want Sebelius back."Congress this week, would be a huge boon for Kansas. But if states have
to get, say, 20 percent of their power from renewable sources, this
coal plants is a bad deal for Kansas, because, a) it puts us further in the hole and b)
other states, which might be interested in our wind, are not going to
be interested in our coal (and the huge majority of Holcomb juice will
have to be sold out of state).
2) Parkinson is all about winddevelopment and building the transmission to support it. Yes, Sunflower
will be building lines in this agreement, but they go the wrong way. As
emphasized in the report I plogged about last week (the press
conference for which Parkinson was a speaker), our power needs to go
EAST, where there are plenty of big cities from Chicago to New Orleans
that are power hungry. Sunflowers lines are going to go WEST.
Showing 1-4 of 4
I appreciate that in the free market mind, the important issue is not of our children's health, but rather their health care costs imposed on the system.
Again, I say: Do you want the legislature (state or federal) to force higher electric prices, causing unwarrented inflationary effects, based on theoretical increased health care costs to your 15th decendents? We can't even predict the weather 3 days out, more less (exponentially less) decades out. Prevention of next year's hurricane in Florida might warrent legislation, but until Congress has the ability to predict nature(or God), let free market rule.
Mark- what I meant is that, in the event that a national RES passes, utilities will be more eager to buy renewable energy, as opposed to coal-generated power, to adequately "green" their portfolio per federal law.
Carolyn Szczepanski is blatantly wrong on point b)that coal generated electricity will not be purchased by neighboring states. FACT: Wind or coal generated electricity is indistinguishable to the consumer with the exception that coal is cheaper. It's the same electricity. Do I see volunteers to pay twice as much for something when the product is indistinquishable? States will consume more coal generated electricity than wind by simple price competition. Unless you want your legislature to enact quotas that FORCE high electric prices?
like
dislike
