The employees at the Kansas Department of Health and Environment should be patting themselves on the back. After pulling all-nighters and working weekends through the holiday season, they managed to finish reviewing Sunflower Electric Energy Corp.'s application for an air-quality permit needed to build a coal-fired plant in Holcomb yesterday.
If they didn't approve the plant by January 2, it would be subject to new, tougher EPA laws. It's always nice to see hard work pay off.
The process of getting "Holcomb 2" approved has been butt-ugly. Former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius trashed the plant, twice vetoing legislation to advance it. Former KDHE head Roderick Bremby killed it in 2007 over concerns about how much carbon dioxide would start wafting over the state. Then in November, Bremby suddenly and quietly left his post, allegedly the result of a bureaucratic hit job by Gov. Mark Parkinson, who is quite fond of the plant. With Bremby out of the way, the plant breezed through the KDHE.
But the plant won't be all that bad, officials say. Sunflower says the $2.2 billion plant will
create 260 jobs statewide. Plus, KDHE
says the coal burning will be clean. Well, clean-ish anyway.
"With requirements to use renewable energy components, such as wind
energy and biomass fuel, this permit allows for the most mitigated plant
in Kansas history," KDHE acting secretary John Mitchell said in a
statement announcing the approval. "The plant will have nearly 40
percent fewer emissions than an earlier application and has been
reviewed for the best available control technology to ensure emission
controls are state of the art."
The problem is that this is just green window dressing,
environmentalists say. "State of the art" coal plants don't really
exist because coal plants seem to be becoming uncool in the energy
industry. Hell, the day before the Holcomb permit was issued the
Colorado Public Utilities Commission voted to reduce
coal emissions and shut down a coal plant and replace it with a
natural gas one. Of course, customers will pay slightly higher utility
rates to stop spewing NOx and SOx into the air.
The Sierra Club says this is a nationwide trend and clear evidence that building coal plants just doesn't make
sense anymore. "Under this scenario, Colorado gets power while Kansas
makes a long-term commitment to an outdated coal plant other states are
unwilling to take a gamble on. Kansas gets the pollution; Colorado gets
the power. What a deal," Stephanie Cole, spokeswoman for the the state chapter said in a
statement.
The EPA still needs to approve the permit.
Showing 1-6 of 6
"And yeah, I'm Civil Engineer in the Power Industry"
So in other words, you're on here shilling for you employer? Nice, really nice.
Listen I dont have all of the answers, but WE, and that includes you, need to account for the fact that we cannot continue to build power plants that use an energy source that is finite without looking far enough into the future and developing processes to develope the energy in a clean a sustainable way that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
As for factories in China, that is a symptom of our international trade policy, not green energy.
Green energy still requires alot of research and innovation, but simply saying that we have to build another coal plant does not address the long term problem of sustainable power generation.
Arent there reactors in France that are something like over 80% efficient also? I would much prefer a nuclear plant to a dozen coal plants.
And exactly where do you get the rare earth metals to make your solar panels(PVs)? China, and.. At best, 30% efficient? - Exporting US jobs, and not to mention to the largest coal nation in the world. Solar Thermal, maybe you could make a case.
Coastal wave technology? You seem to forget that taking energy from the water means all those sea urchins die because you stopped or slowed the migration of fish that fertilize the sea floor. Unless you have Niagra, it isn't generally feasible.
Green energy really isn't green when you factor in the efficiency. You consume MORE resource to make up for the lack of efficiency in the technology itself. Check the new CO2 capture ideas on IGCC, and gas turbines. It makes them twice as big(2xfuel consumption) just to power the CO2 capture technology.
Oh, and current supercritical coal CAN BE 80% efficient. Nuclear is better, but nutzy environmentalists think Yucca Mountain or explosion proof transportation isn't safe.
And yeah, I'm Civil Engineer in the Power Industry
The cost of coal powered electricity is not an accurate reflection of how much energy actually costs. A KW of electricity from a coal plant does not take into account the environmental impact that burning all that coal has on the people, plants, animals and everything else within any measurable proximity of an coal plant.
Who says we have to use wind turbines? The cost of solar power has plummeted in the last 5 years and is dropping measurably every year.
You tell me to research, well I am an electrical engineer so you might say I know a thing or two about energy.
Your response to my statement fails to address the fact that you apparently believe that global warming is a made up conspiracy of some sort to enrich Al Gore or George Soros.
I doubt you have any idea how inefficient coal plants are, or how much energy is wasted because our grid is horridly inefficient. As for clean coal, it's a joke, a farce, a ploy to keep people like you thinking that companies like KCP&L give a shit about the environment or global warming.
I bet your "research" didnt bother to include all of the subsidies that coal already receives which help keep the rates low. Oh wait, I said subisides, that means my money is paying for your dirty ass energy that is finite and will run out.
If we are going to subsidize energy it should be the kind that is sustainable for years to come using energy sources that are not filthy and finite.
So let's do an experiment, go figure out how much a KW of electricity would cost if you got rid of all the subsidies for coal energy. I bet you would discover that wind turbines and solar panel are suddenly far more in line with the cost of producing coal fired electricity.
Solar panels and wind turbines don't dump extraordinary amounts of Mercury, C02, CO, Arsenic and thousands of other toxic compounds into the air like your cheap government subsidized energy does.
Alot of that crap that ends up in the air from burning fossil fuels ends up in our food. Ever wonder why pregnant women shouldn't eat seafood?
You're going to lose this argument. I'm sorry but you are just plain wrong on this one.
Let's do a little experiment. How about you go buy a wind turbine for your house? Your house only. One that produces enough for your household, and possibly your electric car. Ok. Research how much the construction of that wind turbine would cost. Remember, we are only talking one big enough to supply your house with electricity. Now, do an electric rate comparison. KW/Construction cost of the wind turbine, and KW/$ on the grid for your house. Ok. You say well that gets better over time. Ok. Research the average lifetime of the wind turbine, and the replacement cost. My point is made if you dare to actually do a cost analysis of this. --- Get the facts straight. Don't make me buy what you won't. And don't force the rest of use to buy expensive electricity.
By your own logic Truth Teller, then when we fart that releases methane, so it can't possibly be bad for you right? Yet methane in high enough concentrations will kill people, cause incredibly combustible explosions and smell terribly, need proof, why dont you go ask those folks who died in the mine explosion in WV this year.
The earth is a closed system, it's like a giant fish tank. When you spew nonsense out of your mouth, it goes up in the air and stays there until it is converted by plants and other matter that metabolize C02.
We are expending far greater amounts of C02 than our earth can easily convert back to usuable air. Another thing is C02 is a greenhouse gas, it prevents heat from escaping therby raising the average temperature of the earth. This has been thoroughly document through decades of SCIENTIFIC research, not the shit that the GOP pedals around calling "science".
There is no global warming conspiracy. It is real and it is happening, you can either quit being a idiot and recognize that there are people smarter than you who have a far greater understanding of how pollution effects all of us, or you can continue to be a moron contributing to the slow death of our planet because you heard the C02 is what we breath out so how could it possibly be bad.
Did you see Apollo 13? Do you remember why they had to make a duct tape air filter for the spacecraft? It was because of FUCKING C02. It was going to kill them if their C02 got too high.
A first grader has better reasoning skills than you. I am so glad have witnessed this "lesson" science.
Once again, right wing loons, err...fucking idiots, continue their assault on science because they think that because C02 is in soda it can't possibly be bad for you...
My god man, I bet you think that huffing paint isnt bad for you because Glenn Beck said the Sierra Club is a "communist organization bent on subverting the Constitution."
You say, "Get the facts straight." Here's an idea get some goddamn facts to begin with. I really hope that wasn't a serious argument you were shooting for there...
"Kansas gets the pollution; Colorado gets the power. What a deal," Stephanie Cole, spokeswoman for the the state chapter said in a statement." ---- Not really. The so-called pollution of C02 emission is actually a by-product of our own human respiration. The Sierra Club would have you believe that "We're all gonna die in the next 10 years!" is the correct statement if we build another coal facility. Nope. The so called "pollution" is spread world-wide, and not restricted to Kansas as the above statement suggests. Get the facts straight, and make a logical argument, especially to the press.
like
dislike
