Sunflower Electric Power Corp. Proposed Coal Plant
Kansas leaders say they’re in talks to avoid a standoff between the Legislature and the governor’s administration over a rejected coal plant, but a compromise remains elusive.
That’s because both Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and critics of its proposed plant refuse to budge. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius shows no signs of backing down, and neither do her legislative critics.
That could set up a legislative fight over the Sunflower project, which a Sebelius appointee, Kansas Health and Environment Secretary Rod Bremby, rejected last fall.
Sunflower had hoped to build two new coal-fired generators at its plant near Holcomb in southwest Kansas. Bremby said the plants would emit too much carbon dioxide, possibly worsening global climate change.
Sunflower challenged the decision in the courts. Lawmakers, led by Senate President Steve Morris and House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, vowed to fight the decision, saying the $3.6 billion plant would be the country’s cleanest and create vital jobs and energy for the region.
Even before the 2008 legislative session started Monday, some lawmakers predicted the fight between Sebelius and plant supporters could bring the Legislature to a halt.
Morris said Tuesday that an energy bill now being written may include an attempt to overrule Sebelius.
Sebelius and Neufeld have said talks are under way, but provided no details. Neufeld, an Ingalls Republican, said he’s hopeful a solution may be in the offing that allows the plants to be built.
“Those conversations are continuing,” he said.
Sebelius balked at the term “negotiations” — preferring “conversations” — but said the issue wasn’t as “black and white” as many think.
“There are lots of conversations under way,” she said. “I will continue the discussions to explore options to provide baseload power and protect the environment.”
On Tuesday, Sebelius spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran said that talks have yielded “no proposals for consideration at this point.”
It’s hard to imagine a deal that could please both sides. Environmental groups won’t support the project at its current size, even if it came with more investments in renewable energy or other concessions. Sunflower spokesman Steve Miller said the proposal won’t work on a smaller scale.
Environmental groups heaped praise on Sebelius for Bremby’s decision in October. Reversing him now would hurt, said Kansas State University political science professor Joe Aistrup.
“It would look like a misstep,” Aistrup said.
Morris said he knows that members of Sebelius’ administration have spoken with Sunflower executives, but he said he’s unaware of any willingness by Sebelius to reverse course.
Bob Eye, a Topeka attorney who represents the Sierra Club, said that if Sebelius were open to striking a compromise, he said, she probably would have done so before the rejection was announced.
“I’m dubious as to whether there are actual negotiations,” he said. “But if there are, they need to be made public.”
Sourse: Sunflower Electric Power Corp. Proposed Coal Plant
coal notes
Wish I could think of good headlines or puns having to do with coal. It might be because it’s a Monday - but, I can’t.
So. For the following news snippets, please feel free to make up your own.
First, more Kansas state legislators chime in with their opinions on energy issues for the upcoming session. For many representatives at this point, the proposed Holcomb coal power plants appear to be the defining and polarizing topic (LJWorld).
Also, Sunflower Electric responds (Hays Daily News/ Harris News Service) to the independent poll released by the Climate and Energy Project - yes, that’s us! - which found that by a 2 to 1 margin, Kansans approve KDHE’s denial of the air quality permits for those plants. (Summary: Sunflower didn’t much like it.) Sunflower is also considering proposing new coal plants in Missouri, just 60 miles east of the KS/MO state line (Hays Daily News/ Harris News Service). Pretty close to my husband’s grandma, I think.
And the Hutch News weighs in with an editorial on Holcomb, the legislature, the CEP poll - really, the whole ball of string. Quotable:
The reaction of Sunflower Electric and some western Kansas legislators to state denial of an air permit for Sunflower’s two new proposed coal-fired power plant units is disappointing. And it will not prove constructive for a state that should strive to be innovative with energy, environmentally conscious as well as economically growth-oriented.
Sourse: coal notes
Coal Mining and Exploration for Industry Must Control Emission
Save Earth for Worl Future, control emission from coal mining and industry.
As the demand for energy continues to grow globally and the cost of oil keeps escalating to unprecedented heights, the demand for coal will likely grow in the future.
U.S. Rep. Frederick C. “Rick” Boucher, D-Va., chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, said that the federal government is primed to start a major research and development program aimed at controlling carbon dioxide emissions through a carbon capture and sequestration program.
“Our goal is to respond to global warming,” Boucher said. “The demand for energy is rising globally.”
Boucher’s ninth congressional district includes some of Virginia’s most prolific coal mining operations. While he said that coal is a logical component of the national energy policy, mandatory greenhouse gas controls will have an impact on the industry.
Less than a year ago, Boucher and his subcommittee members heard a report from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change on the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. Testimony at that hearing included a report on carbon capture and storage.
FIND MORE NEWS IN : Controlling emissions crucial to coal industry
Sourse: Coal Mining and Exploration for Industry Must Control Emission
Global Warming and Cold Spell Soon to Replace Global Warming
Editor:
Will this fraud ever hit the “main stream media”? Gore and Suzuki are going to have to move to China with their mentor Maurice Strong. The worst part of this scam is the great harm it will inflict upon the citizens of Canada and the USA, and your govt is complicit in this scam.
Global Warming and Pagan Emptiness
Cardinal George Pell on the latest hysterical substitute for religion.
Interview by Michael Gilchrist | January 2008
In the debate over the theory of global warming, Cardinal George Pell of Sydney is a decided skeptic. His forthright reservations about the claim of catastrophic man-made climate change have made him a target for criticism in Australia. CWR talked to him about the controversy.
Your recent remarks questioning the claims about man-made climate change have drawn fierce criticism here in Australia. How do you account for that?
Cardinal Pell: Despite the fact that Australians like to see themselves as a ruggedly independent, rational, and democratic people, in some respects a herd-like mentality still prevails. Right now, the mass media, politicians, many church figures, and the public generally seem to have embraced even the wilder claims about man-made climate change as if they constituted a new religion.
These days, for any public figure to question the basis of what amounts to a green fundamentalist faith is tantamount to heresy. The angry editorials and letters to newspapers certainly suggest this.
You are one of very few public figures in this country to express open skepticism about man-made climate change and its alleged long-term effects. What is your reading of the scientific evidence for climate change? What is the basis of your skepticism?
Cardinal Pell: I am certainly skeptical about extravagant claims of impending man-made climatic catastrophes. Scientific debate is not decided by any changing consensus, even if it is endorsed by political parties and public opinion. Climate change both up and down has been occurring, probably since earth first had a climate.
Science is a process of experimentation, debate, and respect for evidence. Often it is dealing with uncertainties rather than certainties, and so its forecasts and predictions can be spectacularly wrong. We must not ignore evidence that doesn’t suit our cause. Long-term weather forecasting is a notoriously imprecise exercise.
In the 1970s some scientists were predicting a new ice age because of global cooling. Today other scientists are predicting an apocalypse because of global warming. It is no disrespect to science or scientists to take these latest claims with a grain of salt. Commitment to the scientific method actually requires it.
Uncertainties on climate change abound. Temperatures in Greenland were higher in the 1940s than they are today, and the Kangerlussuaq glacier there is not shrinking but growing in size. While the ice may be melting in the Arctic, apparently it is increasing in extent in the Antarctic. Overall world temperatures have not increased since 1998 according to the statistics—whatever the case might be in particular locations.
Do you accept that human activities may have contributed to at least some of the global warming?
Cardinal Pell: Significant evidence suggests that average temperatures rose by 0.6 degrees centigrade during the last century, and there is no doubt that large-scale industrial activities can have an adverse impact in particular locations, as in the larger Chinese cities. But when averaged out across the globe, it is difficult to see this being the main culprit for any overall global warming, let alone bringing us to the verge of catastrophe. Again, we are dealing with a very imprecise science here, whatever the computer models might suggest. There are so many other variables.
The journal American Scientist recently published a study on the melting glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro. The study confirms that air temperature around the glacier continues to be below freezing, so it is not melting because of global warming. Instead, the melt pattern of the glacier is consistent with the effect of direct radiant heat from the sun. Human activity can’t be blamed for that.
Michael Gilchrist is editor of the Australian religious monthlyAD2000
Sourse: Global Warming and Cold Spell Soon to Replace Global Warming
Hyrdogen and ethanol are much talked about as new fuels…what about liquefied coal?
I was watching presidential candidates speeches and I noticed something Barack Obama said that not every other typical candidate said. When asked about how he would reduce dependence on foreign oil, he didn’t state the same old “hydrogen, ethanol, and hybrid” response. Now I haven’t seen every candidates stance on this issue, but Obama added something else I hadn’t heard. Liquefied coal. [Edit: Mitt Romney also mentions liquefied coal]
Imagine using America’s biggest resource to as an alternative fuel to the gasoline we get from mostly foreign countries. Now imagine that would do to the cost of fuel you buy at the pump each day. Pretty enticing, huh? Coal is America’s most abundant resource and would help spike the economy of our nation since it’s a homegrown product. South Africa largely depends on liquefied coal. Here’s an interesting fact I found:
“Illinois basin coal has more untapped energy potential than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined. Senator Obama believes it is crucial that we invest in technologies to use these resources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”
Whoa, was that a typo? Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined? This surely seems like the miracle fuel we’ve all been waiting for…but wait, there is one negative. Liquefied coal produces emissions cleaner than diesel fuel (which is largely used in Europe) and has about the same emissions as gas. Like all alternative fuels, here comes the asterisk. What about global warming? Well, I think this is the issue Americans need to decide for themselves if they truly believe in it or not. I personally think the best way to go is to fully implement liquefied coal as to decrease foreign independence and that after that is accomplished, we look for cleaner fuels. Gas prices aren’t going to get cheaper, and we need an alternative NOW. I’m tired of large sums of money spent for something that’ll be 10-20 years down the road. The coal is here right now and we have to take advantage.
This brings me to a poll for you guys about this issue: http://www.addpoll.com/view?11333
Sourse: Hyrdogen and ethanol are much talked about as new fuels…what about liquefied coal?
EEOC v. Peabody Coal & Navajo Nation — CA9 Materials
This long-running case involves the Navajo tribal preference statute. The district court dismissed the claim under Rule 19 (one of my faves!). Here are the Ninth Circuit materials:
Sourse: EEOC v. Peabody Coal & Navajo Nation — CA9 Materials
Excelsior wants to claim transmission for IGCC project
Stolen “Fair Use” from NWS-Shreveport!
We’re in another of those confusing spots, one that leaves me wondering whether Excelsior Energy had to blow a lot of money on legal fees before the end of the year… it’s hard to find another explanation for the flurry of inexplicable activity zipping through the wires lately (see prior posts, chimp scratching). Excelsior and Xcel are fighting in the Appellate Court, see Excelsior Appeal - Statement of the Case
And then there’s the Excelsior Energy Petition under Minn. Stat. 216B.1694 where they are saying that the statute says they get transmission associated with the Mesaba Project free and clear, with no requirement of a Certificate of Need, but hey, guys, if the PPA has not been approved, and if the Chair of the Commission is saying “You’ve got to come up with something else,” and “No one wants it, no one needs it, and we’re not going to force it on anyone,” get a grip… there’s NO project, and NO entitlement… give it up…
I couldn’t let that Petition sit like the fart in the elevator so today I filed this:
MCGP Motion to Dismiss Excelsior Energy Petition re: Transmission
Now why might they want to shore up their claim to transmission for a project that doesn’t exist!
Sourse: Excelsior wants to claim transmission for IGCC project
Turning Black Coal Green
Turning Black Coal Green
- (Popular Science)
“Coal contains anywhere from 25 to 90 percent carbon, which combines with oxygen when burned to release energy. This process emits a host of noxious chemicals, such as carbon dioxide, sulfur, nitrogen oxide and mercury. Yet carbon in coal can also be used to strip oxygen from water, producing clean-burning […]
Sourse: Turning Black Coal Green
The Energy Crisis Part I: The Present Generation
In a Capitalist society such as the one Americans live in, the basic law of economics is paramount: Supply and Demand. I will use this as an analogy to dissect America’s energy crisis. This segment will focus on the current state of supply, more specifically the generation of electricity.
Do any of you ever read those little throw-away leaflets the electric company places in your monthly bill? My guess is most of you don’t, which is perfectly understandable. These pamphlets contain information that might be surprising to those who claim to have the solution to the energy crisis. Below is an excerpt that shows a breakdown of where MY electricity comes from via Atlantic City Electric Co.
- Coal 41.9%
- Gas 8.4%
- Hydroelectric (large) 0.3%
- Nuclear 43.9%
- Oil 0.3%
- Total so far 94.8%
Now for the renewable resources:
- Captured Methane (from landfills) 1.6%
- Fuel Cells 0.0%
- Geothermal 0.0%
- Hydroelectric (small) 0.3%
- Solar 0.0%
- Solid Waste (burning garbage) 3.1%
- Wind 0.1%
- Wood or other biomass 0.1%
- Total renewable: 5.2%
The one truly laughable aspect of this breakdown is that wind and solar combined constitute only 0.1% of my electricity. So the next time you here some politician or lunar environmentalist bark up that old tree of wind and solar this or that - ask them where they got the magic wand they plan to wave and increase 0.1% of my electricity 1000-fold in order to meet energy demands.
The only encouraging number in that disgraceful lineup is the 43.9% supplied by nuclear. But alas, New Jersey’s Democrats have chased away the nuclear industry so this number will only decrease as time goes on and demand rises. It seems that my elected officials have turned their backs on the one technology that stands to make a dent in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and cutting greenhouse emissions. So again, ask them how they plan to take a science that currently supplies only one tenth of one percent and make it into a source as viable as nuclear which already supplies nearly half and could easily meet 100% of the demand.
To all those who sing the wind and solar song with blatant disregard for little things like math and science - I say this: Go study electrical and mechanical engineering. Pool your collective resources and intellect. Then somehow invent the photovoltaic cells and wind turbines that are 1,000% more efficient than those currently in service. If by some chance you manage to accomplish this, you will no doubt revolutionize the wind and solar generating industries. But you will still only generate 1% of my electric.
This is just a scratch on the surface. In later chapters I plan to discuss conservation, current and future demand, future generation, oil, and environmental impact.
~Man Overboard
Sourse: The Energy Crisis Part I: The Present Generation
Iowans Want Energy Conservation Before New Coal Plants
Iowans Want Energy Conservation Before New Coal Plants
DES MOINES, Iowa, December 21, 2007 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2007/2007-12-21-093.asp Four out of five Iowans believe energy conservation and fuel efficiency should be the focus of state efforts to meet electricity demand before new coal-burning power plants are built, according to a new public opinion poll.
Iowa officials are contemplating two coal-fired facilities […]
Sourse: Iowans Want Energy Conservation Before New Coal Plants
About
This site about power resources in any possible way.