 sj |
||
|
||
BS: So Maybe Kansas CAN do something Right
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: So Maybe Kansas CAN do something Right |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: BS: So Maybe Kansas CAN do something Right From: JohnInKansas Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:18 AM State blocks coal plants, cites warming Power company expected to sue, move causes political waves in state The Associated Press Updated: 11:11 a.m. CT Oct 19, 2007 TOPEKA, Kan. - A utility company and state lawmakers are vowing to challenge the rejection of a permit for two coal-fired power plants in Kansas where the state's top environmental regulator cited emissions of carbon dioxide. The ruling could have an impact across the country and was hailed as a victory by environmental groups that warn the plants contribute dangerously to global warming. "As far as I know, this is the first time an air permit for a coal-fired power plant has been denied based on concerns about the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on human health and the environment," Nick Persampieri, an attorney in Denver for the environmental group Earthjustice, said Friday. "We think it is a big deal." The case will be used as a precedent elsewhere, he predicted. The Thursday decision by Rod Bremby, secretary of health and environment, prevents Sunflower Electric Power Corp. from starting construction on a $3.6 billion project outside Holcomb. The utility is expected to challenge the ruling. [More at the link, although it's hard to see how BIG a fight this has already been here from what's written. Certainly there will be more to the story later.] John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Maybe Kansas CAN do something Right From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:28 AM Very good. The technology exists to curb emissions; if it was required, the costs would come down. Will be interesting to watch what happens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Maybe Kansas CAN do something Right From: JohnInKansas Date: 20 Oct 07 - 01:59 AM I haven't seen the plant proposals, but so far as I've seen in the media the plan was to build and burn, with NO EMISSION SCRUBBERS - new or old - beyond "efficiency improvements" of the same sort used on the existing plant there. [see the picture at the link.] Another sore point here is that virtually NONE OF THE POWER GENERATED would be routed to Kansas. It all goes to (mostly) western states who've already refused permits on NIMBY grounds. The decision doesn't mention this as a factor, but it's been a pretty "touchy" point in public discussions. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Maybe Kansas CAN do something Right From: Barry Finn Date: 20 Oct 07 - 02:19 AM The plants don't want to build new & more efficent plants because they then come under new regulations that force them to adhere to stricter policy guidelines where as existing plants fall under far less stringent guidelines that allow the plants to rehab at a cheaper cost while following guidelines that allow them to getaway with murder. It's a sad statement that this is only being challanged now, a day late & a dollar short in my opinion. I guess better late than never though. "The technology exists to curb emissions; if it was required, the costs would come down." Yes, but what's in place to enforce it? So far our energy policy favors the industry's profit margin. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Maybe Kansas CAN do something Right From: JohnInKansas Date: 20 Oct 07 - 02:21 AM A related article is at Carbon, costs curb 'King Coal'. Opposition to new coal fired gen plants has been pretty strong across the US, but it's been mostly a NIMBY sort of thing. If the KS decision stands up as a precedent, basing refusal of a permit on CO2 emissions, it will have accomplished something, even if the lawyers (and legislators) do eventually issue the permit here. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Maybe Kansas CAN do something Right From: Barry Finn Date: 20 Oct 07 - 02:36 AM Basically, between new & old, it's a double edged sword. Better to be rid of most of it altogether along with oil & start pumping up renewable & alternative sources. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Maybe Kansas CAN do something Right From: GUEST,Breather Date: 20 Oct 07 - 09:34 AM This is based on bad science. Carbon dioxide is one of the two gasses basic to life on earth. Oxygen and CO2. You exhale CO2, so Hitler must have been an environmentalist (his final solution got rid of CO2-makers). That's where all this is leading--to population reduction. You're smarter than this. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=crichton+state+of+fear+appendix A Michael Crichton novel with an interesting appendix. Global warming is a hoax, just like pseudo-scientific hoaxes of the past. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Maybe Kansas CAN do something Right From: Riginslinger Date: 20 Oct 07 - 09:45 AM They grow corn in Kansas, don't they? Does this have anything to do with pressure from the ethanol lobby? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Maybe Kansas CAN do something Right From: Bill D Date: 20 Oct 07 - 09:48 AM "That's where all this is leading--to population reduction. " ..oh, I HOPE so! 77 trillion people simply breath out way too much CO2. "Global warming is a hoax, just like pseudo-scientific hoaxes of the past." I hope you live near sea level....I want to hear from you as you need to buy higher boots to walk to your mail box. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Maybe Kansas CAN do something Right From: JohnInKansas Date: 20 Oct 07 - 02:55 PM They grow corn in Kansas, and they've been building new ethanol production capacity to use all of it. The difficulty is that there isn't enough WATER in Kansas to sustain significant corn production. The water demand to support current levels of corn production already exceeds renewable levels of consumption, even if Nebraska and Colorado didn't steal much of the water that Kansas should have before it gets to the aquifer here (according to the courts). John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Maybe Kansas CAN do something Right From: Don Firth Date: 20 Oct 07 - 03:14 PM What the NIMBY ("Not In My Back Yard") folks seem to be too brain-dead to realize is that the whole planet is their back yard. The idea that "global warming is a hoax" is, itself, a hoax. It's amazing that there is anyone left who seriously thinks he or she can actually sell that canard. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Maybe Kansas CAN do something Right From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 20 Oct 07 - 03:26 PM Anyone who has studied geology even superficially knows of the shifts in climate; only 12000 years ago the Northern Plains amd the Prairie Provinces were covered with an ice sheet. The last tiny bit is melting now. If the melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets disappear, many coastal areas will be under water and millions will be displaced. Plant and animal distribution patterns are beginning to shift as climatic zones shift. Anyone who denies the evidence has his head in the sand. How much of the change can be attributed to Man is difficult to estimate, but ice cores clearly show the exponential rise in greenhouse gases and man-made chemicals. Nuclear, solar, geothermal, chemical and other sources of energy must be developed. Much of that being proposed now, like biofuels, are almost as inefficient as fossil fuels and require large water and land resources. Water is in short supply in many areas, not just those suffering drought. The developing problems are manifold and will be critical in our children's lifetime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Maybe Kansas CAN do something Right From: JohnInKansas Date: 20 Oct 07 - 06:37 PM Just in case anyone might be interested, the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a preliminary report some months ago - more of a News Release than a report - but promised a massive four-part final report "coming soon." Unfortunately, all the participating countries (i.e. the politicians) get to "review" everything before release, so the reports have been somewhat "delayed in review." The first "official" release is the "Summary for Policymakers" and is at: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf Not exactly light reading, but not as thorough as we hope the full reports will be - i.f...a.n.d...w.h.e.n...t.h.e.y...e.v.e.r...g.e.t...r.e.l.e.a.s.e.d... John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: So Maybe Kansas CAN do something Right From: Bill D Date: 20 Oct 07 - 07:20 PM When *I* moved to Wichita, in 1947, we got water from the "Equus Beds", water so pure it needed to have some minerals added for flavor. Now, that resource is very low and chancy, and Eastern Kansas must use reservoirs and rivers. In Western Kansas, there is the Ogallala aquifer..(which is also under Nebraska, Colorado and others, as JiK notes). This is simply mining water, and use is greater than recharge. Even if corn for fuel were a good idea, it would be limited by water supplies and hardly worth the effort.....but also, if infinite water were available, it takes a LOT of energy to make fuel from corn, and is not a viable way for any long-term planning. Sure...if there is excess corn, it can be processed for adding to fuel, but we just can't count on it for the future. Brazil, which has temporarily made itself almost independent of oil with bio-fuels, is seeing the problems, as they have limited soil for long term production. Some ideas will work...if only temporarily, but we MUST realize that different energy sources will have to be developed, along with fewer people using them. 72 trillion people can't live like 2 billion can. |
