Kansas Coal Fight Comes to a Close

Kansas Coal Fight Comes to a Close

There are 58 comments on the NBC Action News story from May 6, 2009, titled Kansas Coal Fight Comes to a Close. In it, NBC Action News reports that:

Kansas lawmakers plan to move quickly to enact a deal to allow a new coal fired power plant in southwest Kansas.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Action News.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Oct 07

Olathe, KS

#1 May 6, 2009
Good. Glad to see some sense in rebutting the radical tree-hugging Sierra Club. Getting rid of Sebelius good for Kansas but bad for the rest of the country.
Write this down

Parsons, KS

#2 May 6, 2009
I'm glad the word "compromise" hasn't gone completely out of vogue. Our country was built on compromise and trying to do the best for the most, not always bowing down to the loudest.
SNB

Kansas City, MO

#3 May 6, 2009
the wicked witch is gone. i hope she doesn't screw the entire country.
I B Looking

Overland Park, KS

#4 May 6, 2009
It is great we can produce this power and ship most of it to Texas and Colorado.
Mike

Overland Park, KS

#5 May 6, 2009
Its to bad we continue to look at short term solutions - I guess we will never change. This is a sad day.
5th Generation Kansan

Olathe, KS

#6 May 6, 2009
This fight hasn't come to a close - it's just begun!

If you haven't been paying attention, it's urgent that you read now how a few stubborn Kansas legislators got us into a real mess! For years, these few have held up development of a clean energy industry in Kansas while our neighboring states raced to update energy laws, develop clean energy plants and vastly improve their state economies.

These guys fought for Big Coal in Kansas (who by the way also OWNS the coal mines in Wyoming that will fuel this plant) because they want a mega coal plant and the new jobs and revenue it will produce, not to mention the campaign contributions from Big Caol, in their district.

In the name of “clean energy job creation,” they’ve just introduced legislation that will also give big incentives for clean energy development, but (get this!) only for companies that will employ over 200 people within 5 years. This hands over a near-monopoly on clean energy development to large energy utilities in Kansas. Hmmm, I wonder who helped them write the wording?

If ordinary Kansans fail to stand up now, we will pay in so many ways.

First, we’ll pay again with embarrassment for letting a few small-minded selfish bullies continue to run our state government. Then, we’ll pay by giving generous incentives to large utilities to develop a clean energy industry, who'll turn around and raise our energy rates because they hold a monopoly.

Though they plan to export the energy from the coal plant to Texas and Colorade, we’ll pay for increased health care costs and environmental cleanup for damage to our health and environment.

Kansans, let’s SHOW THEM WE ACTUALLY ARE PAYING ATTENTION. We aren’t "sheeple"!

We don’t want to pay through the nose for higher energy rates while we choke on pollution from their mega-coal plant.

We want clean energy now whether they like it or not. We want polluters to pay the cost of pollution. We want "net metering” so ordinary people get credit for energy they produce and share back into the grid. We want a level playing field so small energy entrepreneurs can help keep Kansas energy costs down.

Whatever you do, don’t give up now!

TAKE ONE SMALL STEP -Email, call or write your governor and your legislators NOW to DRAW THE LINE!

Google contact information for governor and representatives at kslegislature.org/legsrv-legisportal/help/con...
Write this down

Parsons, KS

#7 May 7, 2009
Bull Shirt.
John Q

Lenexa, KS

#8 May 7, 2009
I applaud the legislature for allowing this to proceed. The plant will be smaller than the twin plants that were originally proposed. But, we will be generating electricity, while alternative, cleaner methods are developed. By the time this plant is obsolete, perhaps we'll have another nuclear plant online, along with solar and/or wind.

It will take much longer for these alternate forms of generation to be online, at a comparable capacity than many of you think.

I'm so glad they're not cutting back on energy production, while other forms are in research and development. It's not an "all or nothing" approach. As was said earlier, we are built on compromise...working for the greater good, and not catering to the loudest.

OK...yes I know we are selling much of this power to other states...we still have the generating capacity to tap into it if/when necessary.

Just one more note..."sheeple"...h ow original. That was the first time I saw that one today.

Let the knashing of teeth begin.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#9 May 7, 2009
I am only a fourth generation Kansas but I think that the idea of building giant coal fired plants in Kansas would be much like becoming the garbage dump for NYC, or the nuclear waste site for the nuclear reactors.

What is the great advantage of doing this? "Clean coal" is an oxymoron. We don't need the power. Where do the profits go? Who cleans up the resulting ash mess? One bright spot is the facility to construct wind generators at Hutchinson.
John Q

Lenexa, KS

#10 May 7, 2009
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
I am only a fourth generation Kansas but I think that the idea of building giant coal fired plants in Kansas would be much like becoming the garbage dump for NYC, or the nuclear waste site for the nuclear reactors.
What is the great advantage of doing this? "Clean coal" is an oxymoron. We don't need the power. Where do the profits go? Who cleans up the resulting ash mess? One bright spot is the facility to construct wind generators at Hutchinson.
I'm all for wind generators in Hutch, or wherever they feel is a good place for them. However, it will be 20 years before technology exists to replace the coal burning and nuclear generation plants. There simply can not be the same capacity yet. By the time they're decomissioned, the replacement could be there.

With the increased electricity needed for the coming new electric cars, etc., it has to come from somewhere. Until the new tech is in place, the old will have to do. It will still be cleaner than what we now have.

We can't shut off the power until the new tech is perfected. We have to use what we have until the new is in place.
Mike

Lenexa, KS

#11 May 8, 2009
Tree huggers apparently don't like electricity. Well I take that back, they don't like for YOU to use electricity. Kind of like Al Gore and his big mansion and private jets. Seriously though, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, domestic oil, it's gonna take all of them.

Since: Oct 07

Olathe, KS

#12 May 8, 2009
Mike wrote:
Tree huggers apparently don't like electricity. Well I take that back, they don't like for YOU to use electricity. Kind of like Al Gore and his big mansion and private jets. Seriously though, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, domestic oil, it's gonna take all of them.
Right. Look at Europe. Spain lost 2 jobs for every 'green' jobs created. Why do the tree-huggers think Europe went to nuclear energy. The cost of manufacturing 'green' equipment is high and in truth will employ more people but will double our utility bills. Dream on, dum-dums, who get all their news only from ecological radical college professors and the anti-coal news media.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#13 May 8, 2009
Rick op wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Look at Europe. Spain lost 2 jobs for every 'green' jobs created. Why do the tree-huggers think Europe went to nuclear energy. The cost of manufacturing 'green' equipment is high and in truth will employ more people but will double our utility bills. Dream on, dum-dums, who get all their news only from ecological radical college professors and the anti-coal news media.
So your answer is to drill for more oil? 21 bbl estimated reserves in the US. We use about 7.7 billion bbl a year. Less than three years worth of domestic oil. How are we going to run our cars, on coal? It is time to develop alternate energy. Nuclear is ok for the interim.
Quit listening to the rabid RW industrial shills and help solve the problem.
this is Thom D

Overland Park, KS

#14 May 8, 2009
Rick op,

You have seen Patriots comments for many months now.
You obvisouly know Patriot is an incorrigible fanatic who is incapable of holding a reasoned discussion.
John Q

Lenexa, KS

#15 May 8, 2009
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
So your answer is to drill for more oil? 21 bbl estimated reserves in the US. We use about 7.7 billion bbl a year. Less than three years worth of domestic oil. How are we going to run our cars, on coal? It is time to develop alternate energy. Nuclear is ok for the interim.
Quit listening to the rabid RW industrial shills and help solve the problem.
How do you run a car on coal? Turn it into electricity. You can put that in those holes where you put the plug of your electric car.

Developing alternate energy is one thing. Having the energy to use while the development is done is quite another. You still advocate unplugging everyone elses' computers until this new developing energy is online.

I have to take a break. lol... Need to stop arguing with pre-determined sound bites. Just for today. Fun to tweak your narrow little mind though.

“Kansas”

Since: Apr 09

Kansas

#16 May 8, 2009
Many Kansas Towns are dying, So anything that may bring people and jobs cant be all bad.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#17 May 8, 2009
John Q wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you run a car on coal? Turn it into electricity. You can put that in those holes where you put the plug of your electric car.
Developing alternate energy is one thing. Having the energy to use while the development is done is quite another. You still advocate unplugging everyone elses' computers until this new developing energy is online.
I have to take a break. lol... Need to stop arguing with pre-determined sound bites. Just for today. Fun to tweak your narrow little mind though.
There you go. Fanatical reply. I never said that we need to unplug anything. Building a false sense of security by building gargantuan coal fired plants is not going to solve our energy problems. One thing we need to do is to use energy more wisely by conservation and better efficiencies. Gargantuan coal fired generating plants will not help the public to understand and implement conservation and efficiencies...

Coal is dirty, there are many environmental problems involved from the mining, transportation, and burning. Some have been solved but many remain from mercury, to radon, to ground water utilization and pollution. It is factual that energy from coal produces more CO2 than from other fossil fuels. If these can be satisfactorily solved before building those gargantuan generating plants then I would have no problem with them.

I think that nuclear reactors would be a better interim energy source , especially fast breeder reactors, than coal.
John Q

Lenexa, KS

#18 May 8, 2009
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go. Fanatical reply. I never said that we need to unplug anything. Building a false sense of security by building gargantuan coal fired plants is not going to solve our energy problems. One thing we need to do is to use energy more wisely by conservation and better efficiencies. Gargantuan coal fired generating plants will not help the public to understand and implement conservation and efficiencies...
Coal is dirty, there are many environmental problems involved from the mining, transportation, and burning. Some have been solved but many remain from mercury, to radon, to ground water utilization and pollution. It is factual that energy from coal produces more CO2 than from other fossil fuels. If these can be satisfactorily solved before building those gargantuan generating plants then I would have no problem with them.
I think that nuclear reactors would be a better interim energy source , especially fast breeder reactors, than coal.
Is it possible that we agree on something? I've been saying for years that the only way to get off of petroleum is by generating as much electricity as possible. If the fuel is there, the technology will follow.

Our only disagreement is the temporary use of coal. I have no problem with a plant that is smaller than the existing one, and will be replaced by something better at the end of it's useable span. The new one will burn (dirty) coal in a cleaner manner than the existing, antiquated plant. I see it only as necessary until there is something else.

I hope for another nuclear reactor at Wolf Creek, or a new plant elsewhere in the state.

We didn't outlaw horses in the city, until there were enough gas stations to fill the cars.

This change is very similar to that. The old tech has to be used until the new tech is in operation. Otherwise we're unplugging.

Anyway, I'm just thrilled we agree on something, somewhere.

Since: Oct 07

Olathe, KS

#19 May 9, 2009
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
I am only a fourth generation Kansas but I think that the idea of building giant coal fired plants in Kansas would be much like becoming the garbage dump for NYC, or the nuclear waste site for the nuclear reactors.
What is the great advantage of doing this? "Clean coal" is an oxymoron. We don't need the power. Where do the profits go? Who cleans up the resulting ash mess? One bright spot is the facility to construct wind generators at Hutchinson.
You quote left wing propaganda. Did you read that on one of the left blogs, or did you make it up?

Since: Oct 07

Olathe, KS

#20 May 9, 2009
this is Thom D wrote:
Rick op,
You have seen Patriots comments for many months now.
You obvisouly know Patriot is an incorrigible fanatic who is incapable of holding a reasoned discussion.
Ann Coulter is right. Some doesn't click right in a leftist brain.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Kathleen Sebelius Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Kan. gov, utility CEO announce deal on coal pla... (May '09) Apr '16 litesong 65
News A Kansas group's push to oust judges exposes a ... (Oct '14) Oct '14 Ace McMillan 1
News The Power of Chirlane McCray (May '14) May '14 Guest 1
News Spokeswoman: Sebelius Not Considering US Senate (Apr '14) Apr '14 conservative crapola 19
News Kathleen Sebelius to Resign HHS Post (Apr '14) Apr '14 Le Jimbo 51
News Senate Democrats upbeat about confirming Burwell (Apr '14) Apr '14 Sterkfontei Swart... 2
News Sebelius a finalist for Timea s Person of the Year (Dec '13) Dec '13 Eddie 1
More from around the web