Seven votes short of over-riding a veto, the Kansas House has passed legislation allowing two new coal-fired power plants in western Kansas. This is quite possibly the latest answer to that whiny question I usually hate – “What’s the matter with Kansas?”
What’s the matter is that bloody Kansas has again become a battleground between those looking forward and those stuck in the past – those who see an inevitable cap on greenhouse gas emissions and the possibility of a clean energy future versus those tangled up in dirty habits with deep pockets.
So deep in fact that the plants developers have cut a deal with Kansas State University for a 10-year, $2.5 million energy research program if the coal plants are built. (I can already imagine the Peabody Coal Co. blimps floating over the Bill Snyder Family Football Stadium the day of the big game. Oh wait, no, I can’t… there’s something dirty in the air obstructing my view and my breath, and oddly, I had to cut the sleeves off my favorite KSU sweatshirt – it just got unusually warm for this time of year…)
Shameless yet shameful, to even bribe education. Now if you ask me, that’s a hefty insult to the Midwestern values I grew up to pride.
The bottom line is, these plants are no good for Kansas. At this point, it almost seems symbolic that coal and anti-coal advocates continue this fight. For Kansans, it’s not difficult to see that there are better options for energy, job creation, economic development, etc.
First of all, the energy demand is simply not there – not in Kansas, and while Kansas would house these plants, Colorado would receive 85 percent of their generated electricity. (It’s also worth noting that Colorado has adopted a renewable electricity standard, meaning even the consumer of these coal plants is ahead of the curve in terms of cleaning their energy sources and dampening demand for dirty coal.)
Plus, the job creation potential of coal is dwarfed by the wind and solar industries‘ economic stimulation potential.
On top of that:
The only people behind the proposed coal-plants are the utilities and industry reps who would make money off of them. Nothing about this legislation and nothing about these plants is in the best interest of Kansans, and most know that intuitively, despite the propaganda being thrown at them and other voters.
Next, the Kansas House and Senate will try to conference legislation to win those additional seven votes. Not to say they would have worthwhile legislation afterwards. So I am stuck here desperately convincing myself that something about a ‘Lucky 7‘ will keep Kansas clean…
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
Clean or or least cleaner coal is possible. Coal cannot be eliminated in the near term.
Peabody Coal has hired the top lobbyists in the United States and is winning their bid to increase their profits while slowing down the adoption of Clean, Renewable Sources. They have no concern about the environment or belief in climate change. Their only concern is increasing corporate profit and stopping any transfer of wealth caused by slowing down their carbon exploitation. There is no doubt that we will need coal our entire lifetime, but we must step now toward clean, renewable sources. I have spent time personally in Garden City, Kansas, and have met with the farmers that are against these Plants. If you look into their eyes you will realize that this is War. Not only do they see the writing on the wall in regards to Climate Change and how this will effect the next generation, but their Aquifer is on its last drops and these Coal Plants will introduce the beginning of the end….Its a complex time in history, but leaders need to emerge VERY SOON that can take on the Peabody Coal Lobbyists before its too late. I am as positive as they come but the door is closing on any hope for us building a Clean Energy future. 10 years is closer then we can imagine and we don’t have this time to change the direction of this Titanic. We need leadership that takes this on now. I strongly hope that Western Kansas farmers win this battle which will be one of the most important early wins for us Clean Energy Warriors. Onward Upward!
“Nothing about this legislation and nothing about these plants is in the best interest of Kansans”
Nope, Kansans don’t need any new sources of electricity. They can just plug into some more expensive, unproven and unavailable elitist approved outlets.
Face it, coal and oil are going to be with us for a while. I’m not opposed to new methods, but they just ain’t viable yet.
America has reached a point where the best argument NEVER wins, under any circumstances, if it means that moneyed interests lose. Even the TXU episode, in which 11 coal generators were reduced to three, was won only because of a private equity buyout in which TXU’s investors saw a huge payday.
This simply has to stop.
Al Gore made a subtle call to civil disobedience in exclaiming his surprise that people don’t physically prevent the construction of new coal plants. Hopefully if these two go to that stage, people will use their bodies to prevent their construction.
I will be doing so.
O, how wicked is coal and the evil corporations that wallow in its darkness. How many are willing to invest in an alternative energy source in Kansas? Don’t say you can’t afford to invest. As little as $10 gets you in on the ground floor. How many humans does it take to pay for a windmill?
Hmm. After Al Gore’s father stepped down from being a U.S. Senaator, he became prsident of (which coal company)?
Why is Al Gore a rich man?
I’m glad Kansans oppose the plants. We should not build more coal stations until/or if carbon capture is made to work. That fact the proposed plants are IGCC technology is ‘good’ since those are more efficient and probably easier to fit with carbon capture technology.
I understand the need to inform people of the threat coal burning poses. But objections should be based on analysis and goals. If the plants emit little or no CO2, are there objections?
Kansas lawmakers should know that retrofitting carbon capture onto IGCCs would require significant (costly) changes to the turbine and rest of the plant. For example, it’s my understanding the output pressures would need to be higher and this would change the turbine design, reheat unit and overall efficiencies.
Why should KS electric customer have to pay for something twice? Sunflower should be asked to submit designs NOW that would be able to add geologic carbon sequestration with no changes. Or whatever other method of carbon capture they choose.
They should be required to pick locations where the underlying geology is compatible with CO2 injection and storage.
One more thing, it would be nice if the KSU faculty senate could debate and discuss the issues involved in accepting money under those circumstances.
A quick search of their website and I didn’t find anyone doing coal research there.