

Sunflower Energy has requested that Rod Bremby, secretary of health and environment in Kansas reconsider his ruling against the planned Holcomb expansion.
Media reports indicate that this is the first step in mounting a legal challenge to the decision. Further steps could see the issue move into the district courts and then to the state supreme court.
The department's air quality staff had recommended granting the permit. Agency officials said that advice to Bremby didn't deal with broad environmental or public health issues but technical ones, such as whether Sunflower planned to use the best technology available to control pollutants the state does regulate.
"The project complies with all the state and federal environmental laws and regulations," Earl Watkins Jr., Sunflower's president and chief executive officer, said in a written statement. "In our view, it's fundamentally unfair to attempt to change these rules in the middle of the game."
Utility regulators in Florida and Oklahoma rejected coal-fired plants earlier this year. But environmental groups have said Bremby's decision represented the first time a government agency in the U.S. had rejected an air-quality permit specifically because of carbon dioxide emissions.
Sunflower proposed building two, 700-megawatt plants next to its existing, 360-megawatt plant outside Holcomb, in Finney County, with construction of both finished by 2013. The project included a bioenergy center designed to capture carbon dioxide and use it to grow algae that then could be converted to biofuels, such as ethanol.
I reside in Finney Co.
I'm glad that you are concerened
I'm glad that you are concerened about the well-being of your children. I'm a father of three small children myself and am also concerened that they are given the best opportunities that they can possibly have, as well as the cleanest air, the healthiest food, and the cleanest water.
I'm sure you will also recognize that the people working for Sunflower Energy are people just like you and me. They are the people that you meet in the grocery store when you do your shopping; they are not the "green-eyed monster" that you refer to in your comment. They are hard-working people who live in Kansas and they, and their families, breathe the same air that you do.
I'm not sure if you recognize that the plant expansion that is being proposed will create plants that are far more efficient and that have far better emissions controls devices than the old plants that you said you can see from your home. They will be cleaner and use less fuel to produce the same amount of energy.
Another thing that you might have not considered is that you are (according to your comment) living by a coal-fueled power plant and breathing very clean air right now. You said that the sky is almost always blue in Kansas (a state that already gets over 70% of its energy from coal). Clearly if you have blue skies most of the time and live in a state that uses a lot of coal, the coal-based utilities have to be doing something right.
Did you know that Sunflower Energy had planned to make things even cleaner? Apart from building a more efficient plant, they were also going to use the newest technologies to reduce nitrogen and sulfur emissions. They had also proposed to build an "algae reactor" that would have turned carbon dioxide emissions from the new plants into biofuel.
One last thing to consider. Not many people deny that our national economy is either in or is very near to a recession. In an economy that is seeing thousands of people lose their homes and jobs, some businesses closing and others tightening their belts and budgets, the construction project and operation of these plants would have put millions of dollars into your community.
Those dollars, from jobs and taxes, would have helped to build better roads, schools, hospitals, etc. The plants that would have been built would have ensured that your electricity bills could have remained low. And, they would have done it in a more clean and efficient manner.
By denying the permits for those plants, KDHE and the governor have actually held your community back.
It seems as though you have
Actually, it appears that
Actually, it appears that you are the one putting words in people's mouths. I have always supported a broad and diverse energy generation supply -- coal, nuclear, wind and renewables, gas, hydro, fuel cells, etc.
In fact, a great deal of coal is required to produce the steel and cement found in every wind turbine, so please do build more of them, our metallurgical coal producers will thank you for it.
Additionally, wind energy cannot generate baseload electricity (i.e.: the 'always on' electricity that we rely on 24-7). There is always another form of energy required to bridge the gaps when wind isn't blowing or is blowing too hard. Once again, coal is the least expensive, most abundant, and increasingly clean option to fill that gap.
Furthermore, by keeping our power supply diverse, we ensure overall stability and lower prices. Our society runs on cheap, clean, abundant energy and we will damage our (and our children's) future options by arbitrarily refusing to use our most abundant domestic energy resources.
The point is that if we
Very quickly,Are you
Very quickly,
Are you aware that while coal-fueled generation has increased by 181 percent since 1970, U.S. power plants have reduced regulated emissions by 40 percent? A new coal-fueled power plant actually emits 70% fewer emissions than the 60's & 70's-era power plant that it would replace (based on emissions per unit energy produced).
We are producing more energy, more cleanly than we ever have in our past. So your arguments that building more coal plants is "BAD" and that our planet will soon be unihabitable are clearly not supported by the facts.
Additionally, I have a Masters Degree in Environmental Science and have spent the last eight years working in the energy industry and studying issues like climate change. Believe me when I say that I am very familiar with the issue.
Also, you may not know that CO2 -- which is the primary gas associated with climate change -- is colorless and odorless, so trying to link the color of the sky to climate change is problematic for your arguments. Your attempts to link the cow poop and dirt you claimed were in your air with the coal industry was equally problematic in your previous comment.
Since you close your comment with a note about my being concerned with economic issues, I'll leave you with some numbers from the European Commission on the costs of removing our greenhouse gas emissions and replacing fossil fuel-based energy with renewables.
The EC has suggested that it would take every household in the U.S. and Europe paying an extra € 150, £ 110, or $220 per month for their utility bills to cover the costs of stopping CO2 emissions and using renewable energy.
How would an extra $2,600+ per year out of your budget impact on your concerns for economic issues? Are you really willing to make that sacrifice?
The comments posted here
The comments posted here are simply over the top. It is hardly a "crime" to provide clean, affordable, and abundant energy. Presenting a bill in the KS legislature also cannot reasonably be described as a crime. Arguing, without a shred of evidence, that any of our major sources of energy are "destroying" the earth is overblown. Lastly your invocation of Hitler, your use of ad hominem and appeal to emotion fallacies has overtaken whatever might have been reasonable in your argument (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum).
I also see that the comments link to another energy supplier, so I am not at all surprised that you're doing whatever you can to protect your own fiscal interests by attacking a competitor.
80% of Electricity consumed in KS is generated by coal-plants
Holcomb coal plant
Post new comment