Search Tips
 
Hot Stuff

 

TOP 10 (or 11) Reasons Not to Build a Coal Plant in Kansas

  1. According to poll data, the people of Kansas support Secretary Bremby's decision to deny Sunflower Electric a permit for the Holcomb project. The results of a statewide poll shows that 62% of Kansas voters agree that the coal plant should not be built. ( Kansas City Star, Jan. 4, 2008)
  2. There's no coal in Kansas. Kansas used to be a net energy exporter. Now Kansas is a net energy importer. Kansas can utilize its own resources, such as wind, rather than hauling coal from Wyoming and thus keep dollars now spent on coal at home.
  3. It's bad economics. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Colorado says the best economic option for western Kansas is not coal, but wind. A new 1400 MW coal plant generates a billion dollars less economic benefits than the equivalent amount of wind power. According to NREL, Kansas could see economic benefits of $7.8 billion through 2030 if the US adopts a renewable energy standard requiring that 20% of our electricity comes from clean renewable energy by 2030. New local jobs during construction would be over 23,000. New long-term jobs for Kansans would be over 3,000.
  4. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC, climate change is a reality and linked to human activities that result in carbon emissions. Yet Holcomb's massive coal plant would emit 11 million tons of CO2 pollution each year. This would be like adding 2 million cars to our roads for each of the next 50 years. Every household, business, city, county, and state will need to do its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the speed of climate change.
  5. Coal plants are associated with many dangerous pollutants, such as carbon dioxide, mercury, lead, cadmium, thorium, and uranium. There is no such thing as "Clean Coal". Already in Kansas , coal fired plant emissions are estimated to contribute as much as $940 million a year in health care costs for the state, according to a 2003 EPA Clear Skies study. And the director of the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention testified to Congress recently that climate change "would have a broad range of impacts on the health of Americans."
  6. Neighboring states are reaping the economic benefits of wind energy, while Kansas continues to purse an outdated form of energy. The millions of tons of carbon dioxide that would be churned out at these new plants will soon be regulated the same way other pollutants are monitored. We are sitting on some of the nation's most abundant wind resources. Why are we still trying to burn coal? Why should Kansas be tied to an old, polluting technology for the next 50 years while other states capture the future manufacturing opportunities in the race to harness renewables?
  7. We need to save our water for our agriculture. The Holcomb expansion will consume over 5 billion gallons per year of water from the already-strained Ogallala Aquifer. Do we really want to drain the aquifer of this amount of water when we could use wind power instead?
  8. The proposed plant will be sending energy primarily to Colorado and Oklahoma. Yet, if Kansas doesn't build this new coal plant it is very unlikely Oklahoma or Colorado will build it. Last month Oklahoma rejected plans by an Oklahoma utility to build a new coal plant because of rising costs and environmental harm. Colorado is even less friendly to coal as the new Governor is committed to renewable energy. Why should Kansas carry the burden of a coal plant when the states wanting the power will not?
  9. What happens when the next administration passes carbon taxes and other regulations, as it most assuredly will? As coal plants face soaring costs, will the state be called upon to bail them out? An international movement to cap and tax carbon will make coal fired power plants an economic albatross.
  10. There are viable and cost effective alternatives to the high cost of energy and the lack of jobs in Western Kansas. Utilities in the Northeast found that energy conservation and incentives for efficient appliances, insulation, and storm windows eliminated the need to build more coal plants. This saved the rate payers from the cost of an expensive new plant.
  11. New methods to generate power can be used in place of new coal plants. Using coal to make electricity is a technology that hasn't changed in over 125 years. Using space age geothermal heat pumps on a typical residence in Kansas resulted in a $5 heating bill for the month of January. There are many alternatives to an expensive, polluting, and dirty coal plant.