« Support for ERA in Kansas | Main | ‘South’ a direction, not a place »

March 03, 2009

No need for coal plants

Natural gas and wind are two abundant resources found in western Kansas. Why not use these resources to generate power and create jobs in Holcomb, Kan.? (2/27, Local, “Kansas House renews support for coal plants”)http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/1018062.html Why are some Kansas legislators promoting the importation of coal from other states?

Western Kansas already has the clean resources it needs to generate electricity.

Dave Peterson
Lenexa

Comments

Engineer

Casady
On Jan. 1, 2008 the known US coal reserves were 489 billion short tons (2000 pounds). The US use in 2007 was 1,146.6 million short tons. At the 2007 use rate the reserves would last some 426 years.
In 1999 an estimate gave the US natural gas reserves as 1779 trillion cubic feet. The US 2008 use was 26.05 trillion cf. At that rate of use the known reserves would last about 68 years. A logical change would be to convert all gas fired electric generating plants to coal fired and use all natural gas for space heating.

Engineer

Marctnts
Did these "government subsidies" consist of cash payments by the government or were they simply lack of tax collection on money made? I've had various dealings in oil over the years and the government never paid me a cent.

solomon

Marctnts,

No doubt, but in a 60 Minutes interview he made it plain that his motives also were fueled by the recognition that our country is dependent on an energy source we can't control.

Marctnts

Sol,

I understood what you said. My point was that as much as everyone likes to point to Pickens and say "See, there is an oil man who gets it", they neglect the fact that Pickens made HUGE amounts in oil through government subsidy of that industry and one could guess that his latest push for wind was his attempt to be the biggest hand in the pot when the government money started flowing in that industry as well.

solomon

Marctnts,

Let me clarify, Pickens lost money on his investments like many other Americans did last year, he just had a lot more to lose. His losses were not tied to his views or designs on alternative energy.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

One more note, do you realize how many tens of thousands of jobs would be lost by eighty sixing coal? Think about the industries that are involved.
Railroads, a large portion of their revenues are from transporting coal.
Skilled trades. Boilermakers, pipefitters, electricians, millwrights, etc. Sitting on the bench not getting paid, nice!
All of the anciallry position, purchasing, project management, admin, etc. JObs gone.
These people could all run out and work for Planned parenthood in a minute though.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Dave you are misguided. YOu obviously do not understand the complexity of energy production. Guess what happens when you use NG to generate your power? A RISE in NG costs. We have plenty of reserves of NG, ask California why the import 70% of there consumable NG when they have enough below the ground to supply the entire United States for 300 years. Wind is inefficient and unsustainable for baseload requirements.
Wind, NG, Solar, Geo-thermal, etc are all fine to use as augments and help reduce fossil, but at the end of the day unless we start reducing consumption, we are chasing our tail. Maybe Al Gore, nancy P and the Hollywood jergoffs could start leading by example and getting rid of their EXCESSIVE consumptive lifestyles.

Marctnts

"Mr. Pickens was on track with an alternative energy source plan until he lost billions last year."

I really think that wind has merits to be one of many technologies that will help reduce our dependence on oil, but make no mistake, Pickens' support was a financial decision, not an ideological one.

Pickens made his money in oil with the support of HUGE government subsidies to that industry, and I think he saw the HUGE government subsidies that are expected to follow wind, and wanted to make sure his was the biggest hand in the pot when the money started flowing.

solomon

Casady,

Judging from the post today, I don't think indypendant is an Independent.

Casady

I like that idea, Eng but where do we stand in terms of natural gas reserves vs. fossil fuel reserves? I would think that we would want to allocate these resources as efficiently as possible.

And indypenendent, who here is advocating that the government foot the bill? The letter writer is supporting natural gas and wind power facilities over coal burning facilities. I didn't see any mention of government vs. private ownership.

BudRog

Tell you what Davy, when the brown outs hit here in August and its 103 in the shade just trot your sorry butt on out to the flint hills and "blow".

God help us, they walk among us....

solomon

Mr. Pickens was on track with an alternative energy source plan until he lost billions last year.

indypendant

I always wonder why these people pushing alternative energy sources don't just go out and start a company,invest their money,build these alternative sources and reap the profits and save the earth. Why do they push the Govt to invest our money. If these alternatives were as great as they say, investors and entrepreneurs would be jumping on board.

Engineer

The wind doesn't always blow. Natural gas is a great building heating fuel and should be conserved for that purpose. We want big infrastructure projects. Let’s build some really large pipe lines to move natural gas to the Northeast to replace all the heating oil burned there. There's a green solution that will work.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright