Coal is not clean

In recent months there has been debate about allowing new coal-powered generation in Kansas. The Department of Health and Environment has objected to Sunflower Electric’s two new coal plants, which has resulted in a legislative debate for the second straight year. As a public health scholar, I have been following the debate and think it is important that we choose energy solutions that are clean.

Coal is one of the dirtiest fossil fuels available for power. Coal power produces sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, carbon dioxide and other toxic substances that lead to acid rain, smog, ozone and climate change.

Much of the “clean coal” propaganda is misleading. Coal is not clean. I believe the truth about coal-burning power plants should lead us to a different path for energy production in Kansas.

Emily Bullard
Mission

Comments

[Prairiewoman]

Pay me now or pay me later--regardless of how little we pay for the electricity generated by the coal plants now, we will pay the cost for burning coal later in our health and our doctor bills. I believe that was the point Ms. Bullard was making. She never claims to be an energy expert, her field is public health. Like changing any health habit, changing our energy consumption will be hard. We have to start somewhere. Not building the coal plant in western Kansas is a first step.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

No, Emily has tires made from hemp and utilizes candles alhough it appears she is more than willing to consume to access the Internet. I wonder if she has one of the 100% hemp computers? She probably does not even have a television, iPod or anyhting else made of petro based products. Damn us!
Emily, have you figured up how many Kwh you consume per month? I am for bring down ALL coal fired plants and watching total anarchy when the "Hope and Change" morons can not recharge their iPod or watch their Vh1 and MTV Cribs.

[Kee]

Tell you what Emily, this August when it is 105 out, and we have a brown out get your sorry ass out to the Flint Hills, and "blow".

Morons.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Emily adn the others that THINK they are energy experts, go read up on AQCS projects, the science behind those projects. Also do a little research on natural Methane gas releases, 23 times the threat of CO2 or SO2.
Habitat being the biggest culprit.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2008/08063-Neuco_Project_Completed.html

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Emily I would bet you would be the first one in line complaining about market prices of energy if we took the coal fired plants off line. Secondly we would have serious black outs since other forms of electricity production are not capable of sustaining the ever rising demand. Emily do you realize how many jobs are related to the coal industry? Where will the railroads make up for the lost revenue? What about the array of skilled trades and ancillary jobs that would be diminished?
We export billions of dollars in coal, where would that be replaced in our economy?
Let me guess Emily, you would demand government take care of the gaps.
The propoganda is that wind turbines are cheap forms of energy and that we do not have a consumption issue.
Maybe some of the Hollyweirdo hypocrites could start leading by example and ridding themselves of 10,000 square foot houses that use 10,000 kwh per month for their extravagent and excessive life styles all the while trotting the globe claiming to be "green".

[JayhawkinMO]

Sorry, Smarter, but Obama has not specifically endorsed current technology. I think that zero emission coal-fired power plants are possible, but is just too expensive... Those of us down wind of Holcomb, KS, should be flooding Topeka with letters of protest along with the EPA. The pro-coal groups in KS continue to promote the new units as being clean. Balderdash!!

[Smarter Than You]

Maybe you missed it, but our "PResident" is a proponent of clean coal. . .so it must be true.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy