Sunflower Electric Holcomb powerplant (Kansas City, Plains: transporting, construction jobs, construction)

[pvlman]

With great trepidation I bring up this topic, but this as good as place as any to get a feel for it. For the uninintiated Sunflower Electric Sunflower Electric Power Corporation hopes to expand it's power generating facility at Holcomb, KS Sunflower Electric Corporation Sunflower Electric Corporation for the Holcomb Station Project. The KDHE under that Governor Sebelius refused the building permit, after some time in officeGovernor Parkinson came to an agreement with Sunflower to allow a smaller project. The latest is that the Kansas City office of the EPA has determined that enough details have changed, and are requiring that Sunflower resubmit for a permit.

Here's my take on the whole thing. Back in the 1980's I didn't have a dog in the fight, but now I do, as my current electric utility is is a "member cooperative" of Sunflower. My something may be Hinky radar registered something when the original facility was constructed. In the event the facility doesn't dit atop the Huguton Natural Gas formation, it's only a short pipeline run away from it, why was transporting coal from Wyoming chosen? Fast forward to recent events. There have been reports that $200 million is still owed on the original facility. Whenever someone asks about this when a Sunflower reprentative when they appear on the KOOD PBS station, rather than giving an answer they shoot the messenger.

I'm of the mind no one thing can ever be the solution, the solution is many things working complementarly or cooperatively. No doubt coal is is going to produce a portion of our electrical power, where I have a hard time using the term "clean coal" or even cleaner coal", I believe we should try to use the least of it we can. Whatever one thinks about climate change coal is a major polluter, even the process of cleaning the emissions leaves a waste disposal. problem. Coal IS a limited resource, the less we use today means more for our decedents. I find it disappointing that Sunflower or my member cooperative don't seemed to have made much an effort in fostering conversation, and that Sunflower hasn't direct investment into renewable energy production facilities. I apologize if this contains formatting that made it difficult to read

[pvlman]

Must be an issue that most aren't going to touch with that proverbial 10 foot pole.

[GraniteStater]

The last I heard they were building the plant anyway even though only 10% of the electricity would be used by Kansas residents while the rest would fuel the greedy Front Range. It would provide a boon of short-term construction jobs with a few long-term positions. However, it makes absolutely no sense to put a coal plant out there when we have not even begun to tap our wind energy resources. The plant in Holcomb will use outdated pulverized coal technology which will immediately become obsolete as soon as it is built. IGCC is the 2nd generation technology that is now being used. Other negatives include: mercury emissions, nitrogen oxide emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions, radiation emissions, and carbon dioxide emissions. Profligate water consumption from the Ogallala Aquifer is also a big problem as this is a semi-arid region. Some might claim "oh, it uses less water since the area is being converted from agricultural to industrial." That argument is a fallacy because irrigation derived agriculture on the High Plains was never sustainable in the first place. You can't sustainably expect to grow Midwest style crops on the High Plains for long periods of time.
Also, coal prices are highly unstable these days given the growth of emerging economies in Asia and their energy demands. Why should a Plains state like Kansas put most of their eggs in the coal basket? Most of the coal has to be transported long distances on railroads from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. (More support for the big industrial mining complex). The final issue is waste from the coal plant. Much of it gets stored near the site.

[pvlman]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

The last I heard they were building the plant anyway even though only 10% of the electricity would be used by Kansas residents while the rest would fuel the greedy Front Range. It would provide a boon of short-term construction jobs with a few long-term positions. However, it makes absolutely no sense to put a coal plant out there when we have not even begun to tap our wind energy resources. The plant in Holcomb will use outdated pulverized coal technology which will immediately become obsolete as soon as it is built. IGCC is the 2nd generation technology that is now being used. Other negatives include: mercury emissions, nitrogen oxide emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions, radiation emissions, and carbon dioxide emissions. Profligate water consumption from the Ogallala Aquifer is also a big problem as this is a semi-arid region. Some might claim "oh, it uses less water since the area is being converted from agricultural to industrial." That argument is a fallacy because irrigation derived agriculture on the High Plains was never sustainable in the first place. You can't sustainably expect to grow Midwest style crops on the High Plains for long periods of time.
Also, coal prices are highly unstable these days given the growth of emerging economies in Asia and their energy demands. Why should a Plains state like Kansas put most of their eggs in the coal basket? Most of the coal has to be transported long distances on railroads from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. (More support for the big industrial mining complex). The final issue is waste from the coal plant. Much of it gets stored near the site.

I guess I may have missed news on the topic, as I wasn't aware the the EPA permitting process had concluded. Though I have no doubt the expansion will be constructed on way or the other. Yep; the idea the plant will ultimately consume less from the Ogallala is a fallacy. I don't disagree with you on the ability of the High Plains ability to grow Midwestern crops on a sustainable basis, but that may be something that needs to be broached on the rural exodus thread. Actuall a thread U. S. Forums on a Continent wide realignment of crops would be interesting. Transportation costs alone may force a change, if any climate change is dismissed.

[thriftylefty]

I have always wondered why La Cygne Ks. or Linn county has unemployment and poverty rates only comparable to wyandotte county in Kansas. I would think a power plant would of done some economic good for the area?

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by pvlman

I guess I may have missed news on the topic, as I wasn't aware the the EPA permitting process had concluded. Though I have no doubt the expansion will be constructed on way or the other. Yep; the idea the plant will ultimately consume less from the Ogallala is a fallacy. I don't disagree with you on the ability of the High Plains ability to grow Midwestern crops on a sustainable basis, but that may be something that needs to be broached on the rural exodus thread. Actuall a thread U. S. Forums on a Continent wide realignment of crops would be interesting. Transportation costs alone may force a change, if any climate change is dismissed.

Here is the update:
Holcomb Expansion - SourceWatch

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by thriftylefty

I have always wondered why La Cygne Ks. or Linn county has unemployment and poverty rates only comparable to wyandotte county in Kansas. I would think a power plant would of done some economic good for the area?

Most of the jobs they generate are short-term construction jobs with few permanent positions. Most of those initial construction workers do not stay in the community. Wind energy has the potential to generate a number of jobs spread out over many counties.

[itsMeFred]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

The last I heard they were building the plant anyway even though only 10% of the electricity would be used by Kansas residents while the rest would fuel the greedy Front Range. It would provide a boon of short-term construction jobs with a few long-term positions. However, it makes absolutely no sense to put a coal plant out there when we have not even begun to tap our wind energy resources. The plant in Holcomb will use outdated pulverized coal technology which will immediately become obsolete as soon as it is built. IGCC is the 2nd generation technology that is now being used. Other negatives include: mercury emissions, nitrogen oxide emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions, radiation emissions, and carbon dioxide emissions. Profligate water consumption from the Ogallala Aquifer is also a big problem as this is a semi-arid region. Some might claim "oh, it uses less water since the area is being converted from agricultural to industrial." That argument is a fallacy because irrigation derived agriculture on the High Plains was never sustainable in the first place. You can't sustainably expect to grow Midwest style crops on the High Plains for long periods of time.
Also, coal prices are highly unstable these days given the growth of emerging economies in Asia and their energy demands. Why should a Plains state like Kansas put most of their eggs in the coal basket? Most of the coal has to be transported long distances on railroads from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. (More support for the big industrial mining complex). The final issue is waste from the coal plant. Much of it gets stored near the site.

I'm going to be lazy and just agree with you.
(Because that's pretty much what I would have said, anyway... lol)

[pvlman]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

Here is the update:
Holcomb Expansion - SourceWatch

Thanks for the link. However in the Project Details section of the wiki, the status is listed as Permitting. Thats squares with my recollection, that the EPA had required Sunflower to apply for a new permit. I do not see where the EPA has issued a new permit or the last lawsuit has been resolved. Apparently no one expects the permit to be denied or the lawsuit be a strung out matter.
regards