Kansas Kills Coal Plants
For the first time ever, a U.S. regulatory agency denied a coal plant permit solely on the basis of its carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a main contributor to global warming.
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) denied permits to two large, 700-megawatt plants proposed by Sunflower Electric Power. The plants would have cost about $3.6 billion and spewed 11 million tons of CO2 into the air each year. That’s almost the same amount of CO2 that the Northeastern states planned to have saved by 2020 with their cap-and-trade program. The attorneys general of those states had petitioned Kansas officials to deny the coal plants that would have effectively negated their efforts.
Interestingly, while the KDHE staff recommended that the plants be permitted, state law also allows the KDHE secretary to deny a permit if there is an unregulated emission that threatens public health or the environment. And that’s what happened here: Secretary Roderick L. Bremby disagreed with his staff because of the unregulated CO2 emissions that pose a threat to global warming. He wrote in his news release: "I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing."
Kansas also has a goal of getting 10 percent of its electricity at peak period from wind power. The electric cooperatives will meet that goal by the end of the year — two years ahead of the deadline.
A Sunflower Electric Power spokesman pointed out that the company could build natural gas plants that emit half the amount of CO2, but they also have a much higher fuel cost than coal. So once again we’re back to the business problem of not having a price on CO2 emissions (such as through a cap-and-trade or carbon tax policy). Without a price on CO2, there is no "common yardstick" for determining whether the additional fuel cost of natural gas is offset by the less CO2 emitted. While the Kansas decision may set a precedent for other regulatory bodies around the country, the federal government also needs to spell out the CO2 rules for businesses and utilities.
Kansas City Star
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
New York Times
Washington Post
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:39 am
A multiple billion dollar investment in Kansas wind power would go a long way… especially if coal incentives were repealed or matched by wind incentives to level the playing field, or better yet, replaced.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:41 am
CO2 & Temperature (also see Temperature Record)
The ice-core data is frequently cited as principal evidence to argue that CO2 is the earth’s main climate driver. It is, in a way, the jewel in the crown of the theory of man made global warming. But the ice-core data does not show that CO2 drives climate. It shows, very clearly, that variations in temperature precede rises in atmospheric CO2 – not the other way round. The two phenomena are divided by a time lag of several hundred years.
There is no evidence that CO2 has ever ‘driven’ the climate in the past, nor is there any compelling evidence that it is doing so now.
According to global warming theory, if an enhanced greenhouse effect (from increased levels of CO2 or indeed any other greenhouse gas) is responsible for warming the earth, then the rate of temperature rise should be greatest in that part of the earth’s atmosphere known as the troposphere, specifically in the tropics. And yet the observations, from weather balloons and satellites have consistently shown that not to be the case. I urge readers to look at the Christy et al papers below. The latest one was recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (2007). This may seem like a rather technical issue, but it strikes at the very heart of the theory of man made global warming.
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:34 am
troposphere = tropics? most scientists and models i know predict the most severe warming to occur in the arctic, with climates getting variously more extreme elsewhere…
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
[…] coal plants because of global warming emissions are becoming a more common occurrence in the U.S. Kansas, Texas, and Florida have all rejected plants because of climate change concerns and now Washington […]
December 19th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
[…] in October, the Kansas Department of Health denied a coal plant permit solely because of its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (CO2 is a major […]
March 11th, 2008 at 1:46 am
[…] of luck unless they want to look into more expensive loans on the open market or private funding. Kansas and Wyoming have canceled coal plants in the last few months because of construction costs and […]