Governor, lawmakers get suckered into bad pact with coal plant

Deal is no good for Kansas

The folks over at Sunflower Electric must be patting themselves on the pack so hard their arms hurt. Who can blame them? The Hays-based utility pulled a neat trick on Kansans and left us with an environmental debt we'll be paying for decades.

In a deal worked out with new Gov. Mark Parkinson, the utility changed its plans to build two 700-megawatt plants in southwest Kansas, instead agreeing to one 895-megawatt plant near Holcomb. In exchange, Sunflower has agreed to add "green" technology to lower the plant's carbon emissions.

On the surface, this looks like a fair deal. But look under the rock and you'll find a nest of snakes.

Snake: One consistent defense of the project is that our state needs more electricity to satisfy current and future "baseload" demands, or the minimum power made available to customers.

Bite: Existing generating capacity of the Southwest Power Pool regional grid, of which Kansas is a member, exceeds peak demand by more than 30 percent. Kansas exports power even without the new Sunflower plant.

Snake: The plant will generate 1,500 jobs during construction.

Bite: After completion, the plant will employ only about 50. Last week, the German industrial giant Siemens Corp. announced it will build a 300,000-square-foot plant in Hutchinson that will build wind turbines and create 400 jobs.

Snake: The agreement means more green energy production over the long term.

Bite: Reducing demand is the best approach to a more green future. Conservation programs are simple and efficient but largely ignored by Kansas policymakers, who have asked utilities to help develop plans of action. These businesses are not in any hurry to reduce their revenue streams.

Snake: Sunflower states the coal-fired plants will provide customers inexpensive power.

Bite: Sunflower's application for permits to build two 700-megawatt plants shows a generation cost of 4.64 cents per kilowatt hour. That estimate comes from a three-year-old study and construction costs have skyrocketed since then. Over on the other side of the state, the Westar utility reported to the Kansas Corporation Commission in October 2007 that it had a 20-year contract to buy power from a wind farm for 4.08 cents.

Wind power is a cheap and clean alternative to carbon-spewing coal plants. Gov. Parkinson and Kansas lawmakers kicked that fact to the curb and continue their march down the road whistling to the tune set by Sunflower Electric.

-- Tom Bell

Editor & Publisher

822-1491

tbell@salina.com

Join the Discussion:

Salina.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here. Read our full online terms of service policy.

Jeremy says....
Steve. Please post the link(s) where you found this information. Fly ash is radioactive? You're on crack.
5/18/2009

---

Steve says....
Anybody interested in what coal emmisions contain? Clue: arsenic,nickel,mercury,lead,thorium,u235,chromium....and more. radioactive elements are low in coals natural state but when burned can increase 10 fold in the by products waste.By products waste? I forgot to mention the tons of radioactive waste known as fly ash. Wonder who will be the recipient of this stuff. Do your own research and leave the politicts out of it . You might be suprised what you find.
5/14/2009

---

dog says....
Wind is NOT free. When will everyone figure it out? I agree we should look for cleaner energy BUT in the mean time we should use coal. Otherwise we end up with rolling blackouts like california.
5/14/2009

---

Without liberals the world would be stupid says....
Coal can not last forever. The wind and sun will be here after the coal runs out. And "Clean Coal", that is just makes me laugh...Think about it, CLEAN COAL. Ya right.
5/14/2009

---

Hopsing says....
Terrific editorial, Tom but it looks like your mouth-breathing readers are either too well indoctrinated by Peabody or on their payroll. Coal is a finite resource getting more expensive as supplies dwindle - wind is free. Coal's only cheap if somebody else pays for the pollution cleanup, the added health costs and the degradation of the water supply. When those external costs get priced back in via a carbon tax, your electric bill will reflect the true, fully-burdened cost of coal. The 1500 jobs to build Holcomb are specialized teams that move on when the plant's done. They won't be buying houses here or paying income taxes - they'll just move on to the next job. The 400 jobs in Hutch are skilled, well-paid and as permanent as anything these days. However, if the bed-wettin' old men in the legislature keep pee'ing on wind power they may up and move to a more highly evolved state - like Colorado. Colorado has a Renewable Portfolio Standard that obligates them to buy a substantial percentage of energy from renewable sources. It's doubtful that they will be able to buy our coal power if only for political reasons. When Holcomb starts really using up your aquifer water for their operation, I hope you'll remember who invited them to the trough. From what I can tell the best economic opportunity in Kansas is the adult diaper concession in western Ks and Topeka
5/13/2009

---

Common Sense Rules says....
Who let the liberal nut job in the news room? First off Global Warming does not exist. It was invented by Liberals for a political tool. Do some research? Second Wind and solar energy are not a viable replacement for any type of power generation. The problems with wind and solar power become apparent when you look at their footprint. To generate electrical comparable to a 1,000 MW gas-fired power plant you’d have to build a wind farm with at least 500 very tall windmills occupying 40,000 acres of land. Solar power takes 82 acres of land for a plant to produce 8.2 MW of electricity. By comparison a 1,000 MW gas-fired plant can be built on 10 -15 acres. Gas fired Electric Power Plants are by far the best solution to our electric energy needs in both their foot print and clean burning energy. None of your other arguments hold water either. Are you just visiting from California? Please take you liberal dribble back to where you came from.
5/13/2009

---

says says....
To add to 'says' statement about emmisions, Sunflower plans to shut down one or two less efficent oil burning power plants once this one is online. Another win.
5/12/2009

---

winky says....
Great editorial--well written--good points that many do not want to hear or consider.
5/12/2009

---

says....
I don't know where to start. First, you assume wind and coal generation are substitutes. They are not and never will be. Coal is dispatchable , while wind is intermittant. Therefore, if you need more power, you can count on coal while with wind you are at the mercy of the weather. I don't know about you, but I like having AC in the dead heat of the summer (when the wind is usually not blowing). Second, you look at entire SPP generation while you should be looking at utility control areas, because Western Kansas needs baseload power. And this fantasy you have about wind being cheaper that coal (and this gets into dispatchability). If you have wind, you need natural gas to back it up. That means you must include the cost of combustion turbine generation when the wind isn't blowing. That makes the cost of wind more than the cost of coal. And as for emmissions, modern coal plants are pretty clean, and Sunflower's plant will be on the cutting edge of emmissions technology. I'm sure you think that wind generation produces no CO2, but natural gas does and when CTs are ramping up and down to provide reactive power they are operating ineffciently and thus producing more CO2 than if they were just being used as peakers. Wind generation has never displaced one ounce of CO2, just ask the Germans. And this is for Scott. You make the assumption that exporting power from the coal plant to CO is bad. Trade is mutually beneficial. Both CO and KS will benefit. Obviously you know nothing about introductory level economics. I could go on but this is getting boring.
5/12/2009

---

Jeremy says....
Tom, do you know how many jobs are retained and added elsewhere in manufacturing facilities due to this construction? Like in Concordia and Chanute, KS? Didn't think so. Crap, that doesn't fit your arguement. Another question: How many megawatts of power does a wind farm produce? Do you know? Not a lot. I am certain that this one unit will produce more electricity than all the wind farms in KS COMBINED. You also referenced the turbine plant in Hutch. All of those jobs will be imported to KS. The majority of these jobs will be filled by non-kansas residents, as this type of work requires highly skilled labor, and not people that were working at Raytheon type of skilled labor.
5/12/2009

---

Aaron says....
Tom, wind energy is only cheap because of the TAX MONEY TO KEEP IT CHEAP! If Wind energy isn't mandated nobody will build. Not to mention the new power plant will produce 900 Megawatts... what is the output of the wind farm? 125? assuming it's a windy day? And how is it a bite that 50 people will be employed after construction????? Those are GOOD paying jobs, jobs that will support growth in SW Kansas unlike Kohls or Spangles jobs that we are SO proud of in Salina. Hutchinson will also get 400 new jobs not to mention the revenue created during the construction...Tom, maybe you should move to hutch, run for city council and chase the business to salina!
5/12/2009

---

Scott says....
Amen, Tom. And one more Snake is that the transmission lines to Colorado will allow Kansas wind power to be exported. One of the lines will be fully subscribed for electricity from the coal plant. Colorado's RPS favors wind power generated in their own state. And with Wyoming to the north with good wind and little population, they can move any out-of-state power from there more cheaply than they can from Kansas due to the fact that Wyoming is on the Western Grid with Colo. and Kansas is on the Eastern grid. Bad deal for Kansas indeed.
5/12/2009

---

Post a comment
Your best chance of getting your comment posted:

• No profanity
• Be civil
• Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Comment:

Poster:

Enter text seen above:

Read our full use policy.