Organizers recruit to show concern for coal plant bill

A bill concerning energy production was passed Thursday and some students are traveling to Topeka to express concern

Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy expect the bill to be vetoed by Governor Sebelius and not overridden by the House.

By Jessica Wicks (Contact)

Tuesday, March 11th, 2008


University students will lobby in Topeka today against a bill allowing controversial coal plant construction in western Kansas.

Amended House Bill 327 — an act concerning energy production in Kansas — passed Thursday, but Governor Kathleen Sebelius is expected to veto it. The bill will fail if the House does not have enough votes to override the veto.

James Roberts and Bridey Maidhof, Overland Park seniors, plan on traveling to Topeka today to express their concern about energy production in Kansas.  The two estimated several hundred protesters from around Kansas would show up to protest the constuction of a coal plant in western Texas.

Photo by Jon Goering

James Roberts and Bridey Maidhof, Overland Park seniors, plan on traveling to Topeka today to express their concern about energy production in Kansas. The two estimated several hundred protesters from around Kansas would show up to protest the constuction of a coal plant in western Texas.

Johannes Feddema, professor of geography, said the energy produced by the coal plants will be sold to other states, and only 10 to 15 percent of the energy will be used in Kansas.

James Roberts and Bridey Maidhof, Overland Park seniors and volunteers for the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, will attend the protest to show legislators that young people are concerned about this decision.

“As a young person, this is not an issue to just sit back and watch,” Roberts said. “Legislators are making decisions at the expense of our future health, environment and economy.”

State Representative Tom Sloan voted for the bill last week. He said he felt honor bound to vote for the revised version after adding provisions that addressed Kansas’ public health, environment and energy needs.

The decision makers are influenced by financial pressures, Feddema said, and won’t live to see the long-term damage of their vote.

What/Where:

Lobby Event at the Capitol Building

To carpool:

Meet GPACE volunteers

9:30 a.m. today

Holcolm Park

$5 donation for gas

For more information, visit GPACE.org

“It is the young people, the students and their children, that will have to deal with the impact of these decisions,” Feddema said.

Feddema said he was concerned with the amount carbon dioxide that will be released each year.

“Eleven million tons of carbon dioxide over the next 50 years, which is the average life-span of one of these plants,” Feddema said about the amount of emissions the plant would release. “You do the math.”

Sloan said that number was taken out of context.

“They are taking an annual number and ignoring the fact that the plant plans to mitigate those emmissions,” Sloan said.

The power plant proposed for Holcolm will emit 25 percent less carbon dioxide per day than the Lawrence plant, Sloan said.

Roberts said he was concerned that the bill was pushed through too fast without proper discussion of both natural and coal produced energy possibilities.

“What we want is for the government to have real talks about real solutions,” Roberts said. “By pushing this bill through, they are doing the state a great disservice.”

Sloan said legislators spent three days listening to people speak against the bill and then took four and a half hours to discuss and amend it.

“We spent far more time on this bill than most,” Sloan said.

Maidhof said that over time, the plants will drain the water supply Kansas agriculture will suffer.

“No one is looking at the long run,” Maidhof said. “The water supply is only going to last 50 years, and then no more water.”

Sloan said the coal plant had to retire 40 percent of the water in the Olagalla aquifer, but that didn’t mean the resources would be used up. The plant would still have to comply with the Kansas Division of Water Resources.

Roberts said windmill farms, not coal plants, were where the future of energy was headed. He said investment in wind created secure jobs and a healthy future.

Sloan said he supported wind farm construction, but that it needed to be anchored by other forms of energy to meet the country’s demand for power.

“At the end of the day, the lights need to come on,” Sloan said.

Students Maidhof and Roberts want students to participate Tuesday’s event and call their legislators.

“A call is worth at least five petition signatures,” Maidhof said. “It shows that you are a real person,” Maidhof said.

— Edited by Matt Hirschfeld

Discussion

All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.

11 March 2008
at 1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal

You can't complain about people not being able to afford electricity bills and then block expansion of energy production.


11 March 2008
at 4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal

building this plant will not lower electricity bills here in Kansas, especially when the majority of the power would be shipped to other states.

Where is Nuclear energy in this debate?


Share your 2¢

Requires free registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment: