Governor vetoes bill on coal-fired power plants

Arbuckle wrote:

Very shortsighted, Kathleen. The USA has an abundance of coal, and a desparate need for cheap energy. Cheap energy drives our economy. What are you doing? Trying to reduce Kansas' carbon footprint? Why not shut down all the coal, oil, and gas fired plants? Take the least expensive route and we will see the best results.

Dennis in op wrote:

I'm sure the windmills are beautiful in the Iowa countryside. How many megawatts of power do they produce? Why did Texas have to have rolling blackouts last month? The wind didn't blow enough to work their nice looking windmills.
Coal is not the long term answer, but it can generate enough power to get by, until those alternatives are developed.
Nuclear power can be a good long term solution when coupled with the alternatives of wind and sun. But wind and sun are not yet viable enough to be the only sources of production.

Rick op wrote:

<quoted text>
True. In addition, I've read reports of how much it costs to manufacture the windmills, and how much pollution is caused by their manufacture.

Dennis in op wrote:

<quoted text>
Still, the cost of manufacture, in price and in pollution, if it were a viable primary resource would probably be less than coal...maybe.
Anyway, Rick, we agree for different reasons.(Judging from some of your other posts elswhere, we seem to agree on a number of things.)
My major concern is all the talk of how "green" this method is and how many jobs it will create, rather than the megawatts it can produce consistantly. People say "Make bigger batteries"...or "bigger solar panels." The technology of wind and solar, while generally clean, will not produce the output of a coal or nuclear plant.
My vote is for nuclear.