Senate passes coal plan

what is wrong with using clean natural gas since Kansas has great reserves of it?

shadowdls wrote:

what is wrong with using clean natural gas since Kansas has great reserves of it?

Much more expensive...not as much "cleaner" as you believe...It would run up the cost of home heating...

While the coal-fired plant is in operation, plans could be drawn and a new pollution free nuclear plant could be built, and Wolf Creek could be expanded...

Need any more reasons?

Be real difficult to veto this time with national jobs situation.

You ever to the southwest part of this state. Go wind power.

shadowdls wrote:

what is wrong with using clean natural gas since Kansas has great reserves of it?

Natural gas produces nearly half the pollution of coal, not so clean as you think, is it!Think wind, solar, nuke, bio-mass, or trash burners. lots of options, just no one with the ball's to challenge the coal/gas/oil industry.

good to me wrote:

<quoted text>Natural gas produces nearly half the pollution of coal, not so clean as you think, is it!Think wind, solar, nuke, bio-mass, or trash burners. lots of options, just no one with the ball's to challenge the coal/gas/oil industry.

While I agree with you completely, you risk setting of a whole debate over nuclear power or the unsightly wind turbines. Not to mention discussing pollution with "trash burners" seems almost funny.

Burning misc. refuse, such as paint, trees, tires, wood, medical refuse, etc. hardly constitutes less pollution.

Which is more unsightly-a stately wind turbine or a big plume of coal smoke? I know which one I want in my back yard. And I wouldn't mind living next door to a nuclear plant.

TopekaGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
While I agree with you completely, you risk setting of a whole debate over nuclear power or the unsightly wind turbines. Not to mention discussing pollution with "trash burners" seems almost funny.
Burning misc. refuse, such as paint, trees, tires, wood, medical refuse, etc. hardly constitutes less pollution.

Most if not all trash burners, supply cleaner power than coal, gas, oil or bio mass or even nuclear. Not to mention the recycling that is going on at these plants. They sort all trash and recycle what is usable and the rest that is safe to burn is burnt. Bio mass burns wood waste and non-recycable shredded rubber. Also trash and biomass plants are cheaper to construct and maintain than other plants. The maintenance and upkeep of wind turbines is 10 times that of fossil or nuclear power. So don't call it funny, check facts and figures on this.Also if cities put in central plants to supply heating and A/C to all it's buildings instead of 50 to 100 small individual plants, imagine the drop in co2 and nitrogen and sulfur output. Lot's of choices, but so few solutions.

OSG and GTM, I agree with both of you. I like both of the options. I'm just saying that it opens all kinds of debates with nuclear power and the irony of "clean burning trash" is just about more than I can handle.

But yes, I agree. Both are great options. So is harnessing the methane gasses released by refuse. LA County is doing it, and it is FREE energy which is sadly never going away.