Coal Industry Smears Kansas Governor As Ahmadinejad Booster For Denying Air Permit
Coal Industry Smears Kansas Governor As Ahmadinejad Booster For Denying Air Permit
On Oct. 18, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment denied air quality permits for two 700-megawatt coal-burning power generators near Holcomb, KS, “citing health and environmental concerns associated with carbon dioxide emissions.” The decision was “the first time a coal plant air permit application” had “ever been denied on the basis of CO2 emissions.”
This past Monday, newspapers across Kansas ran an ad by Kansans for Affordable Energy attacking the decision. They featured the smiling faces of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asking “why are these men smiling?” The answer, according to the ad, is Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D):
Because the recent decision by the Sebelius Administration means Kansas will import more natural gas from countries like Russia, Venezuela and Iran.
Here’s the ad:
Unmentioned in the ad, however, is the fact that Kansans for Affordable Energy is partially funded by Sunflower Electric Power Corp. and the Peabody Coal Company. Sunflower Electric is the company whose permits were rejected by Sebelius’s administration.
Also, as the Washington Post notes this morning, the ads are extremely misleading. Not only does “Kansas currently export natural gas to other states,” but the United States doesn’t even “currently import natural gas from Russia, Venezuela or Iran.”
After taking criticism over the ad, Bob Kreutzer, a founder of Kansans for Affordable Energy, admitted that the link between Sebelius and Ahmadinejad, et al. may have been “a little bit extreme.”
UPDATE: In response, Sebelius called the ads “over the top nonsense,” adding:
Anyone who would associate our state with the controversial and disreputable world leaders pictured in this ad fundamentally misunderstands and disrespects the people of Kansas.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
117 Responses to “Coal Industry Smears Kansas Governor As Ahmadinejad Booster For Denying Air Permit”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
After taking criticism over the ad, Bob Kreutzer, a founder of Kansans for Affordable Energy, admitted that the link between Sebelius and Ahmadinejad, et al. may have been “a little bit extreme.â€
A power company denied a permit? Holy Kilovolts, this ain’t Kansas anymore!
This reminds me of the big Auto companies telling us they’re all for increased mpg standards too, but what about safety?
November 7th, 2007 at 11:19 am(After they fought tooth & nail for years to obstruct revisions in our cafe standards.
There just seems to be no restraint with people anymore. I am shocked that somehow Hitler was omitted from the ad.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:20 amWow. Denying a permit to a big polluter equates with partnering with enemies of the United States…?
Nice. How about they pull this ad down - AFTER they apologize for the inaccuracies…?
November 7th, 2007 at 11:21 amPublish Sebelius CEO’s mug next to those of robber barons John D. Rockefeller, J. Paul Getty and Cornelius Vanderbilt, see how he likes it.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:22 amWhy let a few facts stand in the way of a good opportunity to sling mud!!
November 7th, 2007 at 11:23 amMay be Cheney is smiling, too…. if he is making some money from this deal as well…
His picture should be added! He is already part of the Devil’s TRIO. This would be the Devil’s QUARTET! (What a singer, ahnnn?)
Just what America needs the most now.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:26 amCorporate America: Good neighbors; good people.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:29 am“extreme”
on the right wing it’s the only position they have left.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:30 amwhere’s that picture of w. holding hands with the saudi king when you need it?
November 7th, 2007 at 11:31 ammay have been “a little bit extreme.†= was a bald-faced lie; but whaddya expect? We’re greedy little worms.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:34 amThe Kansans for Affordable Energy must have given Rove a new gig.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:34 am#9, I nearly spit my coffee out!
November 7th, 2007 at 11:36 amThat’d be a perfect counter point “ad”!
Coal industry is a dirty deadly operation. Retreat mining like in Utah has caused numerous deaths, so coal CEOs can shut-up about natural gas.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:37 amThis is standard republican meme. Agree with us on everything, or you’re supporting the terrorists. No wonder they have alienated so many voters.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:37 amAnd importing natural gas from overseas? How, by dirigible?
November 7th, 2007 at 11:46 am#14
right on. the republican rank and file will wake up some day and realize their grand old party is now the john birch society. they’ll quit and join the democrats. thanks karl.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:46 amBut where is the corporate owned, right wing controlled press in pointing out the obvious conflict of interest by those who placed the ads? Where is this same MSM in pointing out the overwhelming evidence of global warming and the potential cost to society of ignoring it?
OH, YES, CORPORATE OWNED AND RIGHT WING CONTROLLED PRESS. OF COURSE.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:46 amMusharaf is also smiling…. Where is his picture???
He got some $10 billion from our money (tax-payers’) and now he gave the finger to everyone. (I guess he adopted Bush’s formula, being above the law…)
Why is the administration so quiet about it? Do they condone it? Do they finance it?
Looks like. Well, they too put themselves above the law here long time ago, got more than a trillion $ from us to “liberate” Iraq, and guess what? They are all smiling too!!!
Geee, we need a bigger board to put the pictures of all those smiling people!!!!
November 7th, 2007 at 11:48 amwhat a bunch of pathetic assholes!
November 7th, 2007 at 11:56 amso rovian!
Typical smear by the Fascist ReichWing Brownshirt Corporate pigs plaguing society today.
They are a disease, a cancer and they need to be cut out and discarded into the trash bin if we are to do survive.
Corporations are killing us for profit and it needs to stop.
How much are you paying now for that “CHEAP” gas the criminals in the WH promised?
We are getting screwed and maybe only 10% of us know what is going on and care, the rest are no paying attention and will be shocked when the depression comes.
Buck Fush
November 7th, 2007 at 12:01 pmAnd importing natural gas from overseas? How, by dirigible?
Comment by pbg — November 7, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Most probably by supertankers carrying liquified Gas…
November 7th, 2007 at 12:04 pmThe point is obvious. The people and the politicians keep talking about being more energy independent, and relying less on foreign sources. Yet government thwarts efforts to do so. Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 7, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
That’s true, because they subsidize big COAL and BIG OIL to the tune of 200 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!!!
Ready for $100+ oil, folks? Ready for $5 gasoline? If not, you’d better make the decision to actually support energy independence, rather than merely talk the talk.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 7, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
The oil industry is, in fact they PREFER it!!! It’s called PROFIT you sad, pathetic little useful idiot of the oil industry!
November 7th, 2007 at 12:04 pmTo take off on what the late Barry Goldwater once said, “Extremism in the defense of corporate greed is no crime…”
In a side note on Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s Resolution for the Impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney, our right-wing San Francisco Chronicle could not get the words “Impeachment” and “Cheney” in their two headlines on the subject. The Chron preferred to say “censure” and “debate”… The Chronicle is still protecting and covering up for the traitorous Cheney and Bush…
November 7th, 2007 at 12:05 pmI especially like their advertisements touting clean coal.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:05 pmWhat an oxymoron.
Nuclear power is safe, cheap, and environmetally sound. Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 7, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Tell that to the people in THREE MILE ISLAND, or all of the investors that have LOST THEIR SHIRTS on those CHEAP plants!
However, the radical environmental movement has done a wonderful disservice to the American people by equating anything nuclear with the atom bomb, when the similarities between the two end at the very moment uranium is pulled from the ground. Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 7, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Says the RADICAL WINGNUT that doesn’t want to save our planet, or have clean air and water! You’re a TRAITOR to our nation and our planet!
We need to make the choice, people. Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 7, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
We HAVE, GET OFF FOSSIL FUELS, and spend that 200 BILLION A YEAR ON ALTERNATIVE ENERGY!
You wingnuts work for the side that only pays lip service! Or didn’t you know that little ‘tard?
November 7th, 2007 at 12:06 pmLittlefoot sez:
Damnit…I forgot to clear the cache in my Irony-Meter…it just cross-referenced this statement with the administration’s hysterical ravings about Iran, and promptly blew itself apart.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:07 pmHowever, the radical environmental movement has done a wonderful disservice to the American people by equating anything nuclear with the atom bomb, when the similarities between the two end at the very moment uranium is pulled from the ground.
So your ok with Iran making Nuclear Power Plants then?
And you must have missed this in the text above: “but the United States doesn’t even “currently import natural gas from Russia, Venezuela or Iran.–
November 7th, 2007 at 12:08 pmEither way, it is sad that Kansas will have to continue to pay higher prices to heat their homes.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:10 pmNuclear power is safe, cheap, and environmetally sound. Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 7, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Tell that to the people who live downwind of the Hanford site in Washington state. Gigantic increases in cancer, and other diseases among the population there, compared to elsewhere.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:10 pm*sigh* How could one person be wrong on sooo many issues all in one post.
The point is obvious. The people and the politicians keep talking about being more energy independent, and relying less on foreign sources. Yet government thwarts efforts to do so.
Didn’t the article say this was THE FIRST time a permit for a coal plant had been turned down?
We have vast natural resources: Coal and oil are abundant right here in the United States and offshore. Yet our own government, prodded by the radical environmental movement, locks us out of our own sources. We will continue to burn oil for the foreseeable future, so the oil must come from somewhere. This is simply reality.
Radical environmental movement?! LOL! That’s laughable.
Nuclear power is safe, cheap, and environmetally sound. However, the radical environmental movement has done a wonderful disservice to the American people by equating anything nuclear with the atom bomb, when the similarities between the two end at the very moment uranium is pulled from the ground.
Umm… ever heard of a melt-down? And what do we do with all those spent rods? The problem with nuclear is that your creating something very dangerous that never goes away once it’s been made.
We need to make the choice, people. Either we truly become energy independent, or we merely pay lip service to the idea and wallow in our false sense of accomplishment while in reality remain beholden to our enemies for the means to create the energy we need.
New flash! It’s possible to reduce our dependence on foreign oil AND protect the evironment at the same time. Oil, coal and nuclear are NOT the ONLY options. Of course you knew that already.
Ready for $100+ oil, folks? Ready for $5 gasoline? If not, you’d better make the decision to actually support energy independence, rather than merely talk the talk.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
I think while 100$ oil may hurt us in the short term, it will act as a very powerful incentive to get us moving onto alternate re-newable energy sources. So I welcome it.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:13 pmI never thought I would say this, but Big O.s right in mu opinion, nuclear power has to be a major part of our energy future. Designs for nuclear plants has moved a long ways, ask Japan or Europe. The waste stream is a problem, but not as bad as dirty coal.
Renewable resources absolutely need to be kicked to the forefront and FUNDED. Where would we be if we had taken the trillion from Bush’s War and invested it in renewables??
And clean coal is achievable with coal gassification. The pollutants are captured in the process.
Renewables and especially conservation are the end game but are not realistic in the short term and intermediate. Nuclear and clean coal have to be part of the solution.
And I am proud to be a radical environmentalist.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:16 pmNuclear power is clean and safe, and I’ll tell it to anyone. It’s cleaner than coal, and safe.
Unfortunately, O. Bigfoot is an advocate for nuclear power, and people around here don’t like him, so if he says it’s good, it must be bad.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:19 pmUmm… ever heard of a melt-down? And what do we do with all those spent rods? The problem with nuclear is that your creating something very dangerous that never goes away once it’s been made.
Tell me the last time there was a melt-down in the US? Anywhere? Nuclear waste can actually be converted into energy as well. Everyone who believes nuclear power is unsafe and will kill us all has been duped.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:21 pmReady for $100+ oil, folks? Ready for $5 gasoline? If not, you’d better make the decision to actually support energy independence, rather than merely talk the talk.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
Continually relying on a finite resource is foolhardy. Continually relying on a finite resource which harms the environment and the entire population of the globe is insanity.
Rather than look to stretch an already limited resource, why not take our expertise and create an alternative which will serve us no and in the future? Why have the brains, we have the need. What is the problem? IMHO, four things are the problem:
1) The petroleum infrastructure has been in place for almost 100 years. The pipes, terminals, delivery methods would all have to be changed or upgraded. The expense would cost billions and definately impact oil companies profits.
2) Entire business segments have been created to service the internal combustion engine. This includes mechanics, auto makers, parts suppliers, manufacturing facilities, even the state with its smog check stations.
3) The oil lobby is huge. There is no incentive for the oil companies to change anything. Status quo is where the money is and that is all that matters. An oil executive is not going to impact his/her quarterly bonus to attempt to ’save the world’.
4) Government makes billions in excise taxes from you purchasing oil. Imagine the impact on our treasury. Until there is a mechanism to replace that lost revenue, don’t expect much assistance from Washington.
Until we address these concerns, change is not going to happen.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:23 pmThey’re smiling because they are about to drop the dollar.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:23 pmNuclear power is safe, cheap, and environmetally sound. However, the radical environmental movement has done a wonderful disservice to the American people by equating anything nuclear with the atom bomb, when the similarities between the two end at the very moment uranium is pulled from the ground.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 7, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
So are you saying that the radical environmental movement is responsible for the neocons beating the war drums with Iran?
November 7th, 2007 at 12:24 pmWhy do we need to import natural gas, anyway? We’ve got Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Robertson, Giuliani, Ney, Abramoff, Santorum, …
November 7th, 2007 at 12:25 pmmay have been “a little bit extreme.â€
So this is what they call big assed lies now days.
Maybe this is like a little bit pregnant.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:26 pmTell me the last time there was a melt-down in the US? Anywhere? Nuclear waste can actually be converted into energy as well. Everyone who believes nuclear power is unsafe and will kill us all has been duped.
Comment by Ike Skelton
I’m guessing you’re joking, but I’ll post this just for idiots that don’t know this stuff:
Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, USA, in 1979
EBR-I, Idaho, USA, in 1955
Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Simi Hills, California, in 1959
SL-1, Idaho, USA in 1961. (US military)
Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station, Michigan, USA, in 1966
And those are the ones we KNOW ABOUT.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:26 pmThey’re smiling because they are about to drop the dollar.
Comment by Che — November 7, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Well the dollar is dropping itself, who can blame them?
November 7th, 2007 at 12:27 pmWhy won’t the power companies just use clean coal technologies that are available and pass the cost on?
November 7th, 2007 at 12:29 pmWhy are Republicans so damned greedy that they’re willing to destroy the environment for a few measely dollars?
A little bit extreme? That’s like a little bit pregnant.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:29 pmEither way, it is sad that Kansas will have to continue to pay higher prices to heat their homes.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 7, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
It will be even sadder when their children develop Asthma and die because an Oil Executive is too greedy to use available technology to reduce pollution! Why do you Republicans hate our children and support the goal of the terrorists to kill them?
November 7th, 2007 at 12:32 pmI’m guessing you’re joking, but I’ll post this just for idiots that don’t know this stuff:
Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, USA, in 1979
EBR-I, Idaho, USA, in 1955
Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Simi Hills, California, in 1959
SL-1, Idaho, USA in 1961. (US military)
Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station, Michigan, USA, in 1966
And those are the ones we KNOW ABOUT.
1979 Keep hiding under your desk pal.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:34 pmIke, don’t forget that crowning Nuclear Achievement known as CHERNOBYL!!!
November 7th, 2007 at 12:35 pm0. Bigfoot,
1.) Yet government thwarts efforts to do so.
No, your govt is doing everything it can to feed the addiction. Did ya forget that bush/cheney are oil junkies themselves?
2.) Yet our own government, prodded by the radical environmental movement, locks us out of our own sources.
No, your govt has opened-up vast areas of the west for oil, gas and coal exploration. Wyoming is a perfect example. Public opinion is against opening up ANWR for exploitation. The majority of americans agree there should be some limits. We’re not the only creatures on the planet, ya know!
3.) Nuclear power is safe, cheap, and environmetally sound. However, the radical environmental movement has done a wonderful disservice to the American people by equating anything nuclear with the atom bomb, when the similarities between the two end at the very moment uranium is pulled from the ground.
You mean kinda like the situation with your govt and iran?
The “radical environmental movement” may equate nuclear power with three mile island, chernobyl and nuclear waste which remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years, but not the atom bomb. (i know, you don’t give a hoot about future generations!)
4.) We need to make the choice, people.
The people have, you are in the minority. The majority of americans are in favor of conservation, greater fuel effciency and safe and clean alternative energy sources. You, sir, are in the minority.
5.) Ready for $100+ oil, folks? Ready for $5 gasoline?
Yes! It is inevitable no matter how much we exploit our resources. China and India are fast becoming oil and coal gluttons just like the good ol’ UsofA!
Hugs,
November 7th, 2007 at 12:36 pmElf, The Radical Environmentalist
1979 Keep hiding under your desk pal.
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
Yeah! And don’t forget all the positive uses of all that nuclear waste, like irradiating beef and Iraqi corpses!
November 7th, 2007 at 12:39 pmChernobyl, yes. There have been many safety features implemented since then. Most notably Chernobyl didn’t have secondary containment structures, which would have helped contain radioactive material that escaped.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:40 pmOxyCon,
Our country is willing to pay the premium for clean coal, it adds about 20% to the cost vs dirty coal combustion, but the power companies won’t/can’t do it until forced to by regulation. We need some real leaders in Washington, not some smirking Chimp with a hard on for Muslims.
Power companies fought SO2 regulations tooth and nail and claimed they were going to kill the economy, but once it was passed, there was no problem meeting the requirements. And America’s economy was still doing fine, pre-Chimp of course.
Take $100 million from Bush’s War and invest in clean coal and renewables instead of killing Iraqis. But you would have to convince the Repugnicunts to quench their bloodlust elsewhere.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:43 pmTake $100 million from Bush’s War and invest in clean coal and renewables instead of killing Iraqis. But you would have to convince the Repugnicunts to quench their bloodlust elsewhere.
Comment by nanlichi — November 7, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
$100 million?
November 7th, 2007 at 12:47 pmThat’s only about 6 hours worth of funding for the iraq invasion!
1979 Keep hiding under your desk pal.
Comment by Ike Skelton
That’s just melt-downs in that list, which represents the most severe kind of accident that can happen. There are a lot of smaller scale accidents happenning all the time. Here is a list of civilian radiation accidents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ List_of_civilian_radiation_accidents
You’ll notice there are many that happenned as recently as LAST YEAR, and yes, several in the US.
There are also military radiation accidents and many other types of accidents not listed in this list. I could go on all day pointing out potential hazzards of nuclear plants.
And again, I’ll point out that these are the accidents we KNOW ABOUT. You don’t think anything has gone wrong with any plants that we don’t know about?
November 7th, 2007 at 12:47 pmEither way, it is sad that Kansas will have to continue to pay higher prices to heat their homes.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 7, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
But Bush has an alternative! Sign-up to fight in Iraq where you can enjoy both the climate-based and the war-based heat. Why, he even has an eternal plan for being warm - join him in his evil politics and then join him in hell.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:49 pmEither way, it is sad that Kansas will have to continue to pay higher prices to heat their homes.
Comment by Roger_Roger — November 7, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
We ALL will have to pay higher prices to heat our homes! It’s the price we pay for gluttony.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:58 pmDigDug,
What are you, some sort of paranoid conspiracy theorist? Look out for those nuclear power plants that we don’t know about!
You could go on all day pointing out potential hazards of nuclear power plants, but you could go on just as long listing actual hazards of coal fired plants.
Many of those accidents listed have no connection to nuclear plants. In the last forty years of production, not one single fatality has occurred as a result of the operation of a civilian nuclear power plant in the United States.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:00 pmI bet if you ask Kansas folk whether they would be willing to pay a little more to heat their homes in exchange for fewer dead and dying soldiers in Iraq, they would pony up.
There’s more to life than the almighty dollar RR. Well, I guess I shouldn’t put words in your mouth, but there’s more in my life than dollars, but I am not a Repugnicunt Bush sycophant and can’t speak for that population.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:02 pmWhat are you, some sort of paranoid conspiracy theorist? Look out for those nuclear power plants that we don’t know about!
I didn’t say power plants we don’t know about, I said accidents we don’t know about. The melt down in Simi Valley (20 miles from where I live) was covered up for years. So, you don’t think corporations ever try to cover up their accidents. Seems a little naive to me…
You could go on all day pointing out potential hazards of nuclear power plants, but you could go on just as long listing actual hazards of coal fired plants.
Who said I’m advocating for coal?
Many of those accidents listed have no connection to nuclear plants. In the last forty years of production, not one single fatality has occurred as a result of the operation of a civilian nuclear power plant in the United States.
Comment by Ike Skelton
Wrong. The one here in Simi Valley is believed to have caused the deaths of over 100 people. They just died of cancer slowly over the years after it happenned.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:13 pmA new study now says the meltdown, which was only made public in 1979, caused an estimated 260 to 1,800 cases of cancer “over a period of many decades.”
right on. the republican rank and file will wake up some day and realize their grand old party is now the john birch society. they’ll quit and join the democrats. thanks karl.
Don’t knock the John Birch Society. They are very strongly against the assault on our constitution and on the Bush Administration supporting torture. Go to their main page and read the headlines. It surprised me that I agreed with a lot of what they were saying. Tis strange times we are living through.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:25 pmI am a Kansan and a huge fan of Kathleen Sebelius. She’s the best governor we’ve had in years, and has gone so far in bridging the gap between the right and left it’s not even funny.
She’s a leader.
She’s deserves more credit for what she’s done.
She’s going to be a force in national politics… soon!
November 7th, 2007 at 1:27 pmWrong. You said: “You don’t think anything has gone wrong with any plants that we don’t know about?”
And when did this Simi Valley accident occur? 1959. 2007-1959=48. 48>40.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:31 pmWe need to make the choice, people. Either we truly become energy independent, or we merely pay lip service to the idea and wallow in our false sense of accomplishment while in reality remain beholden to our enemies for the means to create the energy we need.
Ready for $100+ oil, folks? Ready for $5 gasoline? If not, you’d better make the decision to actually support energy independence, rather than merely talk the talk.
Comment by O. Bigfoot
So, I suppose that you support raising the CAFE standards for automobiles, building autos that run off of alternative energies and you would encourage creating energy from sustainable resources. Wow BigFootInMouth, you have changed your position. You are sounding a lot like a Democrat.
Except for the fact that your entire post was to support nuclear power. And all I have to say about that is that just because there have not been any Chernobyl’s in the US doesn’t mean that it won’t happen. I would prefer that we find alternative forms of energy that won’t kill hundreds of thousands of people if it goes wrong, thank you very much.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:32 pmI am a Kansan and a huge fan of Kathleen Sebelius. She’s the best governor we’ve had in years, and has gone so far in bridging the gap between the right and left it’s not even funny.
She’s a leader.
She’s deserves more credit for what she’s done.
She’s going to be a force in national politics… soon!
Comment by Geekfather — November 7, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
I would agree!
November 7th, 2007 at 1:33 pmChernobyl, yes. There have been many safety features implemented since then. Most notably Chernobyl didn’t have secondary containment structures, which would have helped contain radioactive material that escaped.
Comment by Ike Skelton
But then, Loon Skelton, there is the problem that our nuclear power plants are magnets for terrorists who would want to hurt us (you know, the ones that are under everyone’s beds).
There are lots of ways we can produce clean energy and there are many new emerging technologies. I read recently that if we were to truly move towards energy independence, it would be a boon to our economy and employment through all the new companies researching and producing cleaner and more reliable forms of energy.
I wonder how many people in this country know about Peak Oil and know that we have reached the peak and are now on the downside. That means that every year that goes by, more and more countries are going to be fighting for what is left of the finite resource of oil on this earth. If we don’t start moving towards alternative energy sources soon, we will be forced to fight wars with other countries so that we can have the oil we need, not just the oil we want.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:39 pmYou people are, for the most part, idiots. Loon Skelton? That right there, ended any chance you had of making a valid point. What are you, George Dubya? “The terrorists are gonna git us!” Fantastic argument!
November 7th, 2007 at 1:42 pmAs John Prime sang it:
November 7th, 2007 at 1:48 pm“And daddy won’t you take me back to Muhlenberg County
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay
Well, I’m sorry my son, but you’re too late in asking
Mister Peabody’s coal train has hauled it away”
Wrong. You said: “You don’t think anything has gone wrong with any plants that we don’t know about?â€
And when did this Simi Valley accident occur? 1959. 2007-1959=48. 48>40.
Comment by Ike Skelton
You said not one person has died from this in the last 40 years. In Simi Valley people are still dying from it today.
Anyway my previous link that I posted talked about radiation leaks effecting people (here in the US) as recent as last year. They may be the next set of cancer cases popping up over the next few decades.
And what about all the spent rods being buried in the Colorado mountains, and all the controversy about whether the site was really built correctly and whether it would leak. If it does leak, we’re talking about it leaking for like the next 30,000 years. Really, I’d rather have some wind farms built near me than that kind of crap.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:59 pmThere’s no use arguing with you over this. You’re not going to listen to reason. I said nothing about any residual effects of an accident that happened over 40 years ago.
So then, what do you propose instead of nuclear energy? Wind is a good market, however, it will never reach the level that we need to offset all of our fossil fuel plants.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:05 pmI’m not going to get into the whole nuclear energy debate. It’s too emotional and full of disinformation. However, I am reminded of a documentary I saw several years ago (I think it was on Frontline, but, I don’t recall with any certainty.)
Anyway, the makers of this documentary asked the question: Who is funding the “anti-nuke” lobby?
Guess what. It’s the oil industry.
I think that, if we follow the money, we will find that most of the resistance to “alternative energy” comes from the oil lobby. Let’s face it. They are about the only lobby that has the clout, and cash, to exert influence on so many fronts. They can certainly outspend the Sierra Club.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:16 pmThere’s no use arguing with you over this. You’re not going to listen to reason.
Just beacuse your arguements have failed to sway me doesn’t mean I’m not listening and considering your arguements and their merits.
I said nothing about any residual effects of an accident that happened over 40 years ago.
And as I pointed out (and provided a link) there have been more recent accidents.
And there’s all the buried spent rods that may leak.
So then, what do you propose instead of nuclear energy? Wind is a good market, however, it will never reach the level that we need to offset all of our fossil fuel plants.
Comment by Ike Skelton
Actually, every study that I’ve read about says that it can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Wind_power#Theoretical_potential
November 7th, 2007 at 2:22 pm“Wind’s long-term theoretical potential is much greater than current world energy consumption. The most comprehensive study to date[43] found the potential of wind power on land and near-shore to be 72 TW (~171,000 Mtoe), or over fifteen times the world’s current energy use and 40 times the current electricity use.”
Anyway, the makers of this documentary asked the question: Who is funding the “anti-nuke†lobby?
Guess what. It’s the oil industry.
Yeah, that doesn’t surprise me at all. The longer we continue to use fossil fuels as we are, the longer they stand to profit.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:22 pmThat’s theoretical.
Do you work in the electric power industry? The practicality lessens when you go into everything else that is necessary to have a successful wind farm.. At least at this point in time, and the near future. Someday perhaps we’ll have a huge national network of EHV transmission lines, but today we don’t have what we need. Wind farms are going up left and right, and GE’s production of turbines is so high that they can’t keep up with demand. That still isn’t going to reduce fossil fuel use enough.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:29 pmSo we’ll import more nat. gas from foreign countries? Are we that hard up for nat. gas in this country?
Gas companies are putting holes in the ground all over SW Va and pumping out the gas, including the land owned by neighbors and several members of my family. Just last week they raped part of the land owned by my aunt, land which borders that of my Mom, to cut a road around to the well site. This will make 3 wells within a half mile radius. Oh, and each of these wells are expected to produce gas for about 25 years.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:35 pmAs a rabid environmentalist I think wind is the worst of our choices. Sure it’s renewable but it frigging ugly as hell. Do we really want to pollute the visual environment with these ugly mosters on the shores and ridges?
Rooftop solar is a tad more expensive, but in the west and southwest, the energy is very plentiful and the real estate is already there.
Ocean energy, both tidal and wave has a great potential. And all of these need some sort of storage (like hydrogen) to be reliable.
But we are blowing smoke if we don’t think that centralized power is not going to be part of the solution unless we see some very serious conservation. Clean coal and nuclear are the best available, although they also have some ugly warts.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:36 pmThat’s theoretical.
Every study I’ve read about says that we have enormous amounts of wind energy. Way more than we need.
Do you work in the electric power industry?
No. Do you?
That still isn’t going to reduce fossil fuel use enough.
Comment by Ike Skelton
You know this for a fact?
November 7th, 2007 at 2:38 pmAs a rabid environmentalist I think wind is the worst of our choices. Sure it’s renewable but it frigging ugly as hell. Do we really want to pollute the visual environment with these ugly mosters on the shores and ridges?
That’s another very good point. Turbines are huge, majestic structures, and many people are opposed to having them in their area. Transmission lines already generate a huge amount of opposition, and visual character of the area is very important to many people. Wind turbines, coupled with the necessary transmission infrastructure, will create a huge number of structures cluttering up the countryside. I’m all for wind power, but as I’ve stated before, it won’t solve our problems, and can’t be thought of as the next major source of electrical generation.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:41 pmAs a rabid environmentalist I think wind is the worst of our choices. Sure it’s renewable but it frigging ugly as hell. Do we really want to pollute the visual environment with these ugly mosters on the shores and ridges?
A bit south of us there is a big wind farm near Palm Springs. It’s in the desert in the middle of no where. No one from Palm Springs can see it from where they live or play, but they still get the power. There are lots places you can put them so they’ll be out of site.
Personally I’m not married to the idea of wind power. I think ultimately it wil be combination of alternative energy sources that replace oil.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:41 pmSo then, what do you propose instead of nuclear energy? Wind is a good market, however, it will never reach the level that we need to offset all of our fossil fuel plants.
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
How about we divert the 200 BILLION we spend a year subsidizing oil, and find out?
Wind, Solar (various kinds), Ocean Wave, GeoThermal, BioFuels, Water (micro hydro), Conservation through more efficient technology (already available), etc.
The problem is that people expect that there’s 1 and ONLY ONE solution, when in fact there are lots of solutions that we can use today. Many of them just take the kinds of investment that the Government can generate in order to either become more cost effective through volume, or perfected through research.
You could do a lot more good through applying the money that would go to one Nuclear plant, by simply applying it as a research or purchase subsidy to an alternative.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:08 pmThat’s another very good point. Turbines are huge, majestic structures, and many people are opposed to having them in their area. Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
No wonder you love Nuclear, you think in only BIG POWER PLANT approaches. Why not have a small wind solution - there are several under development. They even include small ones that fit on the top of houses and buildings inconspicuously.
Transmission lines already generate a huge amount of opposition, and visual character of the area is very important to many people. Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
That’s because they are really 19th century technology! It’s time to invest in upgrading the grid to modern power transmission that’s properly shielded and less dangerous!
Wind turbines, coupled with the necessary transmission infrastructure, will create a huge number of structures cluttering up the countryside. Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Wrong, WRONG, WRONG!!!
I’m all for wind power, but as I’ve stated before, it won’t solve our problems, and can’t be thought of as the next major source of electrical generation.
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
IT, IT? You really are small minded. Why does IT have to solve ALL OF THE PROBLEMS???? That’s a completely stupid comment!
November 7th, 2007 at 3:11 pmPersonally I’m not married to the idea of wind power. I think ultimately it wil be combination of alternative energy sources that replace oil.
Comment by DigDug — November 7, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
That’s a very reasonable approach so, of course, our legislators will ignore it, lol. Seriously though, there are many things we can do, to reduce fossil fuel consumption, and more are discovered every day. Heck, the crap we grind up in “garbage disposals”, and plant in landfills, is full of energy potential. None of these options will gain any momentum until we:
a. Check our emotions at the door and rationally weigh the alternatives.
or…
b. Break the stranglehold of the fossil fuel lobby.
Unfortunately the first can only occur through a change in human nature and the second can only occur if we revamp our, corrupt, political system. I’m not holding my breath.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:14 pmHey, mr republicans, calm down. Do you work in the industry?
November 7th, 2007 at 3:16 pmAnd please, tell me about the future of electrical transmission!
November 7th, 2007 at 3:17 pmWell, thanks for the input republicans, it was really insightful stuff.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:29 pmHey, mr republicans, calm down. Do you work in the industry?
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Calm Down? Stop projecting troll… As for where or what I work in, why do you care? Looking for an excuse to dismiss the facts I’ve given you like MOST REPUBLICANS prefer to do?
And please, tell me about the future of electrical transmission!
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
Do your own research troll - you now have a starting point you didn’t know existed.
Well, thanks for the input republicans, it was really insightful stuff. Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
You shouldn’t act like a republican, and call others one, it makes you look like just the kind of stupid troll we’ve come to expect from the Nuclear energy industry.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pmAre you mentally retarded? Where in the world did you get the idea that I’m a republican? You’ve probably never seen me post before. Simply because I support nuclear energy I’m automatically a republican? Typical of your type, if my views differ from yours I must be evil, and evil is republicans, so I’m now a republican.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:35 pmIke never mentioned what industry he worked for, wonder why?
Yet another Nuclear power industry hack, here peddling his disinformation. Ike, I didn’t give you INPUT as though it were UP TO YOU TO DECIDE, I corrected your LIES and IGNORANCE. Catch a clue!
November 7th, 2007 at 3:35 pmIf you don’t work in the industry I don’t want to hear what you think is going on. No insider, no care.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:36 pmAre you mentally retarded? Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Are you?
Where in the world did you get the idea that I’m a republican? You’ve probably never seen me post before. Simply because I support nuclear energy I’m automatically a republican? Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Because you post the same propaganda that every other Nuclear Energy backed troll posted pretty much makes you an industry shill, irrespective of your party. The way you post propaganda however, pretty much ensures you are one.
Typical of your type, if my views differ from yours I must be evil, and evil is republicans, so I’m now a republican.
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Now that was CLASSIC REPUBLICAN! You indeed proved exactly what YOUR TYPE classically does!
November 7th, 2007 at 3:37 pmOh, you must be a republican because you don’t seem to like facts either, or at least you don’t care about getting them right.
I do work in the power industry. And no, I’m not a Nuclear power industry hack, nor am I specifically in the nuclear industry.
Get a job man.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:37 pmIf you don’t work in the industry I don’t want to hear what you think is going on. No insider, no care.
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Ah, so you DO work for the industry!!! See I was 100% RIGHT! That explains your PROPAGANDA!!!
I was also right that in typical GOP FASHION, you only care about the source of the person that delivers the facts - and will chose to ignore all facts that don’t fit your preconception. That’s why we KNOW you’re a REPUBLICAN HACK - your mind is not that of a liberal or a progressive. Let me guess, you call yourself a LIBERTARIAN, but mostly vote REPUBLICAN?
November 7th, 2007 at 3:39 pmOK, you’ve confirmed it… you’re mentally retarded, or you have some sort of developmental disorder. Good for you for learning how to operate this strange mechanical device called a computer!
November 7th, 2007 at 3:39 pmYou moron, I work in the power industry, not the NUCLEAR industry.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:39 pmOh, you must be a republican because you don’t seem to like facts either, or at least you don’t care about getting them right. Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
BAHAHA, Ironic coming from the republican troll!
I do work in the power industry. And no, I’m not a Nuclear power industry hack, nor am I specifically in the nuclear industry.
Get a job man.
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Get a job? What’s yours, PROPAGANDA? Typical GOP HACK, always whine about GET A JOB, when you show they’re PROPAGANDA HACKS! WHINE WHINE WHINE!!!
November 7th, 2007 at 3:40 pmActually I vote democrat. And you’re retarded, but keep typing out your extreme left wing bs, and keep telling yourself you’re right.
Dude, liberals are the new republicans.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:41 pmYou moron, I work in the power industry, not the NUCLEAR industry.
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
You moron, I know that, yet you are here shilling for the NUCLEAR industry. Why’s that?
November 7th, 2007 at 3:41 pmActually I vote democrat. And you’re retarded, but keep typing out your extreme left wing bs, and keep telling yourself you’re right. Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
Don’t believe you. What’s extreme left wing about me? What exactly was extreme left wing about any of my posts?
Dude, liberals are the new republicans.
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
WTF? That’s exactly what a REPUBLICAN would say!
November 7th, 2007 at 3:42 pmHahah, you’ve got to be some sort of troll! Nobody serious on here does this kind of thing.. I’ve only seen it from trolls who will argue with anyone about anything and keep calling them names and saying propaganda this and propaganda that and such. You’re amusing.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:42 pmI believe someone once used the term concern troll. I think that is what you are.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:42 pmWTF? That’s exactly what a REPUBLICAN would say!
WTFmate??? THATS exactly what a republican would say!!!
November 7th, 2007 at 3:43 pmHahah, you’ve got to be some sort of troll! Nobody serious on here does this kind of thing.. I’ve only seen it from trolls who will argue with anyone about anything and keep calling them names and saying propaganda this and propaganda that and such. You’re amusing.
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Typical GOP troll…
November 7th, 2007 at 3:43 pmI believe someone once used the term concern troll. I think that is what you are.
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Actually several people have, including me, and I’m guessing it was AGAINST YOU! Because you said you’d never posted here before, yet here you go, debunking your own residence here!
WTF? That’s exactly what a REPUBLICAN would say!
WTFmate??? THATS exactly what a republican would say!!!
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
Typical republican.
Bad mouth ALL alternative energy but NUCLEAR, and then whine that progressives are republicans because they call you on it!
What a ‘tard!
November 7th, 2007 at 3:44 pmSo tell us oh ENERGY INDUSTRY EXPERT, why do you know SO LITTLE about the developments in the ENERGY INDUSTRY?
November 7th, 2007 at 3:45 pmKeep calling me a troll, you troll!
November 7th, 2007 at 3:46 pmYou moron, I didn’t bad mouth any alternative energy source. Comprehension > you.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:47 pmKeep calling me a troll, you troll!
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
Yep, another GOP troll outed, you people are pathetic!
While our planet dies, you keep turning up the heat!
November 7th, 2007 at 3:47 pmYou moron, I didn’t bad mouth any alternative energy source. Comprehension > you.
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
Actually you did. You kept talking about how wind wasn’t THE SOLUTION, and basically poohpoohing it. Sorry, but you WERE trolling.
Wind is AAAAA Solution, one of MANY, that if you were an ENERGY INDUSTRY PERSON you would know! You seem to have brain damage.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:48 pmI already gave you a solution Ike, why are you TROLLING instead of answering what I wrote?
How about we divert the 200 BILLION we spend a year subsidizing oil, and find out?
Wind, Solar (various kinds), Ocean Wave, GeoThermal, BioFuels, Water (micro hydro), Conservation through more efficient technology (already available), etc.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:49 pmInstead your response was to say you aren’t interested in what I have to say, if I’m not an INSIDER. The CLASSIC response of a TROLL!!!
November 7th, 2007 at 3:50 pmStill waiting TROLL!!!
Why won’t this work?
How about we divert the 200 BILLION we spend a year subsidizing oil, and find out?
Wind, Solar (various kinds), Ocean Wave, GeoThermal, BioFuels, Water (micro hydro), Conservation through more efficient technology (already available), etc.
Or are you just IGNORANT of all of the scope that those alternatives might have?
November 7th, 2007 at 3:58 pmOh no, I’ve been outed by so-and-so as a “troll” My life is practically over. And I’m not a troll you retard, but you probably are. Keep talking to me though, you seem to enjoy it. And I never poo poo’d wind energy, I said it wasn’t the only solution, like you said I said. Lots of people have said it’s not the solution.
November 7th, 2007 at 4:10 pmIf you don’t work in the industry I don’t want to hear what you think is going on. No insider, no care.
Comment by Ike Skelton
Hmm… I think we’ve all heard this kind of thing before.
Maybe you are in the industry, and maybe you do have some insider knowledge that explains why wind and other alternatives won’t work, or won’t in your words, “be enough to replace fossil fuels”, but if you don’t give any examples, or specifics (other than saying we don’t currently have the power infastructure), than people are just going to dismiss your claim of having inside knowledge as simple BS.
November 7th, 2007 at 4:15 pmIf you don’t work in the industry I don’t want to hear what you think is going on. No insider, no care.
Comment by Ike Skelton
At any rate this certainly doesn’t add anything to the discussion.
November 7th, 2007 at 4:17 pmAt any rate this certainly doesn’t add anything to the discussion.
Adds nothing at all, but the legitimate discussion ended when republicans started spewing off accusations and such.
November 7th, 2007 at 4:22 pmNuclear power is safe, cheap, and environmetally sound. However, the radical environmental movement has done a wonderful disservice to the American people by equating anything nuclear with the atom bomb, when the similarities between the two end at the very moment uranium is pulled from the ground.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 7, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
Hey, a right-winger who SUPPORTS Iran’s quest for a nuclear program.
Ready for $100+ oil, folks? Ready for $5 gasoline? If not, you’d better make the decision to actually support energy independence, rather than merely talk the talk.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — November 7, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
And have you checked the current price for a barrel of oil lately? We’re just a few dollars away from the $100+ mark. Also, if you had half a brain (of course, look who I’m responding to), you’d know that even if the US oil fields were open, the cost would STILL move past the $100+ mark in no time. If ANWAR were opened to drilling tomorrow, it still wouldn’t help OUR needs. BushCo already has plans to sell more than 75% of that oil to Japan and China. Plus let’s not forget the cost that would be added on to pay for upgrades and improvements to the existing pipeline system. And, of course, the fields in the lower 48 and offshore are only now (thanks to the fact that oil’s gone over $50/barrel) becoming even remotely cost-effective to consider drilling. The reason that the Texas and Oklahoma fields “dried up” was because it cost the drillers more to extract the oil than they could get selling it. Then, too, we’ve got to consider that the Gulf of Mexico oil rigs are subject to hurricane cycles (enough powerful hurricanes hitting the Gulf would cause oil prices to skyrocket as much as a cutoff from the Middle East).
November 7th, 2007 at 5:07 pmAnd, if BushCo have their way and attack Iran, we’ll see oil prices exploding (quite possibly, a 50% increase on just the first day of any such attack).
Oh no, I’ve been outed by so-and-so as a “troll†My life is practically over. And I’m not a troll you retard, but you probably are. Keep talking to me though, you seem to enjoy it. And I never poo poo’d wind energy, I said it wasn’t the only solution, like you said I said. Lots of people have said it’s not the solution.
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Still waiting for you to respond to my inquiry - but in typical troll fashion, all you can do is personally attack.
As for you false wind claim, you did in fact poo poo wind, and I corrected your assertion.
Wind turbines, coupled with the necessary transmission infrastructure, will create a huge number of structures cluttering up the countryside. Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
See, you’re a proven liar, troll.
November 7th, 2007 at 5:56 pmAdds nothing at all, but the legitimate discussion ended when republicans started spewing off accusations and such.
Comment by Ike Skelton — November 7, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
That’s a very accurate description of your REPUBLICAN POSTS.
November 7th, 2007 at 5:57 pmAnd TROLL, to help you out, here’s a wikipedia entry on wind turbines. Not only do lots of them NOT clutter up the environment, many are in fact quite attractive additions to it!
http://peswiki.com/ index.php/ Directory:Home_Generation:Wind_Turbine
If you’re going to be in the ENERGY INDUSTRY, perhaps you should improve your basic working knowledge! Because these posts here completely undermine any credibility you have, and make you sound like an ignorant fool!
November 7th, 2007 at 6:19 pmam i reading this right? - a democrat with a spine?? - the rest of ‘em could learn a lot from sebelius
November 7th, 2007 at 7:27 pmThe ad wasn’t “a little bit extreme.†IT WAS A LIE. Lies should be called lies.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:27 am