digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

State of Kansas Kills Coal Plants

greenoptions.com — For the first time ever, The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) denied permits to two large, 700-megawatt plants proposed by Sunflower Electric Power. The KDHE denied a coal plant permit solely on the basis of its carbon dioxide emissions.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • granolajoe, on 10/24/2007, -8/+46Wow I never thought I'd see the day this happened. Awesome
    • sanman, on 10/23/2007, -4/+10I think it's because they weren't Intelligently Designed enough
    • WhereAmI, on 10/23/2007, -0/+9And...from Kansas...
    • SouthsideIrish, on 10/24/2007, -6/+5So, what do you replace it with, when the state runs out of power. Coal, no,. nuclear no. Ah, wind No, maybe solar panels.
      • jgzman, on 10/23/2007, -0/+7Nuclear, yes.
      • fastfood15, on 10/24/2007, -0/+11Kansas actually has led the nation in developing wind farms. Imagine vast rolling hills, with no natural barriers to wind, and plop down thousands of windmills. That's the new landscape in many areas.
        • sanman, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3Just imagine, Toto! Windfarms, windmills, and landscape - oh my!

          There's no place like home!
          There's no place like home!
          There's no place like home!
      • earlycj5, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Plenty of wind in KS. Already a few windfarms too.

        The plants were mainly for selling electricity out of state anyway. KS would only use 15% of the electricity. I don't see that this will cause us to "run out".
      • PeachesTheCow, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1Efficiency, Efficiency, and oh yes, Efficiency. There is no need to build new generators of any kind if we design things more efficiently.
    • p0s3r, on 10/28/2007, -6/+9He thinks it's awesome because he doesn't live in Kansas and won't suffer the repercussions.
      • WhereAmI, on 10/23/2007, -1/+10I wasn't aware Kansas was suffering from power consumption.
        • ReinMasamuri, on 10/23/2007, -6/+5Well they didn't... until they start to close all these coal plants...
          • Ajajadude, on 10/23/2007, -1/+6...was this one ever open?
          • bgraves20, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4They aren't closing any plants...they just wouldn't let two new ones open. And the new plants would have been in far western Kansas, a place hardly suffering from using too much power...
          • licoricewhip, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Well, that's kinda the same thing that happened to oil refineries, too. Take away supply in the face of increasing demand and what do you have?
    • brad3378, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4I'm not so concerned about Coal usage in the USA. We're overall pretty good about environmental regulations. - The big question is how do we encourage other countries (like China) to do the same thing? Like it or not, this is a big problem because coal is a cheap form of energy.
  • theNazz, on 10/23/2007, -17/+7According to the Bush White House, coal is the future...
    >smirk
    • gtluke, on 10/23/2007, -1/+16the bush white house is the reason why we had our first nuke plant permit approved in 30 years
      • WhereAmI, on 10/23/2007, -1/+7One of the only things I am glad he has done.
      • projectstartrek, on 10/23/2007, -4/+5That sounds like one of the Cheney branch's decisions.
      • PeachesTheCow, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1Efficiency, Efficiency, and oh yes, Efficiency. There is no need to build new generators of any kind if we design things more efficiently.
  • ChazHollywood, on 10/29/2007, -32/+9Wow I never thought I'd see the day this happened. Terrible.
    • WhereAmI, on 10/24/2007, -6/+12What are you talking about? Coal is one of the least efficient and most polluting ways of generating electricity.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4And some of the efforts to make smokestacks "clean" have made the problem worse. They reduce the pollution to nanoparticles that your body has little to no chance of filtering.
  • CaCardinal, on 10/24/2007, -3/+28Thank you Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Anyone would be lucky to have you as their VP.
    • fastfood15, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2she would be a great VP
    • darknephilim, on 10/23/2007, -5/+3Except for the fact that she doesn't do *****...
  • duniyadnd, on 10/24/2007, -4/+31Thank you Kansas!
  • plr4ever, on 10/24/2007, -15/+5Beautiful. Now watch them build 4 Oil plants in place of those 2 coals.

    Go Green!!
    • winmywii, on 10/23/2007, -0/+9What is this SimCity?
    • unreg, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Or just build them in a neighboring state, perhaps one that is upwind.

      I think the Kansas regulatory commission should have approved the plants with a stipulation that the CO2 footprint be reduced to a particular threshold value, perhaps that of a Natural Gas fired unit of equal capacity.
    • heystoopid, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1No build plants using this product instead called shale oil
      link http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio ...
    • BigLick, on 10/27/2007, -1/+1What exactly is an "Oil Pant"?
  • Stevanoski, on 10/24/2007, -31/+25Let's see, the Left Progressive here on Digg hate, coal, gas, oil and nuclear. Well, with winter coming on perhaps they will show leadership and go without for us all to see how the stoneage will look when they are in charge.
    • Murdats, on 10/23/2007, -4/+24I am not sure what your fubar'd political terms mean but I hate coal, oil (power) and gas im not to comfortable with, but I think you will find a large portion of those who share my views on those matters are also in favour of nuclear power, at the very least to fill the gap until better methods become feasable for large scale generation (atm wind, solar, etc... are not 'yet' suitable, yes they may be in labs or in the future but that doesnt mean we should keep using coal for the next decade or 2 till they can be rolled out)
      • SouthsideIrish, on 10/24/2007, -4/+4But you can't go nuclear. Can't get federal permits, so there is no other choices for Kansas. Great job Gov!
      • unreg, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2Periods are our friends.
        • Ajajadude, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6Well.... not if you have a girlfriend.
        • Murdats, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1i know, it was late, i was tired and couldnt be stuffed putting in that much effort (sorry for assaulting your eyes)
    • Ajajadude, on 10/24/2007, -3/+21It's a matter of degrees. Coal plants are pretty nasty when it comes to what gets pumped into the air.
      • SiNN4R, on 10/23/2007, -3/+7Not to mention the accidents that result from coal mining.
      • bratpack8, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2Coal is actually getting cleaner and cleaner, and is by far, the most economical of our American energy sources. I'm not saying it is perfect, as all energy puts off waste. A great book to read on this subject is called 'Energy: The Master Resource.' Very unbiased and reviews every form of energy and the pros and cons of each. Was very educational. I hope we get back to exploring nuclear energy again, as it can power most of this country if allowed to.
        • grumpyrain, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3Um, it is not getting cleaner. The power generation phase is getting less woeful with the reduction of mercury and scrubbers, but there is a long way from there to clean. In an average year, such a plant can emit something like 30 ton of U-235 (yes, the bad stuff) directly into our atmosphere. Coal mining (especially strip mining) is certainly nowhere near green. Transporting the 9000 ton of coal per day required by plants of this size is also far from clean.

          In terms of economical, what are you talking about? If you mean with today's pricing structure which does not charge for carbon emissions, then of course it is going to be cheaper in the short term. In the long term, you have to deal with the ever increasing ppm of carbon in our atmosphere and the reducing capacity of our ecosystem to counter it, and that will be by no means cheap. The end goal for coal stations is to sequestrate the carbon back underground, not zero emissions. Such technology will probably remove any pricing advantage it has over nuclear. (You know nuclear would be more 'economical' if we didn't demand safe waste management practices).
    • webcite1, on 10/23/2007, -5/+6Wind and the sun for power....the only ways to go!
    • modix, on 10/23/2007, -4/+15Think most of us love Nukes. Only reasonable large scale power producer that'll get us over the bump until the next best power source.
      • pseudojd, on 10/23/2007, -1/+7The next best power source = Bald Eagle heads
    • WhereAmI, on 10/23/2007, -1/+8I am a long time Digg member. I have seen greatly positive towards Nuclear power from Digg. Solar would awesome, Wind would be nice too but they aren't efficient enough yet. Fission Nuclear power is our short term (50-100 years) until Cold Fusion is possible. Do you know what the emissions of that is? H2O all the way to Iron.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/23/2007, -1/+11Kansas was made for wind power, especially in the peak (summer) months, and they can put in 2 to 3 megawatt turbines now, supplemented with natural gas.

      And again, when did efficiency and being cleaner become anathema to so-called "conservatives?"
      • modix, on 10/23/2007, -0/+7If they admit that there's a problem, then they'd have to do something about it everywhere, not just when it's convenient.
    • ponefallow, on 10/23/2007, -3/+1Hmm... didn't realize this was a political issue. If you love coal so much, why don't you go hang out near a coal plant and breath the air for a while? The answer is efficiency. We do not need more plants of any kind.
    • Rickler, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3Nuclear, Hydro, Wind, Solar, Geothermal. That's all everyone needs.
    • tmbrwolf19, on 10/25/2007, -2/+2I love gas and nuclear. Coal is acceptable but is heavily dependent on the grade of coal and the method the plant uses to burn it. The problem is, we have mined a lot of the high grade coal, and are now burning lots of sulfur rich stuff which terrible for air quality and directly linked to deaths from respiratory distress. Nuclear is a great power source. While there are still issue with long term storage of spent nuclear material, a lot of it due to political stalling and hold overs from when nuclear was demonized in the media. Gas burns very cleanly, and there has never really been an issue with burning it as an alternative. Oil no matter what the method burns dirty and the costs in health problems alone out way any benefit of those plants. Personally i dislike solar, preferring wind, tidal, or geothermal over current solar technology.
  • Bologner, on 10/23/2007, -3/+23KANSAS did this?

    What the *****, Wisconsin?
    • WhereAmI, on 10/23/2007, -2/+2I am from Wisconsin and I say what? Are you asking why Wisconsin hasn't done this yet? I dugg you up because thats what I think you meant.
      Anyway, I lived by a hydroelectric dam on the Wisconsin River. However, Portage has a big coal power plant.

      If your from Wisconsin, my AIM is on my profile. I email my senators all the time. I'll get you in the right direction if you want to help out in cleaning our air.
    • MCCULLAH, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1I'm from Wisconsin too, and although it is a very beautiful state.....70% of power in Wisconsin is coal and 20% nuclear. The rest is wind and hydro or gas
  • aflaks, on 10/23/2007, -14/+7Great, lets stop existing so that no more co2 is produced.
    • Ajajadude, on 10/23/2007, -6/+10You first
    • jgzman, on 10/23/2007, -2/+2Or, we can continue to produce CO2, and then stop existing!
    • leunghoi, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1Human lives come first no matter what. The key is innovation. We have to find a way to be co-exist with our universe. It's not going to be easy. However, instead of just give up, I would rather die trying.
  • aflusche, on 10/23/2007, -3/+19SUNFLOWER electric power. That's marketing for you.
  • Razster, on 10/23/2007, -2/+6So what will take the place of the coal plants? That is the question I ask, only because the site doesn't seem to load for me ;(
    • mudgod, on 10/23/2007, -2/+1Primarily Nuclear, (Coal itself has radioactive waste amongst all the other things it spits out). Secondarily clean fuel sources which will probably pick up slack as they improve in efficiency over time.
  • nullcodes, on 10/23/2007, -20/+15Without energy, you dont have an economy. Without an economy, you can't manage pollution. You should go check out the water quality of a river in India or China. There are numerous world health organization reports talking about the terrible water quality and water borne diseases of third world countries. The less developed your economy is, the more dangerous the environment around you. If your economy lacks factories to pollute, the economy will be even worse and then wild animals and water borne diseases will get you.

    Why do you think humans had a huge birth rate and a low life expectancy hundred of years ago? Technology and economic advancement creates a better environment for people to live in.

    The power plants should have been built.
    • emiles, on 10/23/2007, -5/+16We can still build more power plants without having to build *coal* power plants.
      • nullcodes, on 10/23/2007, -9/+5No, coal power is cheaper. It would cost the economy (and ultimately the environment) more money to build an a solar or wind plant.

        The upfront capital cost is extremely high (many times higher), unlike with coal power.
        • Pschkqitzsough, on 10/23/2007, -1/+3Those countries you are talking about aren't terribly polluted because they can't afford to manage pollution. In fact, they are mostly run by foreign investors who do business there because low regulation saves them money. I see you agree with those scumbags who don't give a ***** about human life and are more concerned with saving a buck. You people make me sick!
        • tim620, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Cheaper does not equal better!
      • SouthsideIrish, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1What kind of plant?
        • sporky, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3Well, in Kansas we already have one nuclear power plant. There is also very good solar and wind potential. For all the nay-sayers: yes, coal is cheaper, but there are a lot of people in Kansas and other places that would rather pay more for a better source.
      • pen25, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2and where might you live? tell you what we will put one in your back yard and you can tell us how you like it
    • Ajajadude, on 10/23/2007, -2/+3Yeah, but, it can be argued that coal power plants are the worst polluting power plants (CO2-and-particulate-wise) and shouldn't be built anymore.
      • Pschkqitzsough, on 10/23/2007, -3/+1But the U.S. has the largest coal reserves in the world so that would lose lots of potential profits and thus, the coal reserves will be used no matter how badly it effects human life.
    • tim620, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1So, using your logic, our environment was much worse 200-300 years ago, because we lacked "Technology and economic advancement". Ah, yes, breathable air, clean river and lake water, no (or few) landfills and open skies, I'm sure these things are bad for my health.

      I've been to India and I've seen the dirty rivers. You are right, it is bad. But, perhaps it is that way because of overpopulation and industry as opposed to lack of "Technology and economic development". I saw plenty of technology there that was equivalent or better than that of the US. Yet their water continues to be very polluted.
  • WorldLeader, on 10/24/2007, -7/+18Kansas finally does something to make us Diggers proud! : )
  • wolfie8914, on 10/23/2007, -10/+13It's hard to believe that a state that forbids teaching evolution in public schools can act with some common sense.
    • hbeierg, on 10/23/2007, -2/+8Your a idiot, they do teach Evolution. I have never heard a word about creationism in any of my class rooms.

      P.S. I accidentally buried this article is there any way to un-bury something
      • Ryan2845, on 10/23/2007, -0/+12Ditto, I never once heard a word of creationism in my classrooms. When we learned about evolution in jr. high, we had one hardcore christian that asked to sit in the hall, out of 60 or so. Reports of Kansas are greatly exaggerated.
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/23/2007, -0/+8We do not forbid teaching evolution in public schools. Every time our standards were changed in that manner, the BoE members responsible lost reelection and the standards were changed back before they really went into effect.
      The initial change always gets international publicity, the change back never does.
  • zlopez, on 10/24/2007, -4/+13Holy crap...the state I live in actually did something useful!
    • obxjdt, on 10/23/2007, -5/+2sounds good, but wait till you get your power bill....
    • sporky, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2As a Kansan, I'm also quite pleased.
  • kinerry, on 10/23/2007, -14/+8and now Kansas is REALLY stuck in the stone age without power
    • kurttrail, on 10/23/2007, -4/+7LOL! When did Kansas lose power? Please provide a link.
    • WhereAmI, on 10/23/2007, -2/+4I don't get what you idiots are talking about. Coal is very inefficient to burn and make electricity. Go take Chemistry and then come back to Digg.
    • drunkwally, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1Don't worry, Kansas is connected to the national grid. They will just buy their power off another state that burns coal. Kansas will have less CO2 by having someone else burn it on their behalf.
  • scotteth, on 10/23/2007, -0/+12was it just me, or did anyone else find it funny that all of new england could only reduce co2 emissions down by the equivalent of one coal plant?
    kansas ftw.
    • oslointhesummer, on 10/23/2007, -3/+3yeah and there's only like 6 people in kansas total! way to go!
  • obxjdt, on 10/23/2007, -12/+7now watch your power bill increase by about 50%......
    • modix, on 10/23/2007, -2/+1Power bills are already ridiculously subsidized. Can you really say a 50% increase in your electric bill would kill your budget? Would it be enough that we should have horribly unsustainable toxic methods for production?
    • fastman90, on 10/23/2007, -1/+5Our power bill really won't change. Only 15% of the power the plants would produce was going to stay in Kansas, the rest was going to Colorado and a few other neighboring states.

      I think this is the proudest I have been of my state in a long time.
      • modix, on 10/23/2007, -2/+0That's horrible. They were basically voting to make money from other states by polluting Kansas.
  • ikamos, on 10/23/2007, -3/+4nice
  • proliance, on 10/23/2007, -10/+5Very nice, Kansas.
    Would the last person to leave the state please turn out the lights?
  • ontheplains, on 10/23/2007, -3/+8I know the man that is head of the KDHE, who denied the coal plant permits - i have much respect for the man for this. he did not do this for money or publicity, but because of what he truly thought was the right thing to do.
  • KLowD9x, on 10/23/2007, -6/+7Finally! Quit building garbage and build some real power...Nuclear!
    • rushiku, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4Normally, I'd agree with you but I'm in a "just what in the ***** do you propose to do with the mountain of spent nuclear fuel we already have, not to mention the nuclear waste production increase every new plant would add? - I'm really, really hoping you don't say 'uh, dig a hole in a mountain and bury it, then spend 100s of $K of tax payer money on figuring out what sort of sign to post outside?'" kind of mood.
      • KLowD9x, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Get the US to drop its "NO NUCLEAR REPROCESSING!" agenda and take all of this "waste", get it reprocessed, and get more fuel!

        Big deal, so it makes plutonium, with the proper security (which must already be in place, since I have yet to hear of a uranium enrichment facility being taken over for proliferation) we can protect this plutonium and have some fresh fuel from old waste! Not to mention, something along the lines of 60% of "spent" fuel can be reprocessed, and what is left over from this reprocessing is not nearly as radioactive for as long as traditional waste.
        • floorman56, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1Have you seen the protest every time they say that they are even going to MOVE spent fuel? Much less reprocess it. Tell greenpeace you are going to build a reprocessing plant... watch what happens
          • KLowD9x, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Seeing as how my family works in the nuclear industry, yes, I have seen it.

            I believe that the members of greenpeace should be sterilized. The problem will take care of itself then.
    • Berkana, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4The problem is, the Tennesee Valley Authority had to shut down nuclear plants on some of the hotter days this past year because the water in the river got too hot to be a heat sink. Nuclear power is not a real solution: it is not renewable, and uranium will eventually run out, making the plants useless. The only real solutions are widespread deployment of solar power, on all warehouse rooftops, and on all other buildings where its deployment will not impact aesthetics too badly. With conversion rates for sun tracking panels as high as 40%, widespread deployment could really do the trick.
  • webcite1, on 10/23/2007, -9/+5A RED state says NO to Bush's Coal buddies? People, sheep and others may just be starting to grow a brain!!!!! I hope they share it with each other!!!!!
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/23/2007, -9/+2decrease power costs for citizens... that cant happen... ban everything but solar and wind power!
    • spurtle, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3Increased power costs or increased medical costs? What's a couple of dollars a month compared to a couple of thousand dollars a month?
  • JRL40K, on 10/24/2007, -4/+5Wow my state actually got something right for once.
  • winmywii, on 10/23/2007, -4/+4It is good news that they want to try to clean up the environment. Sucks for coal minors though.
    • dellis, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4The miners aren't too pleased either...
  • Kugellehr, on 10/24/2007, -2/+20I'm from kansas and i can tell you this was HUGE. Most Kansans were totally against this stupid bill, except the governor herself (a democrat, and a good one too). However the people of kansas got it done and no more big coal plants for us. By the way, its not entirely a red state. There is 1 county of blue, where the University of Kansas is, which was the main lead on this one.

    so go KU!
    • hbeierg, on 10/23/2007, -4/+5Go Hawks!
    • WhereAmI, on 10/23/2007, -3/+4Good to know the youth in my age group there have common sense.
    • earlycj5, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1As a resident of Manhattan I'm torn between digging you up for the overall comment and down for the last line. ;)
  • OffPiste, on 10/23/2007, -9/+4So this plant that would send power to Ultra Liberal Boulder, Colorado and Democratic controlled Denver, Colorado is stopped by Red State Republican controlled Kansas. This fits in neatly with Right Wing Evangelical Controlled Colorado Springs announcing a 2 Megawatt solar power station being built at Ft Carson. Looks like it's only the Republicans that care about truly going green. The Libs want the power but then turn away green plants like Kennedy and the wind power fiasco because "it will spoil his view."
    • webcite1, on 10/23/2007, -3/+2Can you read? look up! LMFAO!!!! True or not!
  • historybuff, on 10/23/2007, -9/+3The staff recommended approval. It was stopped by the Department head. One person stopped the process.
    CO2 is a biproduct of all combustion.... including respiration. You'd all know this if you had paid attention in the 8th grade.
    Burn oil, gas, or coal. Or just exhale. The products of combustion are CO2 and H20. Is anyone planning to stop breathing because that would certainly help??
    • modix, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6The reaction you are speaking of is referred to as "complete" combustion. Look up "incomplete" combustion. That's why we hate coal among other reasons.
    • bidness, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Lets see, at one coal plant we are burning hundreds to thousands of tons of coal a day which in its purest form (which it never is) is pure carbon (C) which for one atom is 12amu. CO2 is a product of oxidizing or burning coal, so you tack on 2 oxygen atoms that add 16 amu each. So lets see what we have burning 1 carbon atom we end up with over three times the weight that we started with in CO2. So, the tens of thousands of tons coal that we burn a day turns into 3 times the CO2. No one can honestly deny that we though Coal, natural gas, and oil plants and all our emissions from gasoline that we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
    • grumpyrain, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1No, CO2 is a bi-product of the chemical reaction between carbon based compounds and oxygen. Combust a tank of hydrogen if you don't believe me (The 'C' has to come from somewhere).
  • zyklon, on 10/23/2007, -1/+7Coal grows on plants?
  • Poovey, on 10/23/2007, -8/+7Great Idea! Let's not use out number 1 most abundant energy resource. I can't wait to hear you start to bitch because you energy bills went up 75%.
    • webcite1, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2What? Your stock in coal just went down a cent??
    • earlycj5, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1Who's bills? Colorado's? The plant wasn't going to supply much power to KS at all...
  • ponefallow, on 10/26/2007, -3/+6Down with Coal!
  • Kyderdog, on 10/23/2007, -7/+3Because God will provide the Power... at least thats what the teach in schools
  • davidryal, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6i wish people would stop insisting without proof that there is no way to meet our needs without some big centralized power source (i.e. coal or nuclear).

    $3.6b would go a long way in taking advantage of Kansas' vast wind resources. think about it. would you pay twice as much for a car that never requires gas? i would. play with the numbers, do a cost-benefit analysis, but stop accepting false assumptions that are perpetuated by industries making assumptions based on their own perspectives.

    • trevis989, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4Well, if you think about it from a stability and efficiency standpoint, you cannot reliably sustain your energy supply with solely wind/solar/hydro generation. You produce as much as nature allows you, but its not consistent. Large, 'centralized' power sources are consistent and reliable, the major difference with them is their emissions and sources/processes.

      It should be blatantly obvious that purely renewables cannot fully sustain our energy needs. We have periods of no sunlight, we have periods of little/no wind (not to mention the wind machines are quite inefficient), and so on. BUT, there is also obviously no silver bullet. Solution? Mix renewables with nuclear/carbon moderated coal plants until a final solution, or just the next step, is found.
  • cybiant, on 10/26/2007, -0/+13Now Kansas should build more wind, solar & biofuel plants. Could become a mecca for US alternative energy if they could only get their state legislature to provide incentives for alternative energy companies. Not very many states have as much sun, wind & crop land as does Kansas.
    • adevilsadvocate, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4agreed stupid windy here the last 2 days.
      • SimianSamurai, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1and it's been wet as ***** where I live
  • pseudononymist, on 10/23/2007, -1/+6Forget nuclear/solar/wind/water/coal/wood/tidal/geo -- we need to start making human power. No country would be better for this than China--facing rising unemployment and incomprehensible environmental destruction, they could put
    millions on exercise bikes/treadmills/rowing machines/etc. hooked up to the grid and export enough energy for themselves and maybe even export it. If it can be done with international supervision to ensure worker safety and health, this would be a huge boon to any nation starving for power. And think of all those healthy, healthy people.
    • ambrosious, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1People are expensive - even on China-like salaries. That plus the cost of setting up a system like this would be utterly inefficient. Plus, youjust dont generate much energy this way, even from cycling machines, the most efficient kind of physically generated power for humans. The same amount of money you would invest in this would be result in far less energy for the same amount invested in wind power, for example (or just about anything).
  • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 10/23/2007, -6/+0Leave it to Digg to turn this into a political debate.
  • AlBore, on 10/26/2007, -6/+1Build the plants! My house in Aspen needs cheap energy to heat the pools. I don't make as much as before but the Nobel Peace thingy should start to rake in some dough! Please take the bus so I can fly private jets!
    • ambrosious, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Wow... you actually made a username called AlBore.

      Somebody's got a bad case of the "I need to get a job."
  • wil2200, on 10/26/2007, -3/+3this is ***** AWESOME!
  • rushiku, on 10/23/2007, -5/+1What I'm about to tell you hasn't broken yet, so you heard it here first.
    The coal plants were denied not because of carbon dioxide emissions, but because when asked to vote, the board said "What do we need that for? God will provide all the electricity we need. See? I just prayed for electricity, and now this light switch works."
  • ZenMojo, on 10/23/2007, -1/+3I will no longer ask, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Welcome back to the Progressives. Now all you need to do is go blue to add to your green next year.
  • p0s3r, on 10/28/2007, -8/+2More hysteria from the warm-mongers.
  • najeroni, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Sunflower sucks. Their broadband services are terrible. $30 dollars for cable internet with a 10gigabyte download limit. $50 for a 30gigabyte limit. They have a monopoly on the college town of Lawrence. I hate them.
  • SimianSamurai, on 10/25/2007, -4/+2Straight from the Heartland official's mouths:
    "Our scientists have discovered that man-made global warming is the cause of all evolution-like symptoms found in nature. Praise Jeebus"
  • sobenofear, on 10/25/2007, -3/+1With the cost of solar and wind power production going down, why doesn't this just take off? Almost endless supply of renewable energy. Shoot, if they'd adopt it more so in Cali, their energy crisis would be a moot point.
  • pen25, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2this happened in oklahoma a couple months ago. they wanted to put it up by the kansas border. with the wind farms going up like they are through the tx ok ks panhandle hopefully they wont be needed. and if they do they need to put up nukes. BTW anyone drive i40 from the panhandle through to new mexico? awesome to see those flashing redlights all in unison.
  • cheeseysynapse, on 10/25/2007, -2/+2another reason to go long naty gas - a great ticker is CHK or ECA - short MEE, BTU, and ACI - this is stupid legislation, and will ultimately ***** the lower class - but, thats basically what environmentalism accomplishes.........when will they (the state) mandate everyone drive a prius?
  • gryphonauto, on 10/25/2007, -5/+5Horray for nothing!

    What do you propose in place of those power-plants? We all know most environmentalists do little more to conserve energy than bitc* when their kids leave the lights on. I'm just saying save the celebrations for when there are alternative energy sources in place or significant power shortages.
  • NtrmDscrptr, on 10/25/2007, -2/+4This is beautiful, and made my day.
  • wakeupdigg, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4CO2 & Temperature

    The ice-core data is frequently cited as principal evidence to argue that CO2 is the earth’s main climate driver. It is, in a way, the jewel in the crown of the theory of man made global warming. But the ice-core data does not show that CO2 drives climate. It shows, very clearly, that variations in temperature precede rises in atmospheric CO2 – not the other way round. The two phenomena are divided by a time lag of several hundred years.

    There is no evidence that CO2 has ever ‘driven’ the climate in the past, nor is there any compelling evidence that it is doing so now.

    According to global warming theory, if an enhanced greenhouse effect (from increased levels of CO2 or indeed any other greenhouse gas) is responsible for warming the earth, then the rate of temperature rise should be greatest in that part of the earth’s atmosphere known as the troposphere, specifically in the tropics. And yet the observations, from weather balloons and satellites have consistently shown that not to be the case. I urge readers to look at the Christy et al papers below. The latest one was recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (2007). This may seem like a rather technical issue, but it strikes at the very heart of the theory of man made global warming.

    http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.