Although CO2 emissions seem like a black and white issue, the complexity of the energy industry is not.

Should we put all our energy eggs into the wind basket? What if, through unforeseen events, we have a wind shortage? Or it turns out that an abundance of wind turbines kills too many birds.

We are having problems in the Automobile industry because we placed our bet on oil. Instead of diversifying our auto energy sources, we are at the mercy of oil.

Now, wind is hardly oil. And it should continue to be used. I just don't think it will solve all our energy problems.

I realize that there are cleaner ways of generating energy from coal, but those methods still leave an awful lot to be desired. With minimal government regulation in place (although serious reform is expected in the near future), this “clean” coal simply doesn’t go far enough to offset environmental hazards.

In the specific case of Holcomb, the proposed plants will generate far more energy than residents of western Kansas need. This surpluss will be sold off to neighboring Colorado and to Texas–and yet all of the waste will remain right here. So, what are the true costs of over-producing this coal energy? Some people will benefit with new jobs, money in local economies, etc., but why should we, as a state, carry the burden of supplying others with energy at the expense of our own water?

The environmentalists’ mantra has always been: Think Globally, Act Locally, and the Holcomb case is no exception. Right now, we can’t worry about how east/west coast states will get their energy…we can only focus on how we’ll get it in Kansas. Why ruin our air, our water, invite trainloads of coal into our state on a daily basis, while shouldering all of the hazads (giving other states a free ride)? How this is even debatable is beyond me.

In fact, Kansas is not alone in its rejection of the coal plants. National trends indicate that coal is no longer viewed as a reliable long-term solution:

Between 2000 and 2006, over 150 coal plant proposals were fielded by utilities in the United States. By the end of 2007, 10 of those proposed plants had been constructed, and an additional 25 plants were under construction. But during 2007 a large number of proposed plants were cancelled, abandoned, or put on hold: 59 according to the list below. Several conclusions can be drawn from this tally.

Look, I’m all for creating new jobs, and allowing western Kansas to meet its energy demands. Like you say, though, both can be done through the promotion of alternative sources.

This is simply a question of one powerful electric company–with several legislators in its pockets–trying to force us to accept a coal-powered plant that will be with us for the next 50 years even though that technology is quickly becoming obsolete.

–Ranjit