The Wall Street Journal does not like Sebelius

[Value Pack]

Well, neither do I. Interesting opinion in today's paper.


The 'No, Nothing' Democrats

April 4, 2008; Page A12 (From the Wall Street Journal)

Most sources of energy are beyond the pale in the Democratic Party, but nothing carries quite the moral stigma of coal. The latest excommunication is under way in Kansas, of all places, and it may be a forerunner of national political trends.

Governor Kathleen Sebelius calls it "a moral obligation," as though she were opposing crimes against humanity. This is a reference to coal companies guilty of nothing more than attempting to provide power to consumers. But their misfortunes include emitting carbon dioxide into the current political atmosphere, and also the presence of Ms. Sebelius, who recently invented another way of enacting her preferred global-warming policies without legislation.

No one disputes that Kansas needs more baseload energy capacity to meet growing demand, especially at peak times and in the more rural west. In 2006, Sunflower Electric proposed to add two new generators to one of its existing coal facilities. The plans met or exceeded every federal and state air-quality and environmental regulation, and included the latest pollution control technologies.

But in October, one of Ms. Sebelius's cabinet secretaries, Roderick Bremby, denied Sunflower its permits. Using "emergency" discretion, he creatively ruled the expansion an imminent danger to the public – because the estimated 11 million tons of greenhouse gases it would emit each year might contribute to climate change. It was the first time ever that such reasoning formed the sole basis for blocking a power project; and, in the absence of any state laws relating to carbon control, it amounted to a public policy putsch.

Ms. Sebelius joined the green regulatory lobby that wants to unilaterally classify CO2 as an "air pollutant," though it has none of the qualities that have always defined the term under federal or state law. Her effort is also an opening charge for a national moratorium on new coal plants, which is backed by the likes of Democrats Harry Reid, Ed Markey and, needless to say, Al Gore.

By wide bipartisan margins, the Kansas legislature passed a bill resurrecting the project and closing the "discretion" loophole, telling Ms. Sebelius to obey the rules on the books. She vetoed that measure late last month, which the legislature will try to override today, and the votes may come up a few short.

The losers here are ordinary Kansans, who won't benefit from a reliable source of low-cost power and will pay higher electricity rates. The state is running up against the limits of its ability to provide electricity for its growing population and economy. The current generating fleet has an average age nearing 40 years and hence is less efficient (not to mention more polluting).

Ms. Sebelius suggests commercial wind power as an alternative. The numbers suffice as rebuttal: Some three-quarters of Kansas electricity comes from coal-fired utilities. Currently all "renewables," including wind, account for 2%, at best.

Ms. Sebelius is a Democratic wunderkind and her name is circulating for a cabinet post in an Obama Administration, maybe even Vice President. She's representative of the party's "no, nothing" wing, which knows only what energy it wants to ban or limit, not what it is going to offer in place. Coal provides more than half of U.S. electricity because it is cheap and abundant – and viable. Wind turbines and the rest of the boutique alternatives are none of those, a reality that Democrats are going to have to square when they actually bother to pass a climate-change bill.

[Highwayman]

History quiz.

Where is the world’s largest supply of clean burning coal and why can’t we use it?

[jeezeweeze]

In the USA

because we sell it to China ?

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by jeezeweeze

In the USA

because we sell it to China ?

Yes.

No.

[Bubba]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

History quiz.

Where is the world’s largest supply of clean burning coal and why can’t we use it?

Here are your answers...Where is clean burning coal -- clean burning coal can be found in the imagination, it doesn't exist. There are new technologies out there that try to curb the impact of the coal that is burnt however.

Why can't we use it -- It doesn't exist.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Bubba

Here are your answers...Where is clean burning coal -- clean burning coal can be found in the imagination, it doesn't exist. There are new technologies out there that try to curb the impact of the coal that is burnt however.

Why can't we use it -- It doesn't exist.

LONDON: "Envirocoal" sounds like an oxymoron: Coal and the environment do not generally mix well.

This extremely clean-burning coal mined in Borneo is an exception. With its low content of sulfur and ash, it is a relatively cheap fuel that is relatively kind to the atmosphere.

A sulfur content of less than 1 percent is considered low. British coal, for instance, has 3 percent to 5 percent sulfur. The coal in the Borneo seam contains just 0.1 percent sulfur, an amount so low that demand for it will grow, its producers believe, even as ordinary coal is increasingly shunned by a more environmentally concerned world....

Cleaner Coal Promises a Rich Find for Indonesia - International Herald Tribune

[Bubba]

I stand corrected!

[88-31-10]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

History quiz.

Where is the world’s largest supply of clean burning coal and why can’t we use it?

Borneo isn't in the USA.

[jeezeweeze]

And the end results

Mountaintop Removal Mining - High Resolution Photos

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by 88-31-10

Borneo isn't in the USA.

Utah is.

UTAH LAND GRAB STILL A MYSTERY