CLAIM #2:"As demand for electricity increases in Kansas and across the country, our state has the opportunity to be a leader in the fight to reduce our reliance on foreign energy by utilizing America's most abundant fuel resource - clean coal."
ALL FALSE, for the following reasons:
"Reduce our reliance on foreign energy"? Rejecting coal will NOT increase our reliance on foreign energy if we stick with American energy sources like natural gas, wind and solar.
By turning away from coal, Kansas can be a leader not just in using American energy, but clean energy that doesn't degrade health, the environment and economic development with pollution.
American. Abundant. Natural gas is as American as coal is (see #1)- and abundant - but adds the profound advantage of being clean, with half the carbon emissions of coal and virtually no mercury or particulates. Coal emits a lot of both.
The vast abundance of natural gas has just begun to be understood. Recent studies confirm North America has a 120-year supply. Source: Potential Supply of Natural Gas in the U.S., Golden, CO, Sept 2007; Canadian Potential Gas Agency, Dec. 2006. Proved natural gas reserves are at their highest levels in 30 years. Source: LNG Intelligence Nov. 7, 2007.
There is no such product as so-called "clean coal." The term is misleading. Look at coal's long list of pollutants and see if you think it's "clean."
In fact, "clean coal" is only a GOAL, not a reality. A recent MIT study, "The Future of Coal," found cleaner coal technologies need more than 10 years of "research development and demonstration" before they'll be ready to use.
Risky, so-called clean coal technology would require pumping astounding quantities of liquefied carbon dioxide into Kansas soil, a bad idea.
CLAIM #3: "Unfortunately, the Sebelius Administration rejected a plan to build a much-needed, coalfueled power plant near Holcomb. The implications of this decision - higher electric bills, lost economic activity and reduced energy security - will affect Kansas for years to come."
The plant rejection was fortunate and the implications described are ALL FALSE:
"A much-needed plant" to avoid "lost economic activity"? FALSE. Western Kansas deserves jobs that don't jeopardize the health and well-being of its citizens Remember, as soon as construction is over, most of the jobs are gone but the pollution would burden generations of Kansans, forever. A gas-fired plant should be built and linked to Kansas wind power. That's an economic plan with a future.
"Higher electric bills"? In fact, those will result from choosing coal. "Since December 2003, Powder River Basin coal prices have shown a 300% increase and coal transportation costs have been no less volatile." Source: 2007 UtiliPoint International, Inc.
Add coal pollution's well-documented harm to health and the medical care it requires. Add the price of building coal plants, which is about four times the cost of a natural gas plant. And the carbon pollution taxes we all know are imminent will just add to the tab.
Meanwhile, natural gas prices have increased only about 46% in the past five years - less than oil (up 143%), steel (up 150%), milk (up 100%) and many other commodities.
"Reduced energy security"? FALSE. Again, the natural gas Americans use is American. (For more, see #1 and #2.)
CLAIM #4:"Without the new, next-generation coalfueled plants, Kansans will be captive to high-priced natural gas, allowing hostile foreign countries to control the energy policy of Kansas and America. We are already being held hostage to some of these countries for oil."
ALL FALSE, for the following reasons: "New, next-generation" coal plants? If the
Know Your Power Kansas is a coalition funded by Chesapeake Energy Corporation.
proposed plant were built, Kansans would still be without a "next-generation" model - because the technology doesn't yet exist. For the foreseeable future, it's risky, experimental and utterly unaffordable (see #3).
"High-priced"? FALSE. (That's the pot calling the kettle black!) We now know the old "coal is cheap" claim is wrong because of the high cost of pollution and the high cost of building coal plants (Holcomb's price at $3.5 billion would be paid by Kansans and would probably be much higher). Meanwhile, natural gas is a clean-burning, allAmerican bargain. No "hostile foreign country" needed. Plus, less heart and lung disease, asthma and other serious pollution-caused diseases.
CLAIM #5: "The choice is simple ... clean coal from Middle America versus expensive gas from the Middle East."
FALSE: None of Kansas' natural gas comes from the countries named in the ad. In fact, more than 99% of the natural gas Americans use comes from North America. (See #1.) Do not be misled on this important fact!
CLAIM #6: "Natural gas prices have more than tripled since 1999."
TRUE: However, coal has also demonstrated that it is not immune to higher prices, increasing 300% during the past few years, and prices are still rising (see #4). On a BTU-equivalent basis, natural gas prices are roughly 50% of oil.
CLAIM #7: "Domestic natural gas production is flat and well below peak production levels. Liquefied Natural Gas imports have risen 44% this year alone."
FALSE: U.S. natural gas production rose by 2.5% in 2006 (1.25 billion cubic feet a day) and 2007 production is likely to be even higher.Potential gas reserves in the U.S. are up by 17% over two years ago.
Most of the new production is coming from the Mid- Continent region, which includes Kansas.
CLAIM #8: "Government experts predict that growth in natural gas demand will have to be met by imports - much of it coming from hostile countries in unstable parts of the world."
FALSE: Again, more than 99% of the natural gas Americans use comes from North America. See "abundant supply" discussion above. (Identify your "government experts," we're glad to get them the facts.)
CLAIM #9:"The U.S. has enough coal for the next 250 years, and it's cleaner than ever before."
FALSE: Coal is NOT clean and "cleaner than ever before" is an empty claim. There is no proven technology to remove carbon, mercury, particulates or other pollutants from coal emissions. (See the MIT study, #2.) The DOE Clean Coal Technology Roadmap defines the future benefit of "clean coal" as being near-zero CO2 plants, but the proposed Holcomb plant would emit 10 million tons of CO2 each year - making it one of the largest polluters in Kansas.
[source. Sierra Club fact sheet]
http://www.kansas.sierraclub.org/Wind/FactSheet-Myth-vs-Facts.pdf]
[Source: Sierra Club fact sheet:
CLAIM #10: "Without new coal-fueled plants in our state, experts predict that electric bills will skyrocket and Kansans will be more dependent than ever on hostile, foreign energy sources."
FALSE: Kansas would only receive 15% of the 1400 megawatts of power the proposed coal-fueled plant at Holcomb would generate (210 MW), because 85% of its output would go out of state. Kansans, though, would be stuck with 100% of the plant's pollution! It would be far wiser, cheaper and more environmentally friendly to build a natural gas/wind power system for that 210 MW of capacity that Kansas needs.
Call your legislators at 1-800-432-3924 to let them know where you stand - and for more, visit KnowYourPower.net.
5A THE PICTURE BILL KNOW WEDDAY NOVEMBER 12, 2007
A GROWING COALITION OF CONCERNED DOCTORS, HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS, EDUCATORS, CITIZENS, BUSINESSES AND STUDENTS.
14