Study: Plant would bring millionsCoal-burning power generator could boost economy, report says By Kyle Stock (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Friday, December 14, 2007
Coal-burning power generator could boost economy, report says Generating incomeThe average annual impact of Santee Cooper's proposed coal-burning power plant: During construction --Direct spending in-state: $106 million. --Earnings: $55.8 million. --Jobs supported: 1,200. Ongoing operations --Direct spending in-state: $44.2 million. --Earnings: $35.9 million. --Employment: 112. A controversial $1 billion coal-burning power plant proposed for Florence County would generate hundreds of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in wages for five years before it cranks out its first watt of electricity, according to a study released Thursday by Santee Cooper. The report, which the state-owned utility commissioned from Francis Marion University, said about 1,200 workers would be needed to build the plant for the state-owned utility, while some 639 other laborers would be required to support the construction in a variety of roles, from serving meals to delivering materials. All told, workers tied to the plant would draw $481 million in wages during the five years it would take to build the Pee Dee generator. Moncks Corner-based Santee Cooper would spend another $537 million in South Carolina on construction materials and other expenses, according to the Francis Marion researchers who penned the report. Including indirect effects, the report said, the project would contribute a total of 9,304 jobs and $893 million to the state's economy on top of the $481 million in wages. "A project of this magnitude has a ripple effect that is felt far beyond the plant itself," said Barry O'Brien, dean of Francis Marion University's business school. Once up and running, the plant would employ 112 workers. The proposed generator has come under fire from environmental watchdogs and the federal government. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Interior said the plant should be put on hold until scientists can determine how much its mercury and air pollution could damage the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge. The Coastal Conservation League, one of the loudest critics of the proposal, said Santee Cooper should have studied the economic impact of other alternatives. For instance, conservation measures would inject more money in local contracting companies, cash that might otherwise go to coal mining businesses in West Virginia and Venezuela, according to the league's executive director, Dana Beach. The Charleston-based nonprofit also noted that the economic impact study released Thursday failed to account for a mandatory cap or a tax on carbon emissions, two proposals that were being debated by lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Thursday. Beach said the utility's report "willfully ignores" huge negative effects, including potential health costs associated with air and water pollution. "I hope the public and decision- makers will be wary of yet another study that assigns wildly inflated benefits to and ignores costs of what is essentially a large public works project," Beach said. "There are alternatives that are less expensive, more efficient and non- polluting." Reach Kyle Stock at 937-5763 or kstock@postandcourier.com. |
Article toolsSponsored Links
| |||
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 5 comment(s)
Posted by zmysticman on December 14, 2007 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey everyone, they're going to use that NEW "CLEAN" COAL that you see all the ads for these days at that plant.
Posted by dmwallac on December 14, 2007 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Coal from Venezuela! Nice one. And I wonder, Mr. Beach, do you "willfully ignore" the health costs in terms of air pollution each day when you drive your car or run your a/c?
And the next time the paper reports environmentalist claims that the utility did not study alternatives I would like to see those claims challenged, and proven.
Posted by garymartinbrown on December 14, 2007 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mandated reductions in carbon emissions are coming, like it or not; it's just a matter of time. If this plant is built, when that time comes, how much will it cost to adapt the plant to comply?
Secondly, I concur with CCL's postition that electricity conservation efforts would eliminate the need for the plant. The drastic reductions in CO2 emissions that are necessary to permanently reverse current climate change, and water and air pollution will require the WIDESPREAD adoption of new technologies in EVERY HOUSEHOLD AND BUSINESS IN THE COUNTRY, not to mention SC. Talk about an economic growth engine!! If Santee-Cooper, corporate America, and most of those in decision-making positions, were not focused on trading short-term "benefits" for long-term costs, they would be pouncing on this as a VERY LONG TERM benefit, one that would generate billions of dollars in economic growth, AND improve the quality of life for all.
70-80% of electric power generated is wasted pushing the 20-30% we DO use to us. Imagine the benifits of an SC company, in partnership with Santee-Cooper, that produced "home generating stations" of combinations of solar and wind generating for each home and business in SC. That eliminates all of that waste. No, they would not produce all the power needed all the time, but often they would. This technology would drive the high-efficiency appliance market sky high. It would drive efficient home design products and services sky high. It would drive small generating station innovation sky high! The possibilities are unlimited!!
What IS limited is the ability of the capitalist system to take the lead on this, as it is far too focused on short term gain, and will not tolerate the short-term losses necessary for such a huge shift. This leadership must come from public pressure. Please do your part to pressure public officials to start to "turn the ship" onto the right course.
Posted by dmwallac on December 14, 2007 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
While what you say is true and in the future we will have to rely on better energy sources, the coal plant on the horizon is solving an immediate problem. A now problem. By the time it is built it will be accounted for. And a nuclear plant which must follow will be just-in-time as well (or late).
Coal and nuclear are the only viable options for baseload generation in SC today. Nuclear takes too long for the current need. There is quite a difference in moving away from coal and stopping cold-turkey today. In fact, any shortage would be purchased from other utilities who would generate our power by... burning COAL.
We also must get away from gasoline powered vehicles. But to mandate that we immediately limit US gas consumption to today's amount is oversimplified and unrealistic. The same is true of coal.
Posted by majorjohnson on December 15, 2007 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh quit with your Marxist rantings about the exploited and displaced johnq...go live with your hero Hugo Chavez where they don't exploit and displace. To you any profit is bad profit, regardless of how many people it puts to work so they can feed their families.
Home power generation is about the dumbest idea out there. When the next Hugo hits us do you want to be waiting while power engineers go to every single house near the coast to fix individual power stations instead of just getting the lines back up? And solar power to replace even part of each homes power costs about $20,000 per home. What's more, if we create more power at that huge expense at our homes how much do you think electricity is going to cost when you need to get it from the grid? Plan on incredible increases in that cost, because they'll still have to pay salaries, maintenance and expenses for their employees to keep those hugely expensive power generation plants running whether you're using the power or not.