Environmental groups critical of proposed power plantBy Tony Bartelme (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Provided by Santee Cooper This is an artist's rendering of Santee Cooper's proposed coal-fired power plant in Florence County. Dubbed the "Pee Dee Energy Campus," the 600-megawatt plant is at the center of a vigorous debate over the state's future energy needs and sources. Other documents related to the plant can be found at www.scdhec.gov/environment/baq/SanteeCoo...> Santee Cooper's proposed $1 billion coal-fired power plant in the Pee Dee would violate pollution laws by releasing poisonous mercury in an area that already has a serious contamination problem, two environmental groups said in extensive comments submitted to state health officials Tuesday. The plant also would lack the best technology available to reduce pollution, disproportionately affect minorities and contribute massive amounts of carbon dioxide at a time of growing concern about global warming, the Southern Environmental Law Center and Sierra Club said in their 136-page analysis of Santee Cooper's plans. The groups submitted their comments on the final day of a public comment period for the plant's state permit. So far, more than 700 people and organizations have sent comments, said Adam Myrick, media relations specialist for the state Department of Health and Environmental Control. Santee Cooper wants to build two 600-megawatt generators near the banks of the Little Pee Dee River. The Pee Dee Energy Campus would be capable of powering 600,000 homes. Santee Cooper says if it doesn't build the plant, it will run short of power by 2013, possibly triggering brownouts and blackouts on peak energy days. Santee Cooper's plan has drawn strong support from the state's manufacturing base, with representatives from factories and smelters saying their plants might become less viable without inexpensive and dependable power. The plant also has generated vigorous opposition from conservation and citizens' groups, with doctors in Florence protesting recently outside DHEC's offices. The debate about the plant comes as utilities nationwide face challenges to new coal plants. Utilities have scrapped at least 16 projects in the past year, mainly because of concerns about global warming. Coal plants are among the largest contributors of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Tuesday's comments from the Sierra Club and Southern Environmental Law Center are notable for their breadth, covering the plant's impact on mountaintop mining in Appalachia to the calculations on DHEC's spreadsheets. They submitted the comments with the support of six other organizations, including the Coastal Conservation League. Because representatives of these groups have said they will probably take the utility to court, the comments provide a window into the group's possible legal strategy. Among their arguments: The plant would violate the federal Clean Air Act and other antipollution laws because it would add mercury in South Carolina's "Mercury Triangle," an area near the Great, Little Pee Dee and Lynches rivers. The groups cited The Post and Courier's series, "The Mercury Connection," which identified the area as the state's worst mercury hot spot. "The result would not only be unlawful, it would needlessly expose South Carolina citizens to unsafe levels of this harmful neurotoxin," the group said. Also, the Pee Dee Energy Campus would lack the best available technology to reduce harmful pollutants, another violation of state and federal laws, the group said. Carbon dioxide and other pollutants could be reduced significantly if Santee Cooper built a coal-gasification plant — a relatively new technology that turns coal into natural gas to generate electricity. Laura Varn, Santee Cooper vice president of corporate communications, said South Carolina is facing "an imminent crisis with energy availability," and that the Pee Dee plant would be built with the best pollution-control equipment available. With that technology, the plant will meet or beat federal and state pollution standards. She added that coal gasification has potential, but that such plants cost 50 percent more than traditional units. She cited 18 gasification projects that have been put on hold or canceled. Reach Tony Bartelme at 937-5554 or tbartelme@post andcourier.com. |
Article tools |
|
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 13 comment(s)
Posted by JohnQ on January 23, 2008 at 2:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A billion dollars sure could buy a lot of solar panels!
Santee Cooper and DHEC would rather poison us with their new coal plant than build state of the art coal gasification or even new gas fired power plants.
They have already made the deals to benefit their political and corporate cronies and now all these pesky citizens come along and oppose them at the last minute!!
No problem, they will just ignore the citizens and move forward with the plan anyway! They could care less what the consequences are to the environment or health of those citizens.
Posted by ColdBeer on January 23, 2008 at 5:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You obviously know nothing about the cost involved with solar panels, JohnQ. Solar panels <LOL>. Do you know how few panels a million could buy? Do you know how long it would take for them to pay for themselves? Coal fired plants are not the greatest thing in the world. Neither is ignorant gibberish on the subject.
Posted by BulldogTLC on January 23, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
John Q, you have NO idea what you are talking about. You have no idea what your power bill would be if all your power came from natural gas. You have no what your power bill would be with coal gasification. Solar, that is a good one!!! Guess you don't need your lights at night, huh? This is base load power we are talking about here, built with the best emmission control technology there is. You really have no clue what you are talking about and would be better served to do some research before attempting to fill people's heads with your iggnorance!
Posted by Early on January 23, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Go Nuc, end of story.
Posted by Edwin435 on January 23, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Go nuke!
Posted by meow on January 23, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Go nuke and endure rolling blackouts for a few years while waiting approval and permitting for it to come online.
Posted by BulldogTLC on January 23, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay, so what do you do with the nuclear waste?
Spend the money? Are you kidding me? Over 1/3 of the cost of new pwer plant is on emmissions control. They are not fighting the emmisions, in fact they are meeting or exceeding every regulation. It would take 15 years just to build a nuclear plant. You think the local economy is looking bad now, wait until Nucor and Alumax pull out because they can't get reliable electricity. Just believe whatever people tell you, that's exactly what the "environmentalists" want.... Inform yourself people, and think rationally.
Posted by Early on January 23, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How is it you can build a nuclear powered aircraft carrier in two years? 15 years for a plant, I don't think so. Exaggeration of the facts.
Posted by BulldogTLC on January 23, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Try to get a permit and follow through with construction nd then get an operating permit, you will see how long it takes.... Construction is not what takes the time.
Posted by dmwallac on January 23, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bulldog is absolutely right on this. It is the permitting process that takes so long for nuke, not construction. In fact nuclear is in the works as well in the state, but won't be available for near term.
Also, unless they have changed the permitting process, back when we last built nuke plants in the US you could get permitted all the way through construction (as in $$$$$$$$$) and then fail to get an operating permit. Government at work...
Posted by meow on January 23, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The permitting is different now. Now you apply for a Construction and Operating license (COL). Nuclear plants are modular these days. The whole process from construction to going online takes around 8 years. Santee Cooper needs more generation now. Let all the naysayers go dark for a while. Hook up your solar panels or go build an aircraft carrier.
Posted by rollo on January 23, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I still don't have an answer as to the source of the "background" mercury contamination, and I wonder what the daily contribution of that source is. According to the Luddites, the proposed power plant would contribute @ 2/3 oz per day. how does that compare to the source that already exists?
Posted by rollo on January 23, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How's this for a website;
www.scdhec.gov/environment/bad/SanteeCoo.......
it disappears into the text.
Is someone playing games here? The link
http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/jan/...