Santee Cooper CEO says mercury worries overblownThe Post and Courier
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The high-stakes battle over Santee Cooper's plan to build a coal-fired power plant has grown more heated in recent weeks, with the utility's top executive and its $325-per-hour consultant arguing that concerns about the plant's mercury emissions are overblown. Environmental groups say Santee Cooper is spreading misinformation to push the plant through. 
AP An artist's rendering of Santee Cooper's proposed coal-fired power plant in Florence County. Coal-fired plants are a key man-made source of mercury pollution and greenhouse gases worldwide, and concerns about these pollutants have fueled growing opposition to new plants here and abroad. This month, Lonnie Carter, Santee Cooper's chief executive officer, went on the offensive. In op-ed pieces for The Post and Courier and other newspapers, he downplayed mercury's effects in South Carolina rivers and those who eat tainted fish. "There have been no reported cases of mercury poisoning resulting from environmental exposure in the U.S.," he wrote, adding that the new Pee Dee plant would be "among the cleanest facilities currently in operation." On Monday, conservation and citizens groups fired back, saying Carter's statements were false and irresponsible. They said a coal-fired plant in Virginia will emit far less mercury than the one proposed for the Pee Dee, and that another in Pennsylvania would emit one-fiftieth as much. If you goWHAT: DHEC meeting on the coal-fired power plant. WHEN: 6 tonight. WHERE: Hannah-Pamplico High School, 2055 S. Pamplico Highway. "What we're seeing is a growing credibility gap between Santee Cooper's numbers and its spin," said Blan Holman, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center's Charleston office. The battlefield shifts today to the tiny town of Pamplico, where the state Department of Health and Environmental Control will hold a public meeting and question-and-answer session about the plant. Citizens groups said Monday that they plan to call on Carter to retract his recent statements. The National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council estimated in a 2000 report that about 60,000 children per year may be born in the U.S. with neurological problems related to mercury exposure. In 2005, an Environmental Protection Agency-funded study by Harvard researchers calculated that stronger mercury laws could save nearly $5 billion a year in reduced neurological and cardiac harm. In a recent series, "The Mercury Connection," The Post and Courier interviewed doctors here and across the country who treat patients nearly every day for mercury-related health effects. Special reportRead The Post and Courier's continuing reports on The Mercury Connection Santee Cooper wants to build a $1.25 billion plant on the banks of the Great Pee Dee River. The utility says it needs the power plant online by 2013, or its customers could suffer serious power interruptions. As part of its new public relations push called "The Real Story on Mercury," Santee Cooper created the Web site therealstoryonmercury.com. "The bottom line is that South Carolina waters and fish are safe," the Web site says. "And so are South Carolinians." The statement is at odds with DHEC's fish consumption advisory, which says: "Some fish caught in South Carolina may not be safe to eat because they contain harmful levels of some chemicals," mainly mercury. Based on thousands of tests on mercury-tainted fish, DHEC has warned people to avoid eating certain species in 1,747 miles of rivers in South Carolina, mostly in the coastal plain. According to test results obtained by The Post and Courier, some freshwater fish had such high levels of mercury they would be pulled off store shelves if sold commercially. This spring, Santee Cooper hired Gail Charnley, a Washington-based toxicology consultant, to advise the utility on mercury matters. In an interview with The Post and Courier, she disputed studies that link power plants with local mercury hotspots and cited overseas plants as the primary culprits. Environmental groups have criticized Charnley for her work with the tobacco, pesticide and coal industries. "She's repeating these old utility industry dogma," said John Suttles, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, noting her close ties to industry. An invoice obtained by The Post and Courier shows Charnley charging Santee Cooper $325 an hour plus travel expenses for a recent visit and work between April 9 and July 7, a total of $11,698.50. A recent federal court ruling struck down the Bush administration's mercury pollution rules. In response, Santee Cooper said it would install new equipment to remove more mercury. Officials with DHEC organized tonight's meeting to address these changes. Before Santee Cooper can move forward, the Army Corps of Engineers also must issue a permit. The utility, meanwhile, has begun stockpiling construction supplies near the site. Reach Tony Bartelme at tbartelme@postandcourier.com or 937-5554. Reach Doug Pardue at 937-5558 or dpardue@postandcourier.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 34 comment(s)
Posted by dixiegrl98 on July 22, 2008 at 1:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
first of all if south carolina's fish are all safe why do obgyn's tell you not to eat certain fish out of the lakes(like bass)when your pregnant because of the mercury content?I also read an article in the charleston city paper not too long ago about the coal plant in chas.,the man on the cover had cought them illegally dumping run off into the water and said that the people who docked thier boats there had to deal with coal dust coating them,nearby houses had the same problem.I'm no expert,but breathing all that can't be healthy,coal miners are plagued with all sorts of illnesses.I'd rather not see one of these near me.
Posted by zoomru on July 22, 2008 at 2:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mission Statement for SC Senator Kevin Bryant:
ALERT from the FRONT.
Tora, Tora, TORA !!!
http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/jul/...
KEVIN ..your honed skills are needed at the front LINES...NOW!
Are you going to stand for this raping by Santee "Sandanista" Cooper in the PEE DEE region? Think about these ramifications. You mean to tell me that we have 34 tons of nuclear fuel in AIKEN and we are going to BEND over for Robert Byrd and the South American Coal Miners?? What about OUR nuclear workers here in our state.
Do you get paid 325 dollars an hour?? PICK UP THE PHONE .....SIR!
You no full well that this power plant should be NUCLEAR..Period!
Get off the BACK BENCH and LEAD this mission.
Would YOU stand for a COAL fired "BYRD" Power Plant in Andersen County?? NO !!!
Customers will pay the rates no matter which type of plant is built...SO it better be NUCLEAR. It benefits South Carolina Workers. You mean you will LET tax revenue LEAVE this state???
Legislators of OUR fine State.....you will ALL be personally be HELD ..accountable!!!
Posted by zoomru on July 22, 2008 at 2:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
CEO Lonnie Carter.........
This "Mercury Charade" you are dancing too better not be to bribe money out of AIKEN County...You don't fool me one bit!
CEO Lonnie "Lottie Moon" Carter....where do you LIVE? Do you eat South Carolina FISH?? I know the only way to ensure you get to smooze with "CIGAR DAVE" at the cigar socials is to maximize your bottom line; but what are the ramifications to your workers families for generations in the PEE DEE region? Try pulling this in GAFFNEY.
Workers of all COOPS in this state....DO YOU GIVE A CRAP about your own state and the workers here?? DO You?? IS Lonnie displaying leadership by a true CEO leaders standards?? DOes Santee Cooper have ONE coastal windfarm with GE right here in our own state?? Or using the turbines from www.selsam.com ?? He has no problem coming to us for RATE increases??
Do we have any COAL in OUR STATE ??? NO !!
Do we have Nuclear fuel in AIKEN? YES !!!
Posted by zoomru on July 22, 2008 at 3:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What propaganda is this.......
http://www.thestate.com/statewire/story/...
You editors don't FOOL me!
Yes, mercury is an issue; BUT the main issue is..
"Its the tax Revenue....STUPID." No one talks about the Nuclear jobs here in South Carolina that would be created instead of buying coal from Robert Byrd or South America??
Follow the money people....right out of OUR state!!
MAYOR RILEY DO YOU CARE ABOUT SOUTH CAROLINA?
MAYOR SUMMEY??
REP CHIP LIMEHOUSE ??
SENATORO LINDSE' SUAVE' Graham-nista ??
James "Grand Master Flash" Clyburn...???
Roberto Ford-asa??
County Council Chairman TIM SCOTT..??
Gov Sanford...?? Come ON..!
Lt Gov. Andre "the G I A N T" Bauer...you care about SENIORS; but not about grandchildren? Your TOAST.......
Att Nral Henry "MacDaddy" McMaster what will YOU do???
Sup of Education Jim (T-REX) REX ..so you too want to be Governor..well what are you going to do about the welfare of the children in the PEE DEE region? Do you Care?
Do we have any teamwork in this STATE do do the RIGHT thing for OUR CITIZENS??
Posted by Neponset on July 22, 2008 at 5:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't have all the answers, but we need new plants if we want to keep the lights on and the ACs humming. Modern scrubbers, etc should reduce mercury to manageable levels and new plants will allow the retiring some older generating facilities which are less effective in cleaning the emmisions.
Posted by nikkiP on July 22, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good lord this is some of the most ignorant mess I've ever read.
And I don't mean from Mr. Carter's standpoint. I mean you. First of all, Santee Cooper is nonprofit so the business does not affect his salary, stop assuming so.
Second, have none of you realized that the PnC isn't always the most honest reporting ever? They make you think that this plant in the PeeDee site will cause so much mercury in the environment that your children will all be born with 3 eyes or something. In reality, American plants cause 1% of the mercury polution.
To put that in perspective, if you shut down every coal plant in the country, it will barely make a dent in mercury emissions.
So yes, mercury is harmful. Hence why doctors tell pregnant women not to eat it. But this plant don't be doing much.
And for those of you complaining about "Do something else" please provide a viable alternative that can provide the needed power in the timeframe required. We're looking at nearly 1200 megawats within the next few years.
Posted by 512c on July 22, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What about the mountains that are cut down all over the world, and in west Virginia in order to facilitate these "clean" tech generators? I say, they have proven that they will cut corners at every possible juncture, why would they be honest when they say they have new "clean" tech?
WHERE does the the Coal come from? I am willing to say, we don't want to see the gross destruction left behind that we live off of.
Posted by patricycle77 on July 22, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sure mercury becomes airborne when rocks erode, volcanoes erupt and soil decomposes, but according to the EPA, Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the US and account for more than 40 percent of human-caused emissions. it isn't actually mercury that is affecting our fish - it is methyl-mercury, an organic mercury compound. it is most concentrated in water with high organic matter and low acidity. unfortunately, the proposed site for this plant is located near 3 waterways that have some of the highest methyl-mercury contamination in the state, and therefore one of the highest numbers of DHEC fish advisories. it's even called the mercury triangle by DHEC employees.
As for DHEC, they are not an environmental protection agency, they are a regulatory agency. their hands are tied in some respects. the department has numerous divisions including water quality and air quality. while studies show that mercury released from coal plants may end up in waterways after being released into the air, from a regulatory position it can't be monitored that way b/c it is not from a point source (see the Clean Water Act and NPDES permits). Regulatory agencies can only approve or deny permits based on laws and regulations approved by the General Assembly, and can't pull in requirements from other agency programs - or else they'll be sued...and believe me, they have been for trying. they need to update their regs to cohesively address all environmental concerns from each division.
Since the EPA's Mercury Rule has been invalidated, plants are supposed to use the best available technology to reduce mercury. In this location that reduction is still not enough.
And, as for nuclear - it is not clean energy. With radioactive by-products like radium, tritium, thallium, as well as heavy metals, the waste from the production is extremely risky. with rad half-lives of 10,000 years burying this stuff isn't really working b/c often the facilities leak after 50 years (which has happened in SC at both Barnwell and Savannah River Sites). And b/c of SC's soil structures, numerous ground water aquifers, and high water table it is not an ideal location for rad waste disposal (unless we start burying above ground - also scary). I'm not suggesting we ship it to Utah either.
I am not a fan of coal-fired power plants or nuclear and would prefer an aggressive energy reduction plan coupled with alternative energy implementation. This state could utilize sun and wind much more than it does.
Posted by nikkiP on July 22, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Solar power doesn't actually have the capacity to provide that power. Work had looked into putting them up (Maybe around $300K worth) at a landfill gas site, but after doing the math realized they'd never actually pay for themselves.
Once again the issue is keeping the lights on at an affordable price. Duke has had to cut power to over 500 customers because of rate increases and the inability of some people to pay for it. While that's a big issue for Duke, a privately owned company, a state public authority can't do that.
And I agree that the government is getting in the way of the use of alternative fuels. Their guidlines however, are reasonable. And any plant built at this point has to go far beyond them if it plans on running for a substantial amount of time.
As far as reducing the mercury output: Go to a coal plant, if you ever get the chance. I'm not quite sure how that happens for most people, but just visit. And remember this: The only thing you need to generate power is the turbine and the boiler, everything else is there for safety reasons. There's alot of waste that comes from cleaning those things, and many companies have found a way to use it for something else. For example, flyash/gypsum is used to make wallboard.
512c, not sure if you're talking about the whole "clean coal" thing (where the emissions go into the ground) but I have a hard time believing that it would actually work. The emissions aren't toxic gas, but it's still going somewhere.
What alot of it comes down to is that the companies are scrambling for ways to meet the rapidly growing power need of the state. However, I've only heard from power companies the ways for individuals to reduce their own power usage. Well, them and most environmental groups, obviously. For the people all screaming against this plant, or nuclear, or anything, how many do you think take measures in their own lives to reduce their energy use? Line dry your clothes if you can, unplug everything you're not using. When the TV's not on, unplug it. Use CFL bulbs (they need to start recycling those) and turn your computer off when you're not using it.
Posted by nikkiP on July 22, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I apologize for such a long post, I know most people don't like reading something that long. I probably could have shortened it for everyone
Posted by patricycle77 on July 22, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Early - The EPA implimented the Mercury Rule, which had lower air quality standards that previously required, and also allowed a cap and trade program to offset omissions from certain plants by purchasing clean energy elsewhwere. Problem is, that was causing "mercury pockets." The DC Circuit invalidated this Rule, placing mercury emissions, from things like coal-fired (and oil-fired) power plants, back on the Clean Air Act's list of hazardous air pollutant sources. This means that new coal-fired power plants will be required to employ the best available control technology (BACT) to achieve the maximum degree of emissions reductions. BACT standards will be measured against the best controlled similar source. And the nations existing coal-fired power plants must achieve maximum degree of reduction in emissions deemed achievable. Their average emission limitations may not be less than the best twelve percent of existing sources or the best performing five sources.
Posted by newbattleaxe on July 22, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"This state could utilize sun and wind much more than it has." Based on what data? What studies?
Johnq2, if I'm remembering correctly, the study you quoted's data were shown to be coincidental.
And, yes, a nuclear plant would be great, IF the Yucca Mountain storage facility was open (It is by far the safest nuclear waste facility in the US.), and IF such a plant could be permitted and built in the same time frame as a coal-fired plant.
Post and Courier, y'all make such a fuss over Santee-Cooper (the STATE-OWNED Utility) storing construction materials at the site. A prudent corporation, with many buildings to maintain, buys building materials in bulk and stores them against furure need.
Posted by zoomru on July 22, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Finally..... Some people who will NAIL these Santee Hooligans to the wall are speaking UP. I am actually for ALL forms of energy production. ALL !
But when we are already sitting on 34 tons of nuclear fuel?
Come ON.....!!
Patricycle77...."I am not a fan of coal-fired power plants or nuclear and would prefer an aggressive energy reduction plan coupled with alternative energy implementation. This state could utilize sun and wind much more than it does...."
Here...here! We need to show the Hooligans some coastal WIND right here along OUR coast?? You can't tell me that we don't have SMART people to harness this vast source of POWER..Good LORD!! These weenies just don't realize how TORQUED WE ARE!! What gets me the most is the fact that the workers of OUR 20 or so COOPs in this state have not staged a MUTINY!! These fine citizens are SMART ...BUT they need to get a VISION and one HUGE VOICE!!
Citizens of this FINE state...we have officials that sincerely need to be WHIPPED in public DISPLAY...period!!
Are we going to LEAD or sit on the BACK BENCH like SC Senator Bryant?? Mayor Riley? Summey? Tim Scott? Robert Ford? Aurthur Ravenel? CEO of SCE&G? (yes You too!!), Governor Sanford?, Lt Bow WOW?, Henry McSlave?,
Do we have any leaders in this state that can do anything more than move SAND?? Graham-nista...you need to report to the meeting in Pamplico tonight...And That's an ORDER !!!
(Fist Pounds!) I'm going to get myself a loaf of bread and guess what? THAT'S RIGHT! I am going to TOAST it and find your adress to mail it too!! I'm going to get a marker and draw your name and Conley's name on it too and take a PICTURE to post! We as citizens will not tolerate this lack of LEADERSHIP!!
Posted by nikkiP on July 22, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did you know we can recycle the fuel rods from nuclear plants? France uses a great deal of nuclear power, and they just recycle the spent rods.
Posted by farfallaspeaks on July 22, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
512C good point.
Posted by nikkiP on July 22, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
the only way solar and wind would be viable is if there was a very drastic decrease in energy usage, or people started using the small wind turbines and solar panels on their homes. If anyone lives near a lake or river (No matter how small) they can use the turbines for that specific purpose.
Why are people so ready to blame the organizations doing their jobs, and don't look at their own lifestyles?
I think it was farfalla (maybe? I don't really know) who actually said they only drink draught beer because of the waste from bottles in cans in bars. See, not blame the bottling companies and instead taking an initiative.
Posted by singleroni on July 22, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm sorry went to north charleston high grad in 1966 i don't understand if mercury is such a big concern why are we being forced to convert to mercury light bulbs. where does that go when the bulbs break or thrown away? we will have mercury in our homes in direct contact in a closed enviroment with our children
Posted by patricycle77 on July 22, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
newbattleaxe, your response was, "Based on what data? What studies?" to my comment, "This state could utilize sun and wind much more than it has."
seriously? what kind of science report can tell you more than stepping outside? SC is sunny. SC is a coastal state and there is wind.
so, are you suggesting that we are using solar and wind power? or that they are a non-viable source of energy?
Posted by panasonic on July 22, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wind power will never work on a large scale in South Carolina, even off the coast. We simply do not have the sustained winds needed to generate power consistantly for baseload needs. On the days that are windy you could generate peak power but storing the electricity is extremely expensive and the batteries are not able to store the power for long periods of time. A large scale solar farm will not work either because of all the land needed to be disturbed, the environmentalist would not stand for it. Also I will not be putting solar panels on my roof anytime soon, because the trees surrounding my house would have to be cut down. Requiring me to use more electrictity to cool my house. At the current time solar panels are still rather costly and it would take me years to recoup the costs of the panels in my electricity bills.
Posted by DoaMM on July 22, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This thing is gonna be built on a river, right? Anyone think of hydroelectric? Why does it have to be coal and why are the people already dumping "building materials" on the site without any permits yet?
Don't count your chickens...
Posted by panasonic on July 22, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hydroelectric was looked at but the land is just too flat and would require more than 50,000 acres to build a lake large enough to meet the power needs.
Santee Cooper owns the land, so they technically can put building materials there if they like. Some of the materials needed for the construction of the facility are so large and all custom that the stuff has to be ordered 2 years in advance. This is a very common practice for a company to order the materials needed before the permits are issued, but it is a gamble. Time is money.
Posted by patricycle77 on July 22, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
panasonic, what do you do? meaning, do you work in an energy related field or is it just an interest? good comments.
Posted by panasonic on July 22, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't work for Santee Cooper or in any other energy related field. In full disclosure I did spend one summer in college working for them as an intern but that was 6 years ago. It is just an interest of mine and I try to just clarify some of the misunderstandings folks have about Santee Cooper.
Posted by Rebel_Yell on July 22, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Santee is just jumping on the back of the oil drilling propaganda while the me-first crowd is roaring to keep the SUVs they can't even afford to drive. Some people just don't care or refuse to face the fact that SC rivers and lakes have been compromised by our very own utilities. Let the lights go out if the only solution by Santee is to make a deplorable situation worst. If we can't eat local fish whenever we want without a health risk, then we should all be steamed and demand accountability from DHEC and the utilities. This ain't a tree or bird that has been taken from us, but instead, it's a stable and healthy food source ruined by the utilities of this state. Don't buy the propaganda being spewed by Carter and his tobacco industry expert! and don't tell me it's china's fault and that it is just a coincidenece that mercury levels are highest in the waters closest to the SC coal plants. B.S.
Posted by nikkiP on July 22, 2008 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I eat fish caught in our rivers and I'm not dead.
Posted by PalmettoDP on July 22, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My perspective on this is admittedly un-scientific, but I grew up just a couple of miles from a coal-fired power plant owned by SCE&G. Many people from the surrounding area ate fish from the Edisto River, caught right next to the power plant. We did not have an autism epidemic then, and last I checked, they don't have one now. Nobody wants to live next to a power plant emitting excessive amounts of mercury, but today's plants have the latest scrubbing technology.
Solar technology will be a competitive energy source in the coming years, but not until the next generation of panels comes out. The cost of making them with silicon just makes panels too expensive.
We have to be able to produce power that is dependable and affordable in order to help our state attract new industries. Rolling blackouts are not a great selling point.
Speaking of alternative energy, a few months ago I saw on TV a turbine someone invented that generates electricity from the tides. The turbines lie on the bottom of coastal rivers. Something like this, if it's really workable, seems like a good idea for our area. Unlike the wind, the tides are predictable and produce current most hours of the day.
Posted by patricycle77 on July 22, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rebel_Yell, I agree with much of what you say, however, mercury levels are not actually always higher in waters closest coal plants. High mercury content in the atmosphere does contribute to methylmercury in the water, but that transformation is relative to the acidity and biomass in the water. There are some coal-fired power plants on waterways with high acidity and low biomass and those waterways have low methylmercury levels.
nikkiP, you might not be dead yet, but eating fish without checking for advisories can affect your life span or at least your quality of life. in the same way that methylmercury bioaccumulates in fish (which is why older and bigger fish have higher levels), eating mercury contaminated fish over time can negatively affect your eyesight, hearing, nervous system, and circulatory system. I just assume eat fish that aren't contaminated or not them at all.
Posted by 512c on July 22, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wave power, tide capture, wind power, solar power.
and low wattage LED, and natural gas from trash.
nuff said, google em!
Posted by 512c on July 22, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
btw, you guys are posting a lot of really well thought out comments, what happened?
Posted by Neponset on July 22, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We hear a lot about alternatives, but a lot of them are not for this area (hydro - too flat and not enough water, wind mill - not enough wind, solar - no room without cutting down a lot of trees, tide generators - not enough tide rise & fall, and the list goes on) and some of them are intermitant ie what do you do when the wind dies or the sun goes down. You can store energy with a reversable hydo system, but that would have to be built into current system.
Like it or not, coal fired steam plants are what is quick and available. Long range nuc. can be added. Most of this other stuff does not produce much power. How much power do you think is being produced by our local hydro system during this drought - I don't have a number, but I am sure it is not much.
Posted by moonpie on July 22, 2008 at 6:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah sure Mr Santee Cooper executive that derives a nice pay check from SC. We believe you. Where is the mercury coming from then?
Alternative, how about the wind of our coast?
Posted by Spartan on July 22, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What is needed here is some expertise. Not hearing a lot by these comments, but some good thoughts. Wish Post and Courier would do some more in depth investigating on the best source of power for our region based on our natural resources and what will be the least stressful energy source. Energy is the buzz word for at least the rest of this decade. One thing is for sure, we are consuming higher quantities of energy. Seems its either nuclear or Coal fire to me as other options are lame. But hey, lets get some expertise in this discussion. Post and Courier why not get some hired guns to study this one like you did the growth issues?
Posted by rollo on July 22, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All you folks who live in the area to be served by this proposed plant need to prepare for some cold winters and hot summers because people who live 100 miles away know what is best for you.
You are so ignorant as to think that you need lights and climate control in your own homes and businesses! So folks from James Island and Mt Pleasant will protect you from your own silly, short-sighted decisions.
You must certainly be grateful for such patronization from folks who lose nothing if you lose everything.
Posted by Neponset on July 23, 2008 at 6 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Spar..
Yes you are correct, we need to hear from the experts and since this is a hot topic hopefully the P&C will respond with some articles on the best ways to produce energy and the risks these ways pose for the environment.
The only expertise we have gotten (indirectly) is from Santee, which I am sure has studied this issue very carefully, and their proposal is to go with coal fired plants at this time. They say the mercury issue is over blown - I think some numbers would be helpful. Sure we have contamination from older plants, but will the new plant add significantly to this contamination.