Utility hears from fans, foes of proposed coal-fired plantBy PAGE IVEY
Associated Press
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
PAMPLICO — The 100 people who met here Tuesday were equally passionate but evenly split in their opinions of a proposed coal-fired, $1.25 billion power plant on the banks of the Great Pee Dee River. Whether the company can further limit mercury emissions from the two 600-megawatt generators has been debated. State-owned utility Santee Cooper hopes to build the generators to meet increasing demands for electricity. The plant would be located in a rural community along the Great Pee Dee River, which many worried would be further polluted with mercury from the plant. Residents who would live near the plant attended the informal meeting, which was sponsored by the state Department of Health and Environmental Control. Utility representatives also attended to help answer questions. "We're talking about emissions on us and our children," said Robert Harwell, 60, of Poston — a community near the proposed plant site. "This seems about the dirtiest way that Santee Cooper could possibly do it." Bussy Poston said he doesn't like polluting, but he also said Santee Cooper needs to make the power. "It's a commonsense thing," said the 83-year-old farmer and retired teacher. Poston wondered why people worried about the mercury levels in fish in the river. "I've been eating catfish out of the Pee Dee River for 83 years, and I'm pretty healthy." Santee Cooper President Lonnie Carter raised environmentalists' ire when he suggested in an opinion article for South Carolina newspapers that federal standards for how much mercury-tainted fish can be consumed is set artificially low and that the state's rivers don't have a serious mercury problem. DHEC says people shouldn't eat too much of several species of fish found in more than 60 rivers, lakes and streams statewide, as well as species found in the Atlantic Ocean. |
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 11 comment(s)
Posted by nikkiP on July 23, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
guess how many people a year die of mercury.
none.
And I know everyone's heard it, but American plants contribute such a small amount to the mercury that it's not even funny. It's a naturally occuring element, travels far, and much of what we have in South Carolina has come from pretty far away.
And once again: better options? They're working on nuclear already. They have landfill gas plants all over the state. If you wanted to use that money for solar power, you'd have to cover the whole state of south carolina to get enough of it, not to mention everything you'd have to destroy to put the panels up. If you wanted to use hydro, you'd have to build something the size of the Hoover Dam.
Even if they could do hydro, environmentalist groups got all bent out of shape about how it would disturb the sturgeon. Yes... the sturgeon.
Posted by nikkiP on July 23, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And you think having rolling and mass blackouts won't kill anyone? Imagine the state living without power for a few weeks.
Posted by panasonic on July 23, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is varying science relating to the amount of people directly sick from "mercury poisoning." Just as there is varying science relating to the effects humans have on global warming. Everyone has mercury in our bodies, just as everyone has various levels of radiation in their bodies.
Posted by dmwallac on July 23, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Early, hard to tell what to make of the site you posted. Most fish in Lake Moultrie (site of TWO coal-fired plants) are unrestricted. Yet, places like the Great Pee Dee have more restrictions. Could there possibly be some other explanation? And why is Lake Marion worse than Moultrie? There are no coal plants there.
Let's not let faulty conclusions put us in the dark.
Posted by Rebel_Yell on July 23, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't worry - most of you are already in the dark on the issue. Gee wiz Beave, why would the power company misrepresent the effects of its pollution? Why would they try and scare us that our lights may go out if we don't give them free reign? I think you should all sit in the dark for a few months while I eat clean fish for free from our rivers and lakes.
p.s. Panasonic--you are a tool. Jobs before health right. Being conservative does not mean you have to ignore the truth that these power companies have abused our trust and killed the most natural and stable food suppply. Once they start pollutting the livestock, just what are we suppossed to eat? Coal?
Posted by dmwallac on July 23, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Scare us? The peak demand of every electric utility in SC increases EVERY YEAR. Sorry you think Eddie Haskell is "giving you the business Beave," but new generation has to come on line to meet those needs - or the LIGHTS GO OUT... and the a/c... and the water and sewer plants... You hoping the Light Fairy is gonna bridge the gap?
Also, are the fish in the Great Pee Dee "clean" today? There is no coal plant there, or did just talking about one pollute the fish? If the power does go out, I doubt you'll hear many people talking about fish.
Posted by nikkiP on July 23, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
what have they killed? uh oh, don't eat the bottom feeding mudfish!
They don't have free reign, in fact they have very conservative restrictions on everything they do. And the idea of intermittent blackouts is not a threat, it is something that will unhappen unless serious conservation and new facilities are built.
Posted by common_sense on July 23, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Early, please site your sources regarding weekly mercury poisioning figures that are skyrocketing. We will all sit here & wait...
I'm just sayin...
Posted by iceman1978 on July 24, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We're going to need roughly 30% more electricity generating capacity over the next 20 years in order to keep up with rising population and growing demand so they have to expand on this, but I'm not sure that coal is the way to go.
If it were up to me I would put more research into geothermal power, as well as wind farms and solar. We live in the sun belt so imagine the power that could be generated if people could put solar panels on their rooftops, as well as the rooftops of shopping centers. We also shouldn't rule out natural gas or nuclear. Natural gas is cleaner than coal, plentiful in supply for this country, and nuclear doesn't release fossil fuels.
Posted by iceman1978 on July 24, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Meant to say "consume fossil fuels" on nuclear.
Posted by FiscalConservative on July 24, 2008 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
GO NUKE or GO HOME!