Sparks flying over power plant
Natural Resources Dept. rips into Santee Cooper plan
By Tony Bartelme
In the government equivalent of an intramural brawl, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources ripped into Santee Cooper's plan to build a new billion-dollar coal plant, saying it would pump "unacceptable volumes of toxic pollutants and greenhouse gases" into the air.
AP
An artist's rendering of Santee Cooper's proposed coal-fired power plant in Florence County.
In a letter obtained by Post and Courier Watchdog, John Frampton, DNR's director, asked the state Department of Health and Environmental Control's board to overturn the agency's decision in December to give Santee Cooper an air pollution permit.
Frampton's move adds a new twist in the debate over Santee Cooper's Pee Dee coal plant proposal, with one state agency, DNR, now opposing a state-owned utility, and a third state entity, DHEC, wrestling over the decision to give the project a green light.
Frampton's letter also prompted Santee Cooper's top executive to fire off his own missive saying DNR had a chance to weigh in on the coal plant air pollution issue long ago, and that this chance has passed.
On Thursday, in a special meeting in Columbia, DHEC's board is scheduled to hear pleas from supporters who said the state needs a new plant to prevent future blackouts and opponents who want DHEC to change its mind and nix Santee Cooper's permit.
War of words
The letter from S.C. DNR Chairman John Frampton opposing Santee Cooper's proposed Pee Dee coal-fired power plant (3 page PDF)
The letter from Santee Cooper CEO Lonnie Carter to S.C. DHEC Commissioner C. Earl Hunter responding to SCDNR (Word Document)
Frampton's letter turns up the burner on this debate. Sent last Friday to DHEC Commissioner Earl Hunter, it contains some of the strongest language yet from a government agency about Santee Cooper's plans to build the $1.25 billion coal plant.
Among other things, Frampton wrote that the plant's smokestacks would release poisonous mercury emissions in areas already suffering from mercury contamination. "I cannot be silent on the issue of increases in this most dangerous pollutant to the detriment of freshwater and marine fisheries and those who enjoy pursuing, landing and consuming the affected species."
Frampton noted that rising carbon dioxide levels could irreversibly affect the climate, and that coal plants are the single largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and South Carolina. "Continued permitting of additional domestic CO2 emissions carries the risk of enormous consequences," he wrote.
Frampton also cited the recent coal ash spill that tainted rivers in Tennessee with millions of gallons of contaminated ash sludge. "This risk cannot be tolerated to occur in South Carolina," Frampton wrote, saying that DNR will recommend denial of "any and all state and federal water permits."
The Post and Courier's on-line center for investigative reporting.Want to know how your favorite restaurant was rated by DHEC? Wonder about state employees' salaries?
Check out what our Watchdog reporters found.
Mike Willis, DNR communications director, said Frampton would not comment on the letter. "It speaks for itself," he said.
In response, Lonnie Carter, Santee Cooper's chief executive officer, fired off his own blistering letter Monday, describing DNR's position as "an 11th-hour attempt to circumvent DHEC's" decision to grant the utility an air pollution permit.
Carter said DNR had many chances to oppose the plant but chose to do it only after DHEC's staff made its decision. "Santee Cooper has had numerous meetings with DNR over the course of this project ... and no one from DNR has ever told us that they objected to the issuance of the air permit or opposed the facility," Carter wrote.
He said DNR's opposition is "misplaced and untimely and should be given no consideration by the board of DHEC."
The Pee Dee coal plant debate comes as a new study by the state Office of Regulatory Staff shows that South Carolinians get 61 percent of their electricity from coal plants.
Some state lawmakers said this makes ratepayers more vulnerable to possible federal taxes on CO2, while conservation groups said it shows the state depends too much on coal and should diversify its power generation mix.
"It's a wonderful and important decision by DNR to take a strong position on this issue," said Dana Beach, executive director of the Coastal Conservation League.
State wildlife officials aren't the only government officials worried about the Pee Dee plan.
More than a year ago, the federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said the plant should be put on hold until a comprehensive analysis is done of potential damage to the Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge from mercury fallout and other air pollution from the plant.
The debate also comes as the Obama administration takes new steps to tighten mercury emissions.
Reach Tony Bartelme at 937-5554 or tbartelme@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
eyecantspel (anonymous) says...
Top Ten Reasons to Stop Santee Cooper from Building this Plant....
10. The Hopeful Fear-Monger President wants us to fuel ourselfs on magical beams of sunlight, corn, and hemp.
9. During what I call the "Great Recession", spending money on construction and creating over 100 full time jobs is just wasteful.
8. Cheap power... what kind of business is looking for that. We want our power from out of state from other companies backup oil burning units.
7. Its a good idea to let out of state businesses like Duke and Progress determine our electric rates and areas of service
6. Solar panels are awesome, if you don't need power at night or if its "kinda" cloudy.
5. Air conditioning is for babies
4. If we stop this plant in the middle of no-where, China will stop building 1 of the 10 coal fired plants they bring online a week, so we would be stopping progress in 2 differnet countries.
3. I keep hearing about electric cars, but without cheap power these things are sure to surge in sales.
2. Enough of using our own natural fuels from the US, lets import more fuels from overseas.
1. Houses without power are even harder to sell....
February 11, 2009 at 3 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
watchdog (anonymous) says...
"It's a wonderful and important decision by DNR to take a strong position on this issue," said Dana Beach, executive director of the Coastal Conservation League.
About time a government agency looked out for the people.GO DNR!
February 11, 2009 at 4:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
watchdog (anonymous) says...
Hey eyecanspel, why are you against the DNR? Your 10 reasons are antiquated, stop being a caveman....and step into the future, because this train is leaving the station.....
February 11, 2009 at 4:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Slick50 (anonymous) says...
eyecantspel brought up the downside of not building a plant, but I didn't seen any alternative ideas in this article. Should we just overlook the fact that there will be a continually growing need for electricity and be forced to live with rolling brown outs during peak demand? Is everyone comfortable with paying any rate the market will bear for electric power? If Santee can't produce a product while making a profit, how long will they stay in business? When the train leaves the station, what will fuel it?
February 11, 2009 at 5:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
watchdog (anonymous) says...
Slick 50, coal is not the answer to our problems, there are many solutions that are more efficient, and you know what they are. The point is we can no longer do business as we have been doing in the last 100 years, so cheer up and buy your ticket for the future express. The future is now....The train is leaving the station!
February 11, 2009 at 6:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
On one hand, if SC can be believed, this is curiously untimely, late. On the other hand, if the claims of the DNR are true, then the facts are as valid now as then. Personally, I am a huge fan and supporter of the DNR. Rationally, we need more power, since conservation only is a bust. So, to the naysayers, lay out your alternative and its cost. Until I see a viable alternative, build the thing.
February 11, 2009 at 6:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cwmcpa (anonymous) says...
watchdog,
Do you mind if I look out for myself? I know you are a nanny stater and feel that you and the gov't are the only ones smart enough to decide what is best in peoples lives. Please get on the train departing the station and do not get off until you cross the Mason Dixon line. You have your own life so live as you wish, please do not get upset if we ask for the same consideration.
February 11, 2009 at 6:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
notax (anonymous) says...
Flip Flop Beach in the news again. When is some agency going to look into the goings on at the SCCCL? Does anyone ever think about auditing that group and see where the money comes from and what it goes for? Harrasment of private citizens is one thing they are really good at - and the tactics they use to get their way sometimes borders on entrapment!
What about that, RG? And NV?
February 11, 2009 at 7:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
watchdog (anonymous) says...
cwmcpa, what are you talking about? MasonDixon line etc? for one the MasonDixon line is imaginary, and global warming is real. We(as in the world) are in the same boat, its a problem we all need to address. So please Fred Flintson,aka.Caveman and your imaginary friend Kazoo get on the next space shuttle.....
February 11, 2009 at 7:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scottmcx (anonymous) says...
Today, here, the eco-nazis pretend that the only "problem" power sources are oil, gas, coal and nuclear. If you look at the ongoing fights over large solar and wind, you'll find they are against those too. Their reasoning is, and I have to agree, when you build wind farms they cover huge expanses of land. Then you have to connect them together and to the grid. This takes untold linear miles of powerline right-of-way and seizure of private property. Also, wind farms are killing the heck out of migratory birds.
Solar panels shade the ground effecting the lifeforms below and change climate. To produce the energy we need you'd have to cover gigantic areas of land and manufacture batteries made of toxic chemicals for night and low light periods. They too require excessive right-of-way to interconnect and then to the grid.
Check out any "clean" energy project and you'll find the eco-nazis fighting it too.
They should just admit, they hate any human progress.
I have and idea, why don't we all just freeze in the dark.
February 11, 2009 at 8:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oldglory (anonymous) says...
Either way this issues goes, we are ultimately going to pay for what Santee Cooper wants. I'd have to vote for the more progressive answers such as renewable energy as we all know it is coming.
A note to cwmcpa, et al:
I am from Virginia--one of those nasty northern states to which so many southerners refer--and I have to be honest: As much as it appears to upset you for someone to give a generalized opinion, it is also upsetting, particularly to me (but I'm sure others must feel as I do), to have a "true" South Carolinian tell us to return north. We may be invaders, but we pay the same taxes, and all are free to state their -opinions- as we are invited to do here. That's what opinions are--a person's point of view.
I guess the twenty-first century means nothing.
February 11, 2009 at 8:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Valkyrie (anonymous) says...
watchdog "cwmcpa, ...for one the MasonDixon line is imaginary, and global warming is real." LMAO!
global warming is real...what a joke. Santa is real and so is the easter bunny. Gore is an idiot, and anyone that buys into MM GW, is not looking at the facts.
We have PROVEN energy resources and proven means to deliver those resources, not pie in the sky re-newable crap.
The Green movement is the new RED as in RED China. LoL enviro-nut bags want to tell us how to live and what to do.
Tell Obama to turn down his thermastat!
February 11, 2009 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Valkyrie (anonymous) says...
Czech President Vaclav Klaus said Tuesday he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming, he argues environmentalism poses a threat to basic human freedoms.
"I many times tried to talk to have a public exchange of views with him, and he's not too much willing to make such a conversation," Klaus said. "So I'm ready to do it."
Klaus was speaking a the National Press Building in Washington to present his new book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?
"My answer is it is our freedom and, I might add, and our prosperity," he said.
Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the "climate alarmism" perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.
"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said.
"In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added.
February 11, 2009 at 8:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BillytheKid (anonymous) says...
GW is a fact. Science is proving it. I used to have my head in the sand also.
We will have blackouts and brownouts here but it won't be because we didn't build that monster coal plant, it will be because we did build it and can't run it!!!!
February 11, 2009 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
beenya_toolong (anonymous) says...
Oldglory-
You've got to be kidding me, you are not from "one of those nasty northern states to which so many southerners refer"... you are from the Capital city of our fallen Confederacy. You hail the correct side of the Mason-Dixon line, so chill out....you're ok. Now, all of the rest of you from NJ, Ohio, etc... you can pack your carpetbags and head home. As far as this coal plant is concerned. It is an awful Idea. The thought of having poison belching smokestacks towering over the banks of the beautiful Great Pee Dee River makes me nauseous. Sadly, most of the people I know who are supporting it are doing so because they think it is going to bring jobs to the area, which is pretty silly. The few jobs that it does bring will be so technical in nature that they will have to import people to fill them. The only effect it will have on the area is poisonous fish, polluted air, and industrial blight in an otherwise pristine setting. I say send this coal plant back up North where it belongs. ha!
February 11, 2009 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PyroTechSC (anonymous) says...
Has any one of the outspoken opponents to coal generation of electricity noticed the outspoken opponents to Hydro and Nuclear, which are supposedly other no offending ways of generating. By the way, have any of the outspoken opponents to coal thought about what will happen when wind-farms start popping up more and more and start chopping up birds. (Wind farms are already being opposed because they are an eyesore.)
There is always someone that will oppose something someone else does. How much are the outspoken oppenents willing to do without their A/C or refrigerator or their night lights or there many other appliances. At what costs are the outspoken opponents willing to pay for electricity?
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
February 11, 2009 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
watchdog (anonymous) says...
beenya toolong, they do not build coal power plants up north, they are in the future.You really need to look at what they are doing in other parts of the country and the world. Also this is the United States, don't forget it! This is not a separate country, unless you look at the education part of it.Long Live the Union....
February 11, 2009 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Valkyrie (anonymous) says...
Billy, Our planet has been slowly warming since last emerging from the "Little Ice Age" of the 17th century, often associated with the Maunder Minimum. Before that came the "Medieval Warm Period", in which temperatures were about the same as they are today.
But we're hearing far too often that the "science" is "settled", and that it is mankind's contribution to the natural CO2 in the atmosphere has been the principal cause of an increasing "Greenhouse Effect", which is the root "cause" of global warming.
On Dec. 13, 2007, 100 scientists jointly signed an Open Letter to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, requesting they cease the man-made global warming hysteria. The final signature was from the President of the World Federation of Scientists.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/un-si...
MAN MADE GW, is not a FACT, it is a theory. Un-proven, and not supported by the entire scientific community.
What is fact, is that we need electrical power for life saving facilities like hospitals. In addition, the entire global economy runs on oil based products, they will not be replased by wind/solar or a magic wand.
France is building Nuke plants,and so should we. Also clean coal is real and proven and can be used now. We the US have the largest reserves of clean coal, why not use it?
Why, do we want tobe held hostage by a Marxist nut job like Hugo Chavez?
Venezuela cuts more oil output to U.S.
MIAMI, Feb. 10 (UPI) -- Venezuela made good on its promise to reduce oil exports, canceling several shipments to the United States, in order to comply with reduced OPEC production requirements and bolster its own fortunes by helping raise the price of oil worldwide.
http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2...
Wake up, this is about security and survival.
February 11, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
watchdog (anonymous) says...
By JOHN G. EDWARDS
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
NV Energy on Monday announced that it is postponing development of a $5 billion coal-fired power plant at Ely until technology for capturing and storing carbon dioxide pollution becomes commercially feasible, probably for 10 years or more.
"I applaud NV Energy's decision to speed up the development of an important transmission line and to postpone construction of its Ely Energy Center coal plant," Reid said in a statement.
"We've got the federal government, the state and the largest utility planning all in the same line, which is good for consistent economic development for the state," said Tim Hay, a consultant to the National Resource Defense Council and former state consumer advocate.
"I want to congratulate NV Energy for this decision that is good for the environment, good for ratepayers and good for the state economy," said Charles Benjamin of Nevadans for Clean Affordable Reliable Energy.
Amy Atwood, senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, said in an e-mail that NV Energy seems to recognize that coal power is outdated and new sources of energy are needed. "NV Energy's announcement seems to reflect that this is now as stark a business reality as a scientific one."
The decision to shelve the project will not affect rates for electric power users short-term, because none of the development costs were included in the pending general rate case, said Chief Executive Officer Michael Yackira.
Long-term, the company decided that delaying the 1,500-megawatt Ely Energy Center is the best way to hold down electric utility rates, he said.
The utility company said it postponed the project because construction costs are escalating and the costs of complying with expected federal carbon emission regulations remain unknown, Yackira said.
The utility company in 2006 estimated the project, including a transmission line, would cost $3.8 billion, although its estimated cost has since increased to $5 billion.
The company also wants to protect the environment, Yackira said. Scientists say that carbon dioxide leads to global warming, and coal-fired plants throw off twice the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of power that is emitted by plants burning natural gas.
The CEO expects climate change legislation to reach the Senate floor as soon as Memorial Day. Electric utilities increasingly are backing away from coal projects because of uncertainty over the cost of complying with climate change legislation.
Arizona Public Service filed a comprehensive resource plan on Jan. 30 that rejected building new coal-fired power plants.
Instead of developing the Ely coal plant, NV Energy will invest in renewable power projects, energy efficiency programs and power plants that burn natural gas, Yackira said.
February 11, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
watchdog (anonymous) says...
NV Energy said it will continue developing a 250-mile transmission line planned as part of the project for an undisclosed cost. It expects to complete the line by 2012.
The power line could give Southern Nevada access to geothermal power in Northern Nevada and enable the company's utilities in Las Vegas and Reno to share power plants, Yackira said.
So this CEO thinks some form of cap and trade will hit the senate floor by Memorial Day. What do you think the demand for Raser's baseload renewable energy will be when that happens? Every utility that owns a coal plant will want to invest in a renewable project so they can get not only the renewable energy to meet their own state or national RPS standards but more importantly the renewable energy credits that they will get so they can offset their coal plants emissions without having to pay heavy fines. Yes, the market for renewables is in its infancy and the demand will only skyrocket from here.
February 11, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scfirefly (anonymous) says...
I've commented on this issue before. In the interest of full disclosure I will reveal that many of my friends and family are employed by Santee Cooper and SCE&G. Is it not true that Dana Beach is married to a Senior Editor at The Post & Courier? Why isn't that conflict of interest ever disclosed?
February 11, 2009 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wjhamilton3 (anonymous) says...
I like the big, green yard around the plant in the illustration. Unfortunately, the illustration doesn't include the huge ash storage pit such plants require. Some of this ash is recycled to make concrete, but a lot of it is left in ponds to harden (it's mixed with powdered limestone and forms a hard, rock like material.)
You would think that this material would be in demand for landfill since people all over the Lowcountry pay good money for hard fill for construction projects, but it's too contaminated for that. The volume of it exceeds what the concrete industry needs, so it just gets piled up in ponds. If those ponds leak some of the millions of gallons of water they accumulate and it isn't treated, it can wipe out all the fish in the entire watershed.
We can build a coal plant which is perfectly clean and perfectly safe, but the question is will it be so expensive that it can't be operated for what the energy it produces is worth? The Federal Government apparently built such a pilot plant in Ohio, but it was shut down as not being cost effective. The Democrats wanted to restart is as part of the stimulus bill, but the Republicans (the pro coal, drill baby drill people) demanded that money be cut out of the bill.
Apparently there is no clean coal and any price which makes sense, at least to Republicans.
Their goal is apparently a nation where the environment is as dirty and degraded as most of China and where the standard of living is as low.
How much Mercury has to accumulate in the Pee Dee ecosystem before the Republicans think there is a problem? The fish aren't safe to eat now. What are the fish in the Pee Dee river worth over the lifetime of this plant? What is the cost of mercury poisoning to the State of South Carolina?
Maybe we have to build this, but we need to be sure of the total cost. It might be a lot more cost effective to install a few million florescent light bulbs (which also have mercury in them and would have to be recycled very carefully.)
February 11, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scfirefly (anonymous) says...
Correction. Sorry, too much coffee. Isn't Dana Beach married to the sister of a Senior Editor?
February 11, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
crankyyankee (anonymous) says...
Let me ask this at the risk of sounding like someone that's anti blind follower. If the Earths temperture has always been constant as the GW supporters believe, why have we had ice ages? Why would it warm up after an Ice Age if there were no humans creating CO2? Where do we stand now in terms of the next Ice Age/Warm period? Why are there reptile fossiles in the Artic? What temperature is the optimum temperature the Earth should be? Why do Democrats think that only they can change the temperture of the Earth and once again save us all from ourselves? Why are supporters smart and anyone opposed missinformed? I suppose ther will always be the Chicken Littles warning us against GW, Sars virus, Y2K, Avian Flu, Ebola and Ebonics! I'll let ya'll worry about this one.
February 11, 2009 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
512c (anonymous) says...
"The few jobs that it does bring will be so technical in nature that they will have to import people to fill them"
beenya_toolong
that's true!
They already paid their architects, engineers off, and have put out bids for construction, which are waiting the stamp now, so, all the local jobs were done, and now they think they can go... But, wait, let's design something new!
Let's pay someone like me, to design a system of state funded house hold rentable boxes that attach to federally tax relieved solar panels, and a system of new plumbing pipes for separate grey water pipes, and insulated home!
This is local out the wazzooo!
February 11, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Get_seriousHELP (anonymous) says...
Yo wjhamilton3, you should love the Prius than;
Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.
The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius' battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist's nightmare.
"The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside," said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.
The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce 'nickel foam.' From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?
February 11, 2009 at 10:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SpiderJohn (anonymous) says...
It is called CLIMATE CHANGE not global warming!
It is getting dry where it should be wet, it is getting cold where it should be warm and warm where it should be colder!
Get it? CLIMATE CHANGE!
Some of you "old thinkers" need to get off the pot and start working towards a more sustainable way of living. Do we all know what coal is made of? It is a huge polluter, it WILL run out and it will leave behind repercussions that will be felt for life times.
We could all do with a little more forward thinking and stop being the state that is first in everything bad and last in everything good!
February 11, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
americanheretic (anonymous) says...
Hey,Confederats GO EAT FISH!
February 11, 2009 at 10:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Valkyrie (anonymous) says...
Yes, the new ice age didnt scare anyone in the 70s, now global warming isnt working, so lets call it climate change.
LOL - and its all mans fault, right?
February 11, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JohnHartz (anonymous) says...
Kudos to John Frampton and the DNR staff for standing up to the Utility-Industrial Complex of South Carolina. They deserve a "Profiles in Courage" award for doing the right thing for us and for future generations.
John Hartz, Chair, Conservation Committee, SC Chapter of the Sierra Club
February 11, 2009 at 10:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
longview (anonymous) says...
Please stop hijacking this important discussion with the arguement on global warming or climate change. The point of this article was DNR's concern with pollutants that would end up in local ecologies. If you enjoy the outdoors, you should be concerned. If you are afraid of living in the dark, try making sacrifices of energy consumption and support alternate means to conserve energy such as improving the electic grid. The "jobs" arguement holds no water. The jobs lost in the long run would be much greater. This plant is a bad idea that is getting rammed down the region's throat by a bunch of shortsighted SCEG execs would are only looking to expand their business. We need more power to support to growth of Myrtle and Conway? You've got to be kidding. Who in their right mind wants that kind of progress?
February 11, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SpiderJohn (anonymous) says...
No Val - it has been called CLIMATE CHANGE for a long time....but the "stick their head in sand " types use the term global warming, so you can try to validate your thoughts on the matter.
Take a look at the glaciers and tell me something isn't happening. I have seen them up close and personal. It is happening and you can virtual see it right before your eyes.
But no:..Val and his ilk just deny with no proof. Tell me the ice flows are not melting! Tell me that Greenland isn't loosing ice at an alarming rate. Tell me that polar bears are not DROWNING! Go ahead:.LIE:that is the only way anyone can deny Climate Change!
You are like those nuts that said we never went to the moon and think the world is flat.
February 11, 2009 at 10:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
longview (anonymous) says...
My error in the previous post.... I intended to criticize Santee Cooper
February 11, 2009 at 10:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
crankyyankee (anonymous) says...
Since when has the State of South Carolina been concerned about pollutants? Every time I have ever brought up the subject of the Paper Mill I have been told in rather strong terms that it smells like money! There were something like twenty-six licensed septic tank haulers in the tri-County area, yet only three or four have ever paid a fee to dump at the Government provided disposal site and this has been going on for years. Where are the others dumping? Like I said since when did South Carolina become concerned with pollutants?
February 11, 2009 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Valkyrie (anonymous) says...
Spidyjohn "Tell me that polar bears are not DROWNING!"
POLAR BEARS CAN SWIM! LMAO. HYSTERIA!
Polar bears are strong swimmers; they swim across bays or wide leads without hesitation. They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances. They've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.) (Stirling, 1988).
2. A polar bear's front paws propel them through the water dog-paddle style. The hind feet and legs are held flat and are used as rudders.
3. A thick layer of blubber (fat), up to 11 cm (4.3 in.) thick, keeps the polar bear warm while swimming in cold water (Stirling, 1988).
4. Polar bears can obtain a swimming speed of 10 kph (6.2 mph) (Stirling, 1988).
5. The hair of a polar bear easily shakes free of water and any ice that may form after swimming.
6. A polar bear's nostrils close when under water.
----------------
Antarctic ice is thickening WASHINGTON (AP) - New measurements show the ice in ... transition from shrinking to growing that appears to have occurred on a ...
Researchers find Antarctic ice is thickening
WASHINGTON (AP) - New measurements show the ice in West Antarctica is thickening, reversing some earlier estimates that the sheet was melting.
Scientists concerned about global warming have worried that higher temperatures could melt the massive ice sheet, causing a rise in sea levels worldwide.
But new flow measurements for the Ross ice streams, using special satellite-based radars, indicate that movement of some of the ice streams has slowed or halted, allowing the ice to thicken, according to a paper in the Jan. 18 issue of the journal Science.
February 11, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
americanheretic (anonymous) says...
Somebody get the nurse and dab ole valkyrie's mouth,he's drooling again.
February 11, 2009 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SpiderJohn (anonymous) says...
longview - I will not stop talking about valid issues related to coal plants!
But I will post links that provide information on health issues for man and wildlife related to mercury:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_release...
http://www.stopmercurypollution.org/
And if it is about the almighty $$$$$ for some of you, here is a link that looks at the dollar impact of mercury pollution:
http://www.ehponline.org/press/030205...
February 11, 2009 at 11:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SpiderJohn (anonymous) says...
Val - you are the biggest fool I have ever run into on these posts. They are drowning because they are not able to find ice to rest upon.
Pull your ignorant head out of your.......nevermind.
You will never change my mind and I will never change yours.
February 11, 2009 at 11:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SpiderJohn (anonymous) says...
From The Sunday TimesDecember 18, 2005
Polar bears drown as ice shelf melts
Will Iredale
SCIENTISTS have for the first time found evidence that polar bears are drowning because climate change is melting the Arctic ice shelf.
The researchers were startled to find bears having to swim up to 60 miles across open sea to find food. They are being forced into the long voyages because the ice floes from which they feed are melting, becoming smaller and drifting farther apart.
Although polar bears are strong swimmers, they are adapted for swimming close to the shore. Their sea journeys leave them them vulnerable to exhaustion, hypothermia or being swamped by waves.
According to the new research, four bear carcases were found floating in one month in a single patch of sea off the north coast of Alaska, where average summer temperatures have increased by 2-3C degrees since 1950s.
The scientists believe such drownings are becoming widespread across the Arctic, an inevitable consequence of the doubling in the past 20 years of the proportion of polar bears having to swim in open seas.
February 11, 2009 at 11:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Valkyrie (anonymous) says...
Yes, I saw that too. http://online.wsj.com/public/article_...
As for being a fool, one would suspect that only the foolish contribute "climate change" to man. It appears as though, climate change has been occuring for millions of years.
I dont need my mind changed, and I dont want to change yours, which, it seems has been hijacked by the left-wing kook squad.
The sky is falling! Polar bears are drowing and the seal pups are happy that the polar bears are drowing!
Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up'
Pictures of a polar bear floating precariously on a tiny iceberg have become the defining image of global warming but may be misleading, according to a new study.
A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment.
In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.
"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world...
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
May 11, 2007 - 13:42 ET
This one is really too funny, folks, and definitely requires all potables, combustibles, and sharp objects be properly stowed (grateful and humorous h/t to NBer dscott).
Despite all the carping and whining by folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his not so merry band of sycophant devotees about global warming killing polar bears, there is actually a baby boom occurring in this species in Canada's eastern Arctic.
As marvelously reported May 3 by the Christian Science Monitor (emphasis added throughout):
Polar bears are the poster animals of global warming. The image of a polar bear floating on an ice floe is one of the most dramatic visual statements in the fight against rising temperatures in the Arctic.
But global warming is not killing the polar bears of Canada's eastern Arctic, according to one ongoing study. Scheduled for release next year, it says the number of polar bears in the Davis Strait area of Canada's eastern Arctic one of 19 polar bear populations worldwide has grown to 2,100, up from 850 in the mid-1980s.
http://newsbusters.org/node/12694
February 11, 2009 at 11:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Valkyrie (anonymous) says...
Hey spidy, little more for ya, than I am done;
Nobody talks about "overpopulated" when discussing the bears' outlook.
Yet despite the Canadian government 's $150-million commitment last week to fund 44 International Polar Year research projects, a key question is not up for detailed scientific assessment: If the polar bear is the 650-kilogram canary in the climate change coal mine, why are its numbers INCREASING?
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/stor...
February 11, 2009 at 11:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SpiderJohn (anonymous) says...
Pull your ignorant head out of your.......nevermind.
You will never change my mind and I will never change yours.
February 11, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Valkyrie (anonymous) says...
SpidyJ...it seems your head is up and locked. What you ran out of the polar bear is drowning stories...?
I dont need my mind changed, and I dont want to change yours, which, it seems has been hijacked by the left-wing kook squad.
February 11, 2009 at 11:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
UrGatorbait (anonymous) says...
All this technology and this state is still doing coal fired plants. No surprise there.
Folks want cheap power but don't want to pay the real costs of power either environmentally or out of their pockets. Great thought process.
February 11, 2009 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
singleroni (anonymous) says...
if you don't like i-26 still runs north
February 11, 2009 at 12:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ln1959 (anonymous) says...
Posted by wjhamilton3 on February 11, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How much Mercury has to accumulate in the Pee Dee ecosystem before the Republicans think there is a problem? The fish aren't safe to eat now. The fish aren't safe to eat now. What are the fish in the Pee Dee river worth over the lifetime of this plant? What is the cost of mercury poisoning to the State of South Carolina?
Say its not so!!!!
I was looking forward to retiring and moving back to SC to catch me one of those BIG FISH thats not the actual size on the poster at mile marker 100 on I-95. Guess I better take a vacation before they build that plant.
February 11, 2009 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SpiderJohn (anonymous) says...
Posted by Valkyrie on February 11, 2009 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SpidyJ...it seems your head is up and locked. What you ran out of the polar bear is drowning stories...?
I dont need my mind changed, and I dont want to change yours, which, it seems has been hijacked by the left-wing kook squad.
***********************************************************
No Val, I think you are wrong and I am not interested in arguing. You think what you want and I will think want I want and you can continue to embrace the flawed ideals that have kept this state last at everything good and first in everything bad.
February 11, 2009 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
For all you atheists and climate fear mongers: From what I hear scientists have said, just about every cubic inch of dry land was once under the ocean, and every cubic inch of land under the water was once dry. Now, these transformations, and others, happened without in input from man. Now, where do you get off deciding what "should" and "should not" be dry or wet. It is what it is, folks; whether you are here or not, it will be what it will be...no help needed, thanks. Please, calm down, sit down, and shut up. You give me a headache some days. I'll probably love you again tomorrow, but not now.
February 11, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scfirefly (anonymous) says...
Very well said theronce! Feel the love!
February 11, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PalmettoDP (anonymous) says...
I believe solar power is very promising, but today's commercially available panels aren't where they need to be. Once panels become more efficient and we find better ways to store the energy, there will be a booming solar market.
Until then, we have to use what we have. I say build the plant. We do not have to use it indefinitely, and the emissions scrubbers in the smokestacks are very effective removing mercury.
I grew up practically next door to a coal-fired plant, and we never had any of the environmental disasters described in the article. Not that these disasters are impossible, as we saw in Tennessee - but they're very unlikely.
February 11, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zoomru (anonymous) says...
Citizens...........what did TONY fail to tell YOU..???
...what is Mr. Frampton NOT telling you........???
...WHAT is Lonnie Carter NOT telling you.....???
Think...WHAT is in OUR best interest??
Come on citizens....THINK !!?
this smoke is intended to distract US all from doing ...WHAT?
February 11, 2009 at 4:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
whalernut (anonymous) says...
GO NUKE!
February 11, 2009 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zoomru (anonymous) says...
Citizens.........
can you believe the ARTIST's rendering of the Proposed plant in Florence.......???
Have you ever seen THAT much green around an industrial SITE .......?????
MY BACKSIDE ........!!!!!
Geez....who was the artist ? The same people who do the WASTE Management commercials....??? ....the artist for the "PROMENADE LANDFILL" developement by RILEY and Friends..??
Where are the GODZILLA power poles coming in to harness the "Clean Energy"...??? Down Folly Road I guess...???
Where are the illustrious RAIL CARS full of lumpy TUMPY ....COAL !?!?!?
WHO wrote this article....... TONY !! (Fist Poundz!)
For the love of "Megawatts" ...Antonio ?!? What are you doing down in the BOWELz of the Post's press room ????
WHO is feeding you (and US) this coal "rendering" ?? WHO ??
Citizens....are we going to take this ...CRAP !!!
Tony can do a LOT better !! I'm sure we would ALL rather not have to worry about the quality of FISH out of the PEE DEE River..?? Tony ....where does your fish STICKS come from???? and WHY ..???? Don't tell US all here that you would rather eat FROZEN fish sticks than locally caught fresh fish from the PEE DEE because the Gordon's box is BIO-Degradeable...!?!?! How green is that .....TONY ??
WE WANT TO ....KNOW ??????
CHARLES ROWE........stop listening to Celine Dion...!!!
February 11, 2009 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zoomru (anonymous) says...
SC Senator Robert-O Ford.........!!!
Where are YOU........???
The silence from YOU is ......deafening !!!
and you want to be Governor...!?!?!
My backside..........!!!!!
What type of fish STICKS are you going to serve at YOUR casinos.......?????
What is going to set your casinos apart from the VEGAS ones...!?!?!
I can see the MENU ...now !!!!!!!
SC Senator FORD.....get your backside over to AIKEN !
NOW.....!!!
February 11, 2009 at 5:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
Hey DNR, Coal is a natural resource, let's use it.
February 11, 2009 at 10:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pearl (anonymous) says...
One should compare Denmark's documented wind farm price per kilowatt hour of 0.05 USD/kWh (see http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ...)
versus South Carolina coal's cost of 0.0622 USD/kWh (see http://www.coaleducation.org/ky_coal_...)
February 14, 2009 at 9:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com 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 postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" 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. Read our full Terms and Conditions.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- Shared
- Upper King on rise: Hotels, apartments, restaurants changing face of downtown area
- UPDATE: Missing woman's fiance seen leaving scene of burned SUV, carrying a shovel
- Missing woman case gets murkier
- Magnolia Gardens offering free dream wedding to contest winner
- Body of missing woman's fiance was found near handgun
- DAVID SLADE: S.C. offers hybrid car tax credit
- Pinterest: Pinning hopes and dreams
- Ex-Boeing worker claims racism, retaliation in firing
- Black women today: Strong. Resilient. Ambitious.
- MCDERMOTT COLUMN: Golf business has risks, rewards
