Santee Cooper axes proposed Pee Dee Coal-fired Power Plant
The Santee Cooper Board of Directors, citing economic uncertainty, voted unanimously on Monday to suspend pursuing permits for a new coal-fired power plant proposed to be built in
The proposal had been under fire from numerous environmental groups (see ConservationVoters of SC) opposed to coal-fired plants, which create massive amounts of greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide) and mercury. Perhaps it is just coincidental that the announcement comes on the heels of the release of a multi-year study of mercury contamination (see my last post) which found the highest concentrations of mercury in southern blackwater rivers. The proposed location of the coal-fired plant in the
In addition, the continued use of coal exacerbates controversial practices such as mountain-top removal mining in the Appalachians (http://www.nrdc.org/energy/coal/mtr/default.asp), as well as producing coal ash waste streams (which create secondary dangers – it was a coal ash slurry pond that collapsed in Kingston, Tennessee, sending millions of tons of toxin-containing slurry into waterways, destroying dozens of homes, and creating a clean-up currently estimated at $1.2B. (See one report here.).)
Energy production has long been a source of friction between industry (power producers and power users) and environmentalists. The fact that Santee Cooper acknowledged an environmental issue only in terms of costs & federal regulation is a reflection of the different points of view on this issue. Future progress, in terms of balancing efficiency and environmental protection, will require that both sides acknowledge the costs – monetary and environmental – that necessarily accompany energy production.

Comments