Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 79 of 79

Thread: DNR opposes PeeDee Powerplant

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,728

    Default

    "Redhead, I really don't care what the edisto has in it. I am pretty sure, I have never even gotten my toes wet there before. However, using common sense, I find it probable that since the river system traverses almost the entire southern border of SC, that there is ripe opportunity for crap to flow in it from most any tributary."

    First,
    what makes your different ecologically aspeaking than the edisto?

    Second,
    You proved my point. A river that vast can get pollution from anywhere. Why are coal fired power plants the bad guy? I know why--because that is what you read in the paper.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Fort Kickass
    Posts
    50,993

    Default

    First,
    what makes your different ecologically aspeaking than the edisto?
    I am not sure what you mean here, but, I will tell you I dont live near the edisto. I dont drink water near the edisto. I also dont own property on or near the edisto. My opinion on that matter is moot. Tell me, do you live, work, or own property anywhere near the Pee Dee?

    Second,
    You proved my point. A river that vast can get pollution from anywhere. Why are coal fired power plants the bad guy? I know why--because that is what you read in the paper.
    You should include some sort of thesis if you have a point to prove. I cant figure out what it is yet. However, based on your arguments, you seem to want to paint anyone as opposed to the coal powered plant in the Pee Dee as reactionary, and brainwashed with the liberal news media's reporting.

    Hardly. It is pretty black and white to me:

    A power plant that produces some pretty bad shit as a by product and stores it on site in holding ponds. It may take until I am buried and my offspring are middle aged, but something is gonna happen. These holding ponds at the head waters of a significant watershed. The watershed drains into everything from Tubbs Inlet to Charleston via the waterway.

    Redhead, who do you work for?
    "Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass by without consideration" -Izaak Walton

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,728

    Default

    I am an environmentalist. I know the facts. I know how with today's technology, coal fired plants are no more dangerous than anything else. I work with these utilities and I know some of the older plants have had millions of dollars pumped into them to make them environmentally friendly. You are so worried about the waste storage, yet you seem to be in favor of nuclear facilities. Nuclear, quite frankly, scares the hell out of me. I will give you the fact that 20 years ago, coal fired plants were nasty. However, it is the most efficient means of producing power and quite frankly, efficiency keeps my house heating and air bill affordable. If they want to build a plant anywhere in SC right now that will produce more jobs, I say get on with it. Cutting through the 20 year red tape for a nuclear facility will do nothing for the economy in the next several years.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    The Steve
    Posts
    9,116

    Default

    Posted by BigBrother "however, it is evident you have a self interest in it's inception."

    Actually my life is a lot more simply and easy when power plants are not being built.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tater View Post
    Your heart ain't like your balls, ya only got one...
    All you need is a body built for discipline and a mind that can justify so much apparent self-abuse.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    OH-ree
    Posts
    1,053

    Default

    Greed is an evil, evil thing!

    Most folks that support this new plant and defend it have something to gain, somewhere down the line.
    [COLOR=darkgreen][B]"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" Edmund Burke [/B][/COLOR]
    [B][COLOR=#006400][/COLOR][/B]
    [B][COLOR=#006400]"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf" George Orwell[/COLOR][/B]

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Fort Kickass
    Posts
    50,993

    Default

    Duly noted. I feel the same way about tape, axles, refrigerators and a variety of other things...

    But, would you make a living without said power plants? I am sure this knowledge you are imparting, that it isnt gleaned from armchair Sunday newspaper reading...

    Redhead...you are accurate in your statement regarding the "cleanliness" of the air leaving the coal plants. You still do not address the heavy metals and toxins that will reside forever in the holding ponds.

    However, if you would go back and review, I have stated that it would not be a good thing for the citizens to get a new power plant in their back yard. That the short term benefits do not justify the long term solutions to repair the indiscretion.

    Actually, I am not convinced that the need for more power exists in the area. I know the google facility is scorching the lines grabbing more power. How does that serve the citizens of the Pee Dee? Does the volume of power that google is consuming reduce the margins of profit that the middle men make selling it to co-ops?
    "Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass by without consideration" -Izaak Walton

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    OH-ree
    Posts
    1,053

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redhead25 View Post
    I am an environmentalist. I know the facts.
    There it is settled!

    The folks at DHEC who have approved the Air permit prior to any EIS are also environmentalist.
    [COLOR=darkgreen][B]"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" Edmund Burke [/B][/COLOR]
    [B][COLOR=#006400][/COLOR][/B]
    [B][COLOR=#006400]"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf" George Orwell[/COLOR][/B]

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,728

    Default

    LOL! Not really...they are engineers.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Pawley's Island
    Posts
    687

    Default

    Redhead, what do you actually about nuclear power plants, other than what you've "read in the paper?" A toxin is a toxin is a toxin, they kill things, no matter the source, and BOTH nuclear and coal plants have the opportunity to leak them. Nuclear has no carbon emissions, whereas coal does. So, from an environmental standpoint, wouldn't nuclear be the better choice?
    I might be allergic, but I'll try it anyway.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    The Steve
    Posts
    9,116

    Default

    Yeah, I have a job either way. Plenty of other projects going on. I've done a lot of work on power plants, but that's not all I can do. Never become so specialized that you threaten yourself....
    Quote Originally Posted by Tater View Post
    Your heart ain't like your balls, ya only got one...
    All you need is a body built for discipline and a mind that can justify so much apparent self-abuse.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,728

    Default

    Matt,
    Nuclear has way more red tape to go through to get a plant. You have to give like a 20 year window on building one. Yes they are a little cleaner while they are running. What scares me is they make for better targets for idiots. A slip up in a nuclear facility can have disastrous effects for everyone within miles and miles, not to mention if we build more and more nuclear plants, what are we going to do with the nuclear waste?

  12. #72
    SCTIMBER Coots

    Default

    duckduckdog / redhead ,

    How much energy does the Savannah River Site produce per year and where is that energy directed?

    I would strongly disagree that it would take 20 million tons of wood per year to produce energy. From my understanding this proposed Pee Dee Powerplant is not going to provide power for the state, just the Pee Dee and Grand Strand. It surely doesn't take that many tons to produce that much results

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    The Steve
    Posts
    9,116

    Default

    Not trying to be a jerk, but you would be very wrong in your disagreement. That is what it take (roughly) to run just the Cross Generating Station. SC has 7 generating stations and it's really hard to say at any given time where electricity generated at any one site goes. The grid is set such that the most efficient and economical plants run the majority of the time and the smaller, less effiecient or less economical plants run during peak times. The BTU value of coal is around 13,000 BTU/lb. For wood, it's around 6400 BTU/lb. It takes a litle more than double the amount of wood as coal to produce the same amount of power. So just for the Cross plant, you would need approximately 10 million cords of white oak/year. White oak has one of the highest BTU values of any wood. It drops off considerably with other local species. I cannot answer your question about the savannah river site. I've never had an oportunity to do any work for them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tater View Post
    Your heart ain't like your balls, ya only got one...
    All you need is a body built for discipline and a mind that can justify so much apparent self-abuse.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Fort Kickass
    Posts
    50,993

    Default

    http://www.charleston.net/news/2009/...es73692/?print



    EPA urged to toughen coal ash rules

    By Tony Bartelme
    The Post and Courier
    Wednesday, March 4, 2009
    The chorus calling for new coal ash regulations appears to be getting louder. On Tuesday, 109 environmental groups wrote a joint letter to the Environmental Protection Agency urging tighter regulations on fly ash and other coal combustion wastes.

    The groups wrote that coal combustion wastes pose a serious threat to the environment and public health, and that December's coal ash spill in Tennessee "dramatized the need for federal standards for safe disposal of these wastes, which are virtually unregulated by the EPA."
    Nearly every major U.S. environmental group signed the letter, including the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Greenpeace and the National Wildlife Federation.
    Last October in "Toxic Ash: Coal's time bomb," Post and Courier Watchdog revealed that coal ash ponds and pits in South Carolina are tainting groundwater with arsenic, selenium and other toxic chemicals. One ash pond at an SCE&G coal-fired power plant with groundwater contamination is a few feet away from the Wateree River and a few miles upriver from Congaree National Park.
    Previous story

    DHEC monitoring Tennessee spill, published 01/03/09

    Coal-burning utilities crank out more than 130 million tons of ash every year. About 40 percent of that is sent to manufacturers for use in concrete, wallboard and other materials, and officials have long said that classifying fly ash as a hazardous waste could thwart their recycling efforts.
    The environmental groups, however, wrote EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that "after eight years of counterproductive backpedaling, we are confident that you will chart a new, responsible course."
    The groups said that five years ago, environmental organizations asked the EPA to regulate ash ponds similar to the one that failed in Tennessee. The groups want ash ponds to be phased out and regulations for dry ash disposal tightened.
    "Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass by without consideration" -Izaak Walton

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Posts
    575

    Default

    I really like reading these long discussions/debates on various topics like this and timber management, lately. I learn alot...I think. Anyway, one thing I thought of as I read the various claims of "clean" coal, but didn't see mentioned, are what I understand to be, regardless of how supposedly "clean" they can now burn coal, the deleterious effects on the environments of other states where the coal comes from. Has anybody seen the entire mountains coal companies are destroying in West Virginia? We might be having a much different debate here in our beautiful state if the coal were mined here...but as usual, out of sight out of mind.


  16. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Columbia
    Posts
    3,601

    Default

    One thing that's rarely mentioned is how we GET the coal. Does the term "mountaintop removal" ring a bell? That is the term for the currently prevailing method of eastern coal extraction. Its where almost all of this coal comes from. Simply put, it involves using draglines and bulldozers the size of large buildings to knock the top 1000 feet off of mountains in Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia, push the debris into the intervening streambeds, and then scraping out 50-100 feet of coal. There used to be at least some effot to restore the devastated landscape, but during the Bush administration, the definition of "overfill" was changed in such a way that the coal companies now don't even bother. The destruction is unbelievable. We really need to develop alternatives to coal fired plants.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    BALLS DEEP
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Sumter/Clarendon officers nearly lost the wyboo lake house/office (owned by Santee-Cooper) over the denouncement of the project

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    near NMB
    Posts
    442

    Default

    what ever happened here, is the powerplant going to be built & when?

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Fort Kickass
    Posts
    50,993

    Default

    From today's State newpaper:

    http://www.thestate.com/editorial-co...ry/801097.html

    Gidley: Coal campus would bring needed jobs
    By HOGAN GIDLEY - Guest Columnist

    Hard-working South Carolinians do not need to hear the latest unemployment figures to know times are tough. They can feel the effects of today’s economy when they fill up their gas tanks or pay for groceries. But while the national economic outlook may be grim, and our 11.5 percent unemployment rate daunting, there are many job-creating opportunities South Carolina can capitalize on, if truth be told.

    The proposed Pee Dee clean coal energy campus in Florence is an economic opportunity that, if approved, will provide more than 1,400 construction jobs, about 100 full-time jobs with an average salary of $50,000 and outside investments of more than $1 billion, and much needed power generation for a rapidly expanding populous.

    This energy campus is a true economic stimulus project that will provide South Carolina an economic shot in the arm and an infusion of much-needed high-paying jobs.

    However, well-funded activist environmental groups have organized staunch opposition to this economic opportunity with a false and misleading public relations campaign, choosing to revel in raw emotion instead of facts.

    The proposed Pee Dee energy campus actually satisfied all 105 permit conditions and was subject to about three years of public scrutiny from application to permit issuance. Environmental Protection Agency reports show S.C. utility emissions during ozone season have dropped 55 percent since 1999. The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change estimates 95 percent of all carbon-dioxide comes from nature (oceans, volcanoes, plant decay, etc.), with only 5 percent coming from all man-made sources. The new campus impressively meets or exceeds all federal and state environmental regulations and is equipped with the most modern technologies available. The positive economic impact of this project on the state’s lagging economy can no longer be ignored.

    Installation of more expensive energy-generation sources such as natural gas or renewable energy such as wind or solar would greatly increase energy prices. Ninety percent of the electricity in South Carolina comes from coal and nuclear power we produce, which is why our electric rates are very low when compared to the national average. But activist environmentalists want to change this, because higher-priced electricity forces energy conservation. Under state law, if the cost of producing energy rises, energy companies are within their rights to pass that extra cost on to you. Even if you can cut back on consumption, there would be no actual “savings” because it would be offset by huge price increases.

    Forcing our state to rely on more expensive energy-generation sources such as natural gas, wind or solar to increase energy prices is a misguided political goal that will only devastate family budgets and destroy any chance of job creation.

    Our state possesses very limited wind, solar and geothermal renewable-energy opportunities. In 2006, South Carolina ranked as the nation’s 19th-largest generator of renewable power, supplied from biomass combustion and hydroelectric. Even so, these renewable-energy sources supplied only 2.3 percent of the in-state electric power generation.

    The American Wind Energy Association ranks South Carolina 42nd in wind-resource potential. While the state currently lacks any installed wind capacity, South Carolina is studying its offshore wind potential. However, the same radical groups who demand offshore wind-produced energy refuse to allow offshore construction because of possible damage to the ocean floor that any construction would create.

    South Carolina has taken advantage of a variety of cleaner energy alternatives that meet our needs without risking our economy, our health and our environment. For now, Santee Cooper and others must continue to build electrical generation to meet the energy and economic needs of South Carolina.

    I hope the people of this state and the members of the Legislature will see the attacks on the Pee Dee energy campus for what they are: false, misleading and disingenuous. Scare tactics about pollution may help create news stories, but they do not help create a single mortgage payment, they do not help create the power needed for a single light bulb, and they do not help create a single job.

    Mr. Gidley is a former executive director of the S.C. Republican Party who is now executive director of the nonprofit S.C. Action for Jobs.
    "Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery elements are for wise men to contemplate and for fools to pass by without consideration" -Izaak Walton

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •