Coal plant moves state in wrong direction

By James Hansen - Guest Columnist

August 25, 2008

The State

The Earth is close to passing climate tipping points. Greenhouse gases released in burning fossil fuels are nearing a level that will set in motion dangerous effects, many irreversible, including extermination of countless species, ice sheet disintegration and sea-level rise, and intensified regional climate extremes.

As a society, we face a stark choice: Move on to the next phase of the industrial revolution, preserving and restoring wonders of the natural world, while maintaining and expanding benefits of advanced technology. Or ignore the problem, sentencing humanity and other creatures to struggle on an increasingly desolate planet. South Carolina is on the cusp of making this choice and, barring citizen objections, is in danger of making the wrong choice.

South Carolina’s publicly owned utility, Santee Cooper, is proposing a 1,300-megawatt coal plant for the Pee Dee River in Florence County. If built, this plant would emit more than 11 million tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide every year for more than 50 years.

In short, Santee Cooper is proposing to dramatically increase its carbon footprint, just when we need all our utilities to begin ratcheting down their emissions.

Other utilities have gotten the message. Citing the unsuitability of geologic conditions in South Carolina for carbon sequestration, Duke Energy has declared it will no longer build any coal plants in the state. Progress Energy has declared a moratorium on new coal plant construction until it realizes savings of 2,000 megawatts of electricity through efficiency measures. And South Carolina-based SCANA has said it has taken coal off the table.

Santee Cooper’s coal plant also presents a health risk to the people of the Pee Dee region. If built, this plant will emit 3,500 tons of ozone-forming nitrous oxide, 7,500 tons of soot-forming sulfur dioxide and 900 tons of lung-damaging particulate matter each year — as well as 114 pounds of mercury. Florence County already suffers from high childhood asthma rates and mercury-contaminated waters. The area is also at risk of violating air quality standards, which would be bad for both human health and economic development. If the Pee Dee region violates air quality standards, new businesses will locate elsewhere. It’s that simple.

But another dirty coal plant is not just a problem for the Pee Dee; it poses risks for the whole state. Tourism is South Carolina’s No. 1 industry, with farming and forestry not far behind. All of these stand to lose in coming decades from global warming, as drought, heat and storms increase. To avoid serious dislocations, we must decrease our dependence upon coal, the most carbon-intensive form of energy. To build yet another coal-fired power plant in South Carolina would be in short-sighted disregard of our own and future generations.

South Carolina deserves better from its public utility. Santee Cooper should immediately embark on a major efficiency project to offset the need for more coal, as investor-owned companies have done. In fact, because it is unregulated, Santee Cooper could and should become an industry leader.

It is not easy to change decades-old habits, especially in face of aggressive lobbying and advertising by the coal industry. In this situation, the people must demand, and their leaders will follow. Santee Cooper has a responsibility to pursue the public interest; and that interest is ill-served by outmoded energy decisions that exacerbate, rather than help solve, what has been described as the greatest problem to face modern humanity.

Beyond demanding that Santee Cooper abandon its plan for this coal plant and invest in efficiency and renewable energy to meet projected demand, the people of South Carolina should insist that their elected leaders develop a comprehensive energy plan that weans South Carolina from its unhealthy and economically damaging dependence on fossil fuels.

When we look back on this period, or when our children and grandchildren do, it will be seen that our nation — and South Carolina — faced a decision. It will be seen that we had all the information needed to make that decision, all the technology, all the power. We must ask ourselves now what we want that decision to be. Carrying on with old ways without regard for the consequences is one possible decision. Providing reliable, clean power that does not add millions of tons of pollution is another. One choice makes things worse, another makes them better. For the sake of generations to come, I hope we choose the latter.

Dr. Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. His 1988 congressional testimony brought national attention to global warming. This column is his personal opinion.