Methane from Santee Cooper

Two pieces on Santee Cooper and their proposed coal plant appear in the Post and Courier today. One is a recap of the issue, in preparation for the DHEC hearing tomorrow in Pamplico, the other is a Q&A with S-C Sultan Lonnie Carter.

In the Q&A and the article, Lonnie Carter reels off a series of chestnutts like these:

"In some ways it can be a little bit gaudy to think that we can actually affect the climate, actually change it or stop something that's going on."

Gaudy? That says it all doesn't it? No matter that the vast majority of the worlds geologists, climatologists, and meteorologists agree that global warming is happening and that burning fossil fuels is the cause. And, heck, even if they are right, we can't do anything about it, so we might as well burn a bunch of coal! People who think otherwise are just gaudy.

"I don't know [if utilities contribute to global warming]. If you listen to the scientists and how they parse out the data, the utility is a portion. Transportation is another good-sized portion, and then you have the residential and industrial side. They aren't hugely different in terms of percentages."

According to an inventory of SC's GHG emissions, electricity accounts for over 36% -- the #1 contributor. I comes down to this: Lonnie Carter & Santee Cooper just doesn't think there is anything wrong w/ coal. He's not worried about its negative consequences for the health, the environment or the economy of the state.

"I didn't coin this, but we're the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have so much coal available to us. It's a natural resource. We get over 50 percent of our current electricity from coal. We can't abandon coal. It's got to be part of our future for those reasons."

This is the best proof yet that S-C is behind the recent coal marketing going on in this state; this mirrors exactly the "Americans for Balanced Energy Choices" talking points. S-C is nothing if not "on message." In fact, the size of RECOVERABLE coal reserves is far from certain. But maybe the work of the National Academy of Sciences is too "rabid." Instead let's rely figures produced by the National Mining Association.

Are people willing to accept the high toll of mining increasingly difficult-to-access coal? Mountain top removal and mining accidents are two examples. Also, east-coast utilites like Santee Cooper routinely IMPORT coal from foreign nations like Venezuela. So, its hardly "America's fuel" in practice. Still, Lonnie Carter would have us emulate Saudi Arabia; he makes a good Sheik of what amounts to a little rogue Emirate (i.e. Santee Cooper) within the state of South Carolina. Big Coal, indeed.

"Remember what I said before, every carbon-based fuel, even wood and biofuels, all those things, have carbon emissions."

True, except that carbon emissions from biofuels don't contribute to global warming, since the embodied carbon in biofuels is part of the globe's carbon cycle, whereas the emissions from coal, by virtue of the fuel being dug out of the earth and burned, is not. If Lonnie Carter doesn't know this, then why are biofuels part of S-C's goal to produce 40% of its power from non-GHG sources by 2020?

"I've heard there are more greenhouse gases from livestock on the globe than any other source."

Totally absurd. There's no question that current livestock husbandry has a significant impact on the environment, including GHG emissions. They are not the leading source of GHG emissions, however. To suggest otherwise is brilliant, but wrong.

"Don't expect me as a utility executive to arbitrarily tax my customers for a problem that the rest of the world needs to deal with."

So what about the impact of a carbon tax or a cap and trade system on the rates of Santee Cooper's customers after Santee Cooper arbitrarily insists on building three more coal-burning units in South Carolina? We are talking hundreds of million dollars annually using conservative estimates. Who will pay? Not Santee Cooper. If that is not a tax on Santee Cooper's customers, I don't know what is. Or if you don't believe the U.S. will ever get around to regulating carbon (wishful thinking), how about raising rates on your customers to build new generation so that you can lower rates even further for your industrial customers. Is that taxing your customers? S-C is alledged to have done just that in a recently filed class action law suit.

"A lot is said about where mercury comes from in our waters. The information I get from the EPA is that it's not coming from U.S. power plants. According to the information they put out is that power plants contribute only 1% percent of the mercury."

Does the EPA really contend this? (If so, someone please reference the study). Is China responsible for the contamination of the Pee Dee rivers? I refer you back to the excellent story on mercury produced by the P&C: "Coal, Power and Poison."

"When we normally talk about emissions, you talk about tons, but when you talk about mercury, you talk about pounds, because we're talking about small quantities."

One drop of mercury (about the amount in a thermometer) falling in rain a year can contaminate fish in a 20-acre lake, and one pound of mercury is enough to contaminate 500,000 fish. Most of SC's waterways are already contaminated with mercury. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Carter goes on to evade direct questions on the following topics: why have you chosen coal for the Pee Dee project? Have you examined the economic risks of coal in a carbon-constrained economy? to Santee Cooper? to your rate-payers? Shouldn't we be concerned about the build up of Mercury in SC's water? Doesn't S-C have a moral/ethical responsibility with respect to the health of South Carolinians?

Just add these to the list of unanswered questions...