Coal is not the answer to our energy problem

On Oct. 23, I attended a public hearing in Pamplico held by the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control to receive public input on permit approvals for Santee Cooper's proposed new coal-fired power plant [in Florence County]. Opponents and residents of the area cited concerns that the plant, as proposed, would increase the already present levels of mercury found at and around the planned site, as coal-fired utility boilers are the single largest source of mercury created by human activity in the U.S.

South Carolina is already listed among the eight worst states for mercury pollution. Every major river basin in the Lowcountry is tainted to the point that DHEC has posted warnings against eating many of the fish they contain. Mercury is known to cause myriad health problems, especially in the young.

One speaker was a local doctor. He questioned the logic of granting the permit, as DHEC has not conducted tests on local residents to check for levels of mercury. Recently, the Charleston Post & Courier ran a series of articles concerning coal plant pollution. It conducted its own health tests on local residents. One such individual, Robin Creel, is a Native American who lives near the Edisto River and has eaten fish from its waters all his life. Due to health problems, Creel agreed to be tested. The article stated that the Environmental Protection Agency says mercury levels greater than 1 part per million in hair are cause for concern. Creel's hair had 8 parts per million.

One of the articles reported that Santee Cooper's own study on the proposed plant's environmental effects admitted that some toxic materials will find their way into the river and that "some mercury will be carried ... into the Great Pee Dee river."

Unfortunately, mercury isn't the only cause for alarm. Coal combustion byproducts, such as ash, also include toxins such as selenium, arsenic and chromium. Ash ponds can leak into surrounding bodies of water. One article cited an incident that occurred in the 1970s near Greensboro, N.C., when a coal plant operated by Duke Power poisoned Belews Lake with selenium, which killed nearly every species of fish the lake contained.

The reporters found other cases: near Congaree National Park, arsenic 200 to 400 times the federal drinking water limit has been found in groundwater at the utility's plant on the Wateree River; on the Savannah River, the utility's Urquhart Plant has groundwater tainted with arsenic eight times above the federal standard: in Conway, at Santee Cooper's coal plant, arsenic levels in groundwater near the edge of the Wacccamaw River were 900 times higher than the federal limit.

After years of lax regulations and bureaucratic loopholes, S.C. health officials tightened ash disposal rules earlier this year, according to the articles. Ironically, better smokestack scrubbing processes can lead to ash with even higher levels of mercury, arsenic and other toxins.

So what do we do as a state facing higher energy demands? James Hansen, national climatologist and director of NASA's Goddard Institute, suggests that "the rules of the energy game need to change to benefit everyone, not just the people at the top. Coal must be phased out and efficiency made the focus." The real question is how long will coal last? Estimates range from 200 to 400 years, but as physicist Albert A. Bartlett of the University of Colorado points out, something else must be considered. The present figures do not take into consideration increasing demand and population growth. Some suggest coal as a solution to our dependence on foreign oil. However, coal is a finite resource, the same as oil.

Isn't now is the time to seriously look to renewable, clean energy sources, such as solar, as well as conservative practices and reducing demand? A solar plant would also produce energy, as well as jobs. Yes, our state and our country need energy. But let's not just think about just today. Let's not just think quick. Let's not just think what a particular industry wants us to think.

The writer lives in Conway.

Australian Footnote

Although this an a North American article, EXACTLY the same problems with coal waste exist here in Australia. The burning of coal besides producing large volumes of greenhouse gases, also produces large volumes of pollutants - both in the air and on power-station ash heaps.

One point that the article fails to mention is the well known fact that a coal burning power-station releases much more radioactivity into the environment than an equivalent nuclear powered one. There is a small amount of uranium in coal (as in the ground generally), but when millions of tonnes are burned, this adds up to a substantial amount being released into the environment.

There is no attempt to contain this in a coal burning power station whereas in a nuclear power station, extreme measures are undertaken to ensure the radioactivity does not escape.