Loading ...
NEW PRO-JOBS GROUP SAYS COAL PLANT WILL LEAD TO RENEWABLE ENERGY, EMPLOYMENT, DETRACTORS DON’T GET IT
The South Carolina Action for Jobs, a newly-formed non-partisan group aimed at creating and protecting jobs and building the economy, held its first press conference Wednesday in Columbia. The group discussed the growing support for a proposal by Santee Cooper to place a coal-fired power plant in Florence County at a Pee Dee Energy Campus.
“We stand behind the Pee Dee Energy Campus because it would help provide for South Carolina future energy needs to fuel our economy and help attract companies that create jobs,” said Rep. Terry Alexander (D-Florence). “Approximately one-third of the more than $2 billion cost of the plant will go toward the latest and best environmental control technology, and it will be one of the cleanest such facilities in the country.”
Former Republican Gov. James Edwards called the proposed plant a “stopgap” that would create 9,300 new jobs and serve as an immediate fix to the current energy crisis while buying time to develop long-term solutions. Unfortunately, though, the project’s detractors can’t see that far ahead.
Only a few hours after the Action for Jobs press conference, Gov. Mark Sanford held one of his own, calling the proposal “too expensive” and saying that it would be better to build nuclear plants than coal plants.
But Edwards, who served as U.S. Energy Secretary under President Reagan, said that proper nuclear technology is still years away.
“I want to remind you, the last nuclear plant that was built in the country was started in 1973 and about 25 years later it finally came online,” said Edwards. “The environmentalists blocked it, they passed laws, and they appointed anti-nuclears to the nuclear regulatory commission.
“The answer is nuclear, but this is the stopgap. This will be online in six or seven years but it would take 25 or 30 years to get a nuclear plant online because of the governmental regulations.”
In the meantime, the group says South Carolina urgently needs clean coal to prevent widespread brownouts.
A recent report by the State Regulation of Public Utilities Review Committee found that, unless the state legislature adopts a new statewide energy plan, South Carolina residents face much higher energy costs and could be quite literally left in the dark as soon as 2016.
So why would Sanford and other detractors try to use nuclear technology as a reason to stop the proposed Pee Dee plant? That’s a question that baffles Edwards.
“I just cannot believe that any responsible leader would take a position against the construction of this plant,” Edwards said.
Levone Graves, a former Marion County magistrate and municipal judge in Mullins, also spoke about the significance of reliable, low-cost power to assist in South Carolina’s economic development efforts.
“Low power costs will play a major role in helping South Carolina attract and retain the companies that create jobs for our people,” Graves said. “Failure to take action would place undue burden on businesses and consumers.”
For South Carolina, the plant would also create jobs. Thousands of them. And at a time when more than 207,000 people are out of work and the state unemployment rate could reach 14 percent next month.
Edwards added that South Carolina is “the Saudi Arabia of coal,” meaning that utilizing current coal technologies would not only provide jobs and energy solutions, but also a significant boost to the state’s faltering economy.
But, in the end, noted Edwards, “the bottom line is jobs.”
The first of the two nuclear plants will be online in 2016 and during construction until then will employ between 3,000 to 4,000 people. The plants themselves will create 800 to 1,000 full-time jobs.
For more info on the economic benefits of the new nuclear plants locally, please visit this link:
http://www.scnuclear.com/NR/rdonlyres/6F67723F-20E5-4E22-9265-DECDC5ACDB96/0/np_economy.pdf
“Edwards added that South Carolina is ‘the Saudi Arabia of coal,’ meaning that utilizing current coal technologies would not only provide jobs and energy solutions, but also a significant boost to the state’s faltering economy.”
The Saudi Arabia of Coal? That doesn’t make any sense! South Carolina doesn’t have any commercially viable coal deposits at all; just a bunch of coal burning power plants. South Carolina is the Saudi Arabia of Coal just as much as Saudi Arabia is the Saudi Arabia of coal. (hint: Saudi Arabia also produces no coal)
Maybe he got “South Carolina” confused with “United States” because it would make sense to call the United States the Saudi Arabia of coal.
Ok, so where is this $2 billion gonna come from? Debt? Taxing the state? Begging the feds for some paper stimulus? I do enough arguing on Lib sites with people begging for any and all forms of spending; I don’t want to come here and be forced into the same exact argument. (though yes a power plant would be marginally better than head start funding, but only because the plant will be done in 6 years and head start doesn’t even have a chance to produce anything for 15 years.)
I say go for both the coal and the nuke plants. If things get desperate enough then someone will tell the nuclear regulatory comission to sit down and shut up; but if it gets to that point we’ll probably have alot worse to worry about than brownouts. Though as it stands, these two sides will keep bickering, nothing will get accomplished, and we’ll all be doomed within a few years anyway.
do the coal people want up front payments like SCE&G?
Wait… how does a coal plant lead to renewable energy? That doesn’t make any sense.
I’d like the answer to Rob W.’s question also. Anyone care to explain? Also, Bill A. seems to know what he’s talking about and if it will take 6 years to get a plant going that’s a pretty long time. If Dem’s and Obama win again in 2012 I could see them pushing a green agenda during his second term and I’m not so sure how much they would like a coal plant. Why not try to smash and grab some of this stimulus money and get some green energy products going. South Carolina has never really seemed to me to be an early adopter so why not change our stance a little and get on some green freak’s radar.
*all statements previously mentioned are unsubstantiated opinions and only meant for entertainment
Rob,
It leads to renewable energy because it allows time to explore things like nuclear technology. I’m pretty sure I explained that in the two paragraphs about the whole “stopgap” thing.
Nuclear = 25-30 to develop. Coal = six or seven. Do the math.
We build coal now to carry us through while we build nuclear or something else. Otherwise, we face brownouts in a few years.
Given the record of government fear mongering, I wouldn’t be surprised if the brownout thing is completely exagerated.
I understand the concept of using the coal plant as a buffer to give us time to explore other options. But, as Bill A. said, our government has a record of fear mongering. (see stimulus and WMDs in Iraq). I do realize that power will become an issue somewhere in the future but there are a lot of questions I still have. What happens after the nuclear plants are up? If the coal plant is shut down then it is a waste of a lot of money and all those people loose their jobs or have to relocate. Many established families wouldn’t do that. If they don’t shut it down it’s just another coal plant polluting the area. Also, I live near the nuclear plant on Lake Wylie and every year I get the same “What to do in case of meltdown” brochure. Even with the small percentage chance of a meltdown there still is that chance. And quite frankly Lake Wylie has been practically ruined by that plant. If you don’t believe me then go grab your bait and tackle and have yourself a fish fry.
Nuclear power is not renewable energy.
[...] Gridley, the executive director of an organization called South Carolina Action for Jobs, authored the ”Coal campus would bring needed jobs” op-ed that appeared in The State [...]