Santee Cooper Is Pretty Sure Of Itself
STATE-OWNED UTILITY TAKES A $146 MILLION GAMBLE ON NEW COAL PLANT
FITSNews – April 11, 2008 – We’ve honestly never liked state-owned utility Santee Cooper all that much. They act like they own the joint (editor’s note: this state, not a marijuana joint ), and it seems like everywhere they go they’re pissing people off with their big bad attitude.
Having said all that, we support the utility’s plan to construct a new coal-fired power plant in the Pee Dee. Well … we support it provided this new facility isn’t built in a broader “energy policy vacuum,” but is instead accompanied by a legitimate commitment on the part of this state to implement market-based incentives for conservation and efficiency like those that have worked so well in California and Vermont in recent years.
Yet while we support the plant, we’re not sure about this strategy for getting it built:
Santee Cooper is busy importing and staging $146 million in building materials near the site of its proposed Pee Dee coal-fired power plant, even though state and federal regulators have yet to sign off on the controversial project.
Santee Cooper says that it wants to get the plant online as soon as possible and that buying and storing building materials will speed the construction process if regulators give the project a green light.
Looks like somebody is feeling pretty confident about their chances, but anytime public money is going toward something that hasn’t been approved yet we get a little sick to our stomachs. Of course the same thing happens with lamb, and we did have lamb chops last night, so that might be it.
Anyway, the utility’s big bosses may know “the score” already, but this move strikes us as extremely irresponsible. Green means go, but the light isn’t green for Santee Cooper yet, people.
Comments
By Earl on April 11th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I’m not too keen on them presuming they’ve got this one in the bag. I tend to view some of the concerns raised about the plant, especially mercury contamination, with some concern.
I agree there is a need for increased electrical power generation, but I’m concerned about the impacts this coal-fired facility will have on the environment, both locally and on a larger scale.
Fission nuclear energy is the best answer for now. Especially until such time we can make solar practical and come up with nuclear fusion.
But as to issue of stockpiling materials … as someone who has been in the construction industry for about a decade, I will say that there are some benefits to buying this stuff ahead of time.
The prices for a lot of construction materials have gone up, up, and up even more the last 3-4 years, and if they don’t use it to build that plant, odds are good they’ll put it to use on maintaining and improving existing facilities.
Things like brick, various grades of small stone/rock, and steel aren’t exactly perishable. Keep them around for five years, or even ten, and they’re still in pretty good condition and quite useful.
By Mattheus Mei on April 11th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I agree with Earl, here here!
By jed on April 11th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I wonder where they’re keeping the stuff… I mean you don’t store $146 million worth of building materials in the shed behind the house. Basically, I’m wondering how much we’re paying in addition to that amount for storage, transportation, etc. that can’t be recouped by reselling the stuff later.
I agree about the Nuclear, at least in principle, and Santee Cooper has an application on file to have a Nuke plant online by 2016, but the biggest danger of the Nuclear plant (other than the obvious waste issues and core meltdown worries) is that it’s completely dependent on a consistent water supply and it looks like our legislators are going to drop the ball on the water bill this year. Fortunately we haven’t had the problems that our neighbors in GA have had with the water, but if it can happen to them it can happen to us.
By Earl on April 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Jed, I think the facility they’re looking at is on the Broad River, which is essentially a SC river. In the short run, the water rights issues are addressed, but as you point out, in some other places it was a pretty near thing and those plants require a lot of water. The shortage of water was a pretty big hit to Santee Cooper’s generating ability in this drought and a reoccurrance would certainly affect a nuke plant.
As to the issue of construction materials … I’m sure they’re talking about a lot of the hard, durable materials that would require a considerable amount of hauling and time to produce. With the price increases we’ve seen on some materials over the last few years, even if you had to move the stuff around locally, even an extra 5-10% for hauling and storage costs would be far less than the price inflation we’ve been seeing, especially with items related to steel or that requires a lot of oil content or fuel to manufacture.
In this industry, cost are going up 10-20% annually and have been for the last five or six years. The trade quotas on steel imports (the high cost of protectionism) hit the industry about the same time as the beginning of the oil price rises, but the steel price increases have finally slowed down to where the biggest factor in cost increases is related to transport.
For those of you who don’t work in the private sector and know nothing about construction… steel’s uses in construction includes rebar for concrete structures, structural uses, fencing, electrical conduit, guardrail, piping (even concrete pipe), roofing and some wall components.
The bottom line is that such a move wouldn’t cost them too much if the plant is turned down, but it won’t make them much money either. It would, if we continue seeing the cost increases we’ve been seeing in this industry, give them a degree of long-term cost savings by beating material price inflation, as well as operational delays in needing to wait for materials to be manufactured and delivered.
But back to the issue at hand, I think cost concerns are, at best, secondary considerations behind this move – and may not be considerations at all. Santee Cooper feels this plant is a done deal, and they’re trying to cut some costs in advance. But a lot of what we’ve seen suggests it may be tougher to get the permitting than they realize.
( … ain’t it nice to be talking about something real and tangible, instead of the personal sleaze?)
By FITNA on April 11th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Earl,
How many times have I told you, it depends on WHOSE personal sleaze!
By Earl on April 12th, 2008 at 12:31 am
FITNA … taking a page from Animal Farm, as you suggest, are you suggesting some sleaze is more equal than other sleaze?
By Susan J. on April 12th, 2008 at 5:58 am
You are crazy if you want to start following the energy policy of California. When properly constructed, coal fired power plants can be very efficient and clean. Don’t buy Al Gore’s nonsense, unless you want to double your energy costs with no net benefits.
By santee cooper is the saddam hussein of energy production on April 12th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Santee Cooper,
The company that has rediverted one of the largest rivers int he SE USA and silted up charleston harbor. They can barely manage the lakes they have and want toi insall the facility that will kill them most fish, babies, and sportemen from mercury poisoning.
The idea that they can responsibly manage a coal plant is like saying an alcoholic can manage a whiskey factory.
Lonnie Carter for Governor. Have a f*cking conscience.
By Mike Reino on April 13th, 2008 at 12:10 am
This is a done deal…. Santee Cooper has all the big guns coming to the Florence GOP Monday night to push it, even getting Councilman Ard to speak up for it. Leatherman wants this in the worst way – AKA, lots of concrete.
The $1B influx is all the politicians are looking at – whether or not the facililty is it’s absolute safest is secondary. I’m in favor of it being built as well to prepare for the future needs, but with the impending change in the facility requirements, I worry a bit that Santee Cooper is rushing the project a bit to get it in under the wire.
Like most projects, the politicians are rushing it along without paying too much attention to the environmental deets, so the public has to do it for them.
By FITNA on April 13th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Earl–Some sleaze is more nutritious than others.
Animal Farm: [from Wikipedia]
Characters and their possible real life counterparts
* 2.1 Pigs
* 2.2 Humans
* 2.3 Horses
* 2.4 Other animals
***Pigs, Earl***I choose pigs***
By Porkys on April 13th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
FITNA – you’re right, BBQ rules.