WEB POLL: Is Proposed Sandersville, GA Coal-Fired Energy Plant Bad For The Environment?
Is a proposed $2.1 billion, coal-fired electric generating station a threat to our environment? Plans to build the plant in Washington County are already in the works. We have links to websites on both sides of the debate. Take a look and then participate in our web poll.
Published: October 6, 2009
Updated: October 7, 2009
Washington, GA—Is a proposed $2.1 billion, coal-fired electric generating station a threat to our environment?
Plans to build the plant in Washington County are already in the works. Below are 2 links to let you decide on what is best. Take a look and then participate in our web poll below:
ANTI-PLANT: GeorgiansForSmartEnergy.com
PRO-PLANT: Power4Georgians.com
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
CSM, I’m with you buddy. I bought a case of candles, 5 gallons of kerosene and sharpened by buck saw.
The way I figure it, when we lose power in 2013 or whenever, I can get buy till the next summer when the heat gets to be too much for my solar powered heat pump. Then I’m moving to Quebec Canada for the summer and then back to Georgia for the winter. Quebec has lots of hydropower so there shouldn’t be an energy shortage in the summer.
Eventually, we’ll run out of gasoline and I’ll have to rely on the solar cells on top of my car to recharge the batteries. It may take longer to get there but I’ll make it.
I still haven’t worked out where I will work to pay for food (I can live in my solar powered VW bus so lodging won’t be a problem). Maybe I can plant a garden on the roof of the bus. Or maybe I can get on welfare or food stamps. There is always a way.
Oh, and about my grandchildren? Maybe they can form a commune in California and be flower children.
Can you imagine our future. There are about 300 million Americans now. In the future there may be more. Maybe we can cut back on our energy consumption, stop using coal and nuclear power, and go back to nature. We can live off the land. Can you imagine 500 million people in the United States living off the land. No military retirement, no welfare, only what we can produce ourselves. By the way there will be no fertilizers, no motorized transportation and only herbal medicine.
Do you think this is unrealistic? What is your picture of the future?
You mentioned that the recession has reduced power consumption. True. So the solution to a power shortage, in the short term, is to not have people work. OK. Longer term, it is to have fewer people. So take that idea to a conclusion. I can’t!!!!
Thanks EnviroAdvocate.
Two things in responds:
1) That 2.2 billion dollars for Plant Washington will be coming from Wall Street, our EMC’s (no matter their size) likely don’t have that kind of capital internally and depend on the gov’t subsidized banks.
2) Your right yet again: Without the huge government subsidies, coal would not be able to stand on it’s own foot. With the political and social climate like they are around coal, I’d be wary of starting such an enormous local investment and afraid we might one day soon find the rug pulled out from beneath us. Renewable energy gets a little hand-out, but compared to Nuclear energy and Coal-powered energy, its a drop in the bucket. We need sensible policies that promote Free trade, and let the market do its job.
I disagree that we need the plant in order to implement new and clean technologies for the future. This plant would BE the future for my children and grand-babies and I know that my generation can do better then that for them. 2 billion dollars spent on dirty coal IS 2 billion dollars taken away from real advances and smart jobs.
Despite what the utilities like to say, energy consumption is down, not up, because of the recession, and we’re not in as big a hurry as their talking.
We can do better.
Command Seargent Major, we certainly agree with each other today. I agree that we should invest money in alternative engery. Big money. It would be much better to invest in energy than high roller bonuses on Wall Street.
Considering how many billions our government is planning to spend on both good and bad investments, it seems that the 2.2 billion for Plant Washington isn’t very much.
My opinion is that we shouldn’t be talking about Plant Washington OR alternative energy. Instead we should use have Plant Washington “AND” alternative energy.
I was and adult through the oil embargo of 1973 and the energy crisis of the late 70s and early 80s. A lot of what I see if Deja Vu. In 1980 we were going to develop oil shale (plus everything else). Most of those ideas fizzled. I think you were there too.
The alternative energy projects that fizzled, failed because the government subsidies ran out. We should have learned that technologies that only make sense when the government pays big bucks to make them work will not stand alone.
We need a national energy policy based on sound science. We need to invest money not in subsidies that promote greed instead of science but that promote sound technologies. It isn’t all about the money, it is about having a long term view of how we wisely use our resources now and preserve them for the future. It isn’t about 130 jobs in Sandersville, it is about energy production that will sustain the Sandersville community now and in the future. This energy is needed while we are developing new and innovative technolgies that make sense.
I admire your enthusiasm about developing new technolgies. We need to invest in the future. Power today will allow us to make that investment.
Again, I agree.
If our society would not have had the technological advances to move beyond kerosene, oil, and biomass (wood burning stoves), and the insight to create and empower the EPA and EPD then at our current population we would have much more pollution. I owe my life to that shift in Electricity production to coal, and am happy we are far from having to rely on that nasty biomass you brought up… Actually, did you know that the company that is trying to build Plant Washington, Allied Energy, also works to build biomass plants and trash incinerators? They’re apparently good at selling old technology as “Green”, just like they’re trying to do here.
I think that there is an important lesson here for our future generations; and that is, that when there are new and better ways to provide safe, clean, healthy jobs while meeting energy demand cleanly and cheaply, then we should pursue them to the fullest extend so that the generations beyond us can enjoy a higher quality of living.
Today, that best is renewable energy and energy efficiency, and that old and dirty is Coal and Biomass.
If utilities like Power4Georgians invested this same amount of money (2 billion dollars) they would create 2-4X more, diverse (stable), and health jobs. Look at it. There spending 2 billion dollars on 150 jobs… that is over $13 million dollars per job, and I would venture that the average salary at the plant is likely to be no more then 50-60k?
We can do better than that!! We can create more jobs, more energy and do it more cleanly, and more quickly, it’s being proven all across the country.
If we take that 2 billion dollars of investment and cement it in a single facility, all it’ll take is one simple piece of legislation or economic decision to wipe it off the map…just like Kaolin. We all know that Coal has a bad-wrap in the country right now, and a decision like that isn’t too far away. Investments in Energy Efficiency and Renewable have to be diversified… which means economic security.
I wouldn’t want so much of my communities’ economy and so many of my communities’ jobs resting on one single, unstable, polluting, costly facility.
And lastly, your right, I think we live in an age where most everyone knows there is NO “safe” levels of arsenic, mercury, particulate matter, other then what is naturally occurring… so no matter what the EPD regulations currently are, coal is still pumping out lots of pollutants. Just do some research to find it out for yourself.
We have established an institution whose sole job is to protect our environment and human health. It’s called the EPA and the EPD here in GA. The EPA has let limits on almost one hundred pollutants in water and six principal pollutants, which are also called “criteria” pollutants, in air. According to the EPA, the “criteria are based solely on data and scientific judgments about the relationship between pollutant concentrations and environmental and human health effects: they do not consider economic or social impacts.” The air quality standard is designed to protect public health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly.
All companies and industries that can affect the quality of our air or our water must meet these standards, whether they are the auto, chemical, power, paper, transportation, food, beer, refineries, water supply, wastewater, waste management, etc. Georgia also has a Clean Air Mercury Rule that will reduce mercury emissions from power plants by up to 90%.
As long as a company meets the emissions standards established by the EPD, then its water and air emissions will be in such small concentrations as to be protective of our environment and human health, including sensitive populations.
We can never get rid of all pollutants in our air and water. Much of it is a result of Mother Nature. However, we can minimize human contribution. As emission control technologies get more advanced, hopefully we can continue to reduce the level of key pollutants. After all, the EPD drinking water standard includes a “safe” concentration of arsenic. Plant Washington will be protective of our environment and the health of all Georgians and provide the energy to needed grow and sustain Georgia’s economy.
I don’t think Plant Washington and the electricity it produces will cause pollution.
I think about what life would be like without electricity. We could be using candles or kerosene lamps for light, and burning wood (or coal) to heat our homes. What would be more polluting to our homes, businesses and the environment: burning kerosene and wood or using electricity from a modern electric power plant. What produces poorer indoor air quality: kerosene lamps or electricity from a modern coal plant?
I hope everyone knows that the soot from fire places, candles and kerosene lamps contains potent carcinogenic chemicals that won’t be present in the coal plant’s smoke stack?
An example of a conservation ethic gone wrong is in The City of Vail, Colorado. In the interest of conservation, the population installed heat recovery wood-buring fireplaces and wood-burning stoves. This “green energy” created so much air poluution that Vail had to ban wood burning during certain times of the year. Can you imagine the pristine mountains of Colorado polluted by fireplaces burning wood!!! It is true.
Coal can produce clean power. The amount of pollution coal eliminates is much greater than pollution it creates. Can coal produce clean, safe, and reliable energy for our childern, grand children and great grand children? Yes. Do we need to find other sources of power for 500 or 1000 years in the future? Yes. For now we need coal-produced energy.
I agree.
The question telegraphs one of two things: a) WJBF’s severe misunderstanding about the health and environmental impacts of coal or b) their political agenda to sway readers into thinking that theres even the possibility that coal could not be horrible for health and environment.
Make no mistake. Coal and similar power plants are responsible for thousands of cases of chronic illnesses like Asthma in our state alone.
If Coal was not harmful to the environment, then why would coal-plants have to submit applications to the Environmental Protection Division? or be regulated? or have such great opposition all over the rest of country?
It scares me to think so many people actually think that Plant Washington would not harm local health and environment. Then I remember that someone is probably getting paid just to push the “No” button over and over again, and I get sad and disappointed instead.
No one has any honor in this State anymore, especially not these coal folks.
Barclay,
This sure seems to be a “do you still beat your wife” type question.
“Is Proposed Sandersville, GA Coal-Fired Energy Plant Bad For The Environment?“
You can extend this logic to all sorts of items we use everyday.
“Are __________ (you fill in the blank: automobiles, BBQ grills, passenger jets, lawn mowers, fireplaces, furnaces, air conditioners, water heaters, tailgating at Ga football games, computers, restaurants, car washes, Starbucks, trains, trucks, etc) bad for the environment?“
The answer has no relevance.
There are pros and cons to everything we use. It is just the pros usually heavily outweight the cons and we, as a society, accept the downside effects for the upside benefits.
Advertisement