Resize 
Related
- Energy companies must be responsible for crises
- Beyond Coal campaign kicks off efforts for a coal free campus within the next decade
- University staff to be rewarded for Tech's green performance
TOPICS: coal, sustainability, environment, energy, renewable energy, clean coal
This past political season almost all of us voted for candidates who supported "Clean Coal," a blanket term for technologies meant to minimize the environmental impact of this fossil fuel, but the truth of the matter remains that clean coal is little more than wishful thinking. (Barack Obama and John McCain supported clean coal while Ralph Nader did not.)
Coal, which provides nearly half of our nation's electricity, is environmentally destructive in both the mining and burning stages. The further we deplete our limited coal resources, the greater the environmental impact as we attempt to mine previously inaccessible coal veins.
Coal mining produces natural disasters that dwarf other environmental catastrophes, but the public is rarely reminded of these travesties. Just this December, a toxic coal sludge spill 48 times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill blanketed part of Tennessee, releasing mercury and arsenic (among other chemicals and heavy metals) into the water supply tributaries of Chattanooga and parts of Alabama and Kentucky.
As companies attempt to access coal reserves, they have little regard for the environment. Within the last month, Powellton Coal Company began its newest project, "beheading" Gauley Mountain through mountain top removal mining.
As Gauley Mountain is located just above the confluence of the Gauley and New Rivers, the tourism and recreation draw of white water rafting will never be the same. The crash of the rapids will be drowned out by dynamite blasts, and the watersheds will fill with heavy metals.
Burning coal is equally as harmful to the environment, but advances in technology are making slow progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Still, coal is the second-largest greenhouse gas emitter, and the necessary technology is many years away. We need change now.
Here at Virginia Tech we have our own coal-powered plant, an efficient one at that, but the overreaching effect of coal mitigates the "Pollution Controls" that are currently in place. While far more efficient than other coal-fired plants, we must take that one step further.
If we are to "Invent the Future," sustainable energy must be set as a priority. As a nation, we have realized the need to embrace renewable resources, and that transition is best led by our nation's intellectual stronghold: the university.
Now is the time to embrace new technologies as market slowdowns in Europe have resulted in the fall of sustainable technology costs. In addition, the current Obama administration is committed to environmental progress and renewable energy subsidies.
As a Hokie community, we can become the first 100-percent sustainable energy campus by embracing renewable energy sources. If we were to implement wind and solar power, the campus would still require electricity from the grid at peak times, but the excess energy from sustainable sources would be sold back to the grid during off hours, negating the costs and environmental impact from the grid power usage.
Large-scale wind farms (such as those in the Midwest) are unattractive for Blacksburg because of noise and visibility concerns, but smaller wind turbines can be utilized with great benefits.
These smaller turbines are silent and are not obstructive to our Blacksburg skyline, yet still put forth considerable wattage. In addition to wind power, solar panels can be easily installed on the roofs of the many buildings here at Tech, providing silent and near invisible energy production during the majority of peak hours.
The initial cost is relatively high, but once installed, the operating cost is next to nothing for many years of energy output.
Earlier this year the Virginia Tobacco Commission set aside $100 million for renewable energy ideas in Southwest Virginia, and Obama is committed to doubling renewable energy in the next three years, so funds and subsidies are available to those who desire change.
Today I call upon the Committee on Energy and Sustainability at Virginia Tech to transition the focus of the sustainability plan from energy efficiency to renewable energy. The current and proposed changes concerning energy efficiency are not addressing the root problem.
No longer can we allow King Coal to kill our neighbors, behead our beloved mountains and contaminate our favorite recreational activities.
We can recognize and commend the efforts to make current systems more efficient, but renewable energy is the undeniable future.
Leave a comment 8 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
By submitting your comment, you agree that it will not:
Comments that violate these guidelines will be moderated by the public editor and will then be buried in the comments section.
"As a Hokie community, we can become the first 100-percent sustainable energy campus by embracing renewable energy sources." Brian, just to be clear, are you proposing that Virginia Tech can be completely powered by wind and solar power from on/near-site locations? Have you looked into the amount of energy consumed by the university on a daily basis? It'd take a lot of panels/turbines to match that, even if we draw from the grid during peak usages. How about the steam plant? What do you propose we do to replace that piece of infrastructure? We currently have a co-gen plant (produces steam and power at higher efficiency). You can't just get rid of the power plant without considering the need for steam on campus. For more info: http://www.facilities.vt.edu/sustainability/facilities.asp?value=utilities
Reply to this Top
Wake up, hippie.
Reply to this Top
I don't get why people are claiming that clean coal technology is a myth, or a lie, or just wishful thinking. We don't have the same mining technology we did 50 years ago. We can require mining companies to use environmentally safe practices to prevent erosion and heavy metal runoff into the water supply. We also have the technology to extract energy from coal without burning it, greatly reducing the pollutants and harmful emissions. Look up coal gasification or IGCC. Clean coal technology isn't 100% perfect, but it is real. Many professors here at VT are currently researching and developing this technology. Do some research before writing off clean coal as 'little more than wishful thinking.'
Reply to this Top
Brian, your argument is about as far-fetched as some of Obama's profecies. First of all, it's not mountaintop removal that's happening at Gauley Mtn., and if the mining is practiced in accordance with current standards (including water quality, site reclemation, etc) effects should be minimal at best. Consider the economy right now as well. You can sit there at your computer that mommy and daddy paid for and write this, but think of the thousands of families that depend on coal for a livelihood and support for families. Should we just forget about them? Also, how are we going to implement all this solar / wind technology when the ridge and valley landscape that we inhabit is about the worst fit for the implementation of this? You read articles from environmental left wing groups and think their ideology is the answer. I agree with Leo...WAKE UP!
Reply to this Top
Awwww...come on King Coal....haven't you seen the commercial that basically makes the point that clean coal doesn't exist? If they say it on TV, it must be true! All of those distinguished professors working hard on this issue must just be playing solitaire on their computers all day. (end sarcastic rant)
Reply to this Top
"Clean coal" is a myth. Essentially what they have tried in Europe is to pump the CO2 emissions underground. Its cost prohibitive and who knows what this does to the environment. If we store anything underground it should be nuclear waste. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/europe/23coal.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Reply to this Top
I live on Gauley Mountain. I'm also for coal, coal miners, and for the sustainable transfer from coal to new energy development. Those are not mutually exclusive concepts, though coal companies have made them that way over the years. Gauley Mountain is most definitely a mountaintop removal site. I would guess that those on this board that are cynical about the issue would feel differently if they were in the position that my family and I are now in. Briefly, here are three myths about MTR Mining: 1. MTR Creates Jobs. The truth is that if you overlay a map of MTR sites with a map of the poorest counties in Appalachia, you'll see that they are the exact same places. 2. MTR Is Good For The Environment. There's a compelling audio account of MTR mining at http://www.bobedwardsradio.com/exploding-heritage/ 3. MTR Is Legal. Former federal mining regulator Jack Spadaro says that not one MTR site is in compliance with federal environmental law; the two are mutually exclusive. He's quoted in The Smithsonian at http://www.smithsonianmag.com in the article "Mining The Mountains". I'm sorry, but mountaintop removal mining is the dirty secret of clean coal. If you believe that MTR is in any way beneficial for anyone (except for coal executives), you've been mislead. Respectfully, Ben Curnett
Reply to this Top
FOR 100% CLEAN GREEN ENERGY ON A LARGE SCALE SEE COMMENTS AT WWW.OCEANPOWEREDELECTRIC.COM
Reply to this Top