This letter is in reaction to the column "Mountaintop removal has negative community impact," (CT, May 1). The author should not use Mountaintop Removal to condemn coal and justify an immediate renewable energy conversion. Technology cannot yet economically accomplish this task. If renewable energy was truly unlimited and free, all of us would be using it. You can blame the lobbyists, but come on, if someone offered you free electricity, you'd take it.
The root of the problem is that supporters of immediate change overlook the fact that 49 percent of electricity comes from coal. This percentage may not sound daunting, but before you pass judgment, please consider the following. The Virginia Sustainable Building Network released a study on Virginia Tech's energy consumption. From 2000 to 2006, we consumed approximately 1,500 trillion BTUs of coal-based electrical and steam energy. Assuming a uniform consumption rate, we demand an average of 7.2 million kW of power.
I decided to see what would happen if we installed wind turbines. I compared the GE 2.5 MW, the GE 1.8 kW Skystream 3.7, and the Vestas V112-3.0 MW turbines. For the calculation, I assumed no efficiency losses from generation or transmission. The requirements just for Tech are as follows: 2,892 units of GE 2.5s, 2.7 million units of GE 1.8s, and 2,410 units of Vestas 3.0s to account for Tech's needs.
At the lowest, the Vestas needs 168 linear miles with perfect tip-to-tip positioning. The only posted cost, with good reason, was for the GE 1.8 kW's and equals $20 billion for just the turbines. Also note that steel for these turbines comes from smelting iron with coke, a processed metallurgical coal with no economic substitute. I hope readers understand that the energy problem is not quite as simple as it seems. So please, author of Friday's opinion piece, the next time you say "no to coal," fully understand what you are saying no to.
Edmund Jong
senior, mining engineering
Leave a comment 18 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.
Edmund Jong:1 Hippies:0
Reply to this Top
No to coal.
Reply to this Top
Yes to cheap energy
Reply to this Top
Edmund Jong:2 Hippies:0
Reply to this Top
Agree with Jong. What he didn't mention is that most of the Appalachian region isn't suitable to support wind energy due to lack of adequate gusts. I wonder what the hippies against coal would think to hundreds of miles of pristine forest being raped and ravaged in order to put up turbines.
Reply to this Top
To better understand the effects of MTR on communities (which is what the original article was about) read Bringing Down the Mountains: The Impact of Mountaintop Removal on Southern West Virginia Communities. It was a PhD dissertation that was turned into a book, written by the daughter (and granddaughter) of coal miners.
Reply to this Top
A breakdown of Obama's unrealistic energy ideas (including windpower): http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/commentary/article/OBAMA503_20090501-201831/265137/
Reply to this Top
Blowhard, you obviously don't have enough hope.
Reply to this Top
Guess the message boards got purged of a lot of comments, so here I go again. I am skeptical of the numbers presented in this article. They suggest that Tech uses as much power as 6 million average American homes. I find that suspicious, especially considering that Lane Stadium only accounts for about 10,000 kW (which would only be about 0.14%) of the overall 7.2 million.
Reply to this Top
As I tried to explain last time Jason, a BTU converts to a kWh not a KW. So this was a misprint and he left out the h or as a standard you often leave that out because it is assumed in the conversion. Second the 7.2 million is over 6 years so that is 1.2 per year not 7.2. Third when taken from your 1200 W per year, if that number is remembered correctly then it supports the case that his numbers are correct. 1500 BTU converted into W, then divide by hours in a day and days in a year. Then take that number and divide by the average household usage of 1200 W and you get about 41000 homes. 41000 homes sounds right in the ballpark of Blacksburg.
Reply to this Top
Sorry BTU converted into Watt Hours.
Reply to this Top
John, as I explained to you, you're wrong. I love a good nerd fight, so here goes...1500 trillion BTU = 440 billion kWh. So far, only talking energy. The average POWER used at a given instant is found by dividing the 440 billion kWh consumed by the number of hours in 7 years (2000-2006 is 7 years, not 6). 440,000,000,000 / (365*24*7) = 7.175 million kW. Thus, his 7.2 million figure is not a misprint or error, but how he arrived at such a figure is questionable.
Reply to this Top
Also, I eat unit analysis for breakfast.
Reply to this Top
Jason you are right I missed three zeros in a trillion thus my wrongness. Before this site got purged however he posted the link to where he got his numbers. It was a powerpoint made by the sustainability group of Blacksburg. That is where the 1500 BTU came from. It is possible that the number is inflated due to the sustainability group wanting to boost their point for lowering energy consumption maybe? Either way don't fault Ed for his math if the data was wrong. Engineers make estimations with given data we don't collect data ourselves!
Reply to this Top
John, glad we found agreement. By the way, I'm not blaming him for his math. Maybe I didn't make it clear, but my point all along is that the data seems suspicious. If we assume the 1500 trillion BTU number, his calculations are all correct, just don't seem to make sense. After all, 7.2 million kW is roughly enough to power 720 Lane Stadiums. Maybe I'm naive about the amount of power consumed by large buildings like the ones on campus, but that seems a bit far-fetched. You may be right about the dubious intent of the group behind the numbers.
Reply to this Top
Here’s the link he originally posted that was mysteriously lost. http://www.vsbn.org/docs/20071026_017_Va_Tech_Randolph.pdf The slide he referenced to get 1500 TBtu was 38/48
Reply to this Top
The fact remains, that we are dependent on an energy source that is a massive and toxic polluter. Simply because 'something has been done' for centuries does not make it correct.
Reply to this Top
I agree with Blowhard, I have read the book what he mentioned, Its very usefule
Reply to this Top