coal_center
Although Virginia Tech’s coal-powered power plant satisfies only 7 percent of the university’s energy needs, it continues to be a point of contention as groups attempt to pressure the university to use cleaner energy sources.
A recent campaign titled “2 Dirty 4 College” was initiated by The Sierra Club in order to motivate college campuses reliant on coal as a power source to find renewable energy means to move “beyond coal”.
Allison Still, a freshman majoring in fisheries, is a member of Campuses Beyond Coal Campaign and rejects the idea of clean coal outright. “All coal is dirty,” she said.
“Everybody should care because we’re losing the world for the future generations our children, our grandchildren,” Still said. “We’re going to leave the world in a terrible state if we’re blowing up mountains and destroying ecosystems and polluting water and air.”
The ads depict classic “dirty” college scenarios including mud wrestling, eating a cheeseburger after it has fallen onto the floor, and waking up handcuffed to bed. All videos convey the sense that coal is even too “dirty” for college behavior.
Tech is one of 17 campuses in 11 states targeted by the campaign. Other colleges in Beyond Coal’s crosshairs include the University of Georgia, Penn State University, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and the University of Southern California.
“We are working to move the school beyond coal to alternate energy sources just because coal is an old technology,” Still said. “We used it 200 years ago, and it’s time that we get off it.”
However, the coal power plant produces only a very small portion of Tech’s energy needs, said Dennis Cochrane, sustainability program manager at Tech.
Nearly all of the university’s electricity — 93 percent — is purchased through American Electric Power. The remaining seven percent is produced by the on-campus power plant, which does not actually always use coal.
Weather, the season and other aspects decide which fuel source the plant use most frequently.
“When it’s cold, that’s when your capacity is in the greatest need,” Cochrane said, “so it depends upon a variety of factors that will dictate what fuel you use, as a matter of time.”
“We can generate (the remainder) here ourselves, either by burning coal in our two coal boilers,” Cochrane said, “or in burning natural gas, or number two fuel oil in the remaining three burner units.
“In essence, we produce a very small amount of electricity (from the plant),” Cochrane said.
Haiz Oppenheimer of Green Corps, a field school for environmental organizing, was hired by the Sierra Club to help spearhead and mentor the student organization behind the campaign.
Oppenheimer said that although the university has done a good job of studying possible energy solutions, it has not done a good job of implementing its goals.
“Virginia Tech is one of the best technical research institutions in the world; we can do this,” Oppenheimer said. “There’s already been several other institutions to go completely away from coal.”
He suggested exclusively burning of natural gas as a short-term solution because it produces a considerably less amount of carbon dioxide than coal does.
The primary use of the campus plant is to produce steam and hot water used by campus facilities.
“One of the major benefits of it is that it’s heating the campus and producing some electricity as a cogeneration (simultaneously),” said Stephen Schafrick, a research engineer for Blacksburg-based Virginia Energy Patterns and Trends.
Activists also point to climate change as a cause to fight coal power on campus.
Nationwide, 30 percent of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions come directly from coal power plants.
Leave a comment 28 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.
Great article. Soot in dorm rooms? I hope there is another explanation. If soot, coal dust, or ash from the coal plant is making its way into dorm rooms it could cause serious health problems for students who live there.
One correction - I work for Green Corps, the field school for environmental organizing, not Green Core Capital. Also, burning all natural gas is by no means the best, or only option for getting off coal, but it would be a step in the right direction - less CO2, less pollution, less health problems, and no mountaintop removal coal mining.
Check out the VT Beyond Coal facebook page for more info about our campaign. http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Beyond-Coal-at-Virginia-Tech/134982873089
Beyond Coal at Virginia Tech meets next Monday night at 7:00, Holden Hall room 110. Come out and join our team!
Reply to this Top
Hi Haiz - a common misconception is that the dust & "soot" that gets blown into Thomas Hall and other upper-quad dormitories is a combustion product. When I was a student here (10 years ago...) a number of Freshman were concerned about the dust levels, and it was determined to be dust from the coal pile itself. Depending on the level of activity, and the wind, it's possible that dust is blown toward the residence halls. I vaguely recall a news article that effort was being made to prevent dust excursion from the coal pile, but I cannot find a reference for it.
Reply to this Top
Certainly one of the best written articles in the Collegiate Times! I would suggest, however, a follow-up article including interviews with the engineers from Facilities Services and providing some analysis of the true impact of our coal dependency.
The article touches on the fact that the Power Plant isn't there to fill a need for /electrical/ power, rather, it supplies our need for energy mostly through the high and low pressure steam distribution network. Unfortunately, the need for energy transfer in the form of steam output is not discussed further.
Eliminating our use of coal will require significant engineering analysis of the energy requirements of that steam plant and design of a solution that reduces our emissions, is cost effective for a cash-strapped government agency, and maintains the level of service our steam customers require.
Be sure to check out:
http://www.facilities.vt.edu/utilities/steam/
Keep it up, Ms. Sanders! A series on the totality of campus energy requirements would greatly serve to educate our campus about our needs as a community, as well as our individual impact!
Reply to this Top
What people need to realize that any shift away from coal to alternative energy will be a long time in coming. The logistics of doing so are complex and very expensive. Coal is a relatively cheap power source, especially in SW VA with the proximity to nearby coal mines. The current power plant is not equipped to handle many alternative fuel options and as such it would have to be replaced or significantly upgraded. There is really no time when the entire campus can be out of hot water for an upgrade so that makes it tough to transition without building a completely new power plant somewhere else. Where do you want to put that? The campus is filling up and viable locations are otherwise occupied.
Reply to this Top
Why not just build a nuclear reactor on campus
Reply to this Top
Very well put, I'm sick of seeing that coal plant no matter where I am on campus.
Now is definitely the time to start figuring out alternatives, if we let excuses such as cost and logistics prevent us from working on a plan, we will never find an alternative before it's too late.
Just because the plant is only responsible for 7% of energy generated that does not mean we can't work on reducing our reliance on coal through alternative power generation. Coal is dirty whether it's coming from a small plant on campus or an industrial scale AEP plant miles away.
Let's start working together on renewable energy sources that in the long term will establish Tech as a "green" leader, save us money in the long term, and most importantly remove from the coal cycle that's devastating Appalachia and changing the climate.
Reply to this Top
Ned, Why didn't you research this before coming to Tech? I like coal generated energy because it is cheap and plentiful. If you DON'T like cheap, plentiful energy why don't you switch to a school using nuclear generated energy or hydro-power?
Reply to this Top
Thank you. I agree completely. I actually like having a power plant on campus and think it's a great idea. There's a lot more in play here than the 7% electrical figure. As someone else mentioned, the steam is used in the steam distribution network.
Also, engineering students, which make up a very large portion of the students, think the power plant is interesting and like being able to look at it when they walk by. (or at least I do...)
Top
So cost and logistics are not an issue? I thought those were critical aspects of any project, but I guess all my engineering professors and economics professors have been wrong. Cheap power is a major contributor for why we are the most powerful country in the world, and to suggest that we intentionally raise our power costs, is absurd. Sure we need to respect the environment and continually try to improve our practices, but to haphazardly reconfigure our current energy structure is irresponsible. In conclusion, to say that a first semester freshman has the knowledge and life experiences to campaign for major changes on this campus is ridiculous.
Reply to this Top
That's because your thinking with you head Rick of course it doesn't make sense. You got feel with your heart to understand what we're about man. Come on lets all join in a drum circle and smoke weed all day. Then we can make people pay more for less reliable energy because it feels right. The earth will die tomorrow unless we get off of coal and don't bother checking that fact in a book because it's not there. That's because books have a bias against mother earth and can't connect with Gia like we can.
Reply to this Top
I agree Cheech,I think we should demolish our source of energy and go live with the land. It just feels right to live without heat in the winter, or having a charged laptop or cell phone and just live free and clear of all worries. we could get rid grocery stores while we are at it and grow our own food in our back yard. I'm glad there are people out there fighting for what right.
Reply to this Top
Ricky's exactly right. You people scare me.
Reply to this Top
This is a comment forum, not a place for disrespectful, immature, and unrelated jokes. Cheech, Chong and Go Hug a Tree: not everyone that works for clean energy is a hippie, much less a cracked up nut trying to save mother earth. Have you considered the people that live near mountain top removal sites? Sure some people in those communities have coal jobs, but only for 10 years at most. Clean energy jobs, where available, will last for decades and are healthier for communities and the environment. Do your research and make constructive arguments.
Reply to this Top
I think their arguments were constructive enough, albeit a bit disrespectful... The "environmental impact" would be C02 emissions which science obviously still doesn't fully understand. We don't even know if those C02 emissions are causing global warming. (and to what degree, if it is) The fact of the matter is that it's not cost effective. As one of them mentioned, you'll end up paying more money for less energy that is less reliable. Also, you're not helping your argument by dismissing any kind of criticism as "immature, unrelated jokes."
Top
Al Gore and PETA have recently said cow farts release just as much harmful gases into the atmosphere too! Let's all go protest down at the agricultural buildings! The cows are killing our planet!
Reply to this Top
Moo, the above comment is for you too. And when addressing methane production from livestock, Gore and PETA are addressing concentrated animal feeding operations. The places where animals are abused and the environmental degradation (CO2, contaminated water, ruined land) is deplorable.
Reply to this Top
Yeah but we need cheap food and our lives are infinitely more important than theirs.
Top
I had originally thought the plant provided most of the university's energy needs. If it only provides 7% then where does the rest of the energy come from?
Reply to this Top
If you read the article, it tells you Tech buys it from AEP.
Reply to this Top
Kara, man, you got to quit putting out those negative waves your harshing my flow, man. I'm with you I love mother earth and want us stop using the man's energy. We need to use wind and stuff because that way we're off the man's grid and can all get more expensive and less reliable energy. That will show the man when we, after a drum circle and a trip to 7-11 decry his cheap and reliable energy source that provides needed work to impoverished communities that wouldn't otherwise have employment.
Reply to this Top
I lived in Thomas last year as well. My dorm was the corner room closest to the plant and it was really awful - the noise alone was so loud that if the windows were open you had to practically yell to be heard. The constant hum of the plant left my ears ringing 24/7. I have pretty bad allergies and had to buy an air filter for my room because of the amount of dust in the air, which helped a lot but was still not very great - everything in the room would accumulate dust faster than I have ever seen. I had just assumed the cheaper room and board was because of the power plant... I love Virginia Tech and I had an awesome freshman year, but the fact that we have students living literally 50 feet from a power plant and do not technically give them compensation for it is flat out wrong.
Reply to this Top
I live in Thomas Hall, and the noises that come out of the power plant, not to mention the dust that is constantly covering my desk, absolutely drive me insane. it is impossible to do any studying or homework in my room due to the constant 'SHHHHH' sound that cannot even be masked my closed windows or a fan.
Reply to this Top
So, let me see if I understand what is desired here. Instead of working in conjunction with the professors and researchers at Virginia Tech to make coal a cleaner, more viable resource, we're just gonna scrap the whole thing and move onto something that is less efficient and not reliable. At least the steel workers are gonna be happy to have some work, assuming it's cool for them to still use coal to turn iron into steel. Now, what do we do about exports? Do we stop mining coal completely? I mean, I know some great mining towns that would absolutely love to have their way of life extinguished.
And, just to clarify, instead of taking the time to figure out how to make wind and solar economically feasible, we're just gonna scrap something that is less than a quarter per kWh and go with the thing that costs over $2 per kWh. Who is going to foot this bill for the increased price in producing electricity? Oh wait that would be us, but at least we wouldn't have to look at those awful coal power plants any more, they'll all be natural gas burning plants....which just by happenstance look the same... well at least the name would be different.
Reply to this Top
I simply fail to understand why we are supposed to accept that saving the coal industry is more important than saving the world from drastic climate change.
Reply to this Top
Yea thats right, coal is the only cause of climate change. Exhaust from cars and trains, or methane from cows have nothing to do with it... Did you know that water vapor is the most dangerous of the green house gases or did the book you were reading soley focus on how terrible coal is? Seeing the big picture is just as important as pushing for change.
I see where you are coming from anon, and I agree that protecting the coal industry does not out way protecting the world we live on, but the earth is a living thing that goes through cycles. The earth has been adapting and changing for longer than we have even been in existance. Believing that something as insignificant as the human race (a blip on the radar of the world time line) has made such an impact is plain arrogant.
Top
I hate when people use the argument, "All coal is dirty, Clean Coal is a myth!"
NO BLEEPITY BLEEP its dirty, the name clean coal is given to a coal product that burns with far less emissions then any other coal. Clean Coal just sounds a lot nicer then Cleaner Coal or Less Dirty Coal, its about aesthetics.
You are so biased against coal that you are willing to take a jump to alternate energy that will cost so much money and will pretty much destroy the nation as we stand. Instead why don't you push for more clean coal research, which is still cost effective, while moving towards a time where alternate energy is cheap.
Logic is the enemy of all terrible argument...
Top
An image forensics tool: <a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">pskiller.com</a>. Have you ever wondered if an image was altered with Photoshop? This website can give you the answer through content-level image analysis.
Reply to this Top
When I lived on upper quad, our rooms had to be cleaned and inspected. Imagine how hard it was keeping it clean when the blinds would turn gray. It would take an entire roll of towers, and spray to clean the blinds. A number of us had reoccurring respiratory infections.
Reply to this Top