Recently I have been hearing quite a bit from the group Beyond Coal at Virginia Tech. It’s committed to getting rid of Tech’s on-campus coal plant and working to run completely on clean, renewable energy. I think this is a great idea. However, as I hear more about what it is working toward I wonder how much these plans will cost students now and in the future. Beyond Coal is asking Tech to end its dependency on coal by the year 2020. When I first think about it, the demand seems reasonable. Then I remember that 2020 is just 10 short years away. Ten years ago global warming and CO2 emissions were hardly political issues, and they were not at the forefront of the minds of many college students as they are today.
I am not saying that global warming and reducing our carbon footprint are not serious issues that need a solution, they are just issues that need a practical and carefully thought out solution. The solutions to these problems are sure to cost a lot of money, and I wonder if what Beyond Coal is suggesting is practical with the current budget cuts and economy. I am sure that at least some of the cost of the proposed changes will be reflected in higher tuition rates and budget cuts in other important areas.
Some people I discussed my concerns with have argued that my tuition will not be affected by the proposed changes because I will have graduated by the time they will cost the university money. These people also mentioned it just has to be done whether we have the money or not. However, it is a moot point that the proposed changes will not cost me anything. Say I intend to earn my doctorate from Tech. If I am a sophomore now, then I will be in school for at least the next seven to eight years, and that is a low estimate.
That means these changes would indeed cost me money, and my younger brother who is hoping to come to Tech next year would have to pay as well. With the state of the economy, Tech needs every dollar it can get. However, in October, Gov. Kaine announced another round of statewide budget cuts. Also, with the election of Bob McDonnell, there are further concerns over budget. Governor-elect McDonnell said during his campaign that, if elected, he intends to take money from the general fund (where money for universities comes from) and use it to fund transportation advancements. This means that it is likely budgets for universities will be cut even further. I am worried that with the proposed cuts now and possible budget cuts in the future there will be little money for the drastic changes to our power infrastructure that are potentially proposed. In reality, 10 years is a very short period of time, and it seems even shorter when you think about what is proposed.
I wonder how much time, money and space on campus it will cost to change how the university is powered in just 10 short years. It is bad enough having the East Ambler-Johnson and commuter lot construction during classes (although I am well aware they are totally necessary); it seems that changing our energy source would cause the same kind of trouble, possibly even to a larger extent. Beyond Coal says it wants Tech to explore the costs and possibilities of changing our dependence on coal. But what happens after the estimates come back? What if the estimates are quite high and the university is facing further budget cuts? Will Beyond Coal continue to push for these changes so soon, even if Tech may not be able to afford them? I know that the university is committed to “Invent the Future,” and that is one of the great parts about Tech, but we still have to think about cost and practicality.
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.
Ok here are some general cost numbers to look at. Taking Large wind farms, solar panels and coal plants.
The largest coal plant generetes about 3000 MW at a capital cost of $1000 per kW.
A large wind turbine generates 2 MW at a capital cost of $1500 per kW.
A general solar panel generates 100 kW at a cost of $10k per kW.
This translates to costs of 5, 10, and 40 cents per kWh respectively.
I don't know the size of techs coal plant but lets say its 10 MW for examples sake.
That means it would take 5 large turbines running at peak capacity year round to replace the plant, one 2MW turbine costs about $3.5 million so thats a cool $17.5 million. So say they want to spread that cost over a 10 year period getting the money from a green fee to students. thats $1.75 million per year divided by the 25000 or so students so $70 extra dollars per year. Not so bad really BUT they wouldn't be able to do that because of budget cuts so they would need the money upfront. So say they want to raise the money in one year then spend it, $17.5 million for 25000 students is $700 extra dollars per person, and that may not seem too unreasonable either but this is also just the capital cost.
Reply to this Top
Now the thing about wind is it isn't always blowing so an average big turbine runs at 40% effeciency in peak wind, now you are looking at an average of maybe 20-30% efficiency when factoring normal wind and no wind days in leading to the need for more then 5 turbines.
Reply to this Top
Typical estimates show that wind power overall averages less than 10% efficiency.
Reply to this Top
True, but efficiency for wind/solar don't really matter because the fuel cost is free. All it means is that there is more potential to extract energy for a similarly sized unit.
Top
Paul, the energy may be free but the land these sources sit on is not.
Top
Thanks Ford I could not for the life of me find an estimate on average effeciency, so I made up my own and tried to keep it on the high side since even peak effeciency doesn't really hurt the argument of reliability.
And that goes to your comment too paul. They may provide "free" fuel, but when reliability is shoddy the coal plant needs to stay anyway so again it would't help, but good point either way. And I did not know about the steam thing from your other comment that is very interesting and good to know!
Top
The on campus power plant only provides a fraction of the electrical power for the university. Most of the electrical power comes from AEP, whose power plants are almost all coal fired. However, the on campus plant provides steam heating in the winter for many campus buildings. If we got rid of burning coal, we would have to figure out a way to heat the buildings in the winter, as wind/solar don't generate waste steam. This extra demand from AEP might offset any carbon reduction we would see. So, in the end we would be making pretty much the same carbon footprint while being millions of dollars in the hole.
Reply to this Top
As image manipulation software becomes easier to use and harder to detect, the problem of image tampering has spread far beyond such celebrity "corrections." While fudged paparazzi moments do little more than embarrass editors, there are far more important and sometimes illegal fakes to catch. Many tools have been developped to expose these touchups, like <a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">Photoshopped Image Killer</a>, which leverages internal statictial models of images to do such work.
Reply to this Top