Tuesday’s column “Moving ‘Beyond Coal’ must be cost efficient for students” (CT, Nov. 30), by Gabi Seltzer has a point. We must consider the cost to future Hokies as we look to move beyond coal. As part of that equation, any honest accounting would include the cost of continuing to burn this toxic fuel. Not only does the coal plant emit toxic pollution into the air we all breathe here in Blacksburg, coal is the No. 1 contributor to global warming causing CO2 emissions in the U.S. If we are going to have any chance of preventing the worst consequences of global warming — like sea level rise, severe weather and extreme drought — we have to stop burning coal as soon as possible. That’s not going to happen unless universities like Virginia Tech lead the way. The university’s current plan doesn’t set a deadline for Tech to get off coal until 2050. That is simply not acceptable, and it fails to protect the future of all Hokies.
We can’t afford to wait to get off coal, and we don’t have to. The current university plan calls for the existing boilers at the coal plant to be massively repaired or completely replaced by 2025 at the latest. We already have to make a huge investment. At Virginia Tech Beyond Coal, we propose that we simply tackle the problem now and be off coal by 2020.
A recent report by the International Energy Agency states that every year the world fails to take serious action to stop global warming adds another $500 billion to the eventual cost. Unless we prefer to bankrupt our global economy, we must start now. Virginia Tech is one of the top research institutions in the world, and we can lead the way to a clean energy economy by getting off of coal as soon as possible. At Beyond Coal, we say “let’s invest in the right future for all Hokies.” Instead of pouring our money into mountaintop removal, global warming and toxic pollution, let’s do the right thing and invest in a renewable energy future for all.
Allison Still
Beyond Coal at Virginia Tech
Leave a comment 21 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.
Global warming is unproven, but sure lets cost the university millions of dollars during a budget crisis so we can feel better. The best part is it's a tiny power plant so it doesn't matter in the slightest whether we get rid of it or not our CO2 contributions are less than 1% of 1% of the total.
Reply to this Top
Yes it's true that our plant is much smaller than the utility scale plants around the world. However, we have a wealth of brilliant minds at this university who would love the opportunity to work on solving the problems of our addiction to fossil fuel.
In the long run, we could see benefits from reduced energy costs as well as seeing Tech become a leader in alternative energy research and implementation.
Reply to this Top
We do have brilliant minds at Tech. And they all don't care about global warming BS. It isn't even worth our time to waste our intellectual talents on such a blatantly obvious con.
Top
So we should spend millions of dollars Anon #2 because?
Top
Because progress costs money, it always will. People need to get over their greed and do the right thing which is to stop destroying the earth and it's people in the name of cheap energy.
Top
That's the problem though it's not destroying the Earth. If we build a power plant that is less efficient and costs more money that is not progress. Hokies for Coal!
Top
Engineer, it's true that a lot of engineers don't accept the scientific consensus on global warming. Engineers don't like a lot of what those darn scientists do. But even if you don't accept science, there are lots of other reasons to get off the fossil fuel kick, and university researchers should be an important part of progress.
Reply to this Top
If we can get grants and other companies to fund it... sure. otherwise let it be... it is not economically sound. People who invest in a new technology as a working product tend to loose a lot of money. We can develop all that green stuff, but using it is economically unwise. What we have now works both economically and logistically.
Reply to this Top
The problem with these campaigns is the scare tactics. "Global devestation inevitable!" "CO2 emmisions" "Dirty Air"
And so on, but they never provide a solution. Instead of saying, "Coal is bad and needs to go away because its bad, so do something scientists!" Present your own solution, and pitch it as feasible research. Right now renewable energy is not cost effective because it is very inefficient. There is no need to drive electric costs up just because we scratched the surface of the Earth.
If you want to call me greedy for wanting to pay $40 for reliable energy over $120 for spotty energy, then go ahead guilty as charged. Until YOU provide a solution to the problem nothing will get done. You can't walk up to a university and say, "You're wrong you meanies, do what is right for the future!" and then walk away without showing them a solution, its ludicrous!
Reply to this Top
Oh and BTW, water vapor makes up 98% of greenhouse gasses, Im not too worried about CO2 which is less then a percent (I believe I did not double check the percent of CO2).
Reply to this Top
But that global warming kool-aid tastes so good! There's no way Al Gore, who's made millions of dollars pitching a sca...issue, could be wrong. The data doesn't lie! We've altered it to make sure it doesn't!
Reply to this Top
Gore invents the internet than everyone questions his intentions regarding saving the planet? What a "what have you done for me lately" crowd.
Top
coal is only the no. 7 in causeing gloBolwarming
Reply to this Top
Cow farts man. Cow farts are ruining the planet. Go green and eat more beef!
Reply to this Top
Kind of Ironic that vegetarians are killing the planet.
Top
You rock, Ally. I'm so proud of you.
xoxoMadre
Reply to this Top
Yes, Ally and others - there are alternatives but change is scary and requires commitment that is cannot be found from complacency. Change has traditionally come from universities of learning, and yes, VT should take a lead. Other universities have made big commitments to green energy. Sierra magazine fall edition (I have already passed it on) had an impressive article on what some college campuses have done.
The real question - if we can do better, why don't we?
Reply to this Top
Switching to renewables wouldn't be doing better. We'd be paying much more for less. It would be better to wait for the technology to improve. That's the stance the administration seems to be taking and I for one couldn't agree more.
Top
It is refreshing to see that younger students like Ms. Still have the insight into issues of global concern. While the impact of VPI on global warming might be deemed minor by many, it seems that we need to start somewhere. One need only look at the small nation of Sweden for examples of how much can be done by so few. Great going Allison!
Reply to this Top
We shouldn't look to those beneath us for insights. Sweden should be taking our lead, but hey if you want to shell out the money for the power plant on your own feel free to do so.
Reply to this Top
We're an intensively visual society, and yet we're not very good at visually scrutinizing. If you know what to look for, there are many ways to tell image integrity. <a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">Photoshopped Image Killer</a> is a good example.
Reply to this Top