This is a response to the letter written by Greg Stecher, “Beyond Coal unrealistic” (CT, March 23).
He wrote that Beyond Coal’s goal to reduce emissions to between 60-70 parts per billion is unrealistic. I want to make it clear that this ozone limit is not an arbitrary level that the campaign came up with. This is the level that the EPA is proposing based on the recommendations of doctors and scientists.
Using an ill-formulated analogy, Stecher also claimed that the current average level of ozone, 80 ppb, is “an extremely low amount of emissions.” Yes, the concentration of ozone is relatively small compared to other components of air — but shouldn’t we really be looking at the effects of that concentration of ozone?
Research shows that between 4,000-12,000 premature deaths will be avoided yearly if the ozone limit of 60-70 ppb is established. Reducing emissions will also save our country billions of dollars in annual health care costs.
Stecher wrote that “(Beyond Coal) wants Virginia Tech to be powered by geothermal, wind and solar energy.” However, the campaign has never specifically advocated an alternative energy source to replace coal. No one in Beyond Coal claims to be an expert in the field of alternative energy. A crucial component of its goal to eliminate coal use by 2020 is getting scientists and researchers involved in determining the most feasible energy sources for our area. It is for that reason that Beyond Coal is insisting that President Charles Steger immediately commission an alternative energy task force.
Finally, we can make no claims as to how renewable energy would affect tuition until a study is completed. However, coal-powered energy costs at Tech have increased by about 50 percent over the past five years. Coal is not the cheap fuel that people think it is. As the amount of coal in our country decreases, prices will continue to escalate. Shouldn’t we begin making an investment in renewable energy?
Sarah Grant
Sophomore
Communication major
Beyond Coal Intern
A version of this article appeared in the Mar 25 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 12 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.
What happens when the toxic from other countries floats over our great county?
Reply to this Top
As commented on the other article to you, just because Beyond Coal didn't create the standard doesn't mean they don't want to meet it.
He never said they created it, just that it was their goal.
Reply to this Top
"However, the campaign has never specifically advocated an alternative energy source to replace coal."
"It is for that reason that Beyond Coal is insisting that President Charles Steger immediately commission an alternative energy task force."
Seems a bit contradictory
Reply to this Top
We have never advocated a particular alternative energy source and want research done to determine the most feasible one.
Reply to this Top
Yet, the March 22nd article states "Instead of spending millions of dollars trying to improve dirty coal technology, we should be investing in wind, solar and energy-efficient technologies that will secure our future."
Seems you ARE advocating a few alternative energy sources.
Top
"No one in Beyond Coal claims to be an expert in the field of alternative energy."
So what you're saying is you're not educated on your topic but rather preaching a point you admit to having no knowledgeable understanding of?
Reply to this Top
You don't have to be an expert to be knowledgeable and educated on a certain subject.
Reply to this Top
Beyond Coal members are all college students. Obviously they are not experts - that doesn't mean they aren't educated on the topic
Reply to this Top
Resources will be more expensive as they become more scarce, this is Econ 101. Fortunately the US has the largest recoverable coal reserves in the world. Everyone is preaching that we need to switch to a (expensive) alternative energy source. The reality is these technologies, while great for the environment, are expensive and not yet proven on the large scale. It makes more sense to improve on current coal efficiency and make it more environmentally friendly.
Reply to this Top
Making coal clean would be great! If it was possible. The technology for that is wayyy in the future. We need to stop waiting around for that technology to come - renewable technology is already here and getting cheaper all the time
Reply to this Top
First, it's not just environmental health that is trying to be improved but human health as well, as the article states. Second, as a top research university, shouldn't WE be working to make expensive alternative/renewable energy cheaper? Third, as previously mentioned in another comment, there is no such thing as clean coal.
Reply to this Top
Have you ever been fooled by images that look realistic but are actually Photoshopped? You need some Image Analysis software to help you detect them. But such kind of software is usually pretty expensive. Instead, some online fake detection tool can help on this for free. Like <a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">Photoshopped Image Killer</a>. PSKiller extracts JPEG quantization tables from your image and compares them with those in database. If they match tables of Photoshop, image will be classifier as Photoshopped. Exif tags of JPEG are utilized as well.
Reply to this Top