We all know about the coal-fired energy plant on campus, located in the Upper Quad. Most of us have also seen the Beyond Coal rallies on campus, buttons or the Facebook group.
Beyond Coal is a campus movement spanning across 13 states to end the dependency on coal at universities such as Virginia Tech.
However, Beyond Coal is far from a being a movement with a well thought out mission.
Tech is one of dozens of colleges and universities across the country that operates a coal-fired plant on campus. Tech’s plant generates steam used for heating buildings on campus, as well as electric power.
The power plant dates back to 1901, but the current location goes back to 1930. Major changes and improvements were made to the current plant in 1970, 1997 and 2007. The longevity of the plant, the more recent investments in the plant and the lack of current interest from the university to invest in alternative energies show that the coal plant remains the most economically feasible option for the university at this time.
Beyond Coal wants to completely change that. The group has made it very clear it wants the university to completely get rid of the coal-fired plant altogether.
There are two problems with this plan: Why make this change given the current state of our economy, and what alternative energies does the group propose Tech use to replace what is lost from the coal-fired plant?
Regarding the first problem, there is no avoiding the fact that switching to alternative energy will have a massive financial cost to the university. This is not the time to ask the university to make that kind of investment. Tuition costs have already gone up because of various outside influences. There is no need to make Tech’s financial situation even tighter.
On the Sierra Club’s website for Campuses Beyond Coal, it says “Campuses Beyond Coal is a joint effort between the Sierra Student Coalition and the Sierra Club to move our nation’s universities beyond coal to 100 percent clean energy solutions.” The Heritage Foundation published a study in May comparing the costs of electricity derived from coal, wind energy and solar energy when 100 percent of the electricity is being derived from one of those sources.
The average annual cost from coal is just more than $2,200. The average annual cost from off-shore wind energy (the wind energy that can be obtained in Blacksburg) is more than double that at more than $4,800. The average annual cost for solar thermal is more than $6,000, and solar photovoltaic is nearly four times the cost of coal, costing more than $8,600 annually. These costs are estimated for the average family of four, but the ratios would still apply to Tech’s campus.
The second problem is Beyond Coal fails to say which alternative energy source Tech should use in place of coal. Obviously there is no other source that would be as economically efficient, especially at this time, as coal. So why is the group portraying coal as a problem without advocating a way to fix the problem?
When there is a problem, what you need is a solution. All the research I’ve done on Beyond Coal and its mission suggests the group fails to provide a solution. I have seen the argument that the issue has to be studied to find out exactly what should replace the coal-fired plant, but do we really want to waste the time and money to tell us what we already know?
The fact is, alternative energies currently cost a lot more than energy derived from coal.
I’m not saying Tech should keep the coal-fired plant forever; I realize the switch to alternative energy is inevitable. I do believe, however, the free market should dictate that switch, which means this switch should not take place right now.
We shouldn’t be asking the university to make the switch now when it is not economically feasible. Once the economy improves, and once alternative energy becomes cheaper, we can come back and look at this issue. Until that happens, this is not the right time for this argument.
A version of this article appeared in the Oct 13 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 37 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.
Do you realize that renewable energy is a long-term investment? If they spend money now, they will have more money in the future? Virginia Tech can afford an investment - don't look at energy as an 'expense.' Also, our environment, and well...the world as we know it is at stake. Your thoughts are justified for the short-term, but all in all, they are linear. Well written article...but still...coal is NOT our future and it is definitely not 'clean.'
Reply to this Top
Seems a bit misconstrued logic there. If the annual cost of the cheapest alternative, wind, is double coal, then how is it a long term investment towards the cheap? If you pay $2000 a year now for electricity and it is $4000 per year for wind energy but 10 years down the road wind energy becomes $2000 a year, why would you spend ten years throwing away that money?
What I got from this, and what I feel myself, is that the correct way of thinking should be as this article states.
1)Research new energy to get away from coal.
2)Keep coal until new energies are economically feasible.
Reply to this Top
The author has no interest in presenting the results of previous studies that show how long it would take to break even (if they exist), or studying the subject further.
"I have seen the argument that the issue has to be studied to find out exactly what should replace the coal-fired plant, but do we really want to waste the time and money to tell us what we already know?"
Top
My apologies I misread that.
So just change my comment and remove, "as the article states"
Top
More to the heart of this article, he only seems to establish his argument on one study by a clearly partisan think tank, rather than drawn an opinion using a diverse array of studies (there are plenty out there which the author neglects). This article is similar to Creationists whose only use studies from the Discovery Institute, another group that uses science to prove they are correct, rather than become correct using science. On the grounds of supporting data alone, this opinion feels extremely biased.
Reply to this Top
You couldn't be more wrong. Burning coal releases mercury, a potent neurotoxin, along with an array of other poisonous substances. Coal fired power plants are also the single largest source of greenhhouse gas emissions responsible for global climate disruption. The most respected scientific body in the world, the National Academy of Sciences, has issued urgent warnings calling for emissions cuts. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/20/science/la-sci-climate-change-20100520-6 It joined the national academies of every leading nation in the world, along with the American Meteorological Society, the American Assoc for the Advancement of Science, and a list of credible scientific organizations too long to name here. NASA and NOAA data corroborate the science. We most certainly do have alternatives to destroying Appalachian mountains and strems to produce emissions that threaten the planet. And young people in particular have a vital stake in making sure we pursue them.
Reply to this Top
So what is your solution?
Reply to this Top
Dave,
What I got out of all your ramblings there was this,
"We need to get rid of coal, it is killing our planet, you've been warned!!!"
Reply to this Top
@Dave, ok so you are against coal. What's your feasible plan then? Easy for you to oppose something without contributing anything constructive.
Reply to this Top
@Dave, ok so you are against coal. What's your feasible plan then? Easy for you to oppose something without contributing anything constructive.
Reply to this Top
I heard some people from Beyond Coal speak and they always fail to recognize what Virginia Tech already has in plan for the future. The coal plant currently goes well beyond the minimum standards set by the EPA for coal burning. They've also started burning switchgrass alongside coal to reduce usage . . . They're getting there, but an immediate change would probably leave us heat-less for winter and would cost a lot. Gradual change is the best option. The Beyond Coal group needs to recognize that 1. comparatively, it's not that bad here in Blacksburg, 2. they want to risk jobs and tuition hikes for the expense, and 3. stop using fear tactics just because it's trendy to protest for the sake of the environment without offering solutions.
Reply to this Top
Everyone,
Beyond Coal recognizes that the Administration has looked into biomass, yet the school has not committed to finding renewable energy sources to move off of coal. VT is bound to the VT Climate Action Commitment and Sustainability Plan, which states that between 2025 and 2050 the school will have moved off of coal at the campus cogeneration plant. Thus, our organization is working to find a renewable energy plan that is proactive in reducing CO2 emissions, environmental costs of coal, social and public health issues from coal use, and working with the VTCAC & SP.
Also, our organization fully understands that the University, student population, and Hokie community would not support an economically or technologically unfeasible plan for moving off of coal. 2020 is a deadline that can be met with the rapid development of renewable technology as well as pressure from increasing coal prices.
If anyone is still confused about our organization, I encourage you to come to a Monday meeting or approach us at a public event. This is an open-dialogue issue, and your input can only strengthen a clean energy plan for our school.
Thanks,
Kara Dodson
Reply to this Top
Not everything should be about costs. Beyond Coal doesn't argue that coal isn't cheap.
Reply to this Top
Yeah, I mean, what if we make the world a better place for no reason, right?
Reply to this Top
I mean if youre ok with the price of electricity turning it into a luxury rather then a utility I guess you are a better man.
I like my lights, and I like them cheap.
Reply to this Top
This is assuming that costs would stay the same for the duration. Obviously, continuing to use a technology reduces the cost of said tech since technological progress/economic competition would/will produce cheaper, more viable options.
Top
good article man, glad to see someone on the Times can write a coherent and logical article.
Reply to this Top
First, these students should be commended for taking 'the first step' to bring
attention, and hopefully motivate both students and administrators to the primary
fuel source currently used on campus. Every moment of ideation, ingenuity and change
begins with this sort of effort; so, please give them some credit.
Second, Va Tech CAN and should begin strident efforts to make the shift. I don't have
the actual measure of square footage encompassing ROOF SURFACE AREA (on the several million square feet of office, residential and service buildings on campus, but I do know
that beginning to install solar panels on this roof space (and adding to it annually would
eventually - within 10 years - get us close to providing the core of our energy needs.
Those, in turn, could then be supported at vastly smaller levels with traditional fuel sources.
It's not brain science and it can be done within reason. So, what are we waiting for?
Reply to this Top
Indeed, there are several solar consortiums that have moved beyond the 'start up'
stage are developing incredibly compact, highly efficient applications which will make
wide-scale solar available to the general public and institutions in the next couple of
years. Several have moved far beyond the 'traditional' idea of large, flat solar boards
to much smaller units that produce an energy output that outstrips what most of us
are familiar with. They are moving toward mass production and cutting the cost in
roughly half = the cost of coal or natural gas. This is about the long-term, not a
quick fix, all of you talk about 'break even' but that actually would happen relatively
soon as the 'cost' of environmental damage, health issues, mining, transportation,
storage, and all associated costs are taken into consideration. The cost variance is
NOT that different that maintaining the status quo. And once you are 'off the fuels'
and on the solar clean source you don't have any further investment required. You're in.
Reply to this Top
If the electric company says, "Well his bill would be 180 instead of 90, but since we can factor in the 'cost' reduction from the environment, well heck we'll just make him pay 80."
Right...get out of fantasy land there, putting it in quotes is not the solution. You need to look at the actual economics.
Top
that's just silly. no one here is in fantasy land, we're all entitled to our opinions anonymous.
Top
When you are telling me to factor in emotional arguments like 'cost' of environment, then yes you are in fantasy land.
Top
The cost of the environment is not an emotional one. When we sacrifice the environment in order to further ourselves, we are actually only hurting ourselves and future generations. The environment isn't going to support us forever
Top
You show me a nice presentation on the economics of enivronment and how they theorectically make coal more expensive and i'll agree with you.
Now granted this has to be fact and cost driven, like real cost not fairyland, "It is pretty and we are destroying it so that is priceless," costs...
Top
all i can said is the good lord put the coal here for us to use and we need to do that!good job to the writer of this.
Reply to this Top
"The good lord" would probably not approve of the hundreds of miners that die annually from black lung and heavy equipment accidents. "The good lord" would't allow humans to destroy one of the most biodiverse places on earth so that we can have "cheap" energy. Renewable energy is CLEAN. Yes there are up front costs, but if VT (and our state and nation eventually) can become energy independent while creating SAFE and CLEAN jobs then why not start that investment now, not when it's too late?
I understand everyone's opposition to rhetoric and consistent requests for stats and figures, but it also comes down to logic and morals.
Hey, here's one stat that the article misses: we burn 42,000 tons of coal a year. Think about the transportation, waste disposal and pollution controls on that amount of coal which is mined in Eastern Kentucky (it's not even from our state!).
Reply to this Top
Don't throw out numbers if you don't know what you're talking about.
Please visit, http://www.msha.gov/fatals/fabc.htm
That is the Mine Safety and Health Administration archive of fatalities in Coal Mining dating all the way back to '95. If you read through even the last few years the numbers average in the low thirties with 18 last year. The highs of 47 (2006) and 44 (So far this year) are both years with major disasters, this years major disaster killing around 30 miners.
If you analyze your claim even further, you say heavy machinery, I won't begin to dig for that but a quick perusal shows those are far less then anything, with fall of rock being a larger contributor to fatalities.
I know nothing of black lung deaths, that is outside mining and into medical records but please provide a link if there are that many deaths related to black lung per year, I would love to read it and educate myself on that side.
I am not saying the deaths are not tragic, or are necessary but when you make a bogus claim to use peoples emotions I will argue it with real facts.
Top
link for miner's deaths by machinery/accidents and black lung related health issues-coal workers’ pneumoconiosis (CWP).
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/files/2010/10/blacklungdeathchart1.jpg
Top
So if you factor in the CWP, then I guess your sentance makes sense, but it is misleading.
Interesting graph, trending downward which is always a good sign. I wonder what the levels are now.
Black Lung deaths however are a risk of the job. Fisherman are not going to stop just because it is the deadliest job in the world. If high death rates led the country to morally oblige people to find ways around those jobs we'd be screwed. Considering farming, fishing, truck driving (transportation), and construction (shelter) all top the list of deadliest jobs.
That was an interesting read thank you for obliging me!
Top
So do people not die in factories making windmills and solar panels?
Top
The Good Lord also said we have dominion which entails a level of responsibility. Take a look at the Physicians for Social Responsibility's report of the effects of coal on humans, not even going into a non-egocentric point of view.
http://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.html
Reply to this Top
This column represents a low-point in critical thinking. When you take into account the "cheap" cost of burning coal at Virginia Tech, you are ignoring the high cost that coal imposes on local public health and the environment. UNC and other schools have committed to transitioning beyond coal because it is a long-term investment and it is the morally right thing to do. Your own health is being put at risk, but should we all have to put our long-term well-being on the backburner because people (like you, writing columns) think it's not convenient right now. Virginia Tech could choose to lead the way forward with renewable energy and energy efficiency, or it can choose to maintain the status quo and keep burning dirty coal. But we know which decision will have been the right one when we look back 10 or 20 years from now.
Reply to this Top
This column represents a low-point in critical thinking. When you take into account the "cheap" cost of burning coal at Virginia Tech, you are ignoring the high cost that coal imposes on local public health and the environment. UNC and other schools have committed to transitioning beyond coal because it is a long-term investment and it is the morally right thing to do. Your own health is being put at risk, but should we all have to put our long-term well-being on the backburner because people (like you, writing columns) think it's not convenient right now. Virginia Tech could choose to lead the way forward with renewable energy and energy efficiency, or it can choose to maintain the status quo and keep burning dirty coal. But we know which decision will have been the right one when we look back 10 or 20 years from now.
Reply to this Top
I'd be a little wary of trusting Heritage Foundation numbers on renewable energy costs. Your source betrays your agenda, and your faulty extrapolation from residential to commercial power costs further weakens your argument.
Solar costs have plummeted in the last several years. Virginia Tech could invest in solar on a scale to achieve modules at a very low premium over wholesale cost. Ignoring the obvious environmental benefits, that kind of large-scale price stability for the university's ballooning power costs could be a huge benefit - especially given the unstable year-to-year support the school receives from Richmond.
Reply to this Top
John, I trust the veracity of information from the Heritage Foundation by several orders of magnitude than almost any other politically-correct-"the-science-is-settled" group who have multitudinous documented cases of data "mistakes" ("official government agencies",NOAA included, seem to have more "mistakes" than independent sources for some reason [http://www.dailytech.com/New+Scandal+Erupts+over+NOAA+Climate+Data/article8347.htm])
We should add and replace current technology with renewable resources as soon as economically feasible, but not before according to some arbitrarily fixed timeline regardless of existing outside circumstance. im not an accounting major, but fantasy land rhetoric, ideology, and apparently mathematics does not make $4-10 thousand less than the current cost of $2200.
Reply to this Top
Other "politically-correct-'the-science-is-settled'" groups are held liable for the information they provide, which is why they have cases of mistakes. Who is checking the accuracy of facts provided by obviously biased organizations like the heritage foundation?
Top
Site <a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">Photoshop Killer</a> can tell you whether the image was Photoshopped. Just submit the suspicious image and you can get the result. JPEG file's exif tags are used to do such classifications.
Reply to this Top