Beyond Coal frequently holds clean energy rallies.
Beyond Coal at Virginia Tech is joining colleges across the nation in its goal to use 100 percent clean, renewable energy by 2020.
“It’s a starting goal. We believe it’s aggressive but feasible, aggressive in terms of decreased carbon dioxide emissions,” said Kara Dodson, project coordinator of Beyond Coal at Tech.
Beyond Coal’s goals coincide with those of the university's Climate Action Commitment and Sustainability Plan.
The plan has three main objectives: stating Tech’s climate action commitment plans specific to the university, creating an action plan to achieve the goals of that commitment and
creating a plan to enhance Tech’s sustainability programs and culture.
The goal similar to Beyond Coal's is that Tech intends to reduce campus greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
However, Beyond Coal is approaching the issue more aggressively.
“The university doesn’t agree on the 2020 goal,” Dodson said.
Based on the Climate Action Commitment, which says Tech will move off coal between 2025 and 2050, the changes to greenhouse gas emissions seem inevitable.
“We want to educate, network and unify research at Tech. We want to see what the conversion will look like,” Dodson said.
According to Dodson, renewable technology is clean technology. These kinds of technology include wind turbines, solar photovoltaic panels and geothermal energy sources.
Biomass is also a strong energy option for Tech. Biomass is biological material from living or recently living organisms.
“Wood pellets and waste material turn into combustion material. You still burn it,” Dodson said.
“Tech is, in some ways, a unique situation,” said Richard Rich, faculty sponsor for Beyond Coal, director of the center for environmental and energy studies and a professor of political science. “The way in which they use the coal-fired plant limits flexibility. Solar would be easy and obvious for electricity. But we use it to generate steam, so we need something that will do that. biomass is best here.”
Dodson also said biomass was a possibility to fuel Tech.
“Biomass is a strong option. We support it and it’s sustainably sourced. You can grow and maintain switch grass. Biomass sources are [mainly] in West Virginia and Southwest Virginia, where there used to be mountaintop removal mines,” Dodson said.
Rich said it is also easy to find.
“Biomass is a carbon neutral — basically anything that was once living matter, such as wood, agricultural waste, residue from picking up leaves, or dead animals. When it is burned it releases CO2, but it can’t produce more than the organism had taken in and stored in body. With coal, we are taking carbon that was out of the global carbon cycle for millions of years and putting it back in, unbalancing it,” Rich said.
While it minimizes carbon dioxide emissions, there are other issues with biomass.
“Biomass depends on how you approach it,” said Nino Ripepi, research assistant professor at the center for coal and energy research and manager of clean coal technology programs. “There is less CO2 with biomass, but the ash content is higher.”
Ripepi also pointed out the economical issues with biomass.
“It’s cheaper to use coal and much cheaper to produce electricity,” he said.
Two problems with biomass are that it is not as dense in energy as coal and there is limited space to store it.
“The more volume, the more it costs to ship. Pelletized biomass gets around that. Better energy density makes storage easier to work with. It depends on economics; there may be more expenses upfront but it can cheaper in the long run,” Ripepi said.
But some of those initial costs could be offset.
A version of this article appeared in the Nov 9 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 23 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.
You simpleminded fools you'll never be able to outperform the free market. Tech will switch when the price is right. Until renewables become cheaper the solution is to continue our use of coal. If Beyond Coal wants to personally foot the bill for the energy switch then by all means switch, if not bugger off. You will not switch Tech over to more expensive energy at MINE AND EVERY OTHER STUDENTS' COST just so you can feel better. Get your hands out of pocket you guilty liberals. If you actually want to do something why don't you hold fundraisers and use the money to purchase renewable energy sources for the Tech campus.
Reply to this Top
Did you actually read the article?
Two problems with biomass are that it is not as dense in energy as coal and there is limited space to store it. “The more volume, the more it costs to ship. Pelletized biomass gets around that. Better energy density makes storage easier to work with. It depends on economics; there may be more expenses upfront but it can cheaper in the long run,” Ripepi said.
Reply to this Top
It CAN be cheaper in the long run. What about the short term is Beyond Coal going to cover these costs? NO. This will fall to all of us to pay for, it's easy to spend money when it isn't yours.
Top
Yeah some significant funding would be involved and a lot of it would have to be donated.
It would also have to be a much slower transition, like maybe 2030 to be more realistic.
How expensive is a large Biomass power plant? Blacksburg is not on the west coast so solar power is out the window. Wind Energy? That's a ton of wind mills. Maybe a Hydroelectric dam from the new river?
other than hydroelectricity, I think nuclear is our only option and that's very expensive.
Reply to this Top
I appreciate this respectful comment, unlike the one before you....
But, as to the expense of a biomass plant. In 2005 the school looked into building a second steam generation plant off campus, probably across 460. When you compare the 2005 cost of upgrading and using the current coal plant versus installing a second one in 10-15 years, the cost difference is 240 and 246 million.
From a Beyond Coal standpoint, that extra cost could be minimized by state and federal funding given that coal availability will decrease and we will have to find renewable/non-fossil fuel sources.
You are correct in saying that wind and solar are not the perfect answers. Instead, those energy sources could be used on a regional scale and provide electricity instead of steam.
Reply to this Top
The answer is simple. Once coal is more expensive than the alternative energy sources mentioned in this article, we will switch to the alternatives. I hope the state and federal government won't subsidize Virginia Tech's transfer from coal to alternative energy sources as you suggest. If you would like to minimize the cost of the transfer, wait 20-30 years or fork over some more tuition money.
Top
The notion that solar is only viable on the west coast is pretty ridiculous. Germany is a world leader in producing solar energy, even in a cloudy climate.
In response to Rob, you neglect to mention that government already subsidizes dirty energy. I respect that you don't want the government subsidizing clean energy & spurring job creation, but there's no reason to ignore the other side of the equation.
Reply to this Top
Activation of idle resources does not spur job growth.
Top
Do not think we can get off coal not to we run out. What we have is new technology to cean coal other then CCS. One company has new technology called Coal Technologies, Inc technology promises to dramatically reduce the contaminants and pollutants to extremely clean-burning fuel with reduction in airborne pollution up to 90% now company got contract with China read here http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Clean-Coal-Technologies-Received-Final-Approval-for-Inner-Mongolia-Project-1341122.htm
Reply to this Top
website link is http://www.cleancoaltechnologiesinc.com/
Reply to this Top
I just want to quickly correct the article statement: “You could power 50 percent of campus with solar. How cool would it be to see turbines and not a smoke stack? It’s a sign of old technology,” Dodson said.
The correct quote would be sourced from the VTCAC Sustainability Plan: "if half of the available flat roofs on campus were dedicated to solar photovoltaic arrays, the systems could produce 7% of the campus' electrical demand.." pg 38
Reply to this Top
Good correction....except you still lost all credibility to readers.
“You could power 50 percent of campus with solar. How cool would it be to see turbines and not a smoke stack? It’s a sign of old technology,”
I had no idea that solar used turbines to a major extent. In addition, your quote, that had nothing to do with the previous statement, was a ridiculous way to avoid making yourself look like a complete moron....too late.
How cool would it be to see turbines? Seriously? That is apart of your argument? You are supposed to be leading a movement into the future with scientific facts, figures, and soliciting others to come up with your solutions. Not talking as if you were a high school cheerleader might help.
And, as 'cool' as turbines would look covering the drillfield, did you ever think of the other downsides? The extensive land use (which Tech has so much land to put that on, as proven with all the new buildings within arms reach)? The amount of noise produced by them? The cost of putting them in? The 'always constant' wind that isn't so constant?
In short, your argument may be valid, but until your statements sound more mature than a 15 year old as well as being accurate, no one will take you seriously. With good reason.
Reply to this Top
Man, the trolls are really out in full force today. Anonymous personal attacks show poor character. It's a lot harder to put your name on a newspaper than to be a troll and attack in hiding from your home. VT students shouldn't stoop this low. Good job Katie for standing up for what you believe in despite the trolls.
On the issue, Tech needs to develop a progressive energy plan, burning coal doesn't make VT look better. Finding a way to power our school sustainably will. Tech can either lead from the back and wait for solar to be cheaper than coal (which probably won't ever happen) or realize that burning coal is dirty and socially unresponsible. We should follow the lead of Cornell, Brown, Harvard and Yale and use more renewable sources of electricity.
Top
GoGreenHokie...It is socially irresponsible to have taxpayers foot the bill for Virginia Tech to transfer from coal to alternative energy sources until said transfer is cost effective. Cornell, Brown, Harvard, and Yale are all private universities that have large endowments. What they do with that endowment is their prerogative.
Top
Extensive land use of windmills? Social irresponsibility? I would argue the land use of windmills is more socially responsible than burning coal extracted by mountain top removal and surface mining like the coal our power plant burns.
It would be cool to see wind turbines. If cool isn't a good word, it would be innovative, inspiring, and show leadership to see wind turbines on campus.
Top
I would like for all of the people who are so opposed to MTR and strip mining to go out to a few of these mines. It is real easy to be apart of a trend, when you are from anywhere other than the coal fields and have no idea what you are talking about.
No one in the coal industry is trying to trick people into believing that mining is a glamorous thing. The coal industry will be the first to admit, that during mining this land does not look like a beautiful landscape - but does land used for new industry, buildings, or any other reason look good during the process? No.
All of the whiners about how mining is environmentally unfriendly get with the times. As little as twenty years ago, these arguments may have been valid, now they are not. We are in a modern society where when there is environmental damage, beyond allowance, companies will be fined and people can go to jail.
But, what is the point of this post? It's not like anyone against coal mining will care or believe anything. Everyone will just say, "any environmental damage is too much," or "coal mining is an unnecessary evil." There have been numerous well written articles in support of coal mining the the CT, but here we are again - the anti-coal people still complaining with the same ol' spill and another back and forth argument that has no end.
Top
If you're going to correct this statement, please ask the Collegiate Times to place a correction in their newspaper. How many people do you think have read that statement and now believe it because they haven't read the comments section here? I would advise you in the future to be clear and firm in your numbers before you start throwing illogical numbers out to the general public.
Reply to this Top
“Biomass is a strong option. We support it and it’s sustainably sourced. You can grow and maintain switch grass. Biomass sources are [mainly] in West Virginia and Southwest Virginia, where there used to be mountaintop removal mines,” Dodson said.
This sounds like an excellent use of the land post-mining. Perhaps this could be a reclamation plan after the land has been mined for its previous resource, coal.
Reply to this Top
Since graduating I spent the last two months working in California protecting their global warming law from being repealed by a proposition funded by Texas Oil companies (we had a tremendous victory with over 60% of voters saying no). In California they have so many state incentives for renewable technologies that have jump started the market and lowered the costs for solar and wind to be actually cheaper than coal. For instance in CA you can now have solar installed on your roof without cost and leased for about $70 or $80 a month. If your electric bill is $100, you'll end up saving $20-$30 a month at least. Those incentives were created based on the support of organizers on campuses in California, the same type of organizers that are working their tails off here at Virginia Tech.
Reply to this Top
I know professors IN BLACKSBURG that have put solar on their homes at a lower cost per kilowatt than using coal, and as a land grant research institution we have an obligation to hold up our motto to serve and to invent not only the future, but the right one. Realistically, do you see the future with more dirty coal destroying our communities, ecosystems and climate OR do you see our future having clean energy that will support community development, national security and a healthy environment that we live in? If we're looking at the role of Virginia Tech and our slogan "Invent the Future" it is just idiotic to devote all our resources to be a leader in creating a just and sustainable future for all. Clean coal is a complete joke and carbon capture is an impossible dream considering the amount of carbon that will need to be stored.
Keep up the amazing work Beyond Coal, I'm so proud of you all.
Reply to this Top
**Whoops, it is just idiotic to invest in coal and we need to instead invest in a just and sustainable future for all.
Reply to this Top
Now im not against coal one bit. Its gonna be a vital part of our energy supply for years to come. What i have no problem with is switching over a small plant like the one on campus to something renewable (or along those lines). It makes me wonder how students that go here dont want to be a leader in clean energy. So what if it costs more than coal and will be expensive to build...we spent $90 million on an arts theater, $21 million on a fancy basketball building, and $50+ million on the Inn. I dont care about any of those but im paying for them. i dont care we have the best food in the country but im being raped for a meal plan. Plus, im typing away about this on my $2200 tablet thats just about worthless (thanks for that VT). ITS A DROP IN THE BUCKET KIDS! If we spend $200 million on a new power facility we can clean up our image, sell extra power and use it as a research plant. That sounds like a win to me and something id like as a prospective student. If we could have a nuclear reactor simulator on campus...why not this? So quit the bs about the cost to build a new plant...its not that bad
Reply to this Top
Detecting changes in a photo is possible nowdays with proper forensics software. For examples, with site <a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">Photoshopped Image Killer</a> you can tell whether a photo has been Photoshopped or not. The software works by doing pattern recognition, since digital camera's tend to have specific patterns in the pictures they create. Most image manipulations will change these patterns which can be recognised. The software should even be able to give some indications what kind of manipulations have taken place.
Reply to this Top