Moving beyond coal within reach
Tweet
It’s easy to say that converting the coal plant is not feasible at this time due to the poor economy, but how long will we wait? MSU has a responsibility to its students and the community to provide a healthy living environment, and times of economic difficulty should not halt the potential progress toward a more clean and green campus. Throughout the recent budget reconfigurations at the state and national level, environmental issues have remained an unshaken priority. MSU should also plan ahead in this respect and not remain stagnant when action is needed most.
In her State of the State address, Gov. Jennifer Granholm spoke about green energy jobs becoming part of Michigan’s post-auto industry economy. She said that we have, “unprecedented new resources to invest in the clean-energy sector of our economy; to build batteries, wind turbines and solar panels …” All of these renewable energy sources, in addition to biofuels and natural gas, could be used on campus to produce our heat and electricity. In fact, the T.B. Simon Power Plant was already converted to burning biofuels back in 2000, but it now only uses a small percent of that source compared to the 250,000 tons of coal burned each year. MSU can support the future of Michigan jobs by committing to using 100 percent clean energy, while also taking some of the emissions burden off of our environment.
While coal may be the cheapest energy source now, it won’t be for long. In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama urged the passing of a comprehensive energy and climate bill to make clean energy more profitable. He also has been discussing a carbon tax that would finally put a price on CO2 emissions and force the United States to pursue alternative energy sources. Ball State, which recently moved beyond coal, saves $2 million a year on net energy savings. This investment will only increase as the price of coal goes up. These changes reflect the urgency of the global warming issue, and MSU should respond now by converting our coal plant completely.
Will we continue to see our environment polluted and community hurt by the ill effects of coal? The actions of policy makers are saying, “No, we won’t wait.” Stopping the emissions of greenhouse gases in the pursuit of new energy sources has been clearly established as a goal for our state and country. The economy soon will reflect that as green jobs are created and the legislation is passed to keep that market successful. If MSU commits to moving beyond coal, it can lead the way into a green, thriving future for everyone.
Michele Weston
no-preference freshman and alumni relations coordinator for MSU Beyond Coal
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
CommieBlaster
(02/11/10 7:53pm)Report
FLASH!!
This Brand New Video Blows a Huge Gaping Hole in Obama’s Cap and Tax Scheme and his Claims of Global Warming: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVm5-6H_sH4
Anthracite
(02/11/10 9:11pm)Report
I was a commuter student in the late 90s/early 2000s. I parked in Lot 89 and rode my bike along Farm Lane Monday through Friday nearby the power plant during the semesters.
I know what burning coal smells like. I never noticed any coal smoke smell from the power plant.
The only way to make other energies comparable to coal is to artificially inflate the price of coal to the point of bankruptcy. This is what some politicians are trying to do, and is absolutely ludicrous. It will hamper the US from competing with other countries around the world who don’t care about the theory of global warming. In short, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
Batteries and solar panels…. once they are built…. I suppose are cleaner than coal. HOWEVER… lead? acid? nickel? cadmium? silicon? mercury? Those are the ingredients of the “earth friendly” renewable energies, which aren’t exactly non-toxic, not to mention the waste created in building the batteries and solar panels.
If you want to be truly green…. go Amish.
Jerrod
(02/11/10 10:54pm)Report
Artificially inflating coal prices is a good idea? Holy crap you and your group have to be some of the dumbest people around. If you want to see change, present a plan. I have been to your website, and it says absolutely nothing. Just because politicians spout off stupid ideas with no idea how to fund or implement them doesn’t make it a great way to go. Give a real plan with real numbers and maybe people will listen to your schtick.
MaximumBob
(02/12/10 8:16am)Report
Again with Ball State.
A $75 million project with an expected payback of $2 million per year, and only after full completion of that project (it’s not done).
That’s a 35 year payback on the investment, and this is the future that the “Beyond Coal” know-nothings have in store for all of us.
henry
(02/12/10 9:06am)Report
FYI
(02/12/10 9:07am)Report
You realize that, while not all the time, quite often when people say biofuels for electric generation they’re talking about burning wood right?
You also realize that wood burning releases far more CO2 than coal? That plus cutting down the trees…
Just thought you may like to know.
henry
(02/12/10 9:09am)Report
I looked on their site and this group is Brand New! It literally just stated a few weeks ago. Although it is a national campaign I’m pretty sure that each plan for getting off coal requires assessment of the individual situation. It is important to make plan which includes working with the university and in doing so finding the best solution to the problem. So give it time and if their plan still sucks after coordination with the university, then condemn them.
Mary
(02/12/10 9:10am)Report
The Beyond Coal Campaign does not condone using wood as a bio-fuel.
OK....
(02/12/10 9:52am)Report
Alright, no wood. Then what high output biofuel are you referring to? Because when you’re talking about more than just a MW or two you’re not talking biodigesters (they’re fine, just they’re for powering one farm or something not MSU) you’re talking wood.
MSU Beyond Coal
(02/15/10 2:52pm)Report
Transitioning MSU is realistic goal. It doesn’t need to happen now but it can happen in the near future. there are many different ways to power the campus, not with wood. Check out our website at :http://msubeyondcoal.wordpress.com/
to see what politicians and other universities around the country are doing to move beyond coal.
John
(02/18/10 8:35pm)Report
In response to some of you who seem to think that “Beyond Coal” is just some tree hugging organization who doesn’t have any idea what they are talking about, here is the bigger issue: at some point the world will be beyond coal. Coal is a finite and limited resource (for the purposes of this argument we will not move into geologic time). There is a limited amount of coal available to the world and when it is gone we will be beyond it whether we like it or not. It is true, current estimates of global coal reserves have coal being available for anywhere from 130 years to 150 years, at current consumption rates. These numbers are only good if the population doesn’t grow and continue to use coal as we do now, which is unrealistic. Coal has been used as a fuel since around 1000 AD when it was imported to Brittan. So for 1000 years we have been using the same resource. Now that resource is only projected to be useful for another 13-15% of that time. To those of you who are saying that the price of coal is being artificially inflated to skew the facts, supply and demand will determine the price. The supply is only getting smaller so either the demand will go down, by finding other sources of energy, or the price will go up, and up, and up. One of the biggest questions I have for our world as a whole, what will be the cost of the last gallon of gas be? I don’t think it will be $4.00 or $5.00 or even $50.00. Fossil fuels are a horrible energy source to depend solely on. Yes they are the cheapest for us now because our infrastructure has been designed around them but they take millions of years to create. We need to start looking into other options so we can make sure we always have fuels to power our country. Or for those of you who seem to think we should stay with coal, how long do we wait to look for alternatives? If the choice was up to me I wouldn’t want to wait until there was no heat in my house, no gas in my car, and no fuel left to invent, build, and implement another energy source. So for those of you who like the idea of coal, one way or another we will have to move on.
References: 2010 World Coal Institute and The World Energy Council 2007 Survey of Energy Resources (copyright 2010).
Jerrod
(02/22/10 5:45pm)Report
Once again, you have provided a problem and no solution. I agree that coal is bad. What is the next energy source? This campus can’t run on wind turbines alone. Solar power still isn’t efficient enough on a large scale in Michigan. I am all for nuclear power, but the yuppies are still stuck on the problems decades ago. When was the last time a new nuclear power plant was started? Since you have no answers for anything, let me provide you with one. The last plant to come online was in the 1980’s. The US hasn’t started building one since Three Mile Island, more than 30 years ago. If you are going to whine about a problem, at least come up with a viable university-scale solution.