MSU coal plant should own up to violations
Tweet
As MSU proceeds in paying a $27,000 penalty fee for emissions violations, the university will continue its coal-burning methods with a few new regulations.
The violations involved an improper blending of coal that resulted in excess sulfur dioxide emissions and burning wet coal that produced excess nitrogen oxide emissions.
MSU also will be required to correct two violations of its renewable operating permit, as required by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, or DNRE. Proper steps were taken in caring for the emissions when the university reported the first sign of infractions to the Department of Environmental Quality, or DEQ, which originally handled the infraction.
Although the offense was an unfortunate break of guidelines made to protect the environment, the university can’t see this as a call to go 100 percent eco-friendly. It has been displayed that the university is making the corrections to the functions of its coal-burning facility to meet guidelines. The minor slipup in an otherwise well-functioning facility has caused MSU student groups to call for the university to go coal free. Although a greener method of producing power would be ideal, it is very hard to reach that goal. The university still is very dependent on coal, as are most all energy-dependent civilizations. Such an abrupt switch of energy dependence simply is unreasonable.
MSU’s obvious consciousness and consideration of the violation has shown its effort to provide the most efficient and environmentally friendly energy available. They have discontinued relations with the vendor that sold them “bad coal,” which was cause for the violations. The coal was purchased by MSU’s coal plant, but now that the relationship is severed, the coal plant hopefully is more environmentally safe.
After the penalties are paid and the corrections are made, the university can move forward with meeting emission guidelines. MSU seemingly has been very compliant with the protocol of dealing with such a violation, and it seems there will be no inconsistency with such compliance.
Because the university is not required to just pay the fine, but is required to change the function of the facility, the violation won’t be forgotten. If anything good comes from this violation, it should be that MSU becomes more environmentally cautious. As the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, raises the bar on its guidelines, requiring more energy efficient methods of producing energy, MSU can and should continue to meet the guidelines and stay on par with universities across the nation.
It is obvious the university has taken the situation very seriously. The corresponding penalties, which include a $1,000 late fee every day the penalty fee is not paid, show that this kind of violation is unacceptable for a coal plant. It would be ideal if MSU made efforts to move beyond coal energy in the future, but we as a university and culture are too reliant on it at this point in time to make a drastic change.
Once the plant has bounced back from the violations and made the appropriate corrections, MSU will be able to move on from the mistakes and continue meeting EPA guidelines.
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
such softies
(03/01/10 11:38pm)Report
“the university can’t see this as a call to go 100 percent eco-friendly.”
We might as well just stop calling ourselves green. $27,000 is coming out of our pockets, isn’t it high time to make some actual changes?!
Realist
(03/02/10 1:19am)Report
$27,000? That’s it? The plant should do a cost benefit ratio to see if the less “eco friendly” practices save money over complying with regulations. Given the large amount of coal purchased, it may be cheaper just to violate the facist DNRE regulations, pay the fine and have a lower bottom line.
Another Realist
(03/02/10 8:34am)Report
What’s so fascist about the new environmentalist religion!? Fascism usually does away with religion first thing to create a religion of the state.
Rituals: Separating Trash.
Original Sin: exhaling carbon dioxide; a “pollutant” that green things seem to love using in their life processes
Redemption: Renewable energy
Deities: Al Gore and the new Gaea earth organism (which is in fact taught in LBS 148, I sh$% you not)
If you environmentalist religious crazies want to stand apart from the creationist crazies, try not performing indistinguishable categories of behavior.
MaximumBob
(03/02/10 11:01am)Report
$27K is chump change.
This penalty does nothing to move the argument forward, because the costs of dropping coal, converting to natural gas or, God forbid, following the “green” wind and solar nonsense are far, far higher.
The equivalent of a speeding ticket. Pay the fine, buy a radar detector.
Kami
(03/02/10 2:41pm)Report
“ …would be ideal if MSU made efforts to move beyond coal energy in the future, but we as a university and culture are too reliant on it at this point in time to make a drastic change. “
To make this chang, the steps and a willingness to change need to be put in motion now. We cannot wait, otherwise it will be to late . The environmental and health damages will be done and irreversible. The University will just continue to break violations unless plans are implemented to hold them responsible and make changes.
Michele
(03/02/10 3:31pm)Report
MSU may be willing to pay a monetary fine for exceeding the limit on their emissions permit, but as a member of this community I do not want to pay with my health.
The $27,000 fine should be matched to fund a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) to install renewable energy and energy efficiency options for MSU.
Hijak
(03/03/10 3:36am)Report
Really showing some guts there, Editorial Board. Next time, why don’t you just write “We’re just gonna go with the Administration on this one” and skip the pretense of giving the story actual journalistic coverage.
@MaximumBob
You make a valid point. The penalty fee is chump change and does nothing but kick the problem down the road. Apparently a ~20 year turn-around investment for wind and solar is not good enough for you.
@Michele
This is a concerning issue. A host of dangerous emissions get into our water and air: mercury, sulfur dioxide, arsenic, lead, particulate matter 2.5, uranium, thorium and, of course, CO2 which poses the greatest threat as the main cause of climate change (IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, NASA, EPA, NOAA, Weather Channel, Bush Administration, Obama Administration, MSU’s Vice President’s Office of Finance and Operations). Climate change is not happening of course, however. All of these organizations are involved in an elaborate hoax to fool us into voting for their candidates/reading their scientific journals/watching their local on the 8’s/applying to their schools! Those tricky liberals and their trees, a-ha-ha, what a knee-slapper!
MaximumBob
(03/04/10 11:12am)Report
Hijak,
Show me a single wind or solar project with anywhere close to a 20 year turnaround.
And, yes, even if it was 20 years it would still be a loser. That explains the insane level of goobermint subsidies around these largely unregulated ventures.
Hijak
(03/05/10 11:16pm)Report
photo voltaic
Despite the fact that this site lists the return time for private homeowner panels, the return investment should be realized with a similar time-frame with large scale projects.
wind"
They say “industry standard is around 25”, but that honeywell’s new turbine (made in michigan) can see a profit in under 14 years.
When was the last time you heard about a coal, oil, natural gas plant TURNING A PROFIT? 20 years is too long for an investment? Might as well cut funding for education while you’re at it. It just takes TOO LONG! Not worth it!