Moving beyond coal good idea, too costly
(Last updated: 02/02/10 7:22pm)MSU Beyond Coal, a student group that wants MSU to move away from using coal energy, has some very lofty goals for the university. Unfortunately, those goals also appear to be a bit too idealistic.
Ultimately, the group — which was founded about three weeks ago — wants to convince the MSU administration to completely abandon using coal energy to fuel the university by 2015. Although the idea of losing dependence on coal in favor of cleaner and safer energy sources is a good one, it is just not feasible at this time.
The main obstacle in accomplishing the group’s goal of being coal-free is money, — and a project like this would need a lot of it. Lynda Boomer, the energy and environmental engineer for the MSU Physical Plant, said that using natural gas instead of coal would cost the university $20 million to $25 million more in fuel costs.
Where would that money come from? In all likelihood, it would come out of MSU students’ and their parents’ pockets in the form of higher tuition and living costs. If that is the case — when dividing the number of students at MSU by the estimated $25 million needed — a $535 increase in tuition per student per year would be required for the university to have enough money to completely convert to coal. That’s no small chunk of change, and no matter how much cleaner an alternative to coal might be, we don’t foresee many students being receptive to the idea of having more than $500 tacked onto their bill.
If MSU Beyond Coal wants to attain its goal of a coal-free university, then the group needs to be more proactive. Currently the group is working on getting student signatures on a petition in hopes of forcing the MSU administration to stop using coal. Petitions are all well and good, but they do not necessarily help move our university closer to switching to natural gas.
Rather than petitioning MSU to do something it does not have the funds to do, MSU Beyond Coal could work with the university in making it possible to one day abandon coal — even if it is not by 2015. As the group started just three weeks ago, it is hard to influence such a drastic change so soon. But cooperation between the group and MSU might mean change could come sooner than we expect. MSU Beyond Coal’s members’ hearts certainly are in the right place, but they might find that their end goal — a cleaner, more efficient MSU — might be more attainable by supporting and promoting what the university already is doing.
Right now, MSU is doing a good job of trying to be energy efficient and promoting a cleaner and healthier campus. The “Be Spartan Green” campaign encourages students, faculty and staff to recycle and waste as little as possible. Also, the university has made goals to significantly reduce energy use by 15 percent, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent and landfill waste by 30 percent by 2015, according to the “Be Spartan Green” Web site. It might not be exactly what MSU Beyond Coal wants, but it is what MSU is currently capable of doing right now. If 10, 15 or 20 years from now, the university is prospering and has the funds to successfully abandon coal, it should do so.
None of this is to say that we do not agree with what the group is trying to accomplish. Moving away from coal would be good for MSU and the community. However, to do it in five years seems to be more of a pipe dream than a reality.
Originally Published: 02/02/10 7:22pm
too much sense
02/02/10 11:38pmWow 25 million dollars!! How about instead of a second art museum for $40 million , our generous alumni do something that actually makes the region greener and the world a better place? No? Too much to ask? Ok fine, how about just a wind turbine and some solar panels in south campus? Wouldn’t cost nearly 25 million and would take a load off of the coal plant, while affirming MSU as the sustainable university it claims to be. GO GREEN
Jim
02/03/10 12:07amyeah, that’s $25,000,000,000 extra per year for natural gas. not a one time gift from alumni
Math Wiz
02/03/10 2:39amJim, you put 25 billion…moron. People like you, who don’t know how many zeros are in “million” are the same people who think an art museum is more worthwhile than making MSU a leader in green energy.
Nick K.
02/03/10 6:45amRather than passing around a patition that requires the U to switch to natural gas, this group be productive and start filling out applications for grants and other ways to get the money to switch.
Unfunded mandates are exactally that — and really have no teeth to them. If this group were to come to the board of trustees meeting saying “Switch away from coal, and by the way, we have $50M from the DOE to help you do it.” they would get a quick nod, the U would change tomorrow.
Otherwise, remember, the U is broke. We are in a cutting mode, not a spend mode, regardless of the enviromental ramifications.
Chad
02/03/10 9:20amMSU just spent $43M to build a couple bridges over farm lane so that trains can deliver coal more efficiently. Each day, this will prevent several cars from idling needlessly as they wait at RR crossings- and save a few tenths of a gallon of petrol. What foresight!
MaximumBob
02/03/10 9:54amI reject the notion that moving from coal is a good idea.
Cheap
Abundant
Reliable
Name any other fuel source that matches up to that.
me
02/03/10 10:02am25 million is what it would cost now. what happens when natural gas prices sky rockets again like it did starting in the late 90’s? who pays that bill? this student group is very short sighted and hasn’t fully thought out the ramifications of their proposed changes.
@MaximumBob
02/03/10 10:03amnuclear power.
@Chad
02/03/10 10:07amI never saw a train wait for the cars on farm lane. I think the cars conformed to the trains schedule. so the bridge won’t help the efficency of the trains process of delivery.
not to mention that those tracks used to stop hundreds of cars per day. thousands per year. maybe the personal savings for one individual goes unoticed. but add it all up and see what you get.
pipe
02/03/10 10:09amdoes that 25 million more for fuel include the cost of the gas pipeline that would have to be installed? that won’t be cheap.
anyone that knows anything about power generation would laugh in your face if you proposed this plan to them.
Miranda
02/03/10 11:23amIn all our country’s history, Universities have been places of innovation, switching to clean energy should be no different.
1- The cost of coal is not cheap. When you take into account the external costs such as tax breaks (paid for by you and your families), infrastructure such as thicker roads to truck coal, health impacts, and environmental impacts, it is most definitely not cheaper.
2- The price of coal is going to go up due to pending environmental regulations such as new ones proposed around coal ash waste, which contains carcinogens and other toxins.
...View full comment »
@maximumbob
02/03/10 12:08pmwind, solar, geothermal, tidal, etc…
free
infinite
benign
Laura
02/03/10 12:41pmCan you put a price tag on a sustainable and just planet? How about people’s health? The mountains of Appalachia? Coal is not cheap—it comes at a huge expense to future generations. Go Green, MSU—kick the coal habit!
TIm
02/03/10 12:56pmToo costly for who? Tell the people of Maldives that its too expensive. Their homeland will be underwater soon.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/17/maldives.underwater.meeting/
Coal mining destroys mountains:
http://www.ilovemountains.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining
Claire
02/03/10 1:02pmHow come there is a comment from the facilities manager, but not from the Beyond Coal campaign itself? Seems like somewhat shoddy reporting- not letting the campaign speak for itself.
Emma
02/03/10 4:49pmMsu has been taking an initiative in becoming more green but they need to push harder. Stopping the use of coal is an urgent matter. The agenda of the group is anything but short sighted. I think their message is one of foresight. Sure coal is cheap and abundant at the moment, but what happens when coal runs out. Coal is not a renewable resource and prices will only continue to increase as the coal becomes more scarce.Experts say coal reserves could start tapering off in the next ten to twenty years.
...View full comment »
Max Johnson
02/03/10 7:33pmThe AVERAGE COAL PLANT costs us over $150 MILLION annually in health and environmental damages. Simon Coal Plant is not the average coal plant. It is considerably bigger.
Michele
02/03/10 7:54pmMSU has a responsibility to its students and community to create a healthy living environment. Right now, our coal plant burns 250,000 tons of coal a year increasing the risk of numerous health problems such as respiratory problems, autism, heart attack, and stroke. The excuse that coal is a less expensive source of energy may be true today, but the cost it imposes on the environment and public health is far more great.
You're Mostly Idiots
02/03/10 9:27pmFine, eliminate coal. While you’re at it, shut down the rest of the automotive industry. Shut down U.S. Steel. Shut down all technology and industry. Nothing is quite as green as genocide right you brainwashed IDIOTS!
Stop Green Fascism
02/03/10 9:29pmStop the Genocidal Green Propaganda Campaign
@ NickK and Ed Board
02/03/10 10:16pmIt makes no sense to criticize a 3 week old campaign for trying to develop momentum for this goal. Getting community committment in the form of petitions is the beginning of campaigning.
Before proposals are made, there has to be a clear demand. Identifying that demand, and coordinating and mobilizing a mass of people is called organizing. That’s what this group is doing. Top down proposals and goals can be effective, but long lasting and effective policy comes from having buy-in from the larger community.
...View full comment »
Max Johnson
02/03/10 11:26pmTo “You’re Mostly Idiots”:
You compare the elimination of coal to the elimination of technology. Let me help you understand why this is absurd.
Technology is the application of SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.
Coal as a fuel source has existed for over 2,000 years and its continued use IGNORES ALL SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE that tells us it is a horrible fuel source.
Such a mistaken opinion might be laughable if so many people didn’t agree with you. But because they do, it is just sad.
Nick Bryant
02/04/10 8:35amI like how the article was, well, just plain wrong. I understand it’s an opinion,so I guess they don’t really need to talk to one of the actual members of the club, but that would’ve been nice. Oh, it also would have been nice if they, you know, actually knew what MSU Beyond Coal was trying to do.
“If that is the case â when dividing the number of students at MSU by the estimated $25 million needed â a $535 increase in tuition per student per year would be required for the university to have enough money to completely convert to coal” um… convert to coal?
...View full comment »
Faux Green?
02/04/10 1:30pmMSU needs to drop the “Be Spartan Green” nonsense if they’re going to continue to use a coal-fired power plant.
The amount of toxic coal ash they send off to the landfill every year completely overshadows any recycling programs they have in place.
They’ve been talking about converting to biomass for awhile now, but it seems like truly being “green” is one of the Universities last priorities— They just want to have the appearance of “being green” without making a real effort. However; I do commend the many other organizations like the Student Organic Farm who understand the importance of REAL environmental sustainability.
Nick D.
02/04/10 2:58pmIt seems as if everyone is saying that there are only two ways to look at this. Either get rid of coal altogether or keep using it. No other solutions. Here’s an alternative, clean coal. And I’m not talking just about scrubbers and filtration systems in the power plant. I mean coal that as well as being low in sulfur, should also be low in ash. Just like the kind that steam trains run on.
...View full comment »