The letter states “the technology is here, and it has been here for some time” to achieve 100 percent alternative energy for MSU’s campus. This statement oversimplifies the technology required to achieve such a thing. It is true that solar panels and wind turbines that can produce energy from renewable resources have been developed and used in various places. As is common knowledge, the sun cannot always be counted on to shine, and the wind cannot always be counted on to blow. The lack of certainty with these options would be unacceptable for MSU’s energy needs, and current energy storage technology is inadequate on a scale such as that of MSU’s campus. These sources might be viable as a supplement to other sources, but they cannot be the sole energy providers. Other alternative energy sources have their own limitations that make them unacceptable as a main source of energy.

Furthermore, the letter makes the claim that continuing to use coal is “the more expensive plan” because of rising fossil fuel costs. This is a clear error in logic — just because fossil fuels are getting more expensive does not make them more expensive than alternative energy sources. The Department of Energy estimated in its 2011 Annual Energy Outlook that in 2016, the average cost of wind energy will be about 2.3 percent higher than conventional coal, and solar photovoltaic energy will be 122.3 percent more costly. Furthermore, both wind and solar energy have much higher capital costs than coal, creating a great disadvantage because of the current value of money.

I sincerely hope that I am proven wrong and 100 percent renewable energy is viable for MSU with current technology. But until a reasonable engineering and financial analysis shows how MSU’s energy needs can be met completely with current alternative energy technology at a reasonable cost, the claim that this is feasible is not credible.

Adam Sajdak, mechanical engineering senior