Can’t rule out economic constraints of coal use

TO THE EDITOR:

Regarding Taylor Timmerman’s letter to the editor (“Thorp should sit down with coal-free advocates,” March 24), I find myself conflicted: As an environmental science major, I am both aware of the negative impacts of coal-generated electricity and believe that eventually UNC needs to move towards a coal-free future. Yet I do believe Taylor and the UNC coal-free initiative are not taking into consideration the economic constraints of a coal-free initiative as well as the benefits from UNC’s cogeneration plant.

As of 2008, coal supplied about half of the United States’ electricity needs — more than double the next-largest supplier, natural gas. In a time when the aftereffects of the economic downturn are still being felt, it is simply not feasible for UNC to completely abandon all forms of coal-generated electricity. I do firmly believe, however, that UNC should be investing in alternative forms of energy supply, but as of today these means cannot supply the incredible energy demands of UNC.

That being said, we should all be thankful for the measures UNC has taken with its cogeneration power plant. The plant currently runs at three times the efficiency of the average U.S. coal fired power plant. Furthermore, it represents an important marker of efficiency in power production by utilizing the waste-heat steam from coal combustion.

Perhaps a more pertinent motion for students at UNC would be to encourage other UNC-system schools to invest in cogeneration power production.



Torrey Beek
Junior
Environmental Science, Math