Cost not a barrier to the elimination of coal use

TO THE EDITOR:

As representatives of the Coal-Free UNC Campaign, we want to respond to Torrey Beek’s recent letter to the editor (“Can’t rule out economic constraints of coal use,” March 26).

Now may not be the most economically convenient time for UNC to move beyond coal, but it is wrong to say that our campaign hasn’t been considering the economic costs associated with this energy switch.

To say it’s not economically feasible to abandon coal ignores the enormous environmental and public health costs of UNC’s “cheap” coal that are forced onto Appalachian communities and local Chapel Hill residents.

Chancellor Holden Thorp’s decision to create the energy task force also shows that exploring alternatives to coal is absolutely necessary.

The fact that UNC’s plant is cogeneration is actually an asset, because UNC only needs to find ways of substituting cleaner and competitive energy sources like natural gas and biomass to replace coal.

It is also worth noting that the goal of making UNC coal-free by 2015 has been thoroughly researched based on the time lines of other universities; Cornell University and University of Wisconsin-Madison will both be coal-free by 2012.

Beek also insinuates that all schools have on-site coal plants. UNC-Chapel Hill is the only UNC-system school that has an on-site coal-fired plant.

The belief that UNC can’t make these energy changes denies the possibility for institutional change in the face of overwhelming evidence that coal is the dirtiest fuel source available. With a can-do attitude, we actually will move Carolina beyond coal.



Angela Ju
Freshman
English

Ann Green
Sophomore
English, International Studies