View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
“Among all industrial sources of air pollution, none poses greater risks to human health and the environment than coal-fired power plants.”
—Schneider and Banks 2010
Introduction
The United States as a whole, and Kentucky in particular, are highly dependent on coal as
a source of energy. Providing 44.5% of the United States’ electricity in 2009 (U.S. Energy
Information Administration 2011), coal is touted as a “cheap” solution to rising energy demands.
However, as the Physicians for Social Responsibility assert, coal-fired power can only be
considered a low-cost energy source “by ignoring its very serious health and environmental
impacts.” (Physicians for Social Responsibility 2009). The true costs of burning coal are
externalized onto society not only through producing approximately 40 percent of the United
States’ carbon dioxide emissions (contributing to global warming), but also by causing a large
number of health problems, such as developmental disorders in children, respiratory conditions,
and cancer. Coal-fired power plants produce “millions of pounds of toxic air emissions each
year, making coal-fired power plants the largest source of air toxics in the U.S.” (Physicians for
Social Responsibility 2009).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) testing of coal-fired power plants’ smoke
stacks reveals that these plants release 67 different air toxics, 55 of which are known neurotoxins
Burning Coal on the University of Kentucky’s Campus:
Health Impacts, Barriers to Change, and the Possibilities for Transitioning
to Renewable Energy
An action research project conducted by students in Dr. Shannon Bell’s Public Sociology (SOC 350) class, Fall, 2011
Steve Barch, Victoria DeSimone, Island Devore, Mandy Hord,
Eustace Kambelu, Rachel Masters, Calvin Prest, Rebecca Reeves, Cara Robinson, Josh Thompson, Lauren Traylor,
Kristin Vinson, & Amanda Warrington
2
that cause developmental damage to the brains and nervous system of children and 24 of which
are known, probable, or possible human carcinogens” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1998). Each year, fine particle pollution from coal-fired power plants is responsible for nearly
23,600 premature deaths, 38,200 heart attacks, 554,000 asthma attacks, 21,850 hospital
admissions, 26,000 emergency room visits, and 3,186,000 lost work days (Physicians for Social
Responsibility 2009). In addition, coal-fired power plants are the largest source of mercury
pollution in the nation; such plants emitted more than 65 percent of all mercury air pollution in
2005 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2005). This is particularly relevant for the state of
Kentucky, which emitted nearly 6,000 pounds of mercury in 2009, ranking it sixth in the nation
for mercury emissions (Randall and Vinyard 2011). Mercury pollution especially affects
expectant mothers, causing birth defects in their children, even at low levels of exposure.
According to the Physicians for Social Responsibility (2009), “fetal exposure via the placenta
can cause mental retardation and brain damage, while continued exposure in early childhood can
result in learning disabilities and attention deficit disorders.”
Burning Coal and the University of Kentucky
It is not only large-scale power plants that are to blame for the many health problems
associated with burning coal. Across the United States, there are currently 60 colleges and
universities that operate their own smaller scale coal-fired boilers for heating their campuses.
The University of Kentucky (UK) is one of these institutions. UK currently operates three central
heating plants that produce steam, which is piped throughout campus to provide building heat
and hot water. Two of these plants rely on coal as a source of fuel. There are four coal-fired
boilers associated with these plants: two at Central Heating Plant #1 on South Limestone Street
and two at the Medical Center Plant. According to the University of Kentucky Facilities
Management’s “Information Sheet on Energy Use and the University of Kentucky,” the
university uses approximately 36,565 tons of coal per year. On average, 68% of the heat on
campus is produced from burning coal and 32% is produced from burning natural gas. These
percentages vary by year, depending on the price of coal and natural gas (UK Facilities
Management 2011).
Particularly alarming is the fact that UK’s coal-fired boilers were built prior to the
passage of the Clean Air Act, and, due to a little-known loophole in the law for older plants, they
3
are not held to the same pollution emissions limits as plants built after the Clean Air Act was
implemented (UK Heating Plant #1 Tour, 2011). In other words, UK’s two plants have been
“grandfathered” into current air quality standards, allowing them to legally emit air toxins above
levels that have been deemed acceptable by the Environmental Protection Agency. Thus, what is
coming out of the smokestacks of our coal-fired boilers is even more toxic than the air pollution
from newer coal-fired power plants.
Our concern about the toxins that are being inhaled by University of Kentucky students,
faculty, staff, and the surrounding community is the reason for this class research project.
The Study
During the Fall 2011 semester, three teams of students in Dr. Bell’s Public Sociology
(SOC 350) class set out to examine the health impacts of UK’s coal-fired boilers, the barriers to
moving beyond coal for heating the campus, and the ways that other universities have
successfully made the transition away from coal. This report is the compilation of our findings.
We are hopeful that our research will help prompt the University of Kentucky’s administration to
make a commitment to:
Completely phase out burning coal on UK’s campus over the next two years
Conduct a feasibility study for transitioning to renewable energy sources
(geothermal, solar, and/or wind) to provide the campus’s heating needs.
Join the 674 other colleges and universities (such as University of Louisville, Berea
College, University of Cincinnati, and University of Tennessee) that have signed on
to the American College and Universities Presidents’ Climate Commitment,
which would commit the university to create a comprehensive plan for achieving
climate neutrality by a target year designated by the university.
4
PART I: The Health Impacts of Burning Coal on UK’s Campus Steven Barch, Lauren Traylor, Josh Thompson, and Mandy Hord
After reading about the large number of serious health problems caused by pollution from
coal-fired power plants and learning that the University of Kentucky’s coal-fired boilers are
(legally) operating with out-of-date air pollution controls, Team 1 set out to examine the
following research question:
What are the health impacts of the University of Kentucky’s coal-fired boilers on the
campus community and the larger Lexington area?
Our team was interested in discovering what toxins are being emitted by UK’s coal-fired boilers
and what the health effects of inhaling those toxins on a daily basis are for members of the
campus and surrounding community.
Research Methods
Our team used several different research methods to answer our question, including
observation, key-informant interviews, and enlisting the help of a chemistry professor to run
chemical analyses on samples of coal soot collected from the parking garage next to one of the
coal-fired heating plants.
We conducted our observations through participating in a guided tour of UK’s Central
Heating Plant #1 on South Limestone Street. Through this tour, we were able to gain a better
understanding of how the coal is burned to produce steam heat for campus, the out-of-date
pollution controls, and what is done with the coal ash (coal combustion waste) after coal is
burned. We also conducted observations in the area surrounding the heating plant, particularly
Parking Structure 5, which is adjacent to the heating plant. We found coal soot from the
smokestacks accumulating on various surfaces in this parking garage. The top two levels of the
parking garage are in the direct air flow of the coal-fired boilers’ smokestacks, and on various
occasions smoke has been observed blowing through the garage. We took photographs of the
coal soot to document where it had accumulated and what it looked like (see Figures 1-3). We
also took samples of the soot for the purposes of conducting a chemical analysis to determine if
there were any toxic substances in the soot (see Figure 4).
5
FIGURE 1 Coal Soot wiped from a wire in Parking Structure 5 on November 1, 2011
FIGURES 2 and 3 Coal soot accumulated on a metal pole in Parking Structure 5. November 1, 2011.
6
We enlisted the expertise of a chemistry professor, who helped us properly collect
samples of the coal soot from the parking garage and then tested the samples for toxins known to
be present in the flue gas of coal-fired power plants. With the professor’s help, we hoped to
determine whether the soot accumulating in the parking garage (and being spread throughout the
campus and surrounding area) contained high enough concentrations of toxins to pose a health
threat to the campus community.
Finally, we conducted four key-informant interviews to help us learn more about UK’s
coal-fired boilers and about the health impacts of coal soot and coal combustion waste. We
interviewed an environmental chemist; Nancy Reinhart, who is a public health researcher with
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth; Lauren McGrath from the Sierra Club, and a former
employee of the UK Heating Plant.
FIGURE 4 Collecting a sample of coal soot for chemical analysis from a metal wire in Parking Structure 5. November 1, 2011.
7
Findings
As noted above, through our observations, we found that there is a great deal of coal soot
accumulating in Parking Structure 5 next to Central Heating Plant #1 on South Limestone Street.
Through informal conversations with faculty who park in this garage, we also learned that on
some days a thin layer of soot will accumulate on the cars parked in the structure, and sometimes
one can see a cloud of smoke blowing through the garage. We were surprised to learn through
our key informant interview with a former heating plant employee that this parking structure is
actually cleaned every morning at 6:00 AM before faculty and staff arrive on campus because so
much coal soot accumulates in the garage on a daily basis. This employee was the one
responsible for cleaning the garage Monday through Friday for eight years. His primary focus
was cleaning the railings around the stairs and the walls of the parking garage. Despite its being
cleaned so often, we were still able to find a significant amount of soot that had accumulated on
various surfaces, as shown in Figures 1-4 above.
During our observations while we toured the Central Heating Plant #1, we noticed that,
despite the large amount of coal dust and soot in the air, none of the workers at the plant were
wearing protective face masks. The former coal plant employee we interviewed (whose job it
was to clean coal soot from the parking garage every day) informed us that he rarely wore a dust
mask because of the uncomfortable, cheap material that they used, and also because no one else
wore masks, so he did not think it was important to do so himself. After a few years of cleaning
the garage every day, he noticed a constant coughing. He was recently diagnosed with a rare
illness, and he wonders if his illness was caused from breathing the coal soot for so many years.
After collecting the coal soot samples from the parking garage, we had a chemist run a
chemical analysis to determine the composition of the soot and the concentrations of the
elements present. Once he had the results, we conducted an interview with him to learn about
what exactly was found in the soot. The chemical analysis revealed the coal soot to have very
high concentrations of Category 1 Toxins, which are extremely dangerous if inhaled or ingested,
even in small doses. During our interview, the chemistry professor told us that the results of the
analyses were worse than he could have imagined them being, as the concentrations of the toxins
far exceeded the EPA-designated “safe” limits. Toxic elements found in high concentrations in
our samples include:
8
Arsenic, which is a known carcinogen of the lungs, liver, bladder, and skin. There is some evidence that arsenic causes lower IQ scores in children and increased mortality in young adults who are exposed to arsenic as children or in the womb. It also causes a decreased production of red and white blood cells and an abnormal heart rhythm.
Beryllium, which is a known carcinogen of the lungs and also causes Chronic Beryllium Disease, Acute Beryllium Disease, and Skin conditions.
Cadmium, which is a known carcinogen. Cadmium poisoning causes renal failure, respiratory impairment, and softening of the bones
Chromium, which is a known carcinogen
Manganese, which is a known carcinogen that also causes neurological disorders
Cobalt, which is a possible carcinogen that also causes dermatitis, lung and heart effects
Vanadium, which causes lung damage and is a possible carcinogen
(Sources: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; National Institute of Environmental Health Science/NIH;; “Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal-Fired Power Plants” Report, American Lung Association and Environmental Health & Engineering, Inc.)
According the Clean Air Task Force, fine particle matter pollution from U.S. power
plants leads to more than 24,000 deaths per year. During our interview with Nancy Reinhart,
public health researcher from Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, she informed us that
individuals who live or work in close proximity to coal-fired power plants are at a higher risk of
being exposed to these pollutants and thus are at a greater risk for health problems related to
coal. This means that the entire campus community is being exposed to these harmful toxins
because we have not only one, but two plants with coal-fired boilers. Further, as previously
mentioned, neither of these plants has up-to-date emissions controls in place, and thus they are
legally emitting more toxins and pollutants into the air than coal plants that are built today.
In addition to the toxics that UK’s coal-fired boilers are emitting into the air, there is also
the coal combustion waste (CCW), or “bottom ash” left over from burning the coal that is a
matter of concern. We learned during our tour of the plant that Spencer County takes UK’s
bottom ash to use for ice removal on their roads in the winter. We asked the chemistry professor
if spreading the ash on the roads in Spencer County could cause environmental or health
problems. He responded, “Yes, definitely. We must analyze the ash to find out what is in it.
What they put on the roads will wash down into the streams…These chemicals could get into the
drinking water, especially the water of individuals who own private wells.” Thus, not only are
the coal-fired heating plants threatening the health of the UK campus community and Lexington
9
residents, but the waste from these boilers may also be affecting the health and environment of
Spencer County residents. The bottom ash should be tested in the same way that the coal soot
was tested so that the university can inform Spencer County about what, exactly, they are
spreading on their roads in the winter.
Discussion
It should be a top priority of the University of Kentucky to provide a safe learning and
working environment for students, faculty, and staff. With these findings, the University needs to
take immediate action to transition away from burning coal on our campus. We understand that
there are deep political and historical ties to the coal industry in Kentucky. However, these ties
should not take precedent over the health of our campus community. As Lauren McGrath stated
in our interview,
If the Administration of the University of Kentucky fully understood and publicly disclosed the impacts of pollution from their coal boilers to the campus and broader community, it would probably be the end of the discussion [and a commitment to transitioning would be made]. UK has an opportunity to lead the state in terms of making initial strides with renewables. The technologies are there, there’s ample opportunities for creative financing mechanisms; they just need the courage to take the first step.
The chemistry professor we worked with echoed Ms. McGrath’s sentiments in his interview,
stating,
Ball State [transitioned to renewables], so we can, too. We come to universities to get top educations from top educators. We learn about the latest technology and how to think critically. It’s totally against that to have outdated power plants and say we can’t do anything about it. We are supposed to be the best of the best.
The coal soot that is being emitted by the coal-fired boiler on South Limestone Street
contains toxic elements that university students, faculty, and staff are breathing on a daily basis.
Workers in the plant are especially at risk because they come in close contact with the ash. For
the health of the university and larger community, the UK administration should commit to
phasing out the coal burners. Our group feels strongly that simply retrofitting the coal-fired
boilers with modern scrubbers is not the answer. The University of Kentucky should take this
opportunity to move beyond our dependence on this polluting source of energy and make a
commitment to transitioning to renewables, such as geothermal, solar, or wind (or a combination
10
of the three) to meet the campus’s heating needs. In the remainder of this report, Teams 2 and 3
will discuss barriers to moving beyond coal and how other universities similar to UK have
successfully made the transition.
PART II: The Barriers to Transitioning Away from Coal on UK’s Campus
Rachel Masters, Cara Robinson, Amanda Warrington, Kristen Vinson, and Eustace Kambelu
The University of Kentucky is the leading public institution in the state and is home to
some of the top academic researchers in a variety of disciplines. With all of the resources and
bright minds that UK has at its disposal, it is surprising that the university is still using such
outdated and polluting technology to heat the campus. This is the puzzle that Team 2’s research
seeks to address. Specifically, we focused on the following research question:
What are the barriers to moving to renewable forms of energy, such as geothermal or
solar energy, for heating UK’s campus?
Research Methods
In order to explore our research question, our team conducted surveys with University of
Kentucky students and completed two key-informant interviews. Our survey questions were
aimed at discovering how much the students already knew about coal use on UK’s campus and
their willingness to support and advocate for a transition away from coal. We asked whether
respondents were aware that the university has coal-fired boilers on campus, and if they were,
did they know the location of the four boilers. We also asked our respondents if they felt that UK
should move away from using coal to heat the campus, and if they responded “yes,” we asked if
they would be willing to get involved in efforts to help this transition happen. Finally, we asked
if our respondents would be willing to pay an extra student fee each semester ($1-3, $4-6, or $7-
10) to help support an investment in clean energy for UK’s campus. We felt these questions were
important ones to ask because if students are not supportive of a transition away from coal-
burning on campus, or if they are unwilling to help the cause, those would both be barriers to
moving beyond coal on the University of Kentucky’s campus.
11
We distributed hard copies of our survey at the Student Center, the William T. Young
Library, and our classes. We also posted a link to an on-line version of the survey (created
through the data collection and analysis program Qualtrics) to our Facebook and Twitter pages.
Through these efforts, we collected a total of 131 completed surveys. Of these responses, 24
were freshmen, 38 were sophomores, 21 were juniors, 42 were seniors, and 6 were graduate
students. There were 65 respondents who identified as women, 65 who identified as men, and
one who identified as gender non-conforming in our sample.
In addition to surveys with students, we also conducted two key-informant interviews.
One interview was conducted with Vice President for Facilities Management and Board of
Trustees member Bob Wiseman, and the other was conducted with Elaine Alvey, who is
president of the student organization Greenthumb and is also a leader of the University of
Kentucky’s Beyond Coal Student Coalition. The Beyond Coal Coalition is a group of UK
students that is raising awareness about the problems with the university’s coal-fired boilers and
is advocating for the administration to commit to make a transition to renewable sources of
energy to heat the campus.
Findings
Our key-informant interviews revealed three main barriers to the goal of transitioning to
renewable energy sources for heating UK’s campus: a lack of financial capital, a perceived lack
of renewable energy options, and political ties to the coal industry.
Vice President of Facilities Management and Board of Trustees member Bob Wiseman
stated that a major reason the University has not moved to renewable energy sources is because
“In Kentucky, we don’t have a lot of renewable energy sources. We’re a state that doesn’t have
good wind power;; we don’t have adequate solar, we don’t have a biomass industry that could
support it. So we don’t have a lot of renewables in Kentucky.” However, as will be discussed in
Part III, the University of Louisville has started the process of phasing out its coal-fired boilers
and has committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2050, which will require transitioning into
renewable energy sources. If the University of Louisville is able to make this transition, the
University of Kentucky can as well. However, if there is the perception that there is a lack of
renewable energy sources in Kentucky, this perception is a barrier that must be overcome.
12
An additional barrier that Wiseman pointed to is the cost. He stated in our interview that
“In terms of capital, the cost of changing out our coal plants would be very expensive and we do
not have available capital for that.” This was also the response that the members of the Beyond
Coal Student Coalition received from the Board of Trustees when, on October 25, 2011, they
presented the Trustees with a letter outlining the reasons why the group believes the university
should transition away from coal and requested that the university conduct a study on the
feasibility of converting the campus heating system to renewable energy sources. At a rally
following the Board of Trustees meeting, a member of our team interviewed Elaine Alvey, who
is president of the student organization Greenthumb and a leader of the Beyond Coal Student
Coalition. When asked about the Trustees’ response to the letter the Coalition presented at the
October 25 meeting, Alvey responded,
The reason that the Board of Trustees gave today is that they don’t have the capital to invest in transitioning. But I think it’s probably likely that there are political and [other] financial factors at play there. There’s a long-standing political and economic relationship between the University of Kentucky and the coal industry, and a lot of people stand to benefit financially from keeping the status-quo.
Thus, while making a transition to a heating system run on renewable energy sources will require
financial resources – and raising those funds is certainly an obstacle to be overcome – another
barrier may be overcoming the deep political ties that the university maintains with the coal
industry.
Our survey of UK students provided insight into students’ lack of knowledge about the
coal-fired boilers on campus and pointed to a potential solution to the financial barriers noted
above. Below is a summary of our most significant results:
67% of our respondents were unaware that there are currently two sites with coal-fired
boilers actively running on UK’s campus.
o While 33% of respondents were aware that there are coal-fired boilers on campus,
77% of those individuals did not know these boilers do not have to abide by the
Clean Air Act.
72% of the respondents stated that they either agreed or strongly agreed with the
statement, “I believe UK should transition to renewable sources of energy (such as solar,
geothermal, and/or wind) to meet its heating needs on campus.”
13
75% of the students surveyed stated they would be willing to pay some extra amount of
money each semester to support an investment in renewable energy solutions for UK’s
campus (see Figure 5)
Discussion
We believe the last finding from our survey is extremely important, given that the
primary barrier to transitioning to renewable energy sources for heating the university’s campus
that the Board of Trustees and the Vice President of Facilities Management cited was a lack of
finances. If 75% of the students we surveyed are willing to invest in renewable energy sources
through paying an extra fee in their tuition, just think of how many other individuals and groups
associated with the university would also be willing to invest: alumni, staff, faculty,
environmental groups, and civic organizations, to name a few. There may also be a number of
foundations and other grant-funding agencies willing to support the university’s transition. While
the financial resources may not be available at this moment, it is very likely that a fundraising
campaign for renewable energy on UK’s campus could be extremely successful. We believe the
university should actively pursue this possibility.
PART III: Moving Beyond Coal: Lessons from Other Universities Making the Transition Rebecca Reeves, Island Devore, Calvin Prest, and Victoria DeSimone
FIGURE 5: Responses to the question, “How much extra per semester would you pay in order to support an investment in renewable energy solutions for UK’s campus?”
14
As noted in the previous section, three primary barriers to moving beyond burning coal
on UK’s campus include: (1) A lack of financial capital, (2) the perception that Kentucky does
not have adequate renewable energy resources to be able to heat UK’s campus, and (3) the
political ties that this region, particularly the state of Kentucky, has with the coal industry. Team
3 set out to discover how other universities have been able to make the transition away from
burning coal, despite having had to overcome many of the same obstacles. Our research
questions were:
How are other universities successfully making a transition away from coal-fired boilers?
How best could UK mobilize and allocate resources to transition to renewable energy
options to meet the campus’s heating needs?
Research Methods
Our research methods included internet research and key informant interviews. Each
group member selected a different University listed in the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Report,
which detailed universities that have committed to reducing their carbon emissions by phasing
out their coal-fired boilers and transitioning to alternative forms of energy. The universities
selected were Ball State University, the University of Louisville, Cornell University, and the
University of Wisconsin, Madison. Additionally, one group member was responsible for
researching issues related to moving beyond coal at the University of Kentucky. Through
extensive internet research, we were able to learn about the selected universities’ climate action
plans. The online sources that we referenced included each of the universities’ sustainability
websites, the Beyond Coal Report, the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, as
well as the American College and Universities Presidents’ Climate Commitment. This research
involved gathering information regarding each university’s energy goals and climate action plan,
the progress they have made thus far, the costs and benefits associated with transitioning, the
barriers they encountered, and the overall impact of moving beyond coal.
After researching the universities, we then selected key informants from each of the
institutions’ sustainability department to conduct interviews with. The key informants included
Robert Koesker—Ball State, Justin Mog—University of Louisville, Edward Wilson—Cornell
University, Faramarz Vakili—University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Shane Tedder—University
15
of Kentucky. Through these interviews we were able to learn about each university’s decision to
transition from coal, the challenges and barriers they encountered, how they raised funds for their
projects, the benefits associated with moving beyond coal, and we also asked for helpful advice
for the University of Kentucky’s transition. After conducting the interviews, we then compiled
the information with what we were able to gather from internet research to develop a
recommendation for UK.
Findings
Through the internet research and key informant interviews, we were able to garner a
substantial amount of information regarding each university’s transition from coal. Although we
researched four universities in addition to UK, the bulk of the information in this report is
regarding Ball State and the University of Louisville due to the fact that our findings suggested
their climate action plans were likely to be most feasible on our campus. First, information
gathered from the University of Kentucky will be discussed.
As previously noted, there are currently four coal-fired boilers located on campus that
produce steam to heat campus facilities. In addition to the coal-fired boilers, there are also on-
site natural gas combustion plants that produce steam for heating as well. On average, 68% of the
heat on campus is produced from burning coal, while the other 32% is produced from burning
natural gas (University of Kentucky 2011). These percentages vary by year, depending on the
price of coal and natural gas. The university spends around 3.7 million dollars annually on coal
and burns 36,565 tons per year on average (University of Kentucky 2011). Although UK is not
actively transitioning away from coal, there has been a conscious effort to reduce the total
amount of coal being used by implementing conservation measures. Currently, the university is
in the process of making energy efficiency improvements to 61 buildings on campus (University
of Kentucky). These improvements are projected to reduce UK’s overall carbon footprint and
save the university between 1.5 and 2 million dollars annually (University of Kentucky 2011).
As previously mentioned, the coal-fired boilers on campus are not required to abide by EPA
Clean Air Act regulations because the boilers were built before the act was passed. This allows
the plants to legally emit more pollutants than would otherwise be permitted today. This could
potentially pose serious health risks to not only those that work in the heating plants, but all those
16
on the university’s campus and surrounding community. While UK has increased energy
efficiency, the university has yet to address the health impacts from burning coal on campus.
Ball State University: Going Geothermal
Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana decided to move beyond coal in 2008, upon
signing the American College and University Presidents’ Climate commitment—a pledge to
work toward climate neutrality or zero carbon emissions (Ball State University 2011). This
decision was made in order to reduce cost of operations as well as drastically reduce their carbon
footprint (Interview with Bob Koester 2011). According to key informant Robert Koester, the
decision was also made because, “It’s the right thing to do;; it assures a more environmentally-
benign future, it redirects the focus to the new green economy, and it meets the call to recognize
what our buildings and campuses teach” (2011). After signing the commitment, the university
developed a climate action plan. Development of the plan was heavily influenced by the decision
of the university to decommission its four coal-fired boilers (Interview with Robert Koester
2011). In 2009, Ball State broke ground for the construction of the nation’s largest closed
geothermal energy system (Ball State University 2011). Once completed, the system will replace
the university’s four coal-fired boilers with geothermal energy to heat and cool 45 buildings on
the 731-acre campus (Ball State University 2011).
A geothermal heat pump system utilizes the Earth’s steady underground temperature as a
means to provide heat in the winter and serve as a heat sink in the summer. Because the ground a
few feet below the surface has a very stable temperature, geothermal systems operate efficiently
at all times. Rather than burning coal to produce heat and, as a bi-product, greenhouse gases, the
geothermal heat pump system will merely transfer heat from one place to another. The system is
comprised of borehole fields, energy stations, district loops, and building interfaces (Ball State
University 2011). The switch to geothermal heat will not be detectable by the campus
community—meaning, faculty, staff, and students will not notice a difference in temperature in
buildings or appearance of campus (Ball State University 2011).
The North Energy Station, Phase I, is currently operational, providing heating and
cooling to around 20 buildings on campus (Interview with Robert Koester 2011). Construction
on the South Energy Station, Phase II, which will bring the remaining buildings on-line, is
underway (Interview with Robert Koester 2011). The total cost of the project is estimated
17
between $70-$75 million dollars (Interview with Robert Koester 2011). Of this project total, $45
million came from the state of Indiana, $5 million came from the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (a federal stimulus fund), and the remaining will come from internal
reallocation at Ball State (Interview with Robert Koester 2011).
Going geothermal will provide the university with a number of benefits. The new system
will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 80,000 tons annually, cutting Ball State’s
carbon footprint roughly in half and providing cleaner air for the campus community and the
town of Muncie, Indiana (Ball State University 2011). Switching to geothermal heating and
cooling is estimated to save the university $2 million dollars a year in energy costs (Ball State
University 2011). The construction of the system will also help the economy in that it is
estimated to create nearly 2,000 construction jobs, increase production of manufacturers
supplying the project, not to mention the system will be American-made and built by U.S
contractors, many of them from Indiana (Ball State University 2011). Lastly, this project will
serve to discredit the assumption that renewable energy projects are always too expensive or
impractical for cost-conscious institutions (Ball State University 2011).
The University of Louisville: Carbon Neutral by 2050
The University of Louisville also signed the American College and University
Presidents’ Climate Commitment in 2008 (Interview with Justin Mog 2011). The university
released its climate action plan in 2010, specifying how they intend to ultimately reach climate
neutrality, which implies a transition from all fossil fuels (University of Louisville 2011). UofL’s
ultimate goal is to reach carbon neutrality – zero carbon emissions – by 2050, with interim goals
along the way, including converting to 20% renewable energy sources by 2020 (Interview with
Justin Mog 2011). Other means they are taking to accomplish this goal are reducing energy
demands by 33% through energy conservation, efficiency, and green building design (University
of Louisville 2011).
The University of Louisville no longer burns coal on campus. In 2010, UofL replaced its
coal-fired boilers with cleaner burning natural gas boilers for heating and cooling the campus
(Interview with Justin Mog 2011). Sustainability Coordinator Justin Mog said, “This is not a
perfect solution, but it is a step in the right direction” (2011). Although UofL still has a long way
to go in terms of reducing carbon emissions, they are taking the proper steps. Moreover, though
18
natural gas is not a clean energy source, it does eliminate many of the health risks associated
with coal-burning particulates. In addition to phasing out their coal-fired boilers, the university is
also exploring a number of larger-scale renewable energy options (University of Louisville
2011).
The University of Louisville maintains that the benefits of transitioning to renewable
energy include helping with recruitment and retention of faculty and students, aiding in
fundraising efforts, increasing the university’s status among peer institutions, improving its
reputation, saving the university a great deal of money down the road, providing cleaner air and
better environmental conditions, and ultimately making the university a more responsible global
citizen (Interview with Justin Mog 2011).
The fact that the University of Louisville has been able to make such a bold commitment
when the state of Kentucky is so dependent on coal has serious implications for UK, which
excuses it environmental injustices, in large part, because of this dependency. In other words, if
they can do it, we can do it. The advice we received from UofL was to avoid targeting coal in
particular, which is a hot-button political issue in Kentucky; rather we were advised to urge our
President to sign the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment, which
implies an eventual transition from coal without specifically targeting it (Interview with Justin
Mog 2011).
University of Wisconsin-Madison and Cornell University
Lastly, to provide some information on the remaining two universities, both the
University of Wisconsin, Madison and Cornell University have also signed the Presidents’
Climate Commitment. Wisconsin is currently converting its five coal-fired boilers to biomass
and natural gas boilers (University of Wisconsin 2011). They have also instituted the “We
Conserve” project to increase the university’s energy efficiency (University of Wisconsin 2011).
Since 2006, the campus has seen an annual reduction of approximately $13 million in utility
bills, 178 million gallons of water, 1.2 trillion BTUs of energy, and 125,000 tons of carbon
dioxide (University of Wisconsin 2011). They have also developed a Climate Action Plan
detailing their eventual transition to renewable energy and subsequent climate neutrality
(University of Wisconsin 2011).
19
Cornell University released a Climate Action Plan as well, with a goal to generate zero
carbon emissions by 2050 (Cornell University 2011). As a short-term solution, in March of 2011,
Cornell transitioned away from coal to a Combined Heat and Power plant, which burns natural
gas (Cornell University 2011). In order to meet its carbon neutrality goals, Cornell will
eventually need to transition the natural gas boilers to renewable energy sources.
Conclusion In addition to environmental problems, the coal-fired boilers on the University of
Kentucky’s campus are posing a serious health threat to students, faculty, staff, and the
Lexington community. The four universities highlighted in Part III of this report, along with
many other universities across the country, prove that it is possible to move beyond coal to
cleaner forms of energy. For the sake of our health and our climate, it is very important for UK
to join these environmentally conscious universities and transition to cleaner ways to heat our
campus. In addition to health and environmental benefits, our research indicates that there are
also a number of economic and reputational benefits to gain from this transition. As the flagship
university of the state of Kentucky, and as an aspiring top-twenty institution, it is UK’s
responsibility to take a leadership role in promoting the growth of renewable energy solutions in
the state and surrounding regions. This brings us to our primary recommendation: sign the
American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment and begin the phase-out of
the university’s four coal-fired boilers.
Signing the Climate Commitment would allow the University of Kentucky to make a
significant public commitment to reducing greenhouse gases and eventually reaching climate
neutrality. The commitment essentially provides a framework and support for colleges and
universities to implement plans in pursuit of climate neutrality (ACUPCC 2011). The
Commitment recognizes the responsibility that institutions of higher education have as role
models for not only their students, but their surrounding communities (ACUPCC 2011). The
commitment requires signatories to develop a Climate Action Plan to achieve climate neutrality
by a certain date, as well as take steps to gradually reduce carbon emissions while the plan is
being developed and implemented (ACUPCC 2011). There are already 674 colleges and
universities that have signed the commitment (ACUPCC 2011). Many of these universities are in
our region, even in our own state. A few include the University of Louisville, Transylvania
20
University, Berea College, Ball State University, University of Cincinnati, University of
Tennessee, Ohio State University, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Cornell University,
Auburn University, Centre, Clemson, Duke, UNC-Chapel Hill, and the University of Florida. All
of these institutions are making a commitment to transition to renewable energy sources, and the
University of Kentucky should not be left behind. The University of Louisville proves it can be
done, even in a coal dependent state like Kentucky. We should not let politics and money stand
in the way of protecting our health and our environment. It is time our university joins other
forward-thinking universities in moving beyond coal.
References
American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. 2011. Available at: http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/
Ball State University. 2011. Sustainability at Ball State University. Available at: http://cms.bsu.edu/Academics/CentersandInstitutes/COTE/Sustainability.aspx
Cornell University. 2011. Cornell Sustainable Campus. Available at: http://www.sustainablecampus.cornell.edu/.
Koester, Robert. 2011. email correspondence, November 7.
Mog, Justin. 2011. email correspondence, November 22.
Physicians for Social Responsibility. 2009. “Coal-Fired Power Plants: Understanding the Health Costs of a Dirty Energy Source.” Available: http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/coal-fired-power-plants.pdf.
Randall, Lauren and Shelley Vinyard. 2011. “Dirty Energy’s Assault on Our Health: Mercury.” Environment America. Available: http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf.
Schneider, Conrad and Jonathan Banks. 2010. “Clean Air Taskforce: The Toll from Coal.” Clean Air Task Force. Available: http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf
Sierra Club. 2010. “Breaking Coal’s Grip on Our Future: Moving Campuses Beyond Coal (2nd ed.). Sierra Club.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2011. Figure ES 1. U.S. Electric Power Industry Net Generation, 2009. Electric Power Annual 2009. Available:
21
http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. “Study of Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions from Electric Utility Steam Generating Units – Final Report to Congress.” February 1998. 453/R-98-004a. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t3/reports/eurtc1.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. “U.S. EPA Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Year 2005 Public Data Release.” Section B. http://epa.gov.tri/tridata/tri05.pdfs/eReport.pdf.
University of Kentucky Facilities Management. 2011. “Energy Use and the University of
Kentucky: Info Sheet and Frequently Asked Questions.” Updated version 10/19/2011.
University of Kentucky. 2011. Office of Sustainability. Available at: http://sustainability.uky.edu/.
University of Louisville. 2011. Sustainability. http://louisville.edu/updc/sustainability.
University of Wisconsin, Madison. 2011. Campus Sustainability Initiative. Available at: http://sustainability.wisc.edu/.
Recommended