Op-Ed
Contemplating the Flame
Email: 
Share: 
Although coal-burning electric generators are terrible for the environment, I was still awed to look (through protective goggles) inside one and gaze at the 2,000 degree Fahrenheit flame it produced. I had this opportunity last week when touring Cornell’s Central Heating Plant thanks to a field trip in Prof. David Hammer’s Energy Seminar. However, the wonder of the big, bright flame quickly wore off when I was reminded that the plant’s primary fuel is coal, which burns at a rate of 30 to 40 tons per hour.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported earlier this month that it is very likely global climate change is a real phenomenon caused by anthropogenic forces, such as the human combustion of fossil fuels. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, a third of all carbon dioxide (the most notorious greenhouse gas), two-thirds of sulfur oxides, and a quarter of nitrous oxides emissions in the U.S. are created by electricity generation. .
Sun Podcast: A podcast is available for this column. Click here to listen to or to download it. Clearly, a crucial component of the solution to the nation’s pollution problems lies in this sector of the economy. In fact, electricity generation is the largest single source of both carbon dioxide and sulfur oxides in this country. These three pollutants contribute to various health and environmental problems including global climate change, acid rain or respiratory illness. The major culprit of these pollution problems is the burning of coal, which accounted for about 50 percent of the country’s generation in 2005 according to the Energy Information Agency.
Another fossil fuel that causes similar pollution problems is oil. Though it only contributes to about 3 percent of national electricity generation, we all know how dependent our country is on oil, over 60 percent of which is foreign, for transportation purposes. Interestingly enough, both State of the Union addresses by Gerald Ford in 1975 and George W. Bush last month stressed the importance of our nation’s ability to achieve oil independence. In their perspectives, oil independence means freedom from reliance on foreign oil. Ford’s plan envisioned thousands of new oil wells and 30 major new refineries in the U.S. while Bush called for an increase in domestic oil production by doubling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Both also advocated the construction of new nuclear generation facilities. In the end, it seemed as though society must decide whether to exchange our thriving U.S. economy for ecological stewardship.
Yet, is there truth to the supposed tradeoff between economy and environment? Not according to former Rep. Morris K. Udall, an environmental supporter who, during his 1975 presidential campaign, challenged the assertion that economic and environmental considerations were in direct conflict with each other. He championed the opposite perspective that synergies between the economy and the environment exist such that mutually beneficial outcomes can be achieved.
In line with Udall’s predictions, Cornell has made recent substantial strides in environmental stewardship that have not come at economic peril. For example, the Lake Source Cooling project, which went online in 2000, utilizes Cayuga Lake’s cold waters to chill campus water. This effort reduced campus expenditures on cooling by 80 percent, equating to millions of kilowatt-hours per year of savings. Also, the University recently approved plans for the construction of a new Combined Heat and Power plant. These two new natural gas turbines will produce about three-quarters of campus electricity, displacing half of our current coal consumption, though natural gas consumption will increase ten-fold. The move to a cleaner fuel will cause a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, allowing the university to meet the Kyoto Protocol agreement it signed in 2001. Furthermore, TCAT has agreed to purchase 200,000 gallons per year of B5 biodiesel fuel, to be used starting this fall. Despite a slight increase in cost, they get a fuel that is more environmentally friendly and 20 percent more efficient.
However, these are not the last environmental initiatives on which Cornell will embark. Just last week, President Skorton signed the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment pledging that the University will achieve climate neutrality as soon as possible. By taking his time to consider what the commitment entails (as opposed to just signing it to get activists out of his office), I am confident he will guide Cornell to climate neutrality sooner rather than later. The members of KyotoNOW! should be thanked for pushing the administration to consider joining this commitment.
The Board of Trustees has also shown interest in sustainability, beyond approval of major projects such as the ones mentioned earlier. For instance, a generous donation from trustee David Croll ’70 has endowed the David Croll Professor of Sustainable Energy Systems in the College of Engineering. Not only that, after the January board meetings, one of the administrative staff commented to me that multiple trustees were inquiring as to what Cornell was doing on the sustainability front, much to my satisfaction.
The University has already done a good job of finding financially-feasible solutions to environmental problems, but not all the programs devised to meet the Presidents Climate Commitment are going to be cost saving or cost neutral. Much of this has to do with what the University considers a reasonable payback timeframe for its investments. Thankfully, Cornell has been around for over a hundred years (and hopefully hundreds more), so the University administration can afford to take its cost-benefit analysis on a longer time horizon than for-profit businesses. Whatever payback horizon the University has previously considered, Cornell may be forced to lengthen the timeframe if it expects to meet its new commitment. At some point, Cornell is going to have spend money on some strategies simply because they are the right thing to do.