Thomas FitzGerald kicked off the sustainability lecture series in Worsham Theater Monday night, discussing the state of Kentucky’s environmental future and what can be done to reduce the ecological footprint.
“Sustainability is everywhere today,†FitzGerald said. “But there is no common definition of what sustainability means.â€
FitzGerald, who is director of the Kentucky Resources Council, said sustainability is meeting the needs of the present without compromising the future.
“Simply put, it can be described as mindful living,†FitzGerald said.
FitzGerald discussed Kentucky’s seemingly large environmental footprint as he described the state’s dependency on fossil fuels.
“Kentucky is 98 percent dependent on fossil fuels for energy,†FitzGerald said. “Kentucky is ground zero for global warming.â€
Kentucky is a hot bed for coal use and carbon dioxide emissions because it is inexpensive, he said, and Kentucky’s energy bills are low because the energy companies do not focus on efficiency.
“There are 20 plus states that have lower electric bills because we are wasteful,†he said. “There is a low investment in conservation and efficiency. It lost out to the idea of more cheap production.â€
While Kentucky’s dependency on coal will remain, it could eventually turn from coal to coal gasification, which might not be a permanent solution, FitzGerald said.
“Even with coal gasification, you still have carbon dioxide emissions,†he said. “You have to figure out where to put that carbon dioxide. Only so much can go underground or in the ocean.â€
During his lecture, FitzGerald discussed the myth that the opportunity for renewable energy is limited in Kentucky.
“We have as much effective sunlight as Germany,†he said. “We also have hydroelectric power potential as well as wind power.â€
Matt Kramer, an English education junior, attended the lecture and said he thought Kentucky would not be breaking away from coal energy in the near future.
“No matter what, coal will always be a buffer, and we have to accept that, but still know there are other resources that can be used,†he said.
FitzGerald gave two possibilities for the future of Kentucky’s dependency on fossil fuels and large amounts of carbon dioxide emissions.
“We can do nothing and see an increase in electricity costs, or we can take action,†he said.
“he said, and Kentucky’s energy bills are low because the energy companies do not focus on efficiency.”
He didn’t say that. Kentucky has low energy costs because not all costs are factored in – i.e. the environmental impact of extraction processes such as mountain top removal. The reason that there are 20 states with lower rates than Kentucky is because those states have focused on conservation both on the consumer side and on power loss through transmission lines.
The future high cost of coal will be the result of national efforts to reduce carbon emissions. That is when alternative energy sources such as solar, wind and hydro will become economically viable. Fitz made the point that is better to plan for that eventuality now rather than wait until it is mandated.
Why no mention of nuclear power in Kentucky. Althought not the most economical, nuclear has become safe and remains eco-friendly. Nuclear is also the only possible alternative to providing the infrastructure to support full electric automobiles in this country.
Nuclear was discussed, just not mentioned in the article. Safe and eco-friendly are questionable descriptions of nuclear energy. Fitz pointed out that the disposal issue remains unresolved. Given that nuclear power makes up 20% of u.s. eletricity generation, it, like coal, will be a “bridge” to alternatives. It takes 10 years to bring a new nuclear plant on line. It is possible that breakthroughs in the processing of spent fuel could make nuclear viable for the future but break throughs could happen in other areas that would be safer than nuclear.
The fastest way to get rid of coal mining is to stop using electricity. Who will agree to do do first and quit being so hypocritical?
Ken-
you’re right that using no energy whatsoever would be the fastest way to get rid of coal mining. And while that surely isn’t practical (note: I understand your attempt at sarcasm, so I know that I don’t need to say that to you), there is a BETTER way to get rid of using coal as our primary source of energy. that would be conservation – while not eliminating energy use, drastically reducing the wasteful use of energy – and widespread research and development in renewable alternatives. while it may not be the fastest way to do it, perhaps you can get on board with the best way to do it? sounds like a plan to me!