Letter to Editor by Shea Sheppard
I don’t know about the rest of the student body, but I have grown sick and tired of these lame excuses given by the coal companies on why they should be revered rather than criticized.
Their current excuse seems to revolve around this idea that “coal is a part of Kentucky’s heritage,†and is thus something worth being proud about.
Heritage, however, is not always something worthy of praise.
Take tobacco for instance. This state has a long and rich history tied with the production of tobacco, yet I haven’t seen anyone proud of that lately, especially UK. Such lauding of tobacco is not missed, because we now realize just how harmful it is to society.
Fortunately, we are now at a point in time where we are beginning to recognize the consequences of both coal production and use. Thus, while many at this university may currently feel proud to add the word coal to the name of the Wildcat Lodge,
I wonder how they’ll feel in 10 years. In twenty years, when even more evidence will have mounted against the use of coal, will this university still feel proud of its association with Kentucky’s heritage of coal?
I’m predicting that it won’t, and thus the Board of Trustees should seriously consider the lasting effects of associating one of their most public programs with the coal industry.
Shea Sheppard
political science senior
In ten years the building will still be used for it’s intended use no matter what name is on it. If coal is looked at in a negative way at that time, then UK should give the money back. Better yet, if coal is as bad as you say, UK should be ashamed to even think about accepting the donation. If I were a donor and read an article like this, I would withdraw my pledge and go home.
Even most dogs know better than to bite the hand that feeds it. Same as UK taking the money and blasting the people that donate it.
Pimentel is convinced, based on his research that when all fourteen types of energy inputs are included in the production of biofuels — especially ethanol from corn — that there is a net energy loss, not a gain, however modest, as others contend. He sees ethanol production as “relatively energy intensive.”
Pimentel is just a pessimistic about wood waste and switch grass, neither of which he contends are positive energy producers when compared to oil and gas.
The term “Renewable Energy†is commonly used these days and everybody seems to have a pretty good idea what it means or stands for. Instant associations of this term include solar power, wind power, hydroelectricity and perhaps biomass and biofuels. Renewable Energy is heralded as the saviour of our planet for a power hungry civilization who is currently burning fossil fuels to meet an ever increasing power demand. But is it true that we could go about business as usual, continue on the same road of ever increasing energy demand, if only we switched to 100% Renewable Energy? To answer this question, let’s go back to the basics of physics: consider, energy cannot be produced, generated, recycled or renewed. It can only be converted (from one state into another). However, every time we perform a conversion, it comes at a cost called entropy, which is a loss of useful or available energy. In thermodynamics, energy is made up of two components: entropy and enthalpy. Entropy is diffuse heat energy, many times associated with waste heat from mechanical or chemical processes and represents – to the largest extent – the useless component of energy that is unavailable to carry out work. Entropy is also associated with the level of disorder in a system. Enthalpy on the other side is the useful (non-diffuse) energy component that we can readily use to carry out work. Thermodynamics teach us that every time we use enthalpic energy (eg change it from a state of stored chemical energy into mechanical work) the total entropy of the system in which it occurs (our planet) increases. The larger the energy potentia, the larger is the amount of useful work we get from it. And here we are at the core of the problem: the entropy of a system (heat and disorder) increases over time as enthalpic energy is spent. This process is irreversible and forever reduces the usability of useful energy that remains. For this reason, fundamentally and despite popular believe, there is no such thing as “Renewable Energyâ€. Out of all sustainable energy initiatives available, the drastic reduction of our energy demand, also know as “demand side abatement†is the single most important one. If we continue to increase our energy consumption, even if we use “renewable†sources exclusively, we will necessarily also continue to increase the entropy, waste heat and resulting temperature in our planet’s atmosphere. Before we started burning fossil fuels, our planet was in good balance between the sun’s radiation absorbed and the heat earth re-radiated into space. This balance depends on many factors, including the gas composition of the atmosphere and cloud cover, however their individual roles and interdependencies in context with radiation absorbed and re-radiated are complex and still poorly understood. As we are running out of time to fix the problems associated with climate change, we cannot afford to take new chances and make assumptions about the safe and abundant use of “renewable†energies. Instead, we should take the more conservative view that we live on a planet with limited, finite resources, the use of which produces an ever increasing entropy. Since this process is irreversible, the best strategy for us is to reduce our energy consumption and thereby extend our lease.
Cornell professor Dr. David Pimentel’s address to the Sustainable Energy Forum’s 2006 Peak Oil and Environment conference.
Well-said, Shea.
Shea, please do not take offense to my posts. Rest assured, they were not in any way aimed directly towards you. You published your opinion and I certainly respect that. I just do not agree with the many, many negative articles I have seen being written about donors whom are giving the university so much money which will be used to benifit the students for years to come. I could give a hoot less about coal or anything about it in this conversation. The bottom line facts are donors are being degraded in various editorials for wanting to help the university in a very big way. If coal is that bad for the world, your issue should be with UK and UK only for even considering taking the money from such a “terrible” enity to start with. I think you will look back in ten or twenty years and wonder, as I do now, what does “Future of university tied to dorm name” really mean anyway. Just how in any way does the future of UK get tied to a silly dorm name????
Dear Editor:
With all the recent controversy about the “coal building” I was bothered somewhat by the comment of a UK Trustee. The Trustee praised the coal industry for having brought Kentucky into the 20th century, but did not qualify that statement. I believe this Trustee is a compassionate and educated person who, while praising what the coal indusry has given us, would also acknowledge the human suffering, ecological degredation and the unfair economic exploitation wrought upon the people of Kentucky by that industry. The bad side of the coal industry’s past is a history strewn with the bodies of crushed miners, the broken bodies and corroded lungs of surviving miners, and the long, drawn-out, economic hardship imposed upon a vast number of mining families. Rather than honor the coal industry in general, why not honor those who sacrificed the most and received the least, those who gave their lives deep in the mines and on the surface to allow all of us to live the comfortable middle and upper class lives we take for granted? Why not honor the actual people, the Kentucky coal miners, who sacrificed more than anyone else to bring not only Kentucky, but a good portion of our country, into the 20th century? By all means, place the word “coal” on this new building, but instead of just “coal” place the words “coal miners.” This would be a fitting and honorable memorial to all those who gave us so much, who did more than any other person or group to give us prosperity. This would be a memorial that all honorable people could agree upon.
Ben Luntz
Mr. Luntz,
Outstanding sir.
I hope the UK Board AND “The Difference Makers” read your post and strongly consider this middle of the road example of what both sides could agree on to bring UK’s “largest private gift in its history”
to a event cheered by all, as it should be.
Stan B