Letter to Editor by Jo Pulcini
The following is a Web comment in response to “UK fails campus with allegiance to big business.â€
A couple of points and questions to keep this discussion going.
To Rick and coal supporters:
1. Russia is not Europe. Most of Russia is not nuclear, but a combination of natural gas, coal and nuclear and, believe it or not, wood. Russia is an entirely different beast than Europe or Asia and is its own category no matter how you look at it. Frankly, I have no numbers on the total of United Kingdom nuclear power plants.
2. Please provide evidence that there is no such thing as “sustainable energy†or that solar or a wind/solar combination will not make a significant contribution. If you could cite a study, it would be much appreciated.
3. If the coal people were really trying to be nice to the university, why help the already profitable basketball team? Why not put money in the Mathskeller or a new Design Library? There are more pressing and less political things to do on campus with $7 milion. It’s a political move for certain. I don’t want any “cause†naming buildings. I wouldn’t want a “Coal Lounge†anymore than I want a “Pro-Choice Lounge.â€
To the Anti-Coal folks:
1. What is the plan for the the economy in Kentucky as we scale back on coal?
2. Is there anything wrong with atomic power? France is largely powered by this source and all indications indicate it is going very well. The failure at Chernobyl was, well, due to bad, bad Soviet standards. The Three Mile Island incident was a long time ago and the safety mechanisms have improved dramatically since then. (Compare any technology from the early ‘80s until today. Then apply that to safety standards. We have made huge strides in safety.)
3. Is there any documentation to support the idea that wind power is the way to go? I am fairly sold on the benefits of solar power, but wind power seems a little more regional.
Jo Pulcini
history senior
In response to Jo Pulcini’s letter on 10/27:
1. What is the plan for the Kentucky economy as we scale back on coal?
The mining industry represents only 2.6% of the state gross domestic product [1] and 1% of total employment in Kentucky [2]. The idea that scaling back on coal would be catastrophic to the state is a myth. Kentucky has transitioned away from tobacco, and it can do the same for coal. It is sadly true that the economy of Eastern Kentucky has been oppressively monopolized by the coal industry, so that an abrupt loss of coal mining would be a major shock to those communities. However, a smooth transition away from coal is not even an option for Kentucky’s “leaders” whose pockets are lined with Big Coal money. So, the answer is, there is no plan, yet there are hosts of possibilities: sustainable hardwood forestry, information technology, outdoors tourism, to name but a few.
2. Is there anything wrong with atomic power?
While the safety and efficiency of nuclear power generation has improved over the years, the mining of uranium fuel destroys the health of ecosystems and the miners. I, personally, do not oppose the use of Fast Breeder Reactor technology to recycle the spent fuel that is currently toxic waste, extracting more energy and reducing the toxicity waste, but current economic conditions make it cheaper to simply extract more uranium and store the waste. Changing this situation will require leadership and public education. Until then, nuclear is just as bad as coal.
3. Is there any documentation to support the idea that wind power is the way to go?
Wind power is, indeed, inherently regional. Visit http://www.coalriverwind.org/ for an example of how wind can work in Appalachia. Kentucky has some solar potential, but a transition away from “cheap” coal will require large investments in energy conservation in all sectors. We can do this, but if Kentucky’s “leaders” are not able or willing to take the lead, they should have the decency to get out of the way.
[1] http://www.thinkkentucky.com/kyedc/pdfs/kyecotrd.pdf
[2] http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ky.htm