photo by Allie garza | Staff UK uses coal, among other fuels, to heat many of the buildings on campus. The National Resource Partners report the average person in the U.S. uses 20 pounds of coal per day in electricity usage. Photo by Allie Garza | Staff
The use of coal at UK has sparked numerous protests, debates and discussion. While many seek to eliminate coal as a fuel source completely from the university, others hold firm that coal is still the best choice for Kentucky.
Chairman of the Department of Mining Engineering Rick Honaker said UK is taking every opportunity to use natural resources for its various needs around campus. Honaker said UK has been trying to provide the lowest possible cost of energy over the last few years.
UK uses stoker coal, which is the highest quality of coal, and is extracted from the mines of southeastern Kentucky. Stoker coal is also a coarse grain coal, which means it doesn’t emit any particles into the atmosphere and is also easily handled.
Coal and gas are both used to make steam that heats buildings, water and various other uses. UK’s steam is produced by burning coal, gas and sometimes No. 2 fuel oil in boilers.
According to documents from UK, normally around 80 percent of steam is coal produced and 20 percent is gas produced. Last year 60 percent of steam came from coal and 40 percent gas.
Honaker said he doesn’t see any negative aspects of the coal. He said he simply supports whatever source is the best use of time and money.
“I support the use of the most efficient and inexpensive process of generating electricity, if that is coal and I believe it is,” Honaker said.
The cheapest electrical production is located in Midwest of the country, which includes Kentucky, he said. Because of coal, Kentucky can offer electricity at lower rates than other states.
“Kentucky provides the third-lowest energy cost electric rates in the country,” Honaker said.
Some students support the use of coal on campus and around the state. Undeclared sophomore Kyle Ostrander said it makes sense for UK to use this resource to support its energy needs.
“I think we should be careful about what we do but I don’t think we use too much coal or anything really,” Ostrander said. “Kentucky has the most coal out of the states of the nation. We would be foolish to not take advantage of our resources and to try overcompensate with other resources that we do not have.”
According to the Natural Resource Partners Web site, some of the advantages of coal usage include its affordability, efficiency, abundance, and the fact that the prices of coal in past have remained relatively stable. The U.S. leads the world in cheapest source of electricity.
The NRP also reports that each person in the U.S. uses “about 20 lbs of coal per day in the form of electricity.”
Honaker said UK started to use more natural gas because of its cheaper price with the current status of the economy, but said they switch back and forth. Honaker said he isn’t opposed to finding ways to be more environmentally efficient on campus.
“I’m certainly open to working with people that are opposed to coal,” Honaker said. “Let’s make a clear picture, rather than having it fuzzy.
“If there is a problem, let’s try to solve the problem and not get rid of it.”
Check back Thursday for part two of the coal series, when UK Beyond Coal members will share their views.
Sure, Kentucky has an abundance of coal and natural gas reserves, there’s no arguing with that. My concern is that these reserves will be depleted at some point in the future. What do we do then?
What we need is a renewable resource that can be used to produce energy. Fortunately, we have such a resource available to us. Many students come in contact with this resource on a daily basis and seem to have no qualms regarding the inhalation of its combustion by-products. For some reason, maybe ignorance, the very same students who regularly interact with this resource have not the initiative to promote awareness of the issue.
http://www.hempcar.org/efia.shtml
Coal is not a cheap resource. From mining to burning to waste, coal has detrimental impacts on the environment and the health of many people. Lives are entirely too precious to be pushed to the wayside just becuase cheap energy is derived from coal.
Being from a coal area, I think that coals detrimental impacts on the environment and health are no more than the power plants who emit steam into the air, people cooking meth in your backyard, and a lot of chemical plants. What about tobacco smoke? Tell me that all the people in the US that smoke are polluting the air too. There is first, second, third hand smoke now. Think about ALL the things that are impacts on the environment and quit singleing out coal.
250 years. That are the estimates of how much longer coal will last at todays use in the USA. I won’t be here to see the end of it and neither will any of you. I say we use it till it’s gone. Hell, I doubt man will be existing in a large quantity by then anyway.
Chris, the 250 year estimate is at odds with every non-industry backed estimate. They put it at about 20 years of coal that would financially sound to mine, including the continuance of MTR. It’s there, but it won’t be for long, and if we don’t move on eliminating it in favor of renewable energy, we’ll pay the price.
As for the health effects, there arent enough meth labs in Ky to compare to the mercury and other heavy metals emitted by MTR run-off and burning coal for power. Add in black lung, the abusively hgih rates of climate change brought on by burning coal in China and the U.S., and the economic non-viability of the whole industry along with the creation of economic monopolies in Appalchia instead of diversified energy infrastructures, and we have a series of global crises waiting to kill of millions of human beings.
All because you wanted to burn one more black rock.
Yeah yeah, we all want to save streams from getting power-dicked by coal, but who is going to provide an alternative? Wind? Not in Kentucky. Solar? Not in Kentucky (not wide-scale at least). Nuclear? The uber-greenies won’t let you.
This is why I’m in favor of Chris’ idea. We’ll just burn all that shit out and then come up with something else. We’re Americans god damn it, we’ll figure it out when the crisis is at hand. And don’t tell me it’s at hand when we’re paying under 10 cents a kilowatt.
Something must be done about the pervasive cursing in Kernel comments. I suggest that we track down this so-called “Seth Thomas” and formally warn him about his language. Or we could just cut off his fingers to keep him from spewing his hate-filled vitriol on this site.
Who’s with me? GOD WILLS IT!
They see me trollin, they hatin, they tryin to stop me from firin mah laz0r.
Why should we ban cursing? They’re just words. And this “Seth Thomas” (while I more or less disagree with his position) has every right in the world to choose to use them. That’s it. That’s ALL it is. A choice to use certain words. Sure, they’re words that YOU think are offensive, but that’s not something “Seth Thomas” should have to worry about. When his (or anyone’s) words become offensive attacks against YOU or anyone, then we have a problem. Right now, we just have four-letter words that you think are dirty. Big deal.
J. St. James:
LULZ.
SRS?