UNC’s energy transition seems not to be going as smoothly as was hoped. A few bumps in the road are hardly worth despairing over. But the obstacles highlight a lack of foresight in the energy plan — and the student body is left unclear as to when the transition will happen, or whether it will actually be sustainable.
Whether UNC can create the market it needs with its own demand remains to be seen. At the very least, the University must diligently work to ensure the few suppliers it can use have the proper certification.
The Energy Task Force, which was formed more than a year ago and presented its recommendations to the University last October, suggested wood pellets as a more sustainable alternative to coal.
Many of the delays to the project were beyond the control of the parties involved. First, UNC couldn’t get enough wood pellets to its energy plant because it couldn’t secure proper railcars. By the time this was resolved, it was too far into the winter to test a new source of energy.
The initiative’s current problems surround the difficulty of verifying the sustainability of the distributor’s practices. After ruling out N.C. distributors, the University settled on a company in Virginia.
It’s not exactly what the Energy Task Force had in mind. The final recommendations explicitly stated preference for biomass taken from N.C. forests through certified sustainable practices.
UNC’s supplier, WoodFuels Virginia, says it is “aggressively pursuing” certification, but does source its own wood. In the meantime, it’s unclear whether or not using biomass would actually be degrading another natural resource.
The creation of the Energy Task Force was the culmination of admirable efforts by student environmental groups. They succeeded in bringing problems with coal to the forefront of the University’s attention.
For their part, administrators responded promptly and took the concerns seriously. When the 10-person task force was assembled, two students were included.
But implementing the plan seems to be harder than creating it. We understand the immense complexity of energy issues, especially with a budget that offers little wiggle room for expensive experimentation.
It’s all the more reason to aggressively ensure that we are not just meeting a time line, but making truly sustainable choices. We’d like to see the plan’s original advocates sustain their initial passion to see the plan through.
Whether UNC can create the market it needs with its own demand remains to be seen. At the very least, the University must diligently work to ensure the few suppliers it can use have the proper certification.
The Energy Task Force, which was formed more than a year ago and presented its recommendations to the University last October, suggested wood pellets as a more sustainable alternative to coal.
Many of the delays to the project were beyond the control of the parties involved. First, UNC couldn’t get enough wood pellets to its energy plant because it couldn’t secure proper railcars. By the time this was resolved, it was too far into the winter to test a new source of energy.
The initiative’s current problems surround the difficulty of verifying the sustainability of the distributor’s practices. After ruling out N.C. distributors, the University settled on a company in Virginia.
It’s not exactly what the Energy Task Force had in mind. The final recommendations explicitly stated preference for biomass taken from N.C. forests through certified sustainable practices.
UNC’s supplier, WoodFuels Virginia, says it is “aggressively pursuing” certification, but does source its own wood. In the meantime, it’s unclear whether or not using biomass would actually be degrading another natural resource.
The creation of the Energy Task Force was the culmination of admirable efforts by student environmental groups. They succeeded in bringing problems with coal to the forefront of the University’s attention.
For their part, administrators responded promptly and took the concerns seriously. When the 10-person task force was assembled, two students were included.
But implementing the plan seems to be harder than creating it. We understand the immense complexity of energy issues, especially with a budget that offers little wiggle room for expensive experimentation.
It’s all the more reason to aggressively ensure that we are not just meeting a time line, but making truly sustainable choices. We’d like to see the plan’s original advocates sustain their initial passion to see the plan through.
No comments:
Post a Comment