NEWS
UW marches for cleaner energy
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Alexandra Rogers:
- AIDS battle progressing (May 10, 2007)
- Students slam city bar ban (May 3, 2007)
- Neighbors discuss ownership options (April 27, 2007)
- Business mogul donates millions (April 26, 2007)
- Students to help 'cleanup' hunger (April 13, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Diversity leaders gather in Madison (October 11, 2004)
- Conference comes to UW (September 19, 2007)
- Women gather for 'Career Boot Camp' (March 19, 2007)
- "Building Unity" Multicultural Conference Attracts Hundreds (November 19, 2001)
- UW students take on homelessness (November 2, 2007)
Share This:
by Alexandra Rogers
Monday, March 5, 2007
College students from across the country flocked to the University of Wisconsin Friday for the second annual Midwest Student Clean Energy Conference.
The three-day conference exhibited roundtable discussions, brainstorming sessions and keynote speakers at the Humanities building.
UW senior Lois Rundell, who volunteered at the conference, said the meeting and discussion provided her with hope for the cause.
"So much work and time and people hours have gone into this," Rundell said. "And to just have everything come together … is really great."
The conference was hosted by the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group, a UW student organization that focuses mainly on environmental issues and is part of a larger movement known as the Campus Climate Challenge.
The Challenge aims to reduce carbon emissions on campus by 90 percent by 2050 and is currently active on more than 500 campuses.
Nile Malloy, an organizer for the conference, said one of the main goals of the conference was promoting the achievement of the 2050 energy goal put forward by the Campus Climate Challenge.
"One key thing is to support the legislation that's being [put forward] by [Rep.] Black," Malloy said.
State Rep. Spencer Black, D-Madison, who was Saturday's keynote speaker at the conference, recently introduced the Global Warming Solutions Bill, which aims to reduce Wisconsin's greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020, to the Wisconsin Legislature. If passed, the bill would make Wisconsin a leader in proactive climate change policy.
Black spoke to assembled students about his legislation and the "massive implications" of global warming.
"When we ignore this problem now and put gas in the atmosphere decades down the road, we are truly spending our children's inheritance," Black said.
Black encouraged students in their battle against the "growing menace" of global warming, and cited the Wolf River case as an example of a difficult environmental fight. He reminded students of Wisconsin's legacy of environmental leaders such as John Muir, Aldo Leopold and Gaylord Nelson.
Clean energy is bound to be an issue in the next presidential election, according to Black. He encouraged students to make sure it is a hot-ticket issue, making the fight for clean energy an important priority to Americans.
"It's going to be a tough fight," Black said. "But it's a winnable fight."
The conference was sponsored by Energy Action Coalition, Sierra Student Coalition, UW-Madison's WE CONSERVE campaign, the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies and WISPIRG, and culminated Sunday in a march from Library Mall to the Capitol steps.
"The setup of UW-Madison is very unique," Rundell said. "We can march from the campus to the Capitol and demand reform."
The march, which included "dirty" coal dancers and clean energy dancers, as well as the usual marching chants, was planned by students at the conference beginning Friday. Student ideas became reality literally overnight, as pinwheels for clean energy were made from recycled paper and handed to bystanders with a web address providing more information about the cause of the march.
When the march, which involved hundreds of students, reached its end, the clean energy dancers served as a symbolic message for onlookers.
"I said 'Ooo, it's hot in here — there's too much carbon in the atmosphere,"" students chanted. "Take action, take action and get some satisfaction!"
Anonymous (March 5, 2007 @ 2:30am):
no one cares.
Anonymous (March 5, 2007 @ 3:27am):
Wow...a conference and a "march." That will make a difference. I wish WISPIRG did actual stuff.
Anonymous (March 5, 2007 @ 6:53am):
Nuclear power is the best alternative to reduce carbon burning.
Anonymous (March 5, 2007 @ 9:48am):
looks like 20 people participated in the march. does that really warrant a photo? There are more people in line to take a piss at the red shed than were in that march.
Anonymous (March 5, 2007 @ 2:17pm):
The photo does not do the march justice, as it was taken after the march was over and everyone was dispresed as they headed back from the capitol to campus. Over 100 students marched on the capitol in support of state legislation that will cut carbon emissions using clean sources of energy such as wind and solar. The article failed to mention that Representative Black joined the students for a pre rally press conference that garnered the attention of two news stations. Not bad for some students willing to take to the streets on a Sunday afternoon.
Anonymous (March 5, 2007 @ 3:02pm):
While nuclear power may greatly cut carbon emissions it comes with its own set of risks and problems. Think about the massive melt downs that have occurred at nuclear power plants since they were invented. Compare the number of people that were killed then to the number of people that can be killed if there's a problem with a nuclear power plant to the number that can be killed if something goes wrong with solar or wind energy plants. There's more to clean energy than carbon emissions.
Anonymous (March 5, 2007 @ 3:11pm):
Boring, hippy garbage.
Anonymous (March 5, 2007 @ 3:11pm):
Were they, like, "making a difference" or something?
Anonymous (March 5, 2007 @ 4:04pm):
Does anyone have a clue as to the environmental damage that would result on wide spread use of solar and wind power?
It sure would be nice if, for a change, politicians and the students who march with them would take 10 minutes to actually learn something rather than spout off about things they know nothing about.
Anonymous (March 5, 2007 @ 4:47pm):
"Think about the massive melt downs that have occurred at nuclear power plants since they were invented."
Only two come to mind, TMI and Chernobyl, and only Chernobyl was a real disaster.
More radioactivity is released by coal than even the current design of nuclear plants.
Pebble bed nuclear plants can not melt down. It's more likely that the blades of a wind generator will come off and chop off your head.
PS. Chickengreens like Sen. Kennedy are fighting wind power because they don't want the view from their mansions spoiled.
Anonymous (March 5, 2007 @ 5:21pm):
Anonymous @ 4:04 pm - AHAHAHAHA.... you make me laugh. Because you're wrong. Why don't you cite a source or two? Oh, I know. Because there AREN'T ANY. Wind power is a massive undertaking, and because of this, plans are rigorously evaluated so that they don't cause damage (ie: they're not placed in avian migratory pathways, etc.). And solar panels do take up space, but that space is almost always on top of buildings or other places that are already being used with no benefit. Also, take a look at how much space in the US is taken up by golf courses, for Christ's sake. And they are entirely unproductive. So, in conclusion, please don't make vague statements and try to pass them off as facts. Thanks.
Anonymous (March 5, 2007 @ 5:26pm):
Wow, so much cynicism - you guys must be too hardcore to care about the environment. Because it's so, like, IN, to be a nihilist, or an existentialist, or whatever. Grow up and get a clue. And then get up and DO SOMETHING instead of sitting around and attacking groups who are trying.
Anonymous (March 5, 2007 @ 5:30pm):
Anonymous @ 3:11 pm - I'm glad you listen to your rich white daddy and don't have the ability to formulate opinions of your own. But what I'm more glad about is that you're in the minority on this campus.
Anonymous (March 5, 2007 @ 7:57pm):
5:21
Thank you for going out of my way to prove my point. Have you seen a windfarm? Have you seen one during a high demand period (spring or fall) that actually putting out a reasonable amount of energy on a regular basis? The answer is NO!!! Why? Because when needed the most (summer and winter) the winds are the least. You have to store the energy, that takes batteries, large batteries made of very toxic materials (this assumes you are going to use it to replace much of the current production).
Forget about the birds, I could care less about the birds, the produce CO2, they should all die (just kidding). Where is the money going to come from to put up the infrastructure for windfarms, solar farms, etc to produce power on a large scale? Is everyone going to have a hookup to the grid, properly sychronized in phase and at the correct voltage and frequency to put power out for everyone?
If you would take 5 minutes of your hard earned protest time and actually research the subject, you would learn things are not as easy as you would like them to be.
Solar and wind are good supplements and should be used where practical, however, large scale, they cannot and will not be used. About all solar is good for (and it is very good) is supplimental heating (water and such).
Anonymous (March 5, 2007 @ 9:12pm):
Anonymous @ 4:47pm
Nuclear Power is completely impossible, both economically and in terms of waste storage. It cannot be sustained longterm, especially in the numbers that would be required for it to make a difference.
Anonymous (March 6, 2007 @ 12:01am):
7:57 -
I don't think you quite understand that conservation is not a choice we still have to make. There is no choosing not to switch to renewable, because we can't put it off anymore.
And, just to beat a dead horse - wind farms are placed in areas with as constant of a wind flow as possible. This includes large flat places, offshore, and places where lake-effect winds are consistent. And even though short-term production is variable, annual output only varies a few percent between years. Another source may be necessary to accommodate peak consumption times, but renewables are very feasible for baseline energy needs. Take Denmark - they currently get 20% of their energy from wind power alone. And who says wind power alone is the answer? If we harness all the earth's renewable potential, the 80% reduction in carbon emissions that WISPIRG is calling for (by 2050) is entirely possible.
Anonymous (March 6, 2007 @ 5:20am):
Last time I checked, anytime a "renewable" energy source was burned, it produces CO2 (so much for reducing emissions by 80%). Some MAY burn cleaner... fewer SO's and NOs (and that is great), but I dare say, few in WISPIRG knows a thing about energy production.
Anyhow, I have been affiliated with wind generation in the past, and only once did I see a wind farm produce at near 100% capacity (this one was called Bufallo (sp) Ridge), the nominal was about 50%, and in the winter, it was often negative because the blades weren't turning and heaters had to be used to keep the lubricating oil warm.
Do we need to conserve? I never said we did not (but I would say it is more to save the grid than energy, the grid is at near capacity and lawsuits keep companies from making the changes required to improve it). Conservation is good, it is great, especially for your own wallet, do it!! But good practices start at home. If you thermostat is not set so cold you need a jacket (a light one) or sweater, you are being wasteful (ours is set at 64-65). There are many other things you can do too... but you do it before you tell everyone else to do it.
Anonymous (March 6, 2007 @ 6:12am):
Let us do a little math. This is all based on a Florida Power and Light windfarm in Texas. They are using 1.5 MW turbines, 4.2 turbines per sq mile. A very conservative assumption is 50% capacity per turbine (so you need 2 MW wind capacity for each one MW coal/nuclear). A typical conventional site is less than 3 square miles (that is a VERY large estimate, 1 square mile is more realistic). To produce the energy of a 1000 MW coal/nuclear plant (typical size), a windfarm would have to require over 300 square miles!! Do the math. If you could find a way to double the number per square mile, it would still be 150 square miles! Not a small parcel of land.
Anonymous (March 8, 2007 @ 1:57pm):
5:20 am -
I don't know what kind of renewable energy YOU'RE talking about, but the kind I'M talking about requires no burning.
Wind generation is not perfect, but you're again missing the point entirely - what we are doing (namely, burning fossil fuels) is not working, and we need to use another energy source as much as possible. Also, you don't need to lecture me on conservation - you're preaching to the choir in that regard.
And 6:12 am -
You appear to be suggesting that a coal plant is 100% efficient. That's simply not true. Our very own plant on Charter and Dayton is about 30% efficient (As an aside, it's using boilers that are about 70 years old and it actually is in violation of the Clean Air Act. Even so, the average coal-fired plant is only about 33% efficient.). Windfarms are generally placed offshore where they can't be seen from land, because winds are more consistent there anyways. Also, wind is not the only renewable way to generate power - solar panels can be installed in the currenly wasted space atop large buildings.
And besides - do you have another idea?
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
