OPINION & EDITORIAL
Need for new power plant is more than hot air
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- Politicking destroyed opt-out's proponents (April 14, 2003)
- Madison's annual hip-hop conference falters (April 14, 2003)
- Dear Dave: Post this near your desk (April 17, 2003)
- Redirecting control (April 23, 2003)
- Don't Cut Historical Society Funds (April 29, 2003)
Related Stories:
- Stuck in soot (November 29, 2006)
- Doyle delays, but power plant still a promising proposal (March 27, 2003)
- Coal power plant undermines UW (November 20, 2006)
- Where were WISPIRG and CFACT? (October 20, 2003)
- Board misses point (December 1, 2006)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Friday, January 17, 2003
Combine the university’s need for more hot steam and cold water with Madison Gas and Electric’s desire for extra power-generating capacity, and you have a problem perfectly suited for a natural-gas-powered cogeneration solution. So it is no surprise that the university and MG&E have teamed up to propose just such a power plant to provide heating and cooling for new university buildings and electricity for Madison’s growing West Side.
There are concerns, as there should always be in large government-sponsored projects, over the plant’s cost and size. However, the plant is truly an investment in the university’s and the city’s futures. Without the plant, the university will be unable to expand its BioStar programs, and eventual brownouts will face Madison residents and businesses. The cost of lost research, lost business and lost productivity alone justify the power-plant investment.
Beyond expense, the most common arguments against the plant can all be classified as “not in my backyard” objections. The university’s need for steam and chilled water necessitate the plant be located in close proximity to the university. In fact, the land for the proposed plant is already zoned for it, a fact that diminishes the validity of any arguments coming from neighborhood malcontents.
Environmental concerns have also been raised. The plant will draw significant amounts of water from Lake Mendota, but MG&E says it will be able to treat the water and return it to the watershed without affecting local ecosystems. Of course, natural gas is also a fossil fuel, but it is still one of the cleanest sources of cheap and efficient energy available today. Natural-gas plants emit one-tenth the harmful particulate pollution the cleanest coal-fired plants do. Natural gas is also more abundant than oil, and the United States is less dependent on volatile regions like the Middle East for natural-gas imports.
The plant will produce more power than the university needs at this moment, but thanks to the deregulation of our energy markets, MG&E will be able to sell excess capacity wherever it is needed in the power grid. Having more electricity available on the market should drive down prices for residents all over the region, presuming the Public Service Commission does its part to ensure that MG&E doesn’t pocket unfair profits.
Legitimate concerns accompany any power-plant plan, but it is clear that the university and MG&E have addressed these concerns after careful consideration. The results of their planning and preparation will most certainly benefit students, the regional community and the environment.
