On the first day of February, a rare winter air-quality advisory was issued for Dane County lasting six days, warning everyone not to engage in strenuous activity and advising children and older adults to avoid outdoor activity completely.
On any given day, Charter Street Power Plant, which was built in 1956 and lacks modern pollution controls, burns approximately five tons of coal, paper and rubber, spewing disgusting amounts of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide and heavy metals like mercury, arsenic and lead into the skies of Madison.
Make no mistake — these are not two isolated facts. Last April, the EPA reported the air more than 150 million people are breathing in 31 different states fails to meet federal health standards for smog. The burning of coal at power plants like the Charter or Blount Street facilities is the largest contributor to air pollution in this country.
Emissions from coal-burning power plants, namely sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide, are the primary cause of smog. Smog is responsible for a host of health problems, including difficulty breathing and reduced lung function, respiratory irritation and, for children, possibly permanent lung damage. Sulfur dioxide and soot are major contributors to asthma, a condition that has reached epidemic proportions in Wisconsin, affecting nearly 500,000 residents, including 100,000 children, according to the American Lung Association.
Further, 450 deaths every year are attributed to power-plant pollution in Wisconsin, according to the Clean Air Task Force.
What is more disheartening than the list of negative health effects faced by residents near the Charter Street plant is that alternatives exist that are cleaner, healthier and more financially sound yet aren’t being pursued by the university as part of the Campus Master Plan. The master plan currently contains neither consideration of clean energy use in favor of coal nor a commitment to green-building practices.
While coal burning is an inherently dirty process, modern pollution controls are capable of significant reductions in the amount of emissions relative to ’50s-era power plants. For example, power plants in Milwaukee have reduced pollution by 90 percent with modern pollution-control technology. Another alternative is burning natural gas in place of coal. The West Campus Cogeneration Facility, a natural-gas-fired facility nearing completion here on campus, could operate for more than three years before producing the amount of sulfur dioxide emitted in one day by the Charter Street plant.
Natural-gas plants reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by half compared to coal. Renewable energy sources like wind turbines and solar panels are also viable alternatives. These sources of energy are pollution free, and the energy that they harvest is completely free.
In addition to alternative energy sources, green-building practices can also be utilized toward reducing the reliance on coal power. Green buildings can help protect the health of occupants, increase productivity and use energy resources more efficiently, reducing the total energy needs of the University of Wisconsin campus.
Some elements of green building might include designs that take advantage of natural lighting, passive solar design, recyclable construction materials or rainwater recovery. A 2003 report to California’s Sustainable Task Force extolled the benefits of green building. Estimates suggested that only a 2 percent increase in initial budget is necessary to accommodate green design, and on average green practices result in 20 percent savings over the life of the building. On-site heating/cooling for each building can reduce energy wasted during generation and transmission. Green buildings use on average 30 percent less energy than conventional buildings and studies have shown that simple technology can result in water use reductions of 23 percent. Also, health benefits from improved indoor environments yield gains in annual productivity. These are just a sampling of the options available to the university to reduce its reliance on coal power.
It is disturbing that our progressive, nationally renowned university doesn’t consider a 50-year-old coal plant without modern pollution controls, or energy- and money-saving green buildings, an issue worthy of consideration for the future of our campus.
The university has many alternatives available that are both environmentally and economically sound. UW has a wonderful opportunity to make clean energy use and green building fundamental considerations as the university looks ahead to the next 20 years. Our university prides itself on being a leader in many areas, and the time is right to be a leader in health and environmental issues. Making clean energy use, green-building designs and the health of the campus community primary concerns of the Campus Master Plan would be a giant step toward that goal.
Benjamin Paulson ([email protected]) is a student at the University of Wisconsin and a member of the Sierra Student Coalition.
