The Orange County Board of Commissioners is moving forward with a plan that will allow a solar farm to be built on a 52-acre patch of land off of Highway 70 West.
The plan was made by solar energy companies Calvert Energy and ESA Renewables. Calvert Energy CEO Brian Quinlan presented the plan to the board Monday night. Quinlan says the companies need approval of a special permit to allow for the zoning of the solar panels.
“It’s been reviewed fairly extensively by both the clearing house at the state level with a variety of different departments here at the county level.”
Quinlan also says the 52-acres of land are the perfect type to develop this type of solar project.
“The site is surrounded by a lot of wetlands and water features, which makes it a difficult development from a higher-intensity perspective. But for lower intensity development, like a solar project, it works very well.”
But even though the land is good for the solar panels, Commissioner Barry Jacobs asked at the hearing whether the solar panels would be bad for animals already living on the land.
Chris Sandifer is an engineering consultant for solar farm siting. He attended the hearing to answer questions and provide testimony. He says nothing would be harmed.
“No sir. I’m not aware of any study that shows that it causes wildlife a problem.”
Sandifer also says the panels won’t harm people either.
“There’s no smell; there’s no dust; there’s no radiation; these panels use no nuclear radiation.”
Quinlan says the point of the solar farm is to do good and not bad to all who live in Orange County.
“Solar projects are safe for the community. They develop their power at a low-voltage level. All of the wiring and components are underwriter laboratory approved, the design is approved by the county, we have to get a construction permit to make sure that we’re meeting all the local codes.”
If approved, nce the design and construction process are started, the plan is expected to take about six months to install once the design and construction process has started.http://chapelboro.com/featured/solar-farm-plan-moving-forward-orange-county
Last week in Part I of this series, I discussed the science of wood pellets and the drivers behind the dramatic increase in their production in the southeast United States. The majority of these wood pellets are being shipped to Europe, particularly, the United Kingdom where they are supplanting coal as a fuel source for electricity production. (This situation strikes me as particularly ironic, but in order to not throw of the thread of our discussion, I have included my observations on this as an endnote.)
The wood pellet boom is having a noteworthy impact on North Carolina. Our forests are being harvested for the pellets, several existing and planned wood pellet production facilities are located in the Tar Heel State, and much of their production heads to Europe through the Port of Wilmington. So is this trend a boon or a bane to North Carolina? The topics we need to consider before answering this question are listed below.
In order to attempt to answer these questions, I have drawn from the website of the U.S. Industrial Pellet Association (USIPA), a pro-wood pellet lobbying association, and the Dogwood Alliance, an environmental lobbying group which is opposed to wood pellet production. Also, as is always the case, I am drawing from my own engineering judgment; thus, any errors in that arena are my own.
What are the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts of Wood Pellets?
Fossil fuel use contributes to global warming and ocean acidification by extracting carbon from outside of the biosphere and releasing into the air as carbon dioxide. In contrast, burning biomass such as trees, grass, or manure does not introduce additional carbon into the biosphere. From this limited perspective, all biomass fuel options have a leg up on coal, petroleum, or natural gas. However, biomass fuel sources come with some further complications. For example, as I explained in Ethanol, It’s Not Just for Breakfast Anymore, you have to use approximately 1 Btu of fossil fuel energy to make 1 Btu of ethanol energy. Therefore, the production of ethanol serves more as a mechanism to provide subsidies to industrial agriculture companies who grow corn than as a true source of sustainable energy.
When considering the greenhouse gas impacts of a particular biofuel one needs to consider the balance between the rate at which carbon dioxide which is being removed from the atmosphere while the biomass is growing and the rate at which carbon dioxide is being released when you burn that biomass. For example, let’s say we were using a field of grasses as a fuel source. First, the grass is harvested and burned for heat. Then, after the grass grows back to its previous height, the amount of carbon dioxide that was produced as it burned has been recaptured and incorporated back into the grass. Since the lag time between cutting the grass and its full regrowth is short, using grass as fuel is effectively greenhouse gas neutral. (Please note that I am ignoring secondary factors such as carbon sequestration in the soil for simplicity.)
Using trees as a biomass fuel source presents the complicating factor of slow growth. Therefore, when trees are used as fuel, it is quite easy and often tempting to cut them down faster than they can regrow. When this happens, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increases. According to the USIPA, net deforestation in the Southeast is not occurring, at least not yet. I did not find any arguments to the contrary on the Dogwood Alliance’s website, however, there are some additional subtleties about tree harvesting that I will discuss below that require some additional examination. Below I’ll address why looking at the net amount of area occupied by trees may not tell the whole story.
What parts of the tree are being used to make the pellets?
The potential impact of the use of wood pellets on the Greenhouse Effect, is strongly influenced by which parts of the tree are incorporated into the pellets. For example, if you use the trunk for lumber and make pellets from just sawdust and branches, then much less carbon dioxide is released compared to burning the whole tree.
If you look at the Sustainability tab of the USIPA website, you will find the following statements. The question, “What goes into a typical pellet?” is raised. And the answer given is, “mill residue, tops and limbs, thinnings, and low-quality wood.” This answer implies that whole trees are not typically used in wood pellets.
The Dogwood Alliance disputes the USIPA claims and asserts that whole trees are the primary feedstock for wood pellets. To back up this claim they include aerial photography of wood pellet manufacturing sites showing large piles of whole trees awaiting their turn to be turned into pellets. In addition, the Dogwood Alliance shows pictures from the websites of several large pellet companies which clearly show whole trees being staged as raw materials for the pellets. The text on these websites also suggest that whole trees are being used.
I find the data presented by the Dogwood Alliance that whole trees are being used to be convincing. Furthermore, it seems hard to imagine that power plants in Europe, which need a consistent and substantial fuel supply, could be adequately supplied from just sawdust and twigs. The volume of biomass with this approach would be quite low and it would also be seasonal since the amount of sawdust generated would ebb and flow with fluctuations in home construction in the U.S.
What is the impact on our NC forests?
A key risk in using wood as a fuel is deforestation, which results in loss of wildlife habitat, soil erosion, and decline of surface water quality. So is deforestation happening here? The USIPA has two statements on their website which address this question. They are, “U.S. Forests are not being clear cut for the Industrial Pellet Industry”, and, “Net growth of forests in the southern U.S. far exceeds removal.” Countering this perspective, the Dogwood Alliance provides data from the United States Forestry Service that healthy, diverse forests are being converted to pine tree plantations. According the Forestry Service, pine tree plantations covered 2 million acres in the 1950s and cover 40 million acres today. Pine tree plantations are a monoculture, which provide far inferior habitats for wildlife than a true forest.
I don’t have data on the conversion of forestland in NC into pine plantations. However, based on the national data from the Forestry Service it seems quite likely.
What is the economic impact on the state of NC as well as the communities where logging and pellet production occur?
The growth of the wood pellet industry in North Carolina is contributing to increased economic activity both in terms of increased capital investment and in the creation of manufacturing jobs. As such, the McCrory administration has welcomed these developments.
The economic impact on individual communities is a more difficult question to assess. Industries that solely extract raw materials compared to those that add value to raw materials through further processing create far less wealth. For example, locations where oil is extracted do not do as well as locations where oil is refined into value-added products. From this perspective, having a wood pellet processing facility, which adds value to the raw timber products, is better than simply having your forests harvested.
The risk for local communities stems more from the timber harvesting and transport activities. Communities need some protection against the problems associated with deforestation that I listed above. For example, tree harvesting near water ways needs to be carefully managed. Also, there should be some provision to reimburse local communities if increased traffic of heavy timber equipment causes damage to local roads.
After sorting through these topics it seems to me that the wood pellet industry is a more of a bane than a boon to North Carolina. As the Europeans continue to build wood pellet burning power plants, demand will rise so the price will rise. This will provide stronger incentives over time to cut more and more timber in North Carolina, adding to the greenhouse effect and degrading the quality and likely the extent of our woodlands.
I should point out, however, that it is not impossible to run a sustainable wood pellet industry, but this would require strong regulation and consistent oversight. Unfortunately, the way that the current administration in North Carolina has been handling environmental issues such as fracking regulation and ground water protection does not give me confidence that the wood pellet industry will be regulated in an environmentally sustainable manner.
Jeff Danner talked about this week’s column on WCHL with Aaron Keck.
Have a comment or question? Use the interface below or send me an email to email@example.com. Think that this column includes important points that others should consider? Share a link to this column on Facebook or Twitter. Want more Common Science? Follow me on Twitter on @Commonscience.
Burning trees as a fuel is more of a 16th than a 21st century technology. The world and North Caroline would be better off if the U.K. was building solar and wind power electric plants instead of burning trees. However, they are not burning their own trees, their burning ours. The primary reason that the Europeans colonized the Americas was to exploit the land for its raw materials such as trees. In order to keep England rich and America poor, they forbade the colonies from developing wealth-creating processing industries. So we were allowed to grow cotton not make cloth or grow tobacco but not make cigars. This unbalance economic dynamic was a key driver in the American Revolution. Therefore, I find it to be rather ironic that 240 years later our former colonizers are harvesting our forests for fuel.http://chapelboro.com/columns/common-science/wood-pellets-bane-or-boon-for-nc-part-ii
Google, Apple and Facebook sent a letter to North Carolina legislators urging them not to change the state’s renewable energy laws. State representatives are considering a bill that green energy advocates say would negatively impact the renewable energy sector.
The tech giants’ letter urges legislators not to adopt House Bill 332. The proposed legislation would make significant changes to the state’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (REPS).
The REPS requires utility companies to buy a certain percentage of their energy from renewable sources, such as solar or wind power. The REPS also requires utilities to increase the percentage of clean energy they buy over time. Allison Eckley of the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association (NCSEA) says the REPS has been key for the growth of green energy companies in North Carolina, and to keeping rates down for consumers.
“We’ve already seen the downward pressure on electric bills that these policies have had,” Eckley said.
House Bill 332 wouldn’t get rid of the REPS, but it would freeze the REPS requirement at its current 6 percent. Google, Apple and Facebook expressed concern in last week’s letter to legislators that limiting the REPS would hold back the growth of North Carolina’s renewable energy sector. The three companies employ 200 people in North Carolina and have invested $2.7 billion in the state. More than half of their investments are in the renewable energy sector, according to a statement from NCSEA.
“They’ve been following the policy developments here because they consider clean energy as a supplier to that power as a priority. And that’s part of the reason, as they say in the letter, that they selected North Carolina instead of other states in the Southeast that also have cheaper electricity,” Eckley said.
House Bill 332 is co-sponsored by Rep. Mike Hager, a former Duke Energy employee. He and other proponents of House Bill 332 say the REPS unfairly support the renewable energy industry over other sectors. Becki Gray, from the Raleigh-based conservative think-tank, the John Locke Foundation, agrees.
“This mandate, these special favors that are granted to the solar industry at the expense of taxpayers is not good policy. It doesn’t lead to good economic growth,” Gray said.
Gray argues the opposite of Google, Facebook and Apple when it comes to the REPS’ downward pressure on rates.
“The studies that we’ve seen show that that is not true, that the costs increase with the requirement that a certain percentage of your energy has to come from more expensive sources,” she said.
House Bill 332 is being debated in the Senate. For now, the one thing both sides can agree on is the need for more research on the REPS’ economic impact.http://chapelboro.com/news/state-government/google-apple-facebook-send-letter-to-nc-legislators
The UNC Institute for the Environment is a collaborative, cross-departmental organization which focuses its research on critical issues that lie at the heart of our most pressing environmental challenges. Specific areas of focus include: sustainable communities, energy and the environment, watershed science and management, and environmental modeling.
This week the Institute is hosting 28 local high school students who will spend a week on the campus of UNC exploring topics related to current energy use, climate change, alternative energy and sustainability as part of the Climate Leadership and Energy Awareness Program (Climate LEAP). Science educators from the UNC Institute for the Environment (IE) and the Morehead Planetarium and Science Center (MPSC) along with scientists from UNC will contribute to programming and lead hands-on sessions and lab tours. The program will enable students to take part in hands-on STEM activities such as the construction and testing of dye-sensitized solar cells and wind turbines. Students will take field trips to locations such as the UNC co-generation plant, chemistry laboratories at the UNC-based Energy Frontier Research Center and the Carolina Campus Community Garden.
Funded by the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, this student science enrichment program is free and participants are paid a $500 stipend for attending the summer program and participating in at least four follow-up activities during the academic year. In addition, students are asked to conduct a community outreach project to educate others about energy, climate change, and/or sustainability.
The program is lead by Dana Haine, K-12 Science Education Manager for the Institute and proud member of Chapel Hill High School’s class of 1991. Haine credits her outstanding CHHS science teachers for inspiring her to pursue a career in science. In the five years that the Environmental Institute has been running the program, she has seen how it inspires students to seek out more science classes in high school and select STEM related majors in college. When not running the Climate LEAP program Haine and her colleague hold workshops for K-12 science teachers and are available as a resource for educators across the state.
The Environmental Institute provides yet another example of the broad, positive reach of UNC in our education community. It’s good to know that our aspiring scientists have programs like this one available to encourage their ambitions.http://chapelboro.com/news/unc/unc-program-promotes-energy-awareness-among-local-hs-students
(Image via PoweringANation.org.)
A UNC student-run organization called “Powering A Nation” has unveiled its newest documentary project: “Whole Hog,” an online multimedia exploration of North Carolina’s complex hog industry.
The hog industry is central to the state’s economy, particularly in eastern North Carolina where the tobacco industry is in decline. But it also comes with pitfalls, ranging from the environmental (health issues raised by the spraying of hog waste onto farms as fertilizer) to the economic (the decreasing power of individual small farmers as the industry grows more and more consolidated into fewer and fewer hands).
Available online at WholeHogNC.org, the “Whole Hog” project consists of “written pieces, video stories and graphic design elements” created by six UNC fellows. “Powering A Nation” has been active for six years, creating projects like this that examine various aspects of the energy issue in America – but editor-in-chief Kelly Creedon says this is the first of their projects with a North Carolina-specific focus.
Kelly Creedon, design editor Grayson Mendenhall, managing editor Jess Clark, and graphics editor Bailey Seitter joined Aaron Keck in WCHL studios to discuss the project, a day after its online launch.
Over the past few weeks, I have seen many stories about propane shortages in the United States. As a result of these shortages, prices for propane have nearly doubled from around $2.20 per gallon at the end of last year to over $4.00 per gallon this week. This situation struck me as quite odd. We should be nearly drowning in propane at the moment. So I decided to try to figure out what was going on.
As usual, let’s start with the background. Propane is a small, simple hydrocarbon with the chemical formula C3H8. At normal temperatures and pressures, propane is a gas. By applying a modest amount of pressure you can induce it to liquefy, which is what comes in the propane tank you may be using for the grill on the back porch.
Three quarters of propane production in the U.S. comes from the refining of natural gas. The primary component of natural gas is methane (CH4). Mixed in with the methane are larger hydrocarbons such as ethane (C2H6), propane and butane (C4H10). Before natural gas can be put through a pipeline (the only economical way that it can be transported long distances), most of the propane and butane must be removed, thus resulting in most of our supply of propane and butane. Butane is what is used in most cigarette lighters.
The other 25% of propane production in the U.S. comes from petroleum refining. In order to make fuels such as gasoline and diesel from crude petroleum, there is a processing step called cracking. Cracking is just what it sounds like, the breaking up of larger hydrocarbon molecules into smaller ones. Some of these smaller molecules are propane, resulting in the rest of our propane supply.
Propane is used almost exclusively as a fuel for heating. The breakdown of propane consumption in the U.S. is shown below:
Industrial heating 50%
Residential/recreational heating 42%
Agricultural (e.g. drying grain) 7%
Due to the implementation of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) as a drilling technology, production rates of natural gas and petroleum in the U.S. have both increased approximately 15-20% since 2008. Therefore, production of propane, which is recovered from both of these sources, has also increased by this amount.
The increase in supply has resulted in a dramatic decrease in the price of refined natural gas, which has inspired power companies all across the country to convert from coal to natural gas for fuel. So I set about trying to determine how there could be a shortage of propane and a surplus of refined natural gas at the same time.
I checked U.S. propane consumption to see if increases in demand were outpacing the large increase in supply. The U.S. Energy Information Administration data shows that propane consumption in both October and November of 2013 was slightly above normal while use in December had fallen back to within the norm. This small increase in demand last fall could have put some strain on supply, but not enough to explain the dramatic price spikes on its own.
Then the likely answer occurred to me. Since natural gas can only be transported in an economically feasible manner via pipeline, nearly all of U.S. production is consumed domestically. Propane gas can easily and economically be compressed to a liquid. Liquids are easy to transport and, thus, easy to export.
That turned out to be the answer to the mystery. In 2008, only 5% of U.S propane production was exported. By 2013, driven in large part by high demand in Asia, the amount exported increased to 20%!
Let’s work the numbers. In 2008, the U.S. produced an average of 1.8 million barrels a day of propane, exporting 0.1 million barrels and leaving 1.7 million for domestic use. By 2013, production had increased 20% to 2.16 million barrels a day, but now 0.43 million of these were exported, leaving just 1.73 million for domestic use. As you can see, essentially all of the production increase since 2008 has been allocated to export.
The consumption of all fuels in the U.S. increased along with the growth of both population and the economy. Therefore, while the 1.7 million barrels a day of propane met demand in 2008 – a year with a weak economy – the 1.73 million barrels a day allocated to domestic use were just barely enough for 2013. As a result, even the minor increase in demand which occurred last fall was enough to cause a large spike in price.
This chain of events which led to the propane shortage this winter warrants some additional reflection and analysis. Consider the following timeline:
• In 2004-2005, natural gas production in the U.S. from traditional extraction technologies was not keeping pace with the demand and resulting in dramatic price increases.
• The high price for natural gas was a primary driver in the dramatic expansion of fracking in the U.S., which significantly increased the supply of natural gas and, thereby, caused a drop in its price.
• Fracking also brought about a large increase in propane supply.
• Because drilling companies are compelled to maximize near-term shareholder return, the surplus propane is being exported.
• Ensuring that U.S. citizens benefit from the increased propane supply in the form of lower prices stemming from surplus domestic supply would require the type of government regulation of the energy sector which is vociferously opposed by Republicans.
• Most homes which use propane for home heating and kitchen cooking, the people who are most harmed by the price increases, are located in rural areas.
• Rural areas tend to steadfastly vote Republican.
When the Republican politicians who represent those harmed by these price increases are pressed to provide an explanation for why their constituents’ heating bills have doubled, they tend to offer a list of talking points about excess government regulation. They offer the libertarian vision that if only the oil companies were free of government constraints, all would be well. As I laid out for you above, this explanation is demonstrably false.
When I ran unsuccessfully for a seat on the CHCCS Board of Education in 2005, I campaigned on my commitment to data-based decision making. That phrase lacks “zing,” which may explain why engineers make for mediocre political candidates. To me, though, the current domestic propane price increase is a perfect example of the need for data-based governance. The data tells us that the propane shortage in the U.S. is the result of the rise in exports. Our lawmakers should make policy based on this data to ensure that American citizens reap the benefits of increased American energy production. For those of you I confused back in 2005, this is what I meant.
Have a comment or question? Use the comment interface below or send me an email to firstname.lastname@example.org://chapelboro.com/columns/common-science/case-missing-propane
CHARLOTTE – The merger between Duke Energy and Progress Energy has combined two utilities under one name, but the operations of the company remain as two units.
Duke Energy spokesperson Jeff Brooks says, while it’s a possibility that one day the company will merge the entire function of the two utilities into one, the main focus now is on bringing the internal operations together.
“We have Duke Energy Carolinas in the western half of the state and then Duke Energy Progress—which is the former Progress Energy footprint—that serves customers in the eastern half of the state and Asheville,” Brooks says.
Duke Energy now serves 3.2 million customers in 83 of the state’s 100 counties and is the nation’s largest utility company.
Brooks says it helps to remember that if you were a customer of Duke Energy before the merger, you’re still under the Duke Energy utility; if you were a Progress Energy customer, you are now under the Duke Energy Progress utility.
He says a major positive to the merger is the distribution of electricity.
“We, for example, now jointly dispatch our generation fleet—so in other words, our power plants,” Brooks says. “Even though they belong to the two separate utilities, we think of them as one fleet in the way that we dispatch them day-to-day to support customer needs.”
Brooks says the company has recognized the growing pains. He says one of the biggest problem areas is in the reporting of power outages.
“Outage reporting has been one area where we’ve seen some instances of customers getting confused as to which system they should use,” Brooks says. “But the main thing that helps is if they go to duke-energy.com, for the customer it will ask them where are you located? So it will ask them to enter their service address, or they can select which area they’re in, and once they do that, it can remember where they were when they come back to the sites.”
Duke Energy provides customer service for both utilities for questions about billing and payments, moving service, outages, and other topics.
CHAPEL HILL – This weekend will be the last NC sales tax holiday with the Energy Star qualified products tax exemption.
The Energy Star tax holiday began right after midnight on Friday and will continue until 11:59 p.m. Sunday night. The holiday applies to Energy Star labeled washers, refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, and more.
Matt Schumann is the co-owner of Kitchen and Bath Galleries in Chapel Hill. He says the tax-free weekend brings a lot of business to their store.
“We do about two months of business in two days,” he says. “It’s a good shot in the arm–stimulates our business.”
(Kitchen and Bath in Chapel Hill will not be open on Sunday, so Schumann’s encouraging people to come out before 4:00 p.m. Saturday.)
Elsewhere in Chapel Hill, Lowe’s assistant manager Howie Milligan says the weekend brings in more people, but the main impact of the tax exemption is to spread awareness and knowledge on energy conservation.
The Energy Star tax holiday is in its sixth and final year. Schumann says although this will be the last year of the Energy Star tax holiday they expect to continue sales in future years.
“Certainly I think we’ll lose a little of that business, but…in the long run I think it will all even out, and I think sales will continue on the same pace,” he says.http://chapelboro.com/news/business/last-nc-sales-tax-holiday-ends-this-weekend
CARRBORO – Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation has begun evaluating the effectiveness of light emitting diode (LED) street and security lighting as a replacement for current lights in Carrboro.
Existing lights use either mercury vapor (MV) or high pressure sodium (HPS). A member from Piedmont Electric, Richard Mabbott, says that there a few lights in Anderson Park that they want to use to test different LED lights.
“What we want to do is replace some of those fixtures, about four of those fixtures, the 100 watt high pressure sodiums (HPS), with LED fixtures, and the one 250 watt high pressure sodium in the dog area with a 160 watt LED fixture” Mabbott says.
Replacing some of the existing HPS fixtures located in Anderson Park with LED fixtures will be at no cost to the Town of Carrboro until the evaluation is completed.
While evaluating the lights, Piedmont will monitor for efficiency, reliability, coverage and quality of the light compared to the current ones. Mabbott says they may put up signs in the park to let people know and to gain feedback from those who use the park.
“There has been some discussion about maybe some signage to inform folks on what’s going on, and solicit their input as it relates to what they think about the quality of light,” Mabbott commentes. “could just try to get feedback from the users of the park.”
LED outdoor and roadway lighting has the potential to reduce energy use by half and reduce our carbon footprint by more than 1,500 tons in carbon emissions. Mabbott says that although the LED’s will save on energy, there could be higher maintenance costs when finding the right LED fixture.
“Hopefully use about half the energy as the high pressure sodium light (HPS) and would have the effect of reducing the carbon footprint about half.” Mabbott claims. “There’s savings in energy, but the fixtures cost more, and we’re not exactly sure how that’s going to shake out until we determine what a good fixture is.”
This project at Anderson Park is just one of the many test sites around Piedmont’s territory that will help determine what effective LED fixture may be used.http://chapelboro.com/news/piedmont-to-start-testing-led-lights-in-anderson-park
CHAPEL HILL – The UNC Board of Governors is working to cut energy and water costs for the schools to make a more efficient system and President Tom Ross says the schools are making small changes to save big.
“You may recall that our strategic plan identifies some key areas of work, like including energy-related research, analysis, instruction, and outreach, where with targeted investments UNC, we believe, can make a real and meaningful difference,” Ross says.
The UNC system averages $225 million per year on energy and water costs. Since last year the university system has saved $63 million in energy costs and $13.7 million in water costs. Since the 2002-2003 school year the total equals $297 million in savings.
System wide, the schools have managed to cut electricity by 20 percent and water by 40 percent, and President Ross says there are more plans to continue making the University more efficient.
“To date, this board has authorized 15 guaranteed energy performance projects across the system,” Ross says. “Ten of these projects are currently under contract producing energy savings of more than $10 million per year.”
Current energy sources can be costly in terms of money and for the environment. The UNC system has often been at the forefront of innovation and new ideas, and energy is no different. Ross says that UNC will stay at the forefront when dealing with energy and water to improve the system.
“Recognizing that most sources of easily accessible energy are limited and that many are non-renewable, the plan calls for UNC to be in the forefront, in collaboration with private industry and non-profit organizations and making discoveries that will fuel our state and the world in the future,” Ross says.
The University schools have worked to reduce costs of energy and water by substantial amounts. However, Ross says that they will continue to work and cut costs for expenses like water and energy.
“But we know we can do more, and we have as a collective goal in our university system to save $1 billion over the next 20 years in water and energy costs,” Ross says. “And while the financial savings are important, we will also be helping to preserve our natural and environmental resources for future generations. “Water, for example, is, we believe, the new precious metal, and we have to be sure its preserved as a public asset and that we protect our water supplies and find new ways to reduce consumption.”
UNC has implemented many ways to conserve water, like grey water in the bathrooms. The University says plans like these will continue to appear as it works to conserve resources.http://chapelboro.com/news/unc/unc-bog-discuss-energy-and-water-saving