Hardly more than a year has passed since Chancellor Holden Thorp set 2020 as the deadline to make UNC coal-free. Yet that seemingly reasonable goal is beginning to feel more and more out of reach.
The recent discovery that torrefied wood pellets would provide neither a sustainable nor a reliable coal alternative came as added proof of the lack of foresight that has plagued the transition so far. All of the research and planning pointed to torrefied wood pellets as an energy source that would rival coal and not require closed train cars, as normal wood pellets would. But the Energy Task Force failed to realize one critical shortcoming of these pellets: There isn’t a suitable market to provide them.
Rather than waste time and energy throughout the summer in pursuit of these pellets, the University could have learned from the mistakes of others, like the University of Wisconsin, and known that no one was even going to answer a purchasing request.
Even if the Earth Care Products Inc., a Kansas-based wood pellet manufacturer, were able to circumvent Environmental Protection Agency regulations on torrefied wood and provide the University pellets, it would not have fulfilled the task force’s preference for biomass from N.C. forests.
The University was forced to go against this preference after another oversight earlier this year. Transportation issues with Carolina Wood Pellets delayed earlier tests and backed the University into a corner, forcing it to contract with the only remaining choice — Woodfuels Virginia.
The best course for UNC is to slow down. Miscue after miscue has shown that the University is failing to conduct thorough analyses of the available options, or lack thereof in the most recent case.
This approach is the only way to avoid continued delay and wastes of time. It might require a more methodical, drawn-out transition that goes beyond 2020. But it’s more likely to leave UNC with a sustainable coal replacement.
