Kris Fronzak

Editor in Chief

Prospective students would be forgiven for not knowing about one of the College’s (literally) dirtiest secrets, since it isn’t searchable on Wooster’s website and, for logistical reasons, isn’t on the route of campus tours.

Moreover, the advertising of “Wooster and Sustainability” on the website focuses only our “progress in becoming a sustainable campus” — not on the reality that is our on-campus coal-powered plant.

The College has inarguably made great strides in improving overall sustainability, with energy-efficient lighting, motion-activated light switches, promoting better recycling and composting practices and better methods of water conservation.

“We’ve reduced our carbon footprint more than the regulation of the EPA,” said Vice President for Finance and Business Laurie Stickelmaier. “Our carbon dioxide footprint has gone from 20,000 to 11,000 tons per year as a result of changes made.”

And in case you missed it, millions upon millions of dollars have gone to our brand new Scot Center. The new building features an enormous solar roof and promises to be significantly more attractive, usable and environmentally friendly than the cramped, cave-like recesses of the old Physical Education Center. And though the initial cost is high, money saved from buying back the solar energy in the roof should end up reducing the cost from one million to only $200,000.

But criticism toward the Scot Center remains. Matt Policastro ’13, the current president of campus sustainability group Greenhouse, discussed the issue at length last week.

“The solar roof is a good symbol and it’s very visible, but the actual impact it’s making is just not enough. Shutting down the coal plant, especially in light of the recent rhetoric from the administration, would be a very real step for campus sustainability,” said Policastro.

Greenhouse has been actively campaigning against the plant, in an effort to raise awareness of both its existence and the problems it creates in air quality and efficiency. They’re hoping to build up steam about the issue, and increase consensus in the student body. To that effect, the group has already petitioned outside of Lowry.

“We want to say definitively that the students want something to change, and are trying to hold the administration accountable,” explained Policastro. “Coal is the dirtiest way to generate energy, and burning anything is an inefficient process.”

Unfortunately, shutting down the plant isn’t just a matter of the administration. Trustees hold the keys to any real change on campus, due to the “Campus Facilities Master Plan.” Created with an eye toward “guiding campus stewardship and development,” in the words of President Grant Cornwell, the master plan is currently juggling about 25 initiatives, to be acted on within the time frame of five, 10, or even 15-20 years.

Trustees will weigh the merits of each of these initiatives in March, and make final decisions in June. Until then, no large-scale upgrades will be done to the power plant.

“I’m a firm believer in sustainability and would like to see the plant converted sooner rather than later. But we have a lot of strong needs on this campus. It’s a matter of priorities and what needs to come first,” said Stickelmaier.

These needs, according to Stickelmaier, include renovations to Mateer Hall, the addition of a new pool and improving many residence halls. More unusual possibilities include altering the exterior of McGaw Chapel and converting the golf course into space for academics and residence halls.

Where does the coal plant stand in this wealth of possibilities? It’s difficult to say. Part of the issue is that the area’s alternative energy sources are inconsistent at best, and completely lacking or enormously expensive at worst. The College has looked into alternatives such as geothermal, thermal, biomass and wind, and has decided that natural gas is the only feasible option.

“It’ll cost about 3.5 million dollars to convert the plant to natural gas, and the operating cost won’t be any higher,” said Stickelmaier.

One of the fears in a conversion to natural gas is the controversial issue of hydrologic “fracking,” which involves pumping water into rocks to expose deposits of shale gas deep beneath the Earth’s surface. It’s a highly efficient way to gather natural gas, but comes with a host of concerns.

“From an economic standpoint, fracking makes a lot of sense. But the consternation has been all of the side effects. You see stuff like contaminants entering water supplies…Toxins are pumped into the shale, and since the shale isn’t an absorbent rock, the toxins leak everywhere. There just hasn’t been enough rigorous scientific research done for it to be an environmentally friendly possibility,” said Policastro.

Stickelmaier and Director of Physical Plant Operations Doug Laditka have explained that the administration hopes to find a fracking solution before the plant is renovated.

Though not an optimal plan, finding a solution by the time of renovation may be a very real possibility, since the reality is that our coal plant may not go anywhere in the near future. A renovated library and a new gym, yes, but this overlooked building that is quietly responsible for every student’s showers, heating, and summer air conditioning? No.

Policastro agrees. “Developing the Scot Center and the now CoRE library are really great improvements. But I think there’s a real disconnect between what students think is important on campus and what the administration does. These developments look really good, but there are a lot of problems on campus that aren’t as visible, but just as real.”