Duke’s Proposed Gas Plant
Duke University and Duke Energy have proposed to
build a brand-new, 21 megawatt natural gas-fired
combined heat and power (CHP) plant on our campus.
The plant would generate electricity, steam, and hot
water. Duke University would purchase steam and hot
water directly from the plant. The electricity generated
would flow onto the grid.
Duke Energy will build, own, and operate the plant and
is actively seeking to replicate this plant on other
college campuses.
The proposed plant is set to begin operation as early as
September 2018 and, according to the May
announcement, is intended to operate for at least 35
years.1
The plant would cost approximately $55 million, with
Duke University investing $7 million.
---
Claims by the Administration & Our Responses
CLIMATE
Claims:
Duke University would see a 24% reduction of its current energy-related carbon footprint as a result of this plant.
The University is unable to substantially increase its consumption of renewable energy in the present and must take
incremental steps.
Our response:
There exists significant scientific uncertainty about climate benefits from natural gas: Despite the efficiency of CHP and
the cleaner combustion of natural gas, gas production and transportation results in significant leaks of methane (leaks of
up to 12% of all gas production in fracked gas,2 which accounts for 67% of all gas production3). Methane is a greenhouse
gas 86 times more powerful than carbon dioxide and has a much larger immediate impact on global temperatures and
thus on near-term climate change mitigation.4 Because of the continued debate over the magnitude of methane leaks,
the university must not hastily commit to a fuel whose climate costs may outweigh its benefits.
The renewable energy landscape is rapidly changing: Duke University did not do any comprehensive analysis of
alternative options before committing to this CHP project. Duke must not merely consider the renewable energy
landscape as it exists today, but also future trends over the course of the proposed plant's lifetime. The cost of solar has
dropped 63% since 2011 and this price will continue to fall.5 Meanwhile, natural gas prices are projected to rise.6
Duke University can shape policy to facilitate renewable energy growth: Barriers to renewable energy growth in North
Carolina are largely due to poor policy, not infeasibility. Duke Energy has been hugely culpable in the preservation of
these policies that hinder distributed renewable energy growth.7 Just this spring, Duke University wrote a public letter to
state legislators advocating for the legalization of third-party energy sales – Duke should continue this strong
environmental leadership rather than making unnecessary fossil fuel compromises.8
Duke Climate Coalition
TRANSPARENCY
Claim: The plant proposal was reviewed by the Campus Sustainability Committee (CSC) and the Facilities and
Environment Committee of the Board of Trustees (BOT).
Our response: There is no record of the proposed plant in any CSC meeting notes, and the faculty co-chair of the CSC
has confirmed that the CSC was not informed about the proposal.9 In addition, BOT operations are typically closed to the
public and do not have significant student or faculty participation. A decision of this magnitude must be preceded by a
transparent, campus-wide dialogue and review process to take into account the expertise of faculty and the interests of
students, especially given Duke University’s commitment to “shar[ing] the knowledge of faculty and students to address
pressing global issues.”10
BACKUP GENERATION
Claim: The gas plant would allow Duke University to provide backup generation for the campus and especially for the
hospital. The hospital currently uses diesel generators during emergencies, which is a dirtier source of energy than
natural gas.
Our response:
There has been no evidence that existing generators are insufficient to provide electricity during times of emergency.
The CHP plant does not guarantee reliable power: disruptions to natural gas supply, disruption of transmission between
the plant and the hospital, or a system-wide catastrophe across Duke Energy’s grid could all trigger plant failure.
The climate impacts of decades-long reliance on natural gas is magnitudes worse for climate than the impacts of hourslong use of diesel during temporary blackouts.
COST SAVINGS
Claim: Duke University will save $2-3 million per year by purchasing steam and hot water to offset our own generation.
Our response: The cost paid for fossil fuels does not accurately capture the costs of fossil fuels to public health and the
environment. Duke University has already made clear that it is willing to make financial investments into projects that
will benefit its students and its future. Cost savings alone are an insufficient justification for a project with so many other
climate and health uncertainties.
1
J. Downey (2016). How a $55M Duke Energy plant could cut Duke University’s carbon emissions. Charlotte Business Journal.
http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2016/05/09/how-a-55-million-duke-energy-power-and-steam-plant.html
2 R. W. Howarth (2015). Methane emissions and climatic warming risk from hydraulic fracturing and shale gas development: implications for policy.
Energy and Emission Control Technologies 3, 45-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/EECT.S61539
3 Energy Information Administration (2016). Hydraulically fractured wells provide two-thirds of U.S. natural gas production.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26112
4 G. Myhre, et al. (2013). Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5 Solar Energy Industries Association (2016). Solar Industry Data. http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-industry-data.
6 Energy Information Administration (2016). Short-Term Energy Outlook. https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/natgas.cfm
7 J. Downey (2015). Duke Energy, ElectriCities oppose N.C. bill to let independents sell power to their customers. Charlotte Business Journal.
http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/energy/2015/03/duke-energy-electricities-oppose-n-c-bill-to-let.html
8 A. Xie and C. Ballentine (2016). University offers support for third-party energy sales with open letter to state representative. Duke Chronicle.
http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2016/04/university-offers-support-for-third-party-energy-sales-with-open-letter-to-state-representative
9 A. Xie (2016). Students and faculty question proposal for Duke Energy facility on campus. Duke Chronicle.
http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2016/09/students-and-faculty-question-decision-to-install-duke-energy-power-plant-on-campus
10 Duke University Climate Action Plan (2009). Executive Summary.
Duke Climate Coalition