In an effort to cut its reliance on oil and gas, a team of consultants is recommending UAF expand its use of coal to supply campus energy.

"If we had additional coal units installed right now, it's six figure savings," said Mike Ruckhaus, senior project manager with Facility Services Division of Design and Construction. "It's not trivial."

The consulting firm, GLHN Architects and Engineers of Tucson, Ariz., says adding a new coal boiler to the Atkinson Power Plant would save UAF more than $7.6 million by 2025.

"Coal, purchased by the university under a long-term contract, is a stable, reliable commodity when compared to fuel oil or natural gas alternatives," the report says.

Increasing coal usage does require a hefty capital investment, however, mostly because UAF would need to buy a new boiler. The consultant's plan carries a price tag of $200 million, with $63 million going to the Atkinson's renewal and $137 million intended for expansion.

The Board of Regents heard the consultants' recommendations last week during its meeting in Anchorage on Thursday and Friday. The final GLHN report is still in draft form, but UAF provided the Sun Star a copy.

The analysis focuses mostly on what is the best solution economically. It does not factor in the environment, which could be dangerous, said Nancy Fresco, a spokeswoman for the Fairbanks-based conservation nonprofit Northern Alaska Environmental Center.

"From an environmental perspective, going to coal is in the wrong direction," Fresco said. "There's ways of burning coal cleaner, but it's still a dirtier fuel."

UAF should explore other alternatives beside coal, Fresco said. With the recent forest fires in mind, many residents of Fairbanks have begun cutting down black spruce trees to create a clear zone. Fresco said the wood could be used to help fire the plant.

While Atkinson has served the campus well for over 30 years, the past seven years has seen significant growth in energy consumption. Skyrocketing oil prices have left their dent on the power plant financially, Ruckhaus said.

"Presently, the power plant is mostly run on coal and supplemented on oil," Ruckhaus said. "But the oil use has increased in recent years."

In 2005, UAF spent $3.36 million on coal energy, according a regent report, compared to $2.19 million on oil and zero on natural gas.

"Generally, over the long term, oil will continue to go up across the board," Ruckhaus said.

UAF and the statewide administration retained the consulting firm to develop a plan for upgrading and expanding campus utilities through 2025. The consultants found $63 million in imminent renewal needs for UAF's utility system.

Already, plans are afoot to address some of those needs. The university's six-year capital plan includes $11 million for steam upgrade and distribution to West Ridge, $30.25 million for electrical code upgrades, and $13.65 million to revitalize Atkinson.

The consultants project that without a new coal boiler, UAF will need $4.31 million of natural gas by 2025. With a new boiler, UAF would only need $448,796, the report says. With a new boiler, UAF would only need to spend $12.8 million on energy in 2025, compared to $19.1 million without.

A major benefit of using coal instead of oil and gas is that its costs are relative low and stable, the report says. UAF first installed the coal-fired power plant system in 1964, and it's been doing well, the report says.

"There is value in establishing utility systems that sustain operational stability and low annual costs over an extended period," the report says.