I think environmentalists picking a fight over this, particularly because of the unique circumstances, isn't really worth the trouble, regardless of how well- o

I think environmentalists picking a fight over this, particularly because of the unique circumstances, isn't really worth the trouble, regardless of how well- or ill-advised it was. Something to ponder, though: how much CO2 would be emitted if you shut down the university, and had to build the infrastructure to house and educate those 10k students elsewhere? Building a campus of that size would likely cost >$1 billion and would itself involve lots of emissions from concrete and power generation. And even once constructed, base power generation would still likely use fossil fuels. Natural gas is a far sight better than coal, but it still emits CO2 when burned. My gut, given these considerations, is that it's much more environmentally friendly to use existing infrastructure and replace this coal-fueled plant with a more efficient coal-fueled plant, which is exactly what the university is doing.