Environment Michigan: Getting it Wrong on Renewables

The activist group Environment Michigan wants the state to pass a law requiring that 25% of the state's energy be generated by renewables by 2025. So far, 80 lawmakers from both parties have already signed up to support the measure.

But the Detroit News thinks the idea is nothing but risky business:

Beyond the fact that such a standard is nearly impossible to meet given the excessive costs and the technology limitations that accompany alternative energy generation using wind and solar power, it is economically dangerous for Michigan. Businesses won't locate in a state that has unattainable energy demands and those that are here and are forced to meet them will pass those costs on to consumers -- or leave.

[...]

For example, Environment Michigan, the group pressuring lawmakers to sign its request for legislation, says wind power alone could generate enough electricity for the state, a questionable conclusion at best.

As we've seen in California, wind doesn't always stand up terribly well under real world conditions.

Further...

Additionally, the group wants lawmakers to require that the state commit $5 billion over the next 10 years for energy ventures "that would catapult Michigan into a national energy leader," though those companies and technologies aren't defined or for those now in the works, aren't likely anywhere near ready for mass production to produce the desired results.

Remember that paragraph the next time you hear any environmental activist talk about "nuclear subsidies". Talk like that takes a lot of brass as far as I'm concerned.

Don't get me wrong, we like renewables, and think there's plenty of potential there in the long-term. But setting unrealistic goals that could actually undermine the affordability and reliability of electricity is both intellectually dishonest and bad public policy. Here's hoping Michigan votes for sound science, affordable electricity and economic growth over feel-good bromides that actually hurt, and not help, the public debate.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Wind Power, Michigan

Comments

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog