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

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog