Someone believes firmly that we are going to be growing again, and not only that, they are willing to put up the money to prove it.
I’m talking about the energy companies. They’ll admit that consumption is down, but they don’t expect it to stay that way. And since it takes a little longer to build a power plant than it does to order a hamburger, they have filed a bunch of requests to build new coal-fired plants, plus at least one new nuclear reactor.
Now it is an article of faith among environmentalists, liberals and other like-minded people that so-called old school energy projects are bad. Think air pollution, hydrocarbons, Three Mile Island. What we should be doing, they say, is renewable energy. Wind, and solar. And of course they are basically right. We should make better use of wind power than we do. If solar power can be harnessed in an effective way, I am all for that. Governor Jennifer Granholm is a tremendous advocate for wind power.
So much so that she has ordered the approval process for conventional plants slowed down, if not entirely stopped. That may sound like a good idea, but in fact I think it’s very risky.
Preventing new conventional plants from being built now could actually cause an environmental hazard in the future. And here’s why. Wind power is wonderful, but experts doubt that it can ever generate more than a small fraction of our energy needs.
Nor has Michigan poured massive resources into developing wind power, in large part perhaps because the state is broke.
Eventually, when the economy revives, we are going to need more power. Where do you suppose the electricity is going to come from for all those plug-in hybrids we hope to be buying?
Americans are a spoiled lot who like their creature comforts. Thirty years ago, we had a President who appeared on television wearing a sweater and suggested we turn the thermostat down and get used to being colder. When he ran for reelection, he lost 44 out of 50 states. Politicians learned from that.
What I fear is that when our state’s energy demands start outstripping supply, we’ll suddenly authorize crash programs to build them, which will be far more worrisome from a safety standpoint.
Without any doubt, Bill Milliken was the most environmentally friendly governor we’ve ever had. Last month, he and two other former governors, Jim Blanchard and John Engler, co-authored a article strongly urging Michigan to expand its nuclear energy capacity, starting right now. They pointed out that despite all the fears, that nuclear has been a remarkably clean and safe form of energy. Yes, we need to find a permanent storage site for the spent fuel rods.
But they make a good case that, in their words, “nuclear energy can help power Michigan’s economic turnaround.” We are being forced these days to reexamine a lot of old assumptions.
Maybe this is another taboo we should reexamine as well.
Bill Milliken and John Engler, in agreement on an important and meritorious proposal.
Now that's what I call "bipartisan."
Well-written, in any event, by Jack Lessenberry.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 12, 2009 at 08:38 PM
(does this thing work?...)
Posted by: Different Clue | May 13, 2009 at 02:40 AM
If you took the 10 Billion dollars that DTE says Fermi 3 would cost the rate payers of the State of Michigan and spent it on currently available solar technology to 100% offset the electricity needs of residential homes you could remove more that 13 million homes from the grid. That would create a lot of extra available capacity and create a lot more jobs. Why be a flak for Nuclear power when it makes no economic sense?
Posted by: Joe Tiboni | May 13, 2009 at 08:40 PM
Efficiency is the only portion of our energy solution that saves businesses and ratepayers money, directly. It returns $3.50 for every $1 invested, cuts energy consumption and peak loading (and thus slows the need for new generation). And it creates in-state jobs. The big utilites aren't too fond of it because their profits are tied primarily to selling power -- not conserving it. And it is decidedly less visual than a wind turbine and less sexy than a nuclear plant -- meaning it rarely gets top billing in the media.
If there is an "article of faith" among environmentalists in Michigan, it's that our first three energy priorities should be efficiency, efficiency, and more efficiency.
Posted by: Hugh McDiarmid Jr. | May 14, 2009 at 03:54 PM
It's funny; "efficiency, efficiency and more efficiency" is an article of faith among profit-minded businesses facing stiff competition, too.
We sometimes call that "the genius of the marketplace."
Posted by: Anonymous | May 15, 2009 at 01:06 PM
Yes, the skyrocketing costs of nuclear is downplayed and largely ignored. How can we ignore a price tag for nuclear which is 3-4 times what it was in the past, when these costs will be passed on to us? Also people don't understand that if utilities are allowed to build more nuclear plants, they get even greater control over the energy markets, since this kind of investment cannot be made by smaller competitors and they will also have no incentive, or need to build alternative energy sources. If Michigan is allowed to get all the energy it needs from nuclear plants, then wind, solar and any other source for this energy becomes moot and bye, bye, will go lots of the green energy jobs too. In addition, there will be no need for new transmission lines (which, I admit, might actually be a big plus and save money). But these new transmission lines would allow for a "smart grid", which we might not get with nuclear. If any new nuclear plants do REALLY need to be built because there is no other way, then they should at least be operated in competition with the existing utilities (by another utility company), so that the existing monopoly on power cannot be further consolidated. Therefore, new_nuclear should come with a new_utility, or even better, a publicly owned utility that would be REQUIRED to still invest in alternatives.
Posted by: George | May 15, 2009 at 03:47 PM