[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]



LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Whitmer’s support of nuclear power shows how renewable energy has fallen short  

Data from the Energy Information Agency show that Michigan is still depending much more on nuclear power than renewables.

Credit:  By Tom Gantert | April 25, 2022 | michigancapitolconfidential.com ~~

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer sent a letter last week to the U.S. Department of Energy urging federal money be used to keep the Palisades nuclear power plant open. She called it a top priority, a decision certain to upset her anti–nuclear energy activists in her base. The letter closed with, “I will work with anyone to get this done.”

Whitmer’s decision may show how renewable energy has not been able to replace nuclear power. The Palisades nuclear plant in Covert, Michigan, has been scheduled to be closed since 2017.

In 2016, Consumers Energy reported that it was preparing new renewable energy sources that could replace the energy produced at Palisades when it closed.

In 2019 and 2020, reports from Consumer Energy show that renewables provided 11% of its electricity and nuclear held steady at 8%. That’s the only data available online from the utility.

Statewide, 7.8% of electricity was produced by renewable energy and 28.1% provided by nuclear in 2016. That’s the year in which Consumers Energy said that by 2018 it could replace the electricity provided by the Palisades nuclear plant. By 2018, however, renewable energy was just 8.4% of the state’s electricity mix while nuclear was 26.3%. By January 2022, renewables were at 12.2% and nuclear 25.6%.

Data from the Energy Information Agency show that Michigan is still depending much more on nuclear power than renewables.

The Michigan chapter of the Sierra Club has opposed nuclear power. Its website states, “The Sierra club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy. Nuclear is no solution to Climate Change and every dollar spent on nuclear is one less dollar spent on truly safe, affordable and renewable energy sources. Help us work to phase out nuclear as quickly as possible.”

On Jan. 14, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, or EGLE, released a draft of a plan that the center-left Michigan League of Conservation Voters called “Michigan’s number one tool that will drive our state’s transition toward clean, affordable energy to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.” The draft plan put out by EGLE mentioned the term “coal” 11 times but does not include the word “nuclear.” The final version, recently released, had one reference to nuclear power: “Michigan also benefits from a diverse power sector that includes nuclear power plants and the pumped hydro facility at Ludington.”

In Europe, Germany is seeing firsthand the a risk of focusing so much on renewable energy. Wind power was the top source of electricity there, at 22.6% of the total grid load, according to Wind Power Monthly.

The New York Times published an April 5 story, describing the difficulty Germany has in boycotting Russian energy after Russia. The headline: “Why Germany Can’t Just Pull the Plug on Russian Energy.”

“Last year, Russia supplied more than half of the natural gas and about a third of all the oil that Germany burned to heat homes, power factories and fuel cars, buses and trucks,” the newspaper reported. “Roughly half of Germany’s coal imports, which are essential to its steel manufacturing, came from Russia. Russian gas, oil and coal are embedded in the German economy and way of life. The roots run deep.”

Source:  By Tom Gantert | April 25, 2022 | michigancapitolconfidential.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate

Share:


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Share

 Follow: