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.As we've seen in California, wind doesn't always stand up terribly well under real world conditions.
[...]
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.
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
0 comments:
Post a Comment