The Editorial is wrong about Northern Michigan University's proposed "power plant". Dead wrong. It says that Northern is going to "expand its existing coal unit..." NMU does not have a coal burning plant--it buys its electricity from the Board of Light and Power--BLP.
What Northern is doing is proposing to build a wood burning power plant that will burn timber and forest waste product. Its permit allows NMU to burn coal up to 30% of the time when it cannot get wood/timber due to weather, road conditions etc..
NMU currently gets its power from the BLP which burns coal 100% of the time.
The NMU plant would be a 70% improvement--at a minimum.
So is the Free Press correct about blocking all new coal power plants? Business leaders say Michigan will need 3 to 5 new power plants in next 10 years. Environmental groups say they should be forced to build power plants that use renewable energy--solar, wind, wood, etc..
Can a state like Michigan survive and compete if it cannot build a new power plant in next five years because of this ban? Would any industrial state be able to compete with off shore manufacturing that do not have these limitations? Would it be able to compete with the southern states who are building coal burning plants now? Will more Michigan jobs move to the south while we look for alternative energy sources. Are there adequate alternative energy sources that can provide enough power for campuses and manufacturing plants--not to mention residences?
Are the legisaltures and Governors up to the task? Term limits and partisanship seem to make them move even slower than before. What can government do to help in the developmetn of alternative energy sources? Do they have the financial resources to assist with research and development? These are all questions that need to be addressed immediately.
Maybe an interesting thing to do would to encourage a citizen internet debate on this problem. Maybe we would come up with some interesting public policy alternatives.
We know coal is not good for our health and environment in the long term. Can we afford a coal ban in the short term.
Here is the editorial.
Detroit Free Press
IN OUR OPINION
Say no to new coal power plants
January 9, 2009
"The environmental groups have it right.
Michigan ought to declare a moratorium on new coal-fired utility plants. This may even prove a blessing to the outfits that want the plants, given the difficulties of financing big projects these days.
Somehow, Michigan has become a magnet for proposals to generate electricity from coal. Five groups have requested permits from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality; three more have announced plans. It's unlikely anyone could prove Michiganders need that much electricity, let alone that they should have to put up with the tradeoffs in poorer air quality and mercury dropping out of the smoke into the state's lakes and streams.
Back when Michigan's economy was merely slipping, as opposed to cliff-diving, the most detailed forecast of future electricity demand called for just one new coal plant.
Thus, it seems reasonable to hold off on permits for coal plants for at least a year. That should provide a better picture on the financial markets, the demand for electricity and, perhaps most important, what kind of greenhouse gas regulations may emerge in Washington.
Coal has the unwanted distinction of being the dirtiest fuel in common use today and the one that throws off more carbon dioxide for the amount of energy derived from burning it. (Mining it is also phenomenally destructive, especially in Appalachia, where the preferred technique is blowing up mountaintops and letting the rubble drop into streams -- a travesty no one in Michigan would ever put up with.) Although America has coal in relative abundance, the shift away from it cannot come soon enough.
Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system will lead to higher costs for coal-generated electricity. Other forms of electricity generation, from wind generation to home-based solar units, may suddenly look like bargains -- and it makes no sense to make a huge collective investment in coal plants when the cost of the electricity that emerges remains so uncertain. Some analysts believe wind power already is competitive, price-wise, with power from a newly built coal plant.
Northern Michigan University is the only proposed plant to have received a DEQ permit to expand its existing coal unit, and the decision was appealed to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It is disappointing that a university, of all institutions, didn't pursue alternative energy sources, but Northern's plan is among the smallest of the proposed plants. Michigan will have a sounder energy future if the rest get put on hold."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I know we need to take a long view of the world, our energy sources and all that but I do think that with the state our State is in we need to be practical too....I do not see the environmental groups leading the way to a new fresh strong economy in MIchigan!
ReplyDeleteI do feel a univeristy should be thinking of new ways and alternative engery sources, this would be a great teachable moment in an environmental class. We cannot keep buring the "dirtiest" source-coal forever. We need to start thinking ahead and thinking about future generations. I think we do have to turn to the government and environmental scientists to lead the way and tell Americans what they should do to eliminate climate change. As for Northern, they should think about this beautiful land and what they would be doing to it.
ReplyDeleteNorthern Michigan University doesn't have a coal burning unit. You can't expand on something you don't have. And I think the real problem here is the Sierra Club.
ReplyDeleteThe once project-in-the-works for our campus's power source was to make the switch from primarily using the existing natural gas boiler, to using a co-generation boiler (a boiler that can use and produce more than one energy source) and have the natural gas boiler as a back up. Our natural gas boiler runs on coal burning power from the Marquette board of light and power.
The initial plan was to burn wood chips with the co-generation boiler, and to recycle the electricity created from our own power plant. Essentially, creating our own power and using our own power. A "greener" and more efficient way to supply power to our University. Why isn't the project in the works? Because of the Environmental Activists who call themselves the Sierra Club (The Sierra Club works against anyone submitting a request for federal funding to burn fossil fuels). They are now held up in a two year litigation with Northern Michigan University. The new co-generation boiler would be intended to burn wood chips, but has the capability to burn many different sources including bio fuels and coal - even though that is not the intention - it still,in turn,sends off an unnecessary red flag to the Sierra Club
So, in the Sierra Club's fight to keep clean the world that we live in, they've cut off their right hand and stomped the progression our little university intended to make.
Michigan is in a desperate financial situation... the automotive industry is failing. Innovation will be necessary to invigorate our economy. Fords Flex, and GM Volt, are titillatingly exiting. If these vehicles are successful I'm sure we'll see another increase in electricity consumption. Also Jennifer Granholm says she is working with the big three to make Michigan a leader in battery production. This industry will also consume ever increasing amounts of energy. So in addition to reviving the auto industry we need to find a means of energy production... the green revolution is a part of Oboama's strategy of change. Michigan is left with a choice get our energy future secured, or take the risk that we'll find alternatives to the reliable means of energy production we've used for years. I'm curious that the author of this article chose to berate Northern Michigan University for pursuing an energy source that is cleaner than coal and also a renewable resource. While it may not be a perfect solution it is a reliable option with immediate results, no-one should be against change for the better because it isn't fast enough... without proposing a better solution first.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts are directed towards an energy solution for the nation as a whole rather than just the energy concerns of NMU. While it is important that we continue to work towards making environmentally freindly energy sources the status quo, we need something viable right now. I think (with the appropriate regulation) nuclear power is a viable stopgap. I would think that by now we have learned enough from past mistakes to be able to utilize nuclear power with very low risk to public health. If the polar ice caps are all about to melt, and the whole world is about to be under water anyway then why isn't it worth the risk to give nuclear power another shot?
ReplyDeleteAmerica needs to re-think all of the structures it has in place. Education needs a complete turn around, Green energy will need a brand new idea of how to transport the energy across the country, Cars are likely to be ran on batteries, and the materials used to make these batteries will come from sulfide mines, our bailout plans for the economy are obviously not working leading us further into this recession.
ReplyDeleteThe co-generation boiler is a step forward, however, it is a step we should have taken years ago. Right now we need to think sustainable, and use the renewable resources we have to their fullest. Wood chips are renewable but it's old technology when we have an abundance of wind during the winter and sun all summer long. Wind/solar energy would also provide Northern students with hands on expierance, and free labor for NMU. Another step Northern could take is holding on to the heat they produce, by using thermal curtains, and not heating rooms that are never used or barely used. If Northern were to invest the 55 million on sustainable heating practices, versus a boiler their saving in the long run would out weigh that of the boiler. Not to mention the subsidies/grants available for alternative energies.
P.S. If we were to give Nuclear a shot, where would we store the waste? The ocean? The ground? It is still radioactive. Right now we have Nuclear waste stored in the ground with posting in every language and pictures, hoping that thousands of years from now when someone unknowingly begins digging in that area, they will heed the warning and not release the radioactive nuclear waste that lies beneath.
It unfortunate that NMU's take on a greener power plant isn't accepted by these so called " enviornmental activists." Not only will this second plant create jobs to create these wood bricks, it will cut down our usage of coal over 70%. Although it isn't taking out our total usage of coal, at least it's a step in the right direction and probably the least inexpensive at this time with our economy crisis. This Sierra Club should be praising NMU for trying to reduce usage and instead focus on the Board of Light and Power. At least NMU is making an effort to clean up and create jobs.
ReplyDeleteAlternative energy sources are not cheap! Although I wish it was an easy fix, it's not. Unfortnatley, Michigan doesn't have the extra cash to spend on alternative sources at this time. Last year I went to a private school that created "green" dorms that ran off solar and wind power and I noticed the cost of alternative energy, in my $36,000 tuition.
I agree that this country, as a whole, should move toward using alternative sources of energy. Unfortunately, given the economic crisis we are currently dealing with, we should not be forced into giving up fossil fuels completely. I commend NMU for trying to reduce the use of coal. At this time a small step is better than a large leap away from existing forms of energy.
ReplyDeleteOnce we get back on our feet, I will gladly support the research and use of alternative energy. Right now, that just isn't cost effective or realistic.
We can't afford to wait for a magical way to produce electricity. The University is doing what it can with what it has. We have to be realistic. It would be nice to have an alternative but until that day comes we have no choice.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNMU's motto is "Northern, Naturally," focusing on the "natural" environment of the U.P. This university takes pride in its location in one of the most pristine areas in the country. I think that it important for NMU to explore more environmental friendly energy sources to maintain this natural environment. Wind and solar energy are truly renewable resources unlike timber which tends to be overexploited. However, the state of Michigan by no means has the money to spend on fancy, new, power plants. This is where I think the government and Obama's new energy plan should come into play. Universities are good places to start using renewable power sources. This of course will take a while to accomplish and maybe way to expensive to consider, but at least it is the step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteAlthough most people like to think idealisticly, we have to be practical. Alternative energy is not only un-practical, it is a complete and utter joke. Hear me out.. I am not against finding alternative energy but on a practical scale it is just not at all practical with the technology that currently exists. I hope that one day the technology will exist, and I beleive it wil, but its a harsh fact that today it does not. Take the chevy volt for instance, the vehicle was recently revealed in washington. Our own senator, Mr. Carl Levin along with his brother Sander Levin drove around washington and had nothing but praise for the vehicle. What they forgot to tell you is that the vehicle had to be trailered to Washington because its range is only 40 miles per charge.. IS THAT PRACTICAL!?!? Our green freindly people.. "enviromentalists" use climate change/global warming as a cop out on why they are against practical energy consumption. The theory of global warming is also ridiculously flawed. The founder of the weather channel John Coleman even says so.. along with thousands of other scientists, meteoroligists and free thinking americans. The death rate due to extreme weather is down 95% since the 1920s. There are hundreds of facts that dispute this theory. Ive realized there is a thin line between common sense and politics. And common sense says that relying on alternative enrgy is not practical.
ReplyDeleteI agree that NMU and Michigan as a whole, should be concerned with the environmental hazards that burning coal presents, but right now I think that it is necessary due to Michigan's economy. I think that we know enough about the dangers of burning coal to minimize the damage as much as we can. Currently the University is doing what it can do reduce the amount of coal used, but is also keeping things cost effective. I think that if once Michigan's economy improves a little then we can start focusing more on renewable energy sources, but right now that is just too expensive.
ReplyDeleteAs a country we should always be concerned with the environment and how the choices we make will affect the environment. But it is difficult to make choices that will be effective in the long run that will also mesh well in the short run. Michigan's economy is pretty terrible right not and seeing how mines and coal have a lot to do with Michigan I cannot imagine how limiting expansion is going to do the economy any good. Renewable energy sources are all well and good and should definitly be kept on the table, but banning the one thing that we know will help is a bit hasty in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteA complete ban on coal fired power plants is not practical, however every effort should be made to fine alternative means of power production. The aesthetics of a renewable power plant can no longer be an acceptable roadblock to their construction (which has happened to some previous attempts to build offshore windmills unfortunately)
ReplyDeleteThere is also a debate about what forms of non-coal power production are acceptable, as many environmental groups cringe at the mention of methods such as nuclear, while others embrace such technologies so long as they are "carbon neutral" Now I am most certainly not advocating that Northern build a nuclear power facility, but being from Chicago I am keenly aware of the potential usefulness of nuclear plants. Since the closure of the Zion Nuclear Facility in Zion, Illinois (north of Chicago) all of the customers who previously received their power from Zion have been switched over to the more traditional coal fired plants around the Chicago region which has put more stress on the regional power grid and increased the potential for brown/black outs in the area. My point for bringing this u is to say that no option should be taken off the table, especially options that would help the US move away from coal fired plants.
I believe a unique and potentially viable energy solution would be for the Great Lakes States, (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, and New York) collaborate on building of wave farms in the lakes. Basically wave farms are tubes that are anchored, in place, in a body of water, the natural motion of the waves moves the tubes which create electricity, and that power is transmitted to shore by power lines under the water. There are often many "tubes" in one area giving rise to the term "farms". Currently the largest wave farm being used today is off the coast of Portugal, but plans and funding are in place to build a wave farm off the coast of Oregon. I think it is possible to build very large wave farms in the middle of the Great Lakes, even after taking into account fishing grounds and shipping routes. Even if you subtract the space currently used for shipping lanes and fishing, there are vast areas of the lakes that could be used for wave farms. After the farms are installed, their location would be marked by GPS and mapped so everyone would know where they are and mistakes would not be made.
The Great Lake states have a unique source of power generation that could make coal fired plants obsolete and too costly, and therefore extinct. Only by tapping this vast resource can each state hope to shed their coal electricity albatross and help protect the environment. But until a plan such as this can be put into motion, coal power may be a necessary evil we must endure. Limiting our options is short sighted and foolhardy.
I think it's a necessity for Michigan to look into alternative energy sources not only due to the positive effect it would have on the environment, but also to help with the current economical situation we are facing. Being decently aware of the political situation of alternative energy sources in Northeastern Michigan, I can say that at least part of the state is pushing in that direction. Incentives for people installing devices such as wind vanes for public or private usage are currently being worked out and changes in city and township zoning ordinances are currently be taken into consideration. Hopefully once these steps have been carried through it will allow residents to become less dependent on other fuel sources and therefore cut costs to city and state run power stations.
ReplyDeleteIt never ceases to amaze me how common sense is entirely skipped in this editorial. Sure, it's a great idea to promote building complete renewable energy power plants but the cost is astronomical. So, we push something that in theory is a great idea while completely ignoring the tanking economy of the state which is tanking harder than the rest of the nation?
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned, this permit allows only the proposed power plant to burn coal only 30% of the time due to certain circumstances. The majority of the fuel is renewable - wood and forest waste. Have you looked outside recently? There sure are a lot of trees! At least in our region, we won't have to worry about standing on top of West Science with pinwheels and solar-panel-hats anytime soon.
The uninformed histrionics by the Detroit Free Press are completely unnecessary. But with the paper thrashing about in it's death convulsions along with the majority of other newspapers, these "facts" and "research" are getting to be quite bothersome. Unfortunately, it's a trend for newspapers to allow more radical and ridiculous columns to be printed in order to attract readers back to their plummeting readership base. Upcoming headline for the Detroit Free Press later this week: "George W. Bush Punches Babies While Leaving White House".
Someday soon we can invest in complete renewable resource power plants and remove ourselves completely from coal's teat. But maybe we should learn how to walk before we run.
I feel that any step that Northern is trying to take in the right direction is an improvement. I think that many people have to realize that in the state Michigan is in, it's going to take awhile for it to become completely coal-free and reliant on alternative energy.
ReplyDeleteEventually we need to get away from burning coal and concentrate on alternative sources of energy, such as solar and wind. That, however, is a long-term goal and right now we need to be concerned more about the present and not the future. If Michigan needs 5 new power plants in the next 10 years then so be it. Maybe if people stop complaining about them not using renewable energy and start doing something about it, then those new power plants won't run on coal.
ReplyDeleteAs a concerned environmentalist, new coal burning plants does not seem like the best choice, however the most practical. I would like to see in the long run, Northern use renewable energy such as wind power. As previously brought up, this is however not a practical goal at this time in our economy. Using wood to create energy and burning 70% less coal is a good start heading in the right direction. If Michigan as a state will need 5 more power plants in the next year, then so be it. We must do what we have to in order to maintain our energy needs.
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that the Detroit Free Press Editorial had the wrong information about NMU and how we obtain our energy.
ReplyDeleteI strongly think that we need to be moving toward more environmental friendly processes that reduce coal extraction and consumption. However, our nation is progressing at a snail’s pace; in a time where we should be banding together to use alternative energy and fuel sources we have become stagnant. Why not spend some state money on alternative energy? Michigan’s economy sucks right now. I know in my parents neighborhood in Oakland County, Michigan about every family on the street is employed or affiliated with the auto industry. People are really hurting especially this time of year. Why can’t the need for alternative sources be filled by the jobless in our state? On the one hand the article said we are in need of another power plant, but I think that is a step backward. We need to be making leaps forward in terms of alternative energy sources.
Now to address NMU’s proposal to build a wood burning “stove” to fuel the school.
I’m not sure if it’s that much better than coal. In the U.P. it is easier to obtain wood to burn, but should we be contributing to more logging? Do the costs outweigh the benefits? One must think about the effort it takes to cut down trees (or the scrap wood they say will be burned) and then transport them. I’m not really agreeing or disagreeing with the proposal, I just think all the issues should be placed on the table.
I don't think adding any more coal burning power plants is a good idea in Michigan or anywhere else in the United States. I really do hope the NMU will eventually get the wood burning power plant because it will be using wood chips that are bi products from wood product manufacturing. I would like to see Michigan and The United States to look at building power plants that are not reliant on coal. Whether that be wind or solar power or even a nuclear plant would be fine with me.
ReplyDeleteI do feel that NMU and the whole country should try to discover alternative energy sources. I think that NMU is tying to improve and it is a very good thing. It may take a while for the state to become completely coal free but it would help in the long run.
ReplyDeleteI think long term planning is the best possible solution at this point. If the economy is nearing the bottom of its downturn, we should be looking ahead to new industries such as renewable energy to create the jobs needed to replace ones lost in the auto industry.
ReplyDeleteI think that NMU should continue to push the plans for the wood burning power plant. Environmental groups need to realize that the university is cutting down on harmful emissions instead of increasing them. The wood plant will cut on coal use and the wood burning plant shouldn't even be considered a coal burning plant. Right now in the U.P. many loggers are getting laid off because the demand for wood is low due to the economic situation. The wood burning plant will revive a few jobs. Many argue that logging in the U.P. is harmful to the surrounding environment, but logging has been occurring in the U.P. for generations and everything seems to be just fine. In some areas you do need some selective cutting. On the other hand, I do believe that we need to be focusing on finding alternative sources of energy in order to revive the rest of the state of Michigan. Becoming a leader in alternative fuels and energy would provide Michigan with all the jobs it needs.
ReplyDeleteI believe in moderation. The idea of burning wood 70% of the time is a great idea. This would help with the environment but most importantly help with our economy.
ReplyDeleteI lived in the UP my whole life and come from a logging family. There is plenty of wood scrape left over after a job site. This would be a great opportunity to clean up the area of all the tree tops left behind and would created much needed jobs.
This should not be our permanent solution. Wind energy is not a solution due to the unpleasing site the wind mills leave. I believe nuclear would be a great solution. More research needs to be done to dispose of the waste though.
I'm going to have to agree with some of the other comments I read on here. I think we need to worry less about a wood burning power plant that would burn coal (at most) 30% of the time, and start worrying about our state's economy. When you have one of, if not the highest, unemployment rates in the nation, certain sacrafices have to be made.
ReplyDeleteI mean, everyone keeps mentioning wind farms as a 'greener' alternative. It sounds like a good idea in theory, but who's going to pay for it? And how many acres of wind turbines would we have to install to equal the amount of energy produced by one wood/coal burning power plant? I'm pretty sure the university considered other options before just deciding to build the new plant. It just doesn't sound like any other options would be cost-efficient.
I am for the banishment of coal burning power plants, but only the plants that are burning coal 100% of the time. The proposed NMU plant had that clause in its contract for a reason. It does not state that the plant will be operating on coal every day. Going green is also a valid idea, but at the same point the technology isn't quite there, unless NMU would explore hydroelectric power. In reality, what we need to be looking at is Nuclear energy. When this is brought up people tend to over react about fall out, and the like. Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest forms of power, one of the most efficient, and on top of that, generates power in greater excess than a coal plant. I am not saying that NMU should go out and get its own nuclear power plant, but that Michigan as a whole should explore the idea of a new Nuclear power facility.
ReplyDeleteBack to the NMU wood burning plant, this is a great short term idea. Not only would the school be supplying its own power, but in theory, the school could actually make money selling power back to the BLP. During the summer when many things on campus are shut down, NMU could lower the power production of its power out put, but any excess power could then be sold to the BLP, and maybe even lower our tuition (ha).
Over all, we need to learn to not rely on fossil fuels, and explore other options.
The comment about the extreme weather deaths decreasing is an interesting fact. Do you compute into this research the fact that in the 1920s and before people had to WALK where they went? Yes as terrible and un-American as it seems our ancestors had to self propel. Also much more work was done outside and housing was not near as good, or clothing. Today's hand me down clothing is far better than what people wore back then.
ReplyDeleteGlobal warming is a misleading term,better used would be climate change. Our planet is under going change, that's what takes place over Geologic time. The same reason the Dinosaurs are no longer with us. After a billion years things look differently. The actual cause of the change is unknown, but our output of pollution is a known disaster. There is no denying that the increased levels of Carbon Dioxide and other pollutants have had adverse affects on our planet.
I think Alternative Energy is a must in the future, not only will Fossil Fuel run out, its killing off plants and animals on a global scale. Our oceans will go first, followed by the rain forest, then possibly us. Alternative Energy will take a lot of research and development along with money but God didn't come swooping down and hand us a car and a gasoline pump, we had to create it.
As I said in my last comment, the deaths due to extreme weather is only 1 of many FACTS that are irefutable in the argument on "climate change" if thats what you would like to call it now. These facts can be found in the class action lawsuit filed by John Coleman and 30,000 other "experts" against the scam and fraud conjured up by Al Gore and followers. P.S.. we have been having record lows throughout the country the last few weeks.
ReplyDeleteI believe we do need to move away from coal. A wood scrap burning power plant in the upper peninsula is not only a smart ecological choice, but it also economically has a huge advantage over coal. Wood scrap is left throughout the U.P when logging companys leave an area. If a plan could be put into work to collect the scrap left behind from logging, in conjunction with the actual logging operation, we would be making use of a material that would otherwise be left to rot.
ReplyDeleteOn a larger scale however, i believe that coal burning power plants should be replaced with nuclear plants. Given increased research in how to dispose of the used uranium, not only would it be safe, but it would utilize a material that we otherwise do not desire to have around. It is also clean and releases minimal gases/smog, plus in the history there have been only two incidents of a reactor malfunction, three mile island, which was caused by incompetence, and chernobyl, which we do not know the true cause of.
I think this issue is something that needs understanding on both sides. I understand the need and want to not introduce any other polluting energy sources if it is at all possible but I also think an out right ban is not the solution either. The technology needed to create totally clean energy is expensive and hard to implement. I believe it should be the goal rather than the standard. The idea that blocking an improvement to the clean energy goal will help the goal of totally clean energy is inappropriate and absurd. If there is a dramatic improvement made than it should not be an issue. If the number of 70% is correct, then this would be a dramatic improvement worthy of implementing.
ReplyDeleteThe goal is great but the rigidity is not something that is going to get the goal done. The groups rallying against this venture by the university need to have some flexibility when working for these goals because it is not going to happen overnight. The residents and and the business owners of Michigan need to stay competitive because of our struggling economy. If the rules are too trendsetting and rigid new business will not want to move into the state because of the cost of doing so.