Michigan: Let’s Lead on Renewables, Vote Yes on Proposal 3

November 5, 2012

Midland Daily News:

Passing Ballot Proposal 3 this November would set a goal of 25 percent renewable energy in Michigan by 2025.

Michigan voters have the opportunity to make our state a leader in the ongoing transition to a new economy. The window is open for us, but it will not stay open long.

In the not too distant future, Michigan will be powered, in significant part, by renewable energy. That is not in doubt.

What is in doubt is, who will manufacture the solar cells, wind turbines and other devices that will be part of that mix? Will Michigan’s rural communities have their incomes, roads and schools boosted by revenue from Michigan-made wind turbines, or will we be buying wind power from other, more far-sighted Midwestern states who have pushed ahead of us in deploying 21st century technology?

Overseas, countries like Germany, Denmark, China, India, Turkey and Brazil are sensing the opportunities of this moment.

Denmark has set a national goal of 35 percent renewables by 2020 — and they are already producing 40 percent of their electricity from renewables.

In some states in Germany, more than 40 percent of electricity is coming from wind, and on some days, almost half of this manufacturing giant’s electricity has come from rooftop solar cells.

Near home, Minnesota and Ohio have 25 percent goals in place. Iowa is generating more than 20 percent of its electricity from wind, keeping their energy costs down. Having seen it in action, more than three quarters of Iowans prefer wind energy above all other sources to power the state.

Colorado’s renewable goal is 30 percent by 2020.

Illinois has a 25 percent goal, and reports electricity costs already reduced by $171 million.

No wonder powerful fossil fuel interests are worried. They’re filling the airwaves with misinformation and distortion about the issue.

The fact is, a lot of people still have a stake in 19th century technologies like coal-fired power. But the costs of coal power in Michigan have gone up 71 percent in the last four years.

Think about it. The contrast is stark.

The more fossil fuel we use, inevitably, the more it costs. The more renewable energy we use, the LESS it costs.

Here in Michigan, our experience with new renewable energy has surprised skeptic and booster alike with how well wind turbines are performing. New wind power purchase contracts are being signed for 6 cents per kwh and below while, according to the Public Service Commission, new coal power would cost more than 13 cents.

And remember, that does not include the health costs of coal power, which new studies from Harvard and the National Research council say make coal’s actual cost to society more like  20 cents per kwh.

According to Livermore Laboratory, this is just the beginning. Wind power costs are poised to tumble even more, as new, more sensitive turbines become more efficient, and advanced manufacturing brings costs down further. The Michigan Environmental Council estimates that only 10 percent of Michigan’s on-shore wind capacity would be needed to meet the new standard.

In the wings, photovoltaic solar energy — a technology that local Michigan companies have rightfully made big bets on — is just getting started. In cloudy Germany, good policies have new solar energy pouring on to the grid faster than new transmission lines can handle it — one reason why Germany remains an economic powerhouse even in the face of the European financial crisis.

Germany is creating a new energy ownership society as middle class people, small businesses and local communities become energy producers in their own right.

This November, Michigan will send a message to our industrial competitors in the U.S. and around the world. There will be no nuance — it will be yes or no, up or down.

We can tell the world we are going to sit out the greatest industrial transformation of the new century, that we are going to hunker down, let others lead and see what happens. That Michigan is tired, and timid, and doesn’t feel quite up to the task.

Or, we can step up and say yes to the challenge, and show the world that Michigan, having led the industrial revolution of the last century, is ready to show up and lead the new one as well.

Vote yes on Proposal 3.

Peter Sinclair, a resident of Midland, has long been involved the green energy movement.

About these ads

7 Responses to “Michigan: Let’s Lead on Renewables, Vote Yes on Proposal 3”

  1. dana1981 Says:

    Sadly it’s looking like Prop 3 is going down, under an avalanche of $24 million in fossil fuel advertising.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      the good news, there will be no more coal plants built in Mich.
      the bad news, if this indeed does not pass,
      -we may not move as quickly down the road to renewables as we might have.

  2. renewableguy Says:

    I was frustrated to see this from the electric cooperative that our cottage in Michigan is in.To sum up briefly what they are talking about.

    http://www.teammidwest.com/2012/09/04/midwest-supports-current-renewable-standard-joins-coalition-to-oppose-25×2025-ballot-initiative/

    Midwest supports current renewable standard; joins coalition to oppose 25×2025 ballot initiative

    What’s wrong with “25 x 25”?

    It’s outrageously expensive

    It’s reckless – cementing energy policy in the Michigan Constitution, even though the state needs flexibility to meet evolving energy needs.

    It’s short-sighted – dramatically changing Michigan’s landscape.

    It’s dangerously vague – just 277 words to guide Michigan’s vital energy future.

    .

    Michigan already has a long-term energy plan that’s working.

    • renewableguy Says:

      And here my post languishes awaiting moderation. Thank you for giving me an outlet to get my frustration out with this issue.

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      October 30, 2012 at 5:26 pm

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

      We have a serious climate problem coming down the pipe.
      ###########
      It’s outrageously expensive
      ###########

      1%/year with extensions allowed. I don’t see your outrageous here.

      #############
      It’s reckless – cementing energy policy in the Michigan Constitution, even though the state needs flexibility to meet evolving energy needs.
      ############

      reckless? where? There are several avenues to acheive 25%. California, Germany.

      #################

      It’s short-sighted – dramatically changing Michigan’s landscape.

      These wind farms would require about 500,000 acres of land.

      ##################

      http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/calc_wind.php

      For 3100 turbines would be 3100 turbines

      at 1/4 acre / turbine

      would be 775 acres. 500,000 acres?

      ######################

      And the job-creation guarantee that backers are touting is nowhere to be found in the amendment itself.

      #######################

      Local jobs for a slower economy.

      http://www.bls.gov/green/wind_energy/

      ######################

      Michigan already has a long-term energy plan that’s working.

      ########################

      http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/09/feed-in-tariffs-do-more-for-wind-at-less-cost-to-ratepayers-than-rps-says-german-agency

      Here is a perfectly successful model that is economical to use. THe feed in tariff. You simply pay people for their production after they install their system.

      I am disapointed to find disinformation in your article. If you are going to make your case, stick to the real facts rather than the disinformation.

      Or hire an ex tobacco lobbyist to do your diry work for you. This is not good.

  3. renewableguy Says:

    I have a comment awaiting moderation. Could you make it active please?
    RG


  4. “Germany is creating a new energy ownership society as middle class people, small businesses and local communities become energy producers in their own right.”

    “No wonder powerful fossil fuel interests are worried. They’re filling the airwaves with misinformation and distortion about the issue.”

    In Germany big mainly (yet still)„powerful fossil fuel interests” Vattenfall on their website http://www.vattenfall.com/en/renewable-energy-services.htm are written as:

    “We focus largely on renewable energy resources such as renewable and small-scale energy technologies: mini/micro hydro, solar heat and photovoltaic, biogas, wind and biomass-based energy.”
    “Our services includes rural energy use and needs assessment, financial mobilisation and management models, training and knowledge transfer, energy-source and technology selection, design, permitting and implementation.”

    In the EU – Germany, grants from the budget – taxes (really) apply “powerful fossil fuel interests” – to the reception and transmission of energy such as wind power – earn a “powerful fossil fuel interests” – in Germany – mainly Vattenfall, no “middle class people, small businesses and local communities”.


  5. And I’ll return to my cynicism and say it’s hardly a secret as to why this proposition and the GMO labeling proposition in California failed to pass. But that’s hardly a reason to stop fighting.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,643 other followers

%d bloggers like this: