Bringing the power
A proposed hybrid power plant in Lansing would burn 70 percent coal and 30 percent biomass, or organic materials.
The plant would replace the Lansing Board of Water & Light’s Eckert plant, and would cost between $750 million and $1 billion.
Source: Lansing Board of Water & Light
New hybrid power plant could affect Mich. energy industry
Some Michigan students are saying the prospect of a new Lansing power plant will hinder the state’s renewable energy industry, causing graduates looking for jobs in the industry to move out of state.
But the Lansing Board of Water & Light, or BWL, argues dispelling fossil fuels entirely isn’t the answer.
The proposed “hybrid plant” would burn about 70 percent coal and 30 percent biomass, or organic materials, said BWL spokesman Mark Nixon. It would also replace the BWL’s Eckert coal plant in Lansing as soon as 2018, and would cost between $750 million and $1 billion.
In the next 10 to 15 years, the Eckert plant, constructed in 1923, will need to be shut down because of environmental regulations. The new plant would be constructed in Delta Township, Nixon said.
“I think our state can do a lot better in researching and developing alternative energy options,” said Brandon Knight, an MSU alumnus and co-founder of the Michigan Student Sustainability Coalition, or MSSC.
MSSC formed in 2006 and has chapters at 12 Michigan colleges and universities. The coalition pushes students to promote using energy more efficiently, including using wind, solar and geothermal power, among others, Knight said. Earlier this year, the coalition launched a campaign to rid the state of new fossil fuel infrastructure.
Closing an aging coal plant shouldn’t be looked at as an opportunity to invest $1 billion in coal, he said. And with both MSU and Lansing Community College offering renewable energy programs, Lansing is in a unique position to run on “clean energy,” he said.
“From our perspective, renewable energy has much more economic benefit than coal,” said Knight, now studying alternative energy engineering at LCC. “We feel there’s a great opportunity to make the Lansing economy stronger by making it greener and by bringing more jobs.”
For Skye Black, an MSSC member and MSU senior, the plant represents a “huge setback” for the state’s alternative energy industry. Black said the proposed plant is part of the reason she decided to move out of Michigan after graduation.
“(Michigan) doesn’t have the environmental job industry that a lot of people are looking for,” she said. “A lot of people are moving to (Washington,) D.C. and California and other states that have a huge job market where people are looking for green jobs.”
The hybrid plant is expected to raise utility taxes for Lansing-area residents up to 21 percent over the next five to seven years. But if the current coal plant isn’t replaced, taxes could raise up to 55 percent because the electricity would be bought on the pricey open market, according to a BWL release.
“We want more (renewable energy),” Nixon said.
“But we also have a responsibility to our customers to provide reliable, affordable power. So far it is simply not feasible, or economical, or even possible to satisfy our customers’ needs solely on renewable energy.”
But the BWL isn’t discouraging input from groups like MSSC, Nixon said.
A 10-person panel of representatives from Lansing-area neighborhoods, environmental interests groups and businesses will meet in mid-August to review recommendations.
“We are a public utility,” Nixon said.
“That’s why we are having a community panel review these recommendations.”
Bruce Dale, an MSU chemical engineering professor, said while he agrees with exploring alternative energies, Michigan isn’t ready to rely solely on them.
“It’s taken 100 years to get ourselves into the problem of fossil fuels,” he said. “It’s going to take us a while to get out.”
Published on Wednesday, July 23, 2008




Comments
Bill Lumberg
07/24/08 @ 7:45am
Unbelievable, throughout the article you quote policy people and students against the plant and final in the last line you quote someone that actually spent his life working on alternate energy sources? Why because he is taking a practical approach and that goes against your crazy hippie eco beliefs? Another sad slanted SN article.
andrea
07/24/08 @ 9:02am
Regarding Mr. Lumberg’s comment, I don’t think anyone wanting an improved, sustainable environment should be classified as a “hippie”. It’s called being a responsible citizen.
Bill Lumberg
07/24/08 @ 9:59am
No, not accepting something that is 70/30 is not being a “responsible citizen”, it is being an obstructionist. And there is a good chance an environmental obstructionist could be classified as a hippie.
JJ
07/24/08 @ 9:10pm
Lumberg, hum with me, goosfraba, this too shall pass. Let the hippies get their way, let the rolling blackouts start, let them be inconvenienced when they can’t turn on their air conditioners next summer. These people are self serving, they’ll change their minds when they finally feel the effects of irrationality at home.
Sure Michigan State, Go Green! Praise Gaia, let us give her a sacrifice of prosperity!
JJ
07/25/08 @ 2:05am
$150 MILLION DOLLARS OF UNIVERSITY FUNDING IS OBTAINED THROUGH INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES, WHICH IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAX! THE ADMINISTRATION ARE CRIMINALS OF THE MOST WORST KIND!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KjBy_qp4Zc
Brandon Knight
08/06/08 @ 11:20am
Lumberg,
You are so quick to attack the work of a well organized, intelligent group of Michigan students working to create jobs for our future. Coal energy is dirty, centralized, mined out of the state, provides minimal economic benefit through the supply chain and causes unseen economic externalities (cancer, asthma, habitat and species destruction, the destruction of the Appalachian Mountains through mountaintop removal coal mining, polluted water, I could easily keep going).
Your thoughts on my role as a “paid lobbyist” and “hippy” is first of all wrong, but also degrading and close-minded. I actually work as a community organizer with youth that want to see our state move to a more sustainable future. In my limited free time, I study alternative energy at Lansing Community College, something your selective eyes decided to glaze over when reading this article. Truth is, I was born here in Michigan and am looking for true solutions to our economic problems.
Regardless, this still may all sound like “crazy hippy beliefs” to you. Why don’t you take a look at the facts, check it http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/4/154146/9606:
Between the start of the year and June 2008, the oil and gas industries spent $52.21 million lobbying Congress. Alternative energy industries spent $11.39 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
And look who’s tops on the alternative energy lobbying pile, with more than double the expenditures of the next on the list:
1. American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity: $1.87M 2. National Biodiesel Board: $679,913 3. Solar Energy Industries Association: $535,000 4. Clean Energy Group: $492,500 5. American Wind Energy Association: $460,379 6. Poet: $360,000 7. Rentech: $250,000 8. Green Hunter: $220,000 9. Noble Environmental Power: $200,000 10. GridPoint: $172,061Yes, coal is now an energy “alternative” … just like in the 1800s!
Notice that if you subtract coal and biodiesel — as I think you should — you end up with about 25 percent less lobbying money. No wonder the renewable tax credits keep getting blocked.
(This is via Katie Fehrenbacher, who’s doing crackerjack work over on earth2tech.)