Michigan elevates its wind power

A wind farm in the thumb has delivered the first large scale alternative energy to the state.

Thirty-two wind turbines now provide power to Pigeon, a community of 14,000. After years of talk the state—the 14th windiest in the nation thanks to its Great lake frontage—has finally entered the alternative energy race. These turbines join the 4 or 5 others in the state, and change the wind energy ranking from 30th to 22nd. Still only 3% of all Michigan's power is renewable, (60% is non-renewable coal) but growth has been steadily increasing. Twenty other wind projects are proposed across the state. Michigan has the ability to produce 267 times the current wind power.

Governor Jennifer Granholm has been vying for additional additional alternative energy sources, 10% by 2015, and if she succeeds Michigan would join the 28 other states that have required a commitment. Not only that, but the demand for wind power (which currently has wind companies with a two-year backlog) could bring up to 17,000 jobs and $6 billion in investments. The new wind turbines were made in Denmark.

Another source of jobs and entrepreneurship is to develop the current transmission infrastructure to support the new energy sources. Current transmission limits the distance that the renewable energy can travel. The best place to build wind turbines is in rural areas.
States' wind power

The United States added 5,244 megawatts of wind power last year for a total of 16,800 megawatts nationwide. The states with the most installed wind power as of Dec. 31:

1. Texas... 4,356 MW

2. California...2,439 MW

3. Minnesota...1,299 MW

4. Iowa...1,273 MW

5. Washington...1,163 MW

22. Michigan...56 MW*

* As of March 2008

Source: American Wind Energy Association

Making Renewable Energy Affordable -Michigan

Twenty five states have requirements that more electricity is to come from renewable sources. Michigan is not one of them, but Governor Granholm would like Michigan to be come the 26th state. Unfortunately she has faced a very partisan legislature, which has stymied her every move. According to an article in the Sunday March 9, 2008 Free Press

Some Republican lawmakers are reluctant to mandate green power.

The majority of Michigan's power is coal generated (60%)and new electricity sources are needed. According to the article:

No matter which fuel is used to generate electricity, costs are going to go up because state regulators say Michigan needs at least one new multibillion-dollar power plant by 2015, and another nine could be needed by 2025 if demand grows as expected.

Granholm believes that Michigan has the potential to become a regional manufacturer of renewable energy sources - something that would bring in much needed capital ($6 Billion) and create 17,000 jobs.

The problem is that it will cost consumers more to move toward renewable energy. The House is considering capping resident's additional costs at $3 monthly over 20 years.

Granholm wants to require power companies to produce 10% of electric power by 2015, and 25% by 2025. Currently, about 3% of Michigan's electricity is renewable.

So should Michigan become a "green power" state? Is this important for our economy? Is there a future is a renewable economy? And....do we need to continue to grow our use of electricity, or should we learn to conserve power, rather than continue to grow in its use? The US consumes almost a third of world power, but is only 4% of the total population.

Michigan: If you build it, they will come

Detroit's economy has been based on fossil fuels. That is OVER, and a new way is about to begin.

Headlines today are more talk of recession. This New York Times article is based on more people are losing their jobs, something where Michigan has everyone beat. We have been called a "single state recession" for years, and the rest of the states are finally catching up. Good to take the lead from California in something.

So what does outsourcing jobs to another country where people work for far less money do for us? I think we are beginning to see the answer. And it isn't about losing more manufacturing jobs, but creating more. Clean jobs. Jobs that don't require a PhD but require hard work and belief in the company you work for. Jobs that you can invest in because they are an answer to sending the jobs overseas in countries that do not honor environmental health. Jennifer talks a good talk, but hasn't done a thing. Education is still number 50 for her. And as the NY Times says:

Government employment pulled the job market into negative territory, contracting by 18,000 jobs, mostly at state universities and community colleges.

Time to teach what green is and the ways to get there. Time to do rather than say. Definitely NOT the time to cut educational funding.

It is about doing what Nature needs, instead of what humans want. Time to stop conquering and living in peace with our world. Time to stop sending our war against the environment to other places and start creating jobs that are eco-friendly, "cradle to cradle" and balanced.

Those of us who still have jobs aren't doing much better, as prices continue to climb and our paychecks do not. As the article says, we are working longer hours and making less money. This isn't about a $600 stimulus package (wohoo!), this is about faith and the belief that there is another way and being brave to go there and lead the world once again, but not in raw, hubris filled power, but in doing the right thing, and rising above the fray.

Am I wrong?

Tell me what you think about working with the environment instead of against it . Tell me about the kinds of jobs we can create to change. Tell me about how geography plays an important role. Working WITH not against the places we inhabit. Let it start here.