Posted on 09/29/2016 6:15:39 AM PDT by MichCapCon
The Sierra Club has adopted a position that would effectively require all electricity in Michigan to come from renewable sources such as wind and solar. This appears to have caused a rift between the environmentalist organization and Lansing’s public utility over the replacement of a coal-fired power station set to close in 2020.
The Sierra Club opposes building a natural-gas powered plant to replace the coal-fired plant, the utility says.
“I’ve given up trying to talk to them,” said Dick Peffley, the general manager of Lansing’s Board of Water and Light.
The Sierra Club supported a natural-gas plant the utility built three years ago. But according to Peffley, it is now opposed to all nonrenewable forms of energy, including nuclear, coal and natural gas.
Sierra Club spokesman Brad Van Guilder didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.
The Lansing Board of Water and Light operates two coal-fired power plants and has an ownership stake in a third coal-fired power plant that is operated by DTE.
The utility is planning to retire its Eckert coal-fired power plant in 2020. It said it won’t be able to comply with future environmental rules and the plant is too costly to continue operating.
In 2015 coal provided nearly half (46.5 percent) of Michigan’s net electricity generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The Eckert plant generates about one-third of the electricity provided by the utility, which serves Lansing and neighboring communities.
“They (Sierra Club) believe all energy that will be lost can be replaced by renewables or energy efficiency,” Peffley said. “You can’t supply energy that way. With only wind and sun, this country will be black.”
The Lansing utility released a poll in January that found 64 percent of residential and 71 percent of business customers favor favored replacing Eckert with a natural gas power plant along with renewable sources of energy. Support dropped to 47 percent of residential and 56 percent of business customers when respondents were informed that a new power plant would probably mean a rate increase.
The utility has vowed to generate 40 percent of its electricity with renewable sources by 2030.
“That’s a tough hurdle for us to do, but we’re committed to achieve this goal,” Peffley said.
Don’t forget they also don’t like Hydroelectric power
And no or fewer humans! Humans are bad for the environment.
They’d be happy if 90% of the human population died off.
Gets pretty cold in Michigan in the winter, when the sun goes down.
I wonder what Sierra Club’s solution is? More blankets? Marrying a really fat woman?
They don’t even want solar or wind. Believe me. It’s development. They want us to all sing Kumbaya around the camp fire. Fine. What if you’re in the group and your name is Colin Kapernick?
Let them prove their dedication to the “cause” by moving into unheated huts in the wilderness. Green is indeed the new red!
As per UN Agenda 21.
No worries, mate. The Sierra Clubites all get eaten in the first round of the zombie uprising.
Wait, now...camp fires require wood, which requires trees to be cut, which is a Sierra Club no-no...
“They don’t even want solar or wind. Believe me. It’s development. They want us to all sing Kumbaya around the camp fire. Fine. What if you’re in the group and your name is Colin Kapernick?”
No campfire. Adds to particulate and CO2 emissions silly.
They like wind and solar if you are proposing gas or coal. If you are proposing wind or solar, you discover they are against those too.
The rank and file are cranks. The leadership are shake-down artists. It is a scam.
Fair enough.
I'll assume that they want to use solar and wind. Also fair enough.
So...... how are they going to mine the resources that are needed to manufacture turbines and solar panels? Smelt the steel and aluminum? Heck, *MAKE* the steel without coke? Transport the materials and the finished product? Get the electricity from the solar and wind farms to the correct places?
And that's just what I came up with off the top of my head. Of course, they don't want these questions answered, even if they could answer them. It's a power play, no more, no less.
“They’d be happy if 90% of the human population died off.”
They being the 10%.
Many years ago I proposed a clean energy solution I really hope the libtards would embrace. If you have a BMI above 30 (are over weight) you have to report to a generating station for an hour a day and pedal a stationary bike that generates power. Two birds, one stone. America sheds it’s obesity, people get fit, healthcare improves, etc. everyone wins.
Once I tell them that the sound of crickets is deafening.
...and they really hate wood burners.
Or wood stoves.
Go completely green. No coal-based anything, no oil-based anything. Give it all up. Use plants and dirt for your lifestyle. Give up your planes, cars, bicycles, homes, clothing, food. Everything that isn't green, then maybe, just maybe, I'll care about your opinion... But not likely.
I would agree to that proposal ... if they themselves started the process.
I’m not sure what they would approve of for a heat source I am sure there is a significant shortage of Buffalo chips.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.