There’s still a lot of work needed to reach Michigan’s climate goals.
There has been progress in developing wind and solar electric generation and batteries that will store that energy. But solar, wind, and batteries are not enough to get us to net-zero carbon. We need something more.
“And that's something else could be more nuclear power or it could be carbon capture, sequestration,” suggested Michael Craig, Assistant Professor in Energy Systems at the University of Michigan.
Let's take a look at those, starting with nuclear.
Nuclear power is not as flexible as coal or gas, which can be switched off if necessary to avoid overburdening the distribution system. Nukes are on all the time. The benefit is they offer a steady “base” power at all times except when they’re shut down for refueling.
The Idaho National Lab has been researching small modular nuclear reactors for years. They can range in size and power, but imagine a nuclear power plant you could fit on a semi-truck trailer.
The new owner of the closed Palisades nuclear power plant, Holtec International, wants to install small modular reactors there. The federal government has approved a Westinghouse design for these small reactors. Westinghouse has built hundreds of nuclear reactors used around the world.
But Holtec International wants to use its own SMR 300 reactor design built by its subsidiary, SMR. It would be the first reactor the company has built.
Palisades could be the proving grounds of that new reactor if the company gets the federal permits it needs.
Holtec also wants to restart the full-size Palisades nuclear plant on Lake Michigan, south of the city of South Haven.
Just 30 miles down the coast is the Cook nuclear power plant, another full-sized facility owned by the Indiana Michigan Power Company.
On the other side of the state, DTE Energy also has a large nuclear power plant, Fermi 2. The company has construction permits to build another large nuclear power plant, Fermi 3. But it’s not actively pursuing that at this point because of the uncertainty of the cost.
Cost overruns have been a problem in the past. Recently, in Georgia, one of the first nuclear plants built in several years went online. It was seven years late and almost $17 billion over budget.
“The question, is the nuclear industry going to get their act together? Because in the U.S., they just have a really miserable track record when it comes to building projects on time and on budget,” noted Sam Gomberg with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Nuclear has a place in the energy mix because it generates electricity with no greenhouse gas emissions. But the list of concerns, starting with price, includes nowhere to put radioactive waste, and the remote possibility of a catastrophic accident.
Carbon capture and sequestration a "must."
Then there’s carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) that Michael Craig with the University of Michigan mentioned. Basically, CCS is separating the CO2 from the emissions of a power plant or other industry and pumping it deep underground.
Brian Calka is DTE’s Vice President of Electric Distribution Operations and Emergency Preparedness. He noted DTE’s latest natural gas-generating plant near Port Huron produces 70% less carbon dioxide than an equivalent coal plant. He said eventually the rest of that CO2 could be sequestered.
“Combined cycle, gas turbine — and especially with carbon capture sequestration technologies bolted on — can really augment the renewable energy generation at the same time.”
And as we’ve reported before, researchers say Michigan has the right geology to store lots of CO2.
“We can certainly tackle all of Michigan's emissions for hundreds, if not thousands of years,” said Autumn Haagsma, Director of the Michigan Repository for Research and Education at Western Michigan University.
But there are concerns that it's not that simple. One of the larger CO2 capture and sequestration projects in the nation is at an ethanol plant in Illinois, operated by Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). Sequestration of ethanol CO2 is more efficient and cleaner than most operations, because the emissions don’t include as many toxic chemicals as in burning coal or natural gas.
Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency found that the “injected fluid migrated into an unauthorized zone,” at the ADM carbon capture and sequestration operation. The EPA said it did not find a threat to drinking water in this instance.
Charlotte Jameson with the Michigan Environmental Council said that’s the big concern: that CO2 sequestration projects can leak.
“That leaking can cause carbonic acid to form, which can then leach minerals and heavy metals from the ground, such as arsenic and uranium, and can have really big impacts potentially on groundwater and drinking water.”
Michael Craig at the University of Michigan says carbon sequestration, in one form or another, must happen in order to reach the climate goals that have been set. But…
“It doesn't have to be used in the power sector, but it has to be used in industry and in other applications,” where it might be more efficient.
Regardless of the approach, Craig said we need to start developing manufacturing supply lines for the new technologies we’ll need, such as better batteries, small modular nuclear reactors, and carbon capture and sequestration. And that needs to happen sooner rather than later.
“So that we don't get to this point 15 or 20 years down the line and pick up our heads and be like, oh, we need this other thing, but it's not developed at all. And it's going to take us 10 years to get it going.”
Michigan is making progress toward its clean energy goals, but according to a U.S. Energy Information Administration report released late last year, only 11% of the electric power used in the state came from renewable sources in 2023.
