Category: Daily News

Leveraging Michigan’s Assets as an Economic Growth Catalyst

By Timothy G. NashAnthony StorerBob ThomasParker Fairbairn

The One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) cuts red tape and trims taxes on new resource projects. It simplifies rules, clarifies costs, and enforces swift penalties. These reforms reduce investor risk and shorten the timeline from testing to production. As a result, the legislation will be able to reshape many state’s natural resource landscape. Michigan can be an ideal example of federal, state and local government partnering to develop a modern strategy that both safeguards the environment, especially the Great Lakes while responsibly develops oil, natural gas, and rare earth elements as well. With this new legal framework in place, Michigan is well-positioned to strategically leverage three of its most valuable natural assets.

1. Water as a Key Resource

Michigan’s freshwater, including the five Great Lakes and deep underground aquifers, is a long-term strategic asset. In addition to abundant surface water, groundwater beneath the Lower Peninsula alone is estimated to equal the volume of Lake Huron. Michiganders withdraw around 700 million gallons of groundwater daily for drinking, agriculture, and industry, reinforcing its central role in the state’s economy. Nearly 45% of Michigan residents rely on groundwater from wells or community systems, making aquifer protection a vital public health priority.

State environmental agencies have dubbed groundwater Michigan’s “Sixth Great Lake,” recognizing its significance for both economic resilience and environmental health. With OBBB enhancing state authority, states like Michigan can now promote industrial and municipal use of this resource while preserving environmental longevity.

2. History and Potential of Michigan’s Oil and Natural Gas Reserves

In the 1920s and 1930s, Michigan led oil and gas production in the Northeast, with prolific fields in Saginaw, Muskegon, and Mount Pleasant. The 1928 Mount Pleasant discovery earned the town the title “Oil Capital of Michigan.” By 1934, annual production exceeded 10 million barrels and peaked at over 23 million barrels by 1939. With decades of technological advancement since then, modest and environmentally responsible extraction is again feasible.

New formations and enhanced recovery techniques in the Dundee, Traverse, and Detroit River zones offer renewed potential across previously tapped areas. Under OBBB, Michigan can test cleaner extraction technologies in carefully selected zones, guided by scientific research and environmental oversight.

3. Rare Earth Element Prospects

Rare earth elements (REEs) are vital for clean energy, electronics, and defense. Although Michigan does not yet produce REEs commercially, geological surveys—especially in the western Upper Peninsula—indicate promising deposits in phosphate minerals and uranium-monazite complexes. The Michigan Geological Survey at Western Michigan University, alongside U.S. Geological Survey collaborators, is actively mapping critical minerals including REEs, copper, nickel, manganese, cobalt, and platinum group metals.

Past academic findings identified strong REE, thorium, and uranium signals in the Goodrich quartzite of Marquette County, indicating detrital monazite deposits. Because REEs are typically dispersed at low concentrations, their extraction demands precise scientific approaches and environmental safeguards. Yet, with demand rising, Michigan has the opportunity to emerge as a secure domestic supplier of these strategic materials.

Supportive Research and Pilot Programs

Since 2019, researchers at the University of Michigan and Western Michigan University have secured U.S. Geological Survey funding to map and assess Michigan’s mineral resources. Their work aims to quantify reserves and evaluate the feasibility of extracting rare earths and other strategic materials.

More recently, Wayne State University received a $3.1 million grant from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) for its REUSE project. This initiative is developing scalable methods to extract REEs from mine waste and industrial byproducts, aiming to minimize environmental impact and reduce dependency on foreign sources.

The Lower Peninsula’s Strengths

While the Upper Peninsula holds more metallic and REE-bearing rocks, the Lower Peninsula contains vast sedimentary formations with potash and saline brine minerals. A recent geological survey suggests a potash deposit spanning up to 22 counties, characterized by high salinity and potassium content. Additional elements, including magnesium, lithium, manganese, strontium, cesium, and helium, have also been identified in these brine systems, though not yet in commercial quantities.

Research into these resources is still early-stage, but their industrial applications in batteries, fertilizers, and specialty chemicals hold long-term promise. With OBBB in place, Michigan could initiate pilot projects for environmentally sound brine extraction that respects landowner rights and community standards.

Aligning Resource Development with Stewardship

Effective resource development must balance economic opportunity with environmental responsibility. That means rigorous, science-based assessments, continuous groundwater monitoring, and strict remediation protocols. Under OBBB, Michigan can require water reuse systems, restoration bonds, and closed-loop operations to minimize ecological impact.

Financial reforms allow agencies greater flexibility to invest in testing capacity and partner with universities and national labs. The shared objectives are clear: protect drinking water, limit land disruption, ensure air quality, and maintain wildlife habitats. Robust state data systems now enable real-time tracking of drilling permits, groundwater quality, and historical mineral activity.

Public oversight mechanisms ensure that any oil, natural gas, or REE development occurs with transparency.

Conclusion

Michigan’s natural assets include unparalleled freshwater reserves, a historic oil and natural gas sector, and emerging potential in rare earth and strategic minerals. Deep aquifers, once overlooked, now represent both a public health safeguard and an economic advantage. Oil and gas fields, long dormant, are candidates for clean reinvestment. And while REEs are not yet mined here, promising deposits and brine-based opportunities suggest Michigan could play a national role in critical mineral supply chains. Just recently, Nebraska announced the discovery of rare earth elements and a mine near Elk Creek, Nebraska. The sooner more states like Nebraska and potentially Michigan can join California, Georgia, Missouri, Montana, Texas, Wyoming and Alaska to ensure America’s independence from unfriendly rare earth element suppliers, the better.

Thanks to OBBB, Michigan now has a modern regulatory structure that pairs environmental stewardship with economic development. By empowering science-led policy and embracing public-private collaboration, Michigan can ensure resource development supports long-term prosperity and ecological integrity.

This is not a return to extraction for its own sake; it is a chance to pursue strategic, sustainable development with accountability and vision. The OBBB reforms lay the groundwork for pilot projects, research expansion, and community dialogue that can position Michigan as a leader in the next era of resource innovation.

Michigan’s economic future is not just in factories or finance, it is also in its fields, its rocks, and its water. With the right balance of protection and progress, these assets can be responsibly leveraged to secure jobs, strengthen communities, and build a more resilient state economy.

Dr. Timothy G. Nash is director of The Northwood University Center for the Advancement of Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship (NUCAFEE). 

Mr. Anthony Storer is an honors economics and finance major and NUCAFEE student scholar at Northwood University. 

Mr. Bob Thomas is COO of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. 

Mr. Parker Fairbairn serves in the Michigan House of Representatives from the 107th District.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.


Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/BkF2vNE

August 19, 2025 at 04:06AM

National Grid connects UK’s largest battery storage facility at Tilbury substation

By Paul Homewood

h/t Doug Brodie

 

300MW? 680,000 homes?

Sounds impressive? Not really!

 image

18th August 2025

Press release

National Grid has connected the UK’s largest battery energy storage system (BESS) to its transmission network at Tilbury substation in Essex.

The 300MW Thurrock Storage project, developed by Statera Energy, is now energised and delivering electricity flexibly to the network across London and the south east.

With a total capacity of 600MWh, Thurrock Storage is capable of powering up to 680,000 homes, and can help to balance supply and demand by soaking up surplus clean electricity and discharging it instantaneously when the grid needs it.

Our Tilbury substation once served a coal plant, and with battery connections like this, it’s today helping to power a more sustainable future for the region and the country.

National Grid reinforced its Tilbury substation to ensure the network in the region could safely carry the battery’s significant additional load, with new protection and control systems installed to ensure a robust connection.

The substation previously served the coal-fired Tilbury A and B power stations on adjacent land prior to their demolition, so the connection of the Thurrock Storage facility marks a symbolic transition from coal to clean electricity at the site.

John Twomey, director of customer and network development at National Grid Electricity Transmission, said:

“Battery storage plays a vital role in Britain’s clean energy transition. Connecting Thurrock Storage, the UK’s biggest battery, to our transmission network marks a significant step on that journey.

“Our Tilbury substation once served a coal plant, and with battery connections like this, it’s today helping to power a more sustainable future for the region and the country.”

Tom Vernon, Statera Energy CEO and founder, said:

“We are delighted that Thurrock Storage is now energised, following its successful connection to the grid by National Grid Electricity Transmission. Increasing BESS capacity is essential for supporting the grid when renewable generation, such as solar and wind, is low or changes quickly. It ensures that energy can be stored efficiently and returned to the grid whenever it’s needed.”

National Grid is continuing work at Tilbury substation to connect the 450MW Thurrock Flexible Generation facility, another Statera project that is set to support the energy needs of the region.

The connection of the UK’s biggest battery follows energisation in July of the 373MW Cleve Hill Solar Park in Kent – the largest solar plant in the country – which National Grid connected to its adjacent Cleve Hill substation.

https://www.nationalgrid.com/national-grid-connects-uks-largest-battery-storage-facility-tilbury-substation

The grid needs about 45000 MWh every hour at peak periods in winter. That means the 600 MWh from Thurrock will keep the grid doing for 48 seconds! Not even that, in fact, because the battery will never be fully drained.

And those 680,000 homes? Thurrock will store enough to last them two hours. What are they supposed to do after that when the wind is not blowing?

According to Statera, the battery storage secured debt financing of £144 million, all of which will of course have to be paid back via our electricity bills:

image

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/wx6aemf

August 19, 2025 at 03:23AM

Good questions can stop bad projects

A hard question calls for an answer there and then.

via CFACT

https://ift.tt/ny42Nbh

August 19, 2025 at 03:13AM

‘Big Oil’ and Early Solar: Trying and Failing

Solar is hardly an infant industry, as documented here and here. And ‘Big Oil’ tried to make it economic a half century ago–and failed. A six-year-old article, “How Big Oil Of The Past Helped Launch The Solar Industry Of Today, by Andrea Hsu tells the story, one that is pertinent today given the bust of the industry (see tomorrow’s post). She begins:

Renewable energy has gotten so cheap that even oil giant Exxon Mobil, which reported $20.8 billion in earnings in 2018, is getting in on the savings. Over the next couple of years, Exxon Mobil will begin purchasing wind and solar power in West Texas, part of a 12-year agreement signed late last year with the Danish energy company Orsted. The plan is to use cheap, clean electricity to power Exxon Mobil’s expanding operations in the Permian Basin, one of the world’s most productive oil fields.

Was this economics or greenwashing? If it was economics, or almost so, the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) was responsible, which allowed an immediate 30 percent tax write-off.

Hsu continues by delving into history:

It’s not the first time economic considerations have led the company to explore the possibilities of solar. Half a century ago — before climate change was a topic of much discussion and before Exxon was accused of deceiving shareholders and the public by downplaying the risks of climate change, prompting investigations and lawsuits — the company then known as Jersey Standard funded groundbreaking research into solar photovoltaic technology, which converts sunlight into electricity.

Continuing:

Other oil companies would follow. While the amounts spent by these big firms were tiny compared with their vast resources, these early, critical investments in solar technology laid a foundation for what is now a growing, multibillion-dollar industry.

Why this interest by Exxon?

Exxon’s interest in solar was piqued at a time when it was unclear whether there were fortunes still to be made from fossil fuels. “The origin was actually a strategic one,” says Adam Louis Shrier, 81, a chemical engineer who spent 25 years at Exxon working in various commercial, technical and corporate positions.

Soaring demand for oil through the 1960s drove concerns about the U.S. oil supply. Inside Exxon, there were discussions about whether the company was becoming overly dependent on the countries that had formed OPEC.

“What if these producers start jacking up the price and our market dries up?” Shrier, who began working at Exxon in 1963, remembers people asking. “What can we do if we can’t be in the oil business at all?”

Peak Oil and Peak Gas, a mirage brought on by domestic price and allocation controls on crude oil and oil products, as well as on natural gas, was the culprit. Worst, Exxon felt a need to get out of its core competency into alternative energy and non-energy businesses.

As early as the 1960s, Shrier says, Exxon executives said, “We’ve got to diversify.” Exxon began looking into side businesses such as office machinery and word processing. Shrier, who had been in the company’s central engineering operation, was put in charge of nonconventional energy.

Elliot Berman tests solar arrays on the roof of Solar Power Corp.’s offices. Solar Power Corp. via John Perlin

Berman’s Story

Hsu continues:

Part of Shrier’s portfolio included overseeing a new research unit headed by a photochemist named Elliot Berman. In 1970, Berman had approached Exxon with an idea that other companies had passed on: figuring out how to build a solar panel that would be economic for use on Earth.

Solar cells had been used successfully in space since 1958, when a solar-powered transmitter was launched aboard the satellite Vanguard 1. Berman was among those who believed that solar photovoltaic technology had great potential on Earth, where millions of people lacked electricity.

“Here’s the sun. Here are the people,” says Berman, who is 89 now. “All you have to do is figure out a way to put the two things together.”

Uncompetitive Cost

Hsu then explains the failure of solar in the energy-troubled 1970s, even when a 10 percent ITC was in effect.

The big challenge was cost. Manufacturing silicon — the material of choice for solar photovoltaics — was exorbitant. The solar cells being sent into space cost more than $100 per watt. For solar to be successful on Earth, Berman knew he had to bring the cost down to a fraction of that. He aimed for $10 per watt. (Today the cost is estimated to be less than 50 cents per watt.)

His small research team began searching for a material that would be significantly cheaper than silicon. At the same time, he needed to prove that solar could work commercially on Earth.

One particularly compelling idea emerged from a trip to one of Exxon’s oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. The oil platforms were required to have navigation aids — foghorns and flashing lights, all powered by batteries. The batteries didn’t last long, and replacing them was a big expense for Exxon, not to mention an environmental hazard. The spent batteries were sometimes disposed of in the ocean, Berman says. Solar would be cheaper, he told the company.

Exxon’s First Try: Contracting

“To speed development of a product that Exxon could market,”

Berman looked to buy ready-made silicon solar cells. He approached someone he knew at one of the space program’s solar cell manufacturers, who readily agreed to Berman’s desired price of $10 per watt. “So I gave him a purchase order for $100,000,” he says. “Remember, I was at Exxon. I could write big checks!” But the seller couldn’t deliver. What he had were space rejects, slightly imperfect solar cells that Berman believes would have been fine for terrestrial use — but there weren’t enough of them.

Exxon’s Second Try: In-house

Hsu continues:

After a fruitless search, Berman concluded that his team would have to make its own solar cells. A breakthrough in cost came when they figured out they could use silicon castoffs from the semiconductor industry. Imperfect silicon wafers may have been problematic for electronics but made little difference in the efficiency of solar cells, Berman discovered.

In 1973, the Exxon-funded Solar Power Corp. began manufacturing and shipping its first product: five silicon wafers on a circuit board encased in silicone rubber. These solar panels provided power in the U.S. and abroad — in places as far-flung as Australia and Mali — to oil platforms, mountaintop telecommunications stations, recreational boats and rural villages where solar energy was used to pump water.

“I think Elliot’s most brilliant thing was to delineate all the markets that existed for solar at even the relatively high price that it was,” says John Perlin, author of Let It Shine: The 6,000-Year Story of Solar Energy. “The real breakthrough of Elliot — with the help of Exxon — was planting the flag of photovoltaics throughout the world.”

Hsu provides the (neo-Malthusian) context:

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., the energy crisis of the 1970s was unfolding. The 1973-1974 oil embargo sparked fuel shortages and long lines at gas stations. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter warned the nation: “The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75% of our energy are simply running out.”

What wasn’t running out was sunlight. Using solar power to fulfill the world’s energy needs seemed like an ever more promising option. Exxon ran a print and television ad campaign with the slogan “Energy for a strong America,” showcasing various ways the company was working to secure energy for the country — with solar featured alongside coal and nuclear power.

At the same time, Exxon had competition on the solar front. Looking to diversify its holdings in a time of uncertainty, Los Angeles-based oil company Atlantic Richfield acquired a solar company of its own, renaming it ARCO Solar. Berman would later join the company as chief scientist.

Arco Joins In

While Exxon had brought down the cost of solar cells and had opened up markets worldwide, ARCO Solar invested in making the technology better, boosting the efficiency of solar panels, honing manufacturing tools and techniques and creating a product that was more durable. “That fundamental investment in materials, and understanding how these things behave” were crucial, says Terry Jester, an engineer who joined ARCO Solar as a college senior. “Now people don’t even talk about the reliability of solar panels,” she says. “They’re so reliable.”

Despite the tangible gains, the oil industry’s solar investments were “highly suspect in a lot of people’s minds,” says Chris Eberspacher, who was ARCO Solar’s director of research and development in the 1980s. Numerous oil spills occurred in the Gulf of Mexico and off California’s coast in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s. “There was clear evidence of environmental spoliation, so I think oil companies were seen with great skepticism,” he says.

The End

Hsu notes the 1970s demise of mass solar:

Many presumed that oil companies were getting into solar so they could sabotage the industry from the inside. Eberspacher, who describes himself as a product of the 1970s environmental movement, saw something different.” Our clear marching orders were to change the world,” he says.

ARCO Solar quickly became the world’s largest solar manufacturer. And yet the company still wasn’t turning a profit. Atlantic Richfield Chairman Robert Anderson’s defense of the spending became company lore, says Eberspacher.

“He would say something to the effect of ‘You may like the activity or you may not, but all the money we’ve spent on solar so far is roughly equivalent to one dry hole. And we don’t intend to give up. We intend to drill this hole all the way to the bottom.’ ” In the end, the oil companies did give up….

Exxon closed down Solar Power Corp. around 1984, after Shrier wrote a report finding that it would be at least a decade before the solar business would be self-supporting. ARCO Solar powered through the 1980s, thanks in part to continued support from its chairman, but at the end of the decade, it was sold to the Germany company Siemens.

A Verdict?

“I’m no fan of oil companies, but I have to be fair when I think about who did what when,” Eberspacher says of the oil industry’s early involvement with solar. “Whether they did that for strictly economic reasons, whether they did that for some mix of economic and public relations reasons, it doesn’t matter. They were there. They made a difference. And that difference enabled an industry which is now changing the world.”….

A final comment is in order. Seen from today, some six years later, Big Oil’s venture into solar was a mistaken notion that oil and gas were finite, depletable resources past the point of maximum production. But once price and allocation controls were relaxed and then removed in the in the early-to-mid 1980s, oil and gas went into surplus where they have remained, with few exceptions, since. New-generation extraction technologies (resourceship) have made these energy minerals expanding resources, not depleting ones. Thus,the need for solar as grid electricity has diminished, except for the artificial prop of special government subsidies, a story well known in today’s energy debate.

The post ‘Big Oil’ and Early Solar: Trying and Failing appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/BwScTCh

August 19, 2025 at 01:12AM