Here is a quotation from the article:
"But according to some, the hearing isn't so much about being opponents of FirstEnergy's 800-megawatt plant, but about being But according to some, the hearing isn't so much about being opponents of FirstEnergy's 800-megawatt plant, but about being proponents of alternative energy sources they say are here and ready to go.
"Michael Keegan, from the organization Don't Waste Michigan, said he wants to see solar and wind renewable resources to get a chance at replacing Davis-Besse."
Sure, "proponents of alternative energy sources they say are here and ready to go."
That's fine as long as you are willing to do without electricity when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.
For sun and wind power to work, it is necessary to have fossil fuel plants up and running at all times to assume the load when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. Thus, the investment costs of sun and wind power are not instead of the investments of costs of coal power, but rather, IN ADDITION to the investment costs of coal power. Thus, sun and wind power would greatly increase the cost of electricity. Moreover, because the coal plants would have to be up and running to be ready to assume the load at any moment, it may be that sun and wind power would not even reduce the use of coal.
In general, a wind farm is able to generate only 20% to 30% of its name-plate rated power because the wind is not always blowing at a suitable speed. Solar power is available only when the sun is shining which, in the winter time, is only about 35% of the time (assuming no cloud cover) and even when the sun is shining, it is often too low in the sky to provide useful power.
Eventually, wind and solar power will be seen to be the expensive boondoggle that they are. They are useful only in remote areas where connecting to the grid is impractical and intermittent power is tolerable.