Solar in Michigan in isolation? Terrible idea. I don't think that is what's being proposed.
I'm a layman, but if I'm reading correctly the concept is NOT that MI would make do with solar/wind power all by its lonesome. The concept is that , when it is winter night in Michigan, it is summer day in Sydney. So solar and wind farms in Australia (say) could send their surplus to Michigan during the winter months.
The major technical issue (aside from others which I will address in a moment) is transmission efficiency; too much electricity is lost between Sydney and Michigan to make this economically feasible at this time.
If we develop the kind of superconductors needed for fusion, that could also create far more efficient transmission media, which would in turn make a global society powered by wind/power possible.
The issue with Nuclear power (fission, not fusion, which is still at least a decade out) is that locating one close by is less efficient in the production stage than wind/solar is. So in the long run it's better to have a globally distributed power network then it is to build expensive (and potentially dangerous) nuclear plants locally.
The major flaw I see in the scheme is not technical, but political: Offshoring your power sources means your national government cannot guarantee your supply of electricity in time of war or economic embargo. As an American, as I think of the nations half a world away I can't say I'm entirely comfortable with having my energy grid dependent on them -- and I'll wager their people feel the same way about us.
So in the event of war, economic embargo, or other trouble I can see nations wanting to have their own domestic ability to generate as much power as they need to run their essential defense and economic systems. That means coal and oil plants in the short term, and nuclear/fusion in the long run.
ETA: Since the sun is a naturally occurring fusion reactor I suppose all solar power IS nuclear power, technically
Respectfully,
Brian P.