jump to navigation

SB 251 Nuclear Energy Bill For Indiana In Jeopardy March 15, 2011

Posted by Laura Arnold in Uncategorized.
Tags: , ,

Editor’s Note: SB 251 passed the Indiana Senate and is awaiting action by the Indiana House, however, action on all bills in the House has been suspended until House Democrats return to the State House.  House Democrats have staged a walk out leaving House Republicans without a quorum to conduct legislative business. Laura Ann Arnold

Originally printed at http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/Nuclear-Energy-Bill-For-Indiana-In-Jeopardy-117966469.html
By Jeff Neumeyer
March 14, 2011
INDIANA, (Indiana’s NewsCenter) — A provision of a senate bill that seeks to encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants in Indiana may be a casualty of the Japan earthquake disaster.
The leader of the state senate says we’ll need to get more facts about what caused the nuclear plant problems in Japan before we go any further with Senate Bill 251.
There are a number of nuclear power plants across the United States, but none in the state of Indiana.
Sources of electricity in the Midwest are at risk from new regulations on coal-fired power proposed by President Obama.
Among other things, Senate Bill 251 would allow utility companies pursuing construction of nuclear plants to try and pass on some of those costs to ratepayers.
But David Long of Fort Wayne, the President Pro Tem of the senate, says the mess in Japan gives reason for pause.
David Long/(R) Senate President Pro Tem: ” We need to take a step back, try to understand how this happened, what the circumstances were, was it human error, was it all caused by the natural disaster? If so, what part of it, was it the tsunami, was it the earthquake, we don’t have the answers to that right now, and we need to have some answers.”
Senate Bill 251 tries to create other incentives for producing clean energy.
A study group told state legislators back in 2009 that Indiana would need 17 percent more electricity generation capacity by 2020 and 30 percent more by 2025.
But trying to sell the public on nuclear energy has suddenly become a daunting task.



1. Gary Reese - March 15, 2011

To me the situation in Japan is yet another glaring example of the “We have all of the bases covered.” attitude.
While it’s not likely we will have a tsunami and we only have mild (some far) earthquakes, we don’t have a way to see future situations.
Is it worth the tiny risk of a meltdown? Keep in mind, death is very final. Three Mile Island was supposed to have a “tiny” risk of a meltdown.
Then too, how many mountains are you going to hollow out for the waste. You can “fix” a mountain of national dept, how do you “fix” a mountain of nuclear waste?
Some people just have to have their way no matter what the price.

Chris - April 19, 2011

How many people died from three mile island? So far, nuclear is the only real alternative energy source that actually produces industrial size energy on a continuous basis that can be distributed over a large distance reliably. And it does so without generating any greenhouse gasses. That is the holy grail of the environmental/global warming group. Anyone who is intellectually honest will have to admit, that even if we used all the alternative sources to their fullest potential, they would not add up to the need for energy at current levels.

We would have to go back at least a century to bring our need for energy down to what alternatives would produce. Our standard of living would be greatly diminshed. I really don’t think that is a realistic way to approach conservation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: