SB 94, introduced by Senator Errington would require public utility electricity suppliers to produce 20% of the electricity delivered to Indiana customers through renewable resources by the year 2022. The requirement would start at 1% in 2010 and go up by 1% per year through 2013 then 2% per year through 2021.
I don’t really understand the math involved in arriving at the percentages, but it appears that some part of it can be satisfied by reducing demand through energy efficiency measures.
I’m pretty sure this is going nowhere, so I’m not going to waste a lot of effort on it.
Do you think it’s not going anywhere because it isn’t valuable legislation or because the Governor is so anti-environment that it doesn’t have a chance of being enacted? I like the intent behind the legislation even if it’s not clear where Senator Errington got her numbers.
I suspect it is valuable legislation, but I don’t know enough to be sure. I just don’t see the General Assembly, let alone the Governor, having the stomach for this sort of regulation, even if they thought it was good policy.
I don’t disagree with your assesment of the General Assmebly and the Governor, it just wasn’t clear to me why you considered it a “wasted effort”. I applaud Senator Errington, who is my State Senator, for introducing the legislation and at least trying to advance pro-environment legislation.
By the way, I really value your brief summaries of each bill that is introduced. It is an amazing resource!
I keep hoping that fusion power finally becomes available – that would make a lot of these points moot.
More nuclear power has a fair bit to recommend it, in the meantime – some of the new reactor designs are vast improvements over the currently working plants.
Parker – I’ve seen reports saying exactly what you’re referring to – that the new reactor designs are safer and less polluting. I have no reason to doubt these reports but there’s just something within me that doesn’t feel safe with the idea of nuclear power. Its destructive power is so enormous and I think there’s some arrogance involved when we think we can control it.
Chad –
That horse is well out of the barn – so I encourage you not to take counsel of your fears in this case.
‘China Syndrome’ was an unfortunately popular crock of excrement, in terms of informing public policy – the impact of such leaden-witted popularizations still poisons people’s thinking more than Three Mile Island ever poisoned anyone’s body. Dramatic as all get-out, though…
Experience to date shows nuclear power does very well in terms of relative risk – mining and transporting and burning coal all entail more significant dangers in folk’s day to day life.
China Syndrome may have added to it, but I think the average person assumes that a nuclear bomb and a nuclear power plant are almost the same thing. The plant is just “burning” the bomb and hoping it doesn’t explode, by common logic.
That is so far from reality, but without a decent understanding, I get why the public is so scared of it. I don’t expect the general public to really understand nuclear fission any time soon.
Still, it is the best replacement for coal until we get true renewable power working.
I had to look up ‘China Syndrome’ to understand what you were both referring to. ;) My fear, rational or not, is more informed by Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and, to a lesser extent, Fermi 2 than by the movie in question.
Three Mile Island released 8 millirems to most people within 10 miles, no more than 100 millirems to any one person. It was the biggest nuclear power issue in the USA.
Coal power plants release 18 millirems in their fly ash to people that live nearby, EVERY YEAR, when they’re working as designed.
We have a LOT of coal power in Indiana. I’d sleep much better at night with all nukes and no coal in this state (and Illinois, since we get a fair amount of their coal ash).
The average person doesn’t need to understand nuclear fission in order to accept nuclear power as a viable energy source. Unfortunately, it has been the policy of our country for the last, oh, sixty years to dupe the public into believing that:
1. Nuclear = bombs
2. Nuclear bombs are created in nuclear reactors
Therefore, our reactors need to be located in the most remote areas possible and their reactors need to be dismantled or destroyed by our bombs ASAP.
We live in a martial, not a peaceful society, and our leadership both reflects and encourages this.
Y’know, I don’t oppose present-day fast-tracking of nuclear power because I saw a movie once, or because I like breathing Illinois coal ash; I oppose it because every proponent I’ve ever met thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a drooling moron.
And I guess I missed where you guys solved the problem of transportation, long-term storage, and security of all that radioactive material, but then I probably wouldn’t have been able to understand it anyway.
Doghouse, I NEVER said you or Chad were drooling! :)
I don’t understand why people are so worried about the long-term storage of a known, contained amount of radioactive waste that they’ll accept in exchange all of the crap spewed out by a coal plant.
Given the choice of a power plant that craps out a couple of drums of waste that we can actually attempt to contain or a power plant that has a huge smokestack billowing tons of waste into the air every day that we can’t do anything about, I’ll take the safer one: nuclear.
As for the security of all of that radioactive material, most nuclear power plants produce waste that can’t be made into bombs. Only breeder reactors can do that, with the benefit that their waste is far less, and the bomb-capable stuff lasts only a couple of hundred years rather than thousands.
I’ve heard more than one person around here say “the facts have a liberal bias” without being accused of calling everyone else a drooling moron.
In this case, the facts have a nuclear bias. Coal is killing us.
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm
Doghouse –
I dunno – if you base your disagreement only on the fact that you feel offended, you just might need to wipe off your chin…
But that’s a separate issue.
Questioning nuclear power does not mean I support coal.
Again, I acknowledge that much of my discomfort regarding nuclear power is more fear based than knowledge based. Discount my fears based on that basis if you like. ;)
Would more of a reliance on nuclear power make us more vulnerable to terrorism? More nuclear power plants would equal more targets. Also, how safe are these plants when coming against the force of nature? What happens if they are “hit” by an earthquake, a tornado, or a hurricane? The scenarios I mention are not common ones, but the destruction that could be unleashed by them could be great. It’s kind of like plain crashes vs. automobile accidents. There are far more people killed in auto accidents, but people seem more scared/shocked when there’s a plane crash. The potential deaths from a nuclear accident (natural or otherwise) or nuclear terrorism could be immense.
I don’t like making choices based on fear so I should probably educate myself more on the subject but are the choices we have really only between coal and nuclear power? What about wind, solar, geothermal, etc…
I think your analogy between cars and planes is correct with coal/nuke. It isn’t that nuke is perfectly safe, just more safe.
I think wind, solar, and geothermal, etc, will get there, but they’re just not there YET. I see nuke as filling the gap until we do get there.
There is also a need for “base load”, the amount of power that is always drawn and can’t be subject to weather. Unless we create a global power grid (I think we will someday), solar and wind are at the mercy of weather. A long bout of cloudy, windless days would wreck us.