Indiana Loses $1.5 Billion Coal Project

[Steve Stuck]

Successful business leaders and businesses always look to the future. They do not impose emotion but make sound judgement decisions that impact their business and customers. This latest news that hit the business section of the Star on Thanksgiving Day came as no shock. Yet it shows another example of how federal regulations/taxes is driving away business in this country and getting the results it is designed to actually do.

Vectren Energy and Northern Indiana Public Service Co. have decided to shelve their plans to build a $1.5 billion coal plant in Southwestern Indiana that would take coal and turn it into natural gas. The reason? much uncertainty with coming federal carbon regulation rules that would possibly make it too much money to produce and run the facility.

This is awesome. We are in a major energy crunch right now and yet this is the beginning of what this regulation will do to not only business's in the coal/gas/oil, but many other industries will be affected down the road. Many jobs nationwide will be lost in less than a decade to this carbon regulation/tax policy. On top of that, higher prices on goods and energy all in the name of environmentalism. The state would have produced many good jobs with not only building this plant, but for years down the road in running it.

Politicians will be in a very rude awakening when these half baked ideas get passed and citizens start seeing the real effects of this coming legislation.

[Steve Stuck]

Sure, what should the company do then? Please give details. Please give financial breakdown of how these carbon regulations will effect business. Please show jobs loss and price ranges over a ten year period.

Also, have you read the 432 page carbon regulation bill called the Climate Security Act of 2007? Tell me points you disagree with in the bill. Would like to hear your thoughts.

[Steve Stuck]

So your stance is that companies should have too be ready to move in the direction that federal government wants them too, even if the results are not favorable for the companies and they lose money?

Now, hypothetically speaking,say small business industry gets hit with costs they cannot recoup. Not talking big oil or big coal. Say companies that produce plastics which uses oil to make it. The regulations hit and their business cannot afford to be around, is that their fault or is it just a part of life that government can inject their will upon business?

[Steve Stuck]

The public outcry you speak of is that of a minority and not of what Americans want the government to do.

The government can't run one thing right so entrusting them in protecting the environment is very laughable. While I see your concern with the environment, many people will only be dipping their hand into too taxpayer money while we all pay the price of unproductivity.

The environmentalist scream renewable energy, yet they won't let these projects happen due to government regulating these projects too much. Why do you think it takes 20 years just to get a nuclear energy permit?

Bottomline, environmentalists do not offer any new ideas and if they do, it is usually just a new tax or regulation plan. No other country is going to follow our lead because they grasp where our country is heading. Russia is now going to help Venezuela build a nuclear energy facility. Notice they don't have to go through a big EPA permit process to follow.

Our country alone can't change this mythical manmade global warming process while others are building coal plants, drilling for oil and oil refinaries. We will just become second class citizens.

[Jeff Zuber]

Welcome to the next four years.......

It's not just coal burning plants but every facet of business. If you're about to be regulated/taxed to death what benefit do you see in updating/expanding/investing? Well unless you're in a bailout industry.....

I am a huge advocate of renewable energy. I'd love to make a majority of the energy I use at home. But solar and wind are years away due to infrastructure improvements etc. Why do we shoot ourselves in the foot without a viable alternative? Take the time and energy we will devote to destroying the current energy industry and shift that brain trust to fixing the grid for renewables etc.

[Steve Stuck]

They say we are about 12-15 years away from "nanotech" solar power. The current solar power is now growing outdated and doesn't capture the power of the sun like nanotech will. Nanotech will be able to be used in places like Indiana on cloudy days.

Good post.

[Jeff Zuber]

And wouldn't it make sense to use the resources we have available today? Clean coal could be a viable alternative. And let's not forget that Clean coal technology could be shared/sold to other places in the world with any profits going to finance our infrastructure here. I know it's pie in the sky dreaming but I am convinced that we could take the time and brain power we have and come up with a viable solution that balances economic feasability with new technology.