Nuclear Energy boehner loan guarantee request

Published on October 28th, 2011 | by Zachary Shahan


Boehner: Energy Subsidies “Wrong” (& Can I Please Have a $2-Billion Loan Guarantee for a Nuclear Power Plant?)

October 28th, 2011 by  

boehner loan guarantee request

Yes, sadly, our politicians are downright hypocrites, especially those on a certain side of the aisle. What they say versus what they vote for (and ask for) are completely opposite in many instances. After joining in the loan guarantee flogging after Solyndra, for example,  House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has gone and supported a $2 billion loan guarantee for an Ohio nuclear power plant (yes, that would be his home state of Ohio). He’s even gone so far as to say not backing the loan guarantee would “betray” Ohio workers.

Last I heard, loan guarantees for nuclear power plants have a financial failure rate of over 50%. Umm…

Going back to Boehner’s September opinion on loan guarantees: “for the federal government to be out there picking one company over another, one type of energy source over another, I think is wrong.”

Oh, how the opinions change with the wind in Congress.

“Boehner is far from the only Republican using Solyndra to score political points while asking for loan guarantees at the same time,” Think Progress reports. “In fact, Republican House members host $11.8 billion in loan guarantees in their districts.”

But you know what, viewers of FOX News, listeners of Rush Limbaugh, and many other Americans are not aware of this at all…. Hence the reason I do this job (one of them, at least). Help get the news out. Spread this no only to your clean-energy choir, but also to your whole network on Facebook, or Twitter, or Google+, or wherever you socialize.

Photo Credit: SpeakerBoehner

Check out our new 93-page EV report, based on over 2,000 surveys collected from EV drivers in 49 of 50 US states, 26 European countries, and 9 Canadian provinces.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

About the Author

is tryin' to help society help itself (and other species) with the power of the typed word. He spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as its director and chief editor, but he's also the president of Important Media and the director/founder of EV Obsession, Solar Love, and Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and energy storage expert. Zach has long-term investments in TSLA, FSLR, SPWR, SEDG, & ABB — after years of covering solar and EVs, he simply has a lot of faith in these particular companies and feels like they are good cleantech companies to invest in.

  • BlueRock


    Small correction: it’s not a nuke plant, it’s a nuke *enrichment* plant.



    • Anonymous

      ah, woops, thanks!

  • j

    Reelections are coming- reelections are coming! These people may be all the posts say but they are not fail safe. They can be voted out and replaced with a fresh batch. Just maybe the voters will get a good one, Its our turn for something/somebody better.

  • Anonymous

    Thank, Ed. I’m shocked that they said it’s faster. I don’t buy that for a second, unless they’re comparing it to Cape Wind 😀

  • Anonymous

    hmm, i’m seeing many reports that it’s over 50%. maybe those are just *projected* failure rates?..

  • Anonymous

    Another fine article Zach! One can’t blame a representative asking for and legislating for money for their home state, after all, this is part of what gets them re-elected. But to ask for money for the nuclear power industry is ill conceived! Perhaps we could explore that avenue after all clean and renewable energy sources are exhausted. But we’ve barely begun to even tap that source.

    I suppose a 50% failure rate is not so bad for venture capital. When it comes to nuclear engergy, neither the big banks on Wall St, nor private venture firms will touch it! Raising venture capital for energy companies is not our politicians area of expertise, and they should not be involved in it. The federal government guaranteeing loans is a large part of what has got our economy in the condition we are in now!

    Most new companies that fail, do so, because they borrow too much money to get started, and eventually the debt crushes them. People are not as responsible with borrowed money. Even less responsible if it is guaranteed by the government. Guaranteeing loans is a losing proposition, the banks reap the profits if the loan succeeds, and reap the profits if it fails. We the tax payer pay the losses, and the odds of doing so are high. There is no incentive for the business to succeed, because whether they do or they don’t, it matters not. These types of loan guarantees by the Federal Government are Central Planning, and Socialism at its finest!

    One only need to look at the continuing costs of cleaning up the Hanford site in Washington St., to see the track record of government and nuclear fission.

    There are approximately 130 million single family homes in the US, for 520 billion we could put a $40,000 solar unit on every one of them! Another 520 billion would add a fair number of wind generators! That’s about what we have spent so far in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    • tickedofftwice

      Where did you get your numbers? We’ve spent FAR more than 520 billion in Iraq and Afganistan. We are currently spending 1.5 Billion/week in Afganistan. All told we have spent over 1 trillion in those two countries alone since Bush started his wars. That does NOT include what we have spent at home on stuff like airport security, spying on US citizens and the NSA, just to name a few.

      • Anonymous

        Ticked, I believe my post says 520 billion could put a $40,000 solar unit on almost every house in the country, and another 520 could add a lot of wind generators. I’m not a math genius when it comes to that many zero’s after a number, but I thought 520 billion plus 520 billion was just over a trillion. At any rate, I totally agree with you, the 1 trillion number, one that is commonly spouted by our war mongering politicians is a low ball number. I was trying to keep my post short as possible. Like you, I am well aware of all the other costs that go with the figures the government gives us, like long term health care for those who were permanently injured, that alone will add up into the billions.

        • Anonymous

          Actually, if you count the health care costs for the injured veterans, plus a lot of other costs associated with Bush’s wars, we will wind up spending about $3.7 trillion.

          Further: “While we know how many US soldiers have died in the wars (just over 6000), what is startling is what we don’t know about the levels of injury and illness in those who have returned from the wars. New disability claims continue to pour into the VA, with 550,000 just through last fall. Many deaths and injuries among US contractors have not been identified.”

          We need to occupy the voting booth to get more and BETTER Democrats…

          • Anonymous

            Thanks, I believe it!

Back to Top ↑