Fox Business last month sat House Speaker John Boehner down for his take on the collapse of Solyndra, the California solar panel maker that squandered a $535-million federal loan guarantee. When asked if the government should be "gambling taxpayer money on green energy companies," the Ohio Republican replied that "new energy sources are going to have to stand on their own" and the "federal government should not ... be in the business of picking winners and losers."
New energy sources should "stand on their own"? Boehner apparently doesn't feel the same way about "old" energy sources--namely oil and gas, coal, and nuclear--which have been sucking on the federal teat for more than 50 years. And as far as picking winners and losers, he takes a very different tack when it comes to bringing home the bacon. Boehner has been pushing a $2-billion loan guarantee for a southwestern Ohio uranium enrichment plant that could wind up being a much worse bet than Solyndra--nearly four times worse.
Let's look at his "stand on their own" comment first. While Boehner is quick to condemn government support for new energy sources, he is just as quick to protect old energy subsidies. Earlier this year, for example, Boehner voted against two bills that would have cut tens of billions of oil subsidies, even when the industry is enjoying record-breaking profits. He did have a moment of clarity in April when he told ABC News that oil companies "ought to be paying their fair share," but the next day, after the White House applauded him, a Boehner staffer essentially retracted the remark.
A 2009 report by the Environmental Law Institute provides a snapshot of just how lopsided federal energy subsidies were during the last decade. Between 2002 and 2008, ELI estimated that fossil fuels received $72 billion in tax breaks, tax credits and other subsidies, with most going to oil and then to natural gas. Over that same time period, "new" renewable energy sources--wind, solar, biofuels and biomass, hydropower and geothermal--received $29 billion. However, more than half of that--$16.8 billion--went to corn-based ethanol. Only $12.2 billion--less than 20 percent of what fossil fuels received--went to wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, and non-corn-based biofuels and biomass.
For a more historical perspective, we need to keep in mind that fossil fuels--the primary cause of global warming--have benefited from continuous federal subsidies since 1917. Intermittent commercial-scale subsidies for renewable technologies, meanwhile, go back only 20 years.
The ELI study did not include nuclear energy, which would not exist if it were not for federal subsidies. A February 2011 Union of Concerned Scientists report, "Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies," found that subsidies have supported every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to long-term waste storage, since the beginning of commercial nuclear power in the 1950s. Added together, these subsidies have often exceeded the average market price of the power produced. In other words, if the government had purchased power on the open market and given it away free, it would have been less costly than subsidizing nuclear power plant construction and operation.
Which brings us to the point Boehner made in his September 19 interview with Fox Business about picking winners and losers. A week or so after that interview, he chastised the Department of Energy (DOE) for moving too slowly to provide a $2-billion loan guarantee to the U.S. Enrichment Corporation's (USEC) Piketon, Ohio, American Centrifuge Plant, under construction just east of his district. The facility, which would produce low-enriched uranium for nuclear reactors, would replace an older USEC enrichment facility in Kentucky.
Who's picking winners and losers now? In this case, Boehner--who has been joined by most of Ohio's congressional delegation, including Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown--is picking a loser.
The USEC project has been in trouble for some time. In fact, the DOE asked the company to withdraw its loan guarantee application back in July 2009 because of its precarious financial situation and its inability to get its uranium-enriching centrifuges to work properly. After howls from the company and vigorous pushback by Ohio officials, however, the agency postponed its final application review to allow USEC more time to fix what the company euphemistically called "teething problems."
But even if the company works out its technological "teething problems," the bigger question is: Is this plant necessary?
Besides the fact that uranium prices are dropping, the demand USEC originally projected for enriched fuel is not going to materialize. Instead of 10 new U.S. reactors over the next decade, there will likely be only four or five built. Moreover, some nuclear plant owners may close existing reactors rather than invest in new safety systems required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission after it completes its post-Fukushima review.
On top of that, the Piketon facility would face increased competition from two other new U.S.-based enrichment plants that are further along in development. One, being built in Idaho by the French public company Areva, has already received a $2-billion DOE loan guarantee. The other, in New Mexico, is being built by a British-Dutch-German consortium without DOE assistance.
So, if USEC builds the Piketon plant, who is going to buy the excess uranium fuel from three new enrichment facilities? The Chinese? That's unlikely, given they are building their own enrichment plants.
None of this bodes well for U.S. taxpayers. We can only hope that the Office of Management and Budget and the DOE properly evaluate the USEC project's market risk. It's clear that Speaker Boehner has not.
Follow Elliott Negin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ElliottNegin
Nuclear power R&D benefited from all the nuke weapons development. Little else.
With a fossil to less than 3 cent a kwh nuclear conversion over ten years well within our idle industrial capacity, rates of return of 40% per annum to the nation as a whole, and a fossil to renewable conversion utterly impossible financially, industrially, and politically, not so renewable advocates might start wondering if their silly opposition to a fossil to nuke conversion is worth the pollution deaths of three million folks worldwide every year the conversion is delayed and the deaths of billions more when we hit the fast approaching climate precipice.
Solar, wind, and perhaps tidal power generation is not as efficient yet.
R/ PRONESE
I would rather see us trying to succeed and fail as opposed to just failing. Note that under Bush 60,000 factories closed and we lost 50% of our high tech. And 500 million compared to the 4 trillion Iraq war?
Note the environmental damage was so bad and costly(suprise!), that China has gone green in a very big way , now has its on EPA which closes polluters immediately now until fixed, and has the largest solar and wind farms being built in the world.
Repubs shipping AmericaN INDUSTRY TO Communist countries for 30 years.. Its not hate, its a love affair with communism. And yes like those countries with trade surpluses, and rising wages, its unionized.
Regards
The U.S. is now the second largest economy, second to the EU. China will be number one in 2015, we will be 3rd.. They have trade surpluses and we dont!
This China dumping killed many solar MFGs around the country and the world. And with China's 25% import tarrifs, you cant sell product into china, who then has 18% export rebates.
China dumped their product on the world market to kill competition because they see wind and solar as key industries they are going to own. NUKE on hold. Germany is shuting theirs down.
China now owns 97% of the rare earth metals, which means they control computer,electronics, solar and battiery MFG/technology.
Note the Solyndra loan was part of a high risk investment program establish in 2005 By a repub Congress and WH.
!
Regards
Wrong.
There are plenty of rare earth metals mines inside the USA and other countries.
They were closed because of excessive environmental regulation and rendered non-competive by heavily subsidized Chinese mines.
The loan was on the list picked by the Bush Adminstration.
Regards
2.Solyndra
3.Gunwalker
4.Sunpower(although that one could be layed at Miller's feet)
5.Department of...wait for it, wait for it,...Justice.
6.ACORN chicanery
I do not like this little man named Boehner. He has always emanated an aura of "I'm holding my nose because I know I must shake your hand but I'm so much better than you." when I've seen him. He started his career by passing out checks from tobacco companies to his colleagues in the House, and he's gotten less honorable since then. BUT...
I've followed his votes since 2006, and since 2009 when he became Speaker of the House, his vote has usually been listed as "Speaker" which means that, traditionally, the Speaker does not vote on bills that come before the House. In 2011, Boehner has voted three times:
Jan. 24, 2011 - Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act. Boehner voted YES,
Apr. 18, 2011 - Fiscal 2011 Spending Agreement to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year. Boehner voted YES.
Aug. 2, 2011 - Budget Control Act of 2011 (raises the debt limit, caps discretionary spending for ten years, establishes a bipartisan committee to identify additional spending cuts, and requires a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the constitution). Boehner voted YES.
Boehner has voted "Speaker" on every other bill that has come before him.
He has not voted NO on any bill this year.
They like most contries have a planned industrial economy with anti outsourcing regs.. all put us and we have been losing for 30 years. A Plan beats no plan... An its all gone in 140 years!
Germany's solar industry , the second largest next to China also got killed and they are suing China at WTO..
Solyndra is no different than the 60,000 factories that closed under Bush.. you cant compete against China/and the rest of the worlds 18% export rebates and China's 25% import tarrifs and all with national healthcare at 1/3 the cost of our private sector healthcare and that cost not in the ost of the goods or services. which s a 20% pricing advantage and why MFG moves to Canada!
Regards
Germany does fine.. apprarently only a government that has repubs in it , is incapable as their national health insurance programs cost a fraction of ours as is true for all the socalled socilaist countries.
How come that bastion of Capitalism called Wallstreet had to be bailed out?
Now back to typing on your computer, a product of the communist party of china.. or you next flight on Aerobus a government own MFG.
At least there's an argument that we're getting something for subsidizing all that energy, since we get over 90% of our energy from it. Green energy? We subsidize it over 100 times as much per kilowatt-hour produced, yet people still think we should be spending on it (instead of basic R&D)?
Bright Source is mainly Chevron, BP and StatOil (tar sands) plus John Bryson (who holds NRDC in a vice grip), Morgan Stanley (pillagers of the economy) Google (who pay 2.5% in taxes and spy on America) and RFK, Jr. as spokesmodel for a VC firm. On a single tortoise-slaughtering project, they got $1.4 billion in loans (3 times Solyndra) plus $600 million in CASH from the taxpayers plus thousands of acres of public land for a solar plant that will cost twice as much as rooftop solar and not produce any more power on a per-watt basis. Can you say boondoggle?
Wind is the same - BP, Goldman Sachs/Cogentrix, etc. - killing wilderness, producing almost no power and sucking the taxpayer dry.
Meanwhile, real people got NOTHING. no loans, no cash, no fixed return on investments like Big Energy gets, nothing for "green" energy.
So, before you get too weepy about "green" vs. "fossil," you should reconsider the war - it's Big Energy of all types against ratepayers, taxpayers and the planet. which side are we on?
Killing wilderness?.. Farmers get paid 5K per year to place wind turbiness among their crops... Thats destrutive of wilderness...
GE- Germany makes wind turbines that a single turbine can supply can supply 5,000 homes power.
If you covered one third of one midwest state with solar and wind farms , it would produce 3 times the energy we use in the U.S.
How About solar cells cover shopping mall parking lots and providing covered parking at the same time.. and of course on roofs all feeding into the power grid.
Note that our electric system of plants and grid are so old(like the rest of America's iinfrastructures and plants as we build new stuff with our bank deposits in China) and out of date such that they are 1/3 as efficient as in Japan, the EU and etc. and are otage rates ar 5 times higher!
Regards