Thread: Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra

Originally Posted by 1Perry

I don't understand........if they have this money under contract and banks and investment houses are sitting on all of this money, why is this money not raised privately?

In this instance the potential liabilities from producing uranium may be more than any lender would agree to get involved in. If there was an accident in this experimental process the lawyers would go after the deep pockets of the lenders. On the other hand it may be crony capitalism......both parties are guilty as charged.

Solyndra owner was a huge obama bundler, it was a political pay off not an honest legitimate investment in energy.

Originally Posted by conservativeguy

In this instance the potential liabilities from producing uranium may be more than any lender would agree to get involved in. If there was an accident in this experimental process the lawyers would go after the deep pockets of the lenders. On the other hand it may be crony capitalism......both parties are guilty as charged.

It's easy for someone in Boehners position then. Pass a bill not that gives them $2 billion we do not have but that shields creditors from the lawyers.

Originally Posted by 1Perry

Sure it is. You only have to write a check as opposed to actually proving your sustainability.

I am glad you also understand that nuclear energy is sustainable whereas experimental technology is not economically sustainable but maybe in the future.

Originally Posted by conservativeguy

In this instance the potential liabilities from producing uranium may be more than any lender would agree to get involved in. If there was an accident in this experimental process the lawyers would go after the deep pockets of the lenders. On the other hand it may be crony capitalism......both parties are guilty as charged.

After almost 70 years of producing uranium, I believe we can safely remove the "experimental" label here, especially since Iran is doing it as well, don't you think ?

Originally Posted by Disputatious71

I am glad you also understand that nuclear energy is sustainable whereas experimental technology is not economically sustainable but maybe in the future.

I understand that Solyndra argued that they were sustainable. I'm good with nuclear energy. I'm saying it's moved beyond government funding.

Originally Posted by 1Perry

It's easy for someone in Boehners position then. Pass a bill not that gives them $2 billion we do not have but that shields creditors from the lawyers.

Or make the nuclear power plant in a blue state that would favor it.

Originally Posted by 1Perry

It's easy for someone in Boehners position then. Pass a bill not that gives them $2 billion we do not have but that shields creditors from the lawyers.

Tort reform is not something BO or any democrat would support. Heck, many establishment republicans would also push back as well.

Originally Posted by Disputatious71

After almost 70 years of producing uranium, I believe we can safely remove the "experimental" label here, especially since Iran is doing it as well, don't you think ?

I used that word after reading this part of th article....

The American Centrifuge Plant, owned by Bethesda, Maryland- based USEC, has been a demonstration project since August 2007,

I assumed, maybe incorrectly, the word "demonstration" implied there was something different about this project.

Originally Posted by conservativeguy

Tort reform is not something BO or any democrat would support. Heck, many establishment republicans would also push back as well.

I'd say that depends on what the tort reform consists of. If it transfers power away from the public and gives business more power in lawsuits, yes I would be against it. If it only punishes obvious frivolous law suits then I think most people would be for it.