THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED: In August 2009, White House staff repeatedly asked Office of Management and Budget officials about the status of a $535 million loan to the solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra. Then, the company filed for bankruptcy. Two days later, the FBI raided its offices in Delaware, refusing to discuss details of the investigation. The loan was granted by the Department of Energy under the green-infrastructure provisions of President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill, and OMB officials privately said they felt pressured to approve the loan prematurely. White House officials made their inquiries to OMB just weeks before Vice President Biden announced the loan at a ground-breaking ceremony in September, part of his long campaign to promote stimulus-spending projects across the country.

THE CONTROVERSY: House Republicans have alleged that the White House pressured OMB to approve the loan prematurely, despite Solyndra’s financial problems. The implication is that they did so for political reasons, as the administration was rushing to promote green stimulus spending.

WHY IT MATTERS:
Republicans have thrown into question the motivation behind and execution of the government’s green stimulus spending, at a time when President Obama’s poll numbers are sagging as he struggles to improve the economy. Early in his presidency, he promised green spending as a measure to alleviate unemployment and improve America’s infrastructure. With unemployment still sitting at 9.1 percent, the Solyndra questions add even more doubts and baggage to a politically troubled program.

For environmentalists and supporters of green technology spending, the Solyndra scandal throws such spending into political danger. If White House officials handled taxpayer dollars irresponsibly for the sake of promoting Obama’s signature piece of legislation at the time, it would constitute a potential ethical lapse that resonates with criticisms against the stimulus and ballooning deficits.

President Obama is still being asked about Solyndra.  Obama still supports a healthier, cleaner environment policy.   As it turns out, the people involved in Solyndra backed Obama throughout his fundraising.  When Obama was elected, he made a push for the loan to be granted. The price of clean energy subsidies in general have fallen over the years and that makes it possible to sell at more competitive prices.  People are more cautious over any big tax breaks now because of the Solyndra scandal.  These newer companies are saying the breaks they seek will only apply to the businesses and it will bring in new jobs in an economy that doesn’t have any.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra_loan_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-18/news/ct-met-kass-0918-20110918_1_solyndra-loan-guarantee-obama-fundraisers-obama-white-house

The Indian Point nuclear plant in Buchanan, N.Y., has been a major source of power to New York City and its northern suburbs since the first reactor went into operation in 1962. But the plant, which is now owned by Entergy, has encountered a string of accidents and mishaps since its beginnings, and has appeared on the federal list of the nation’s worst nuclear power plants.

Entergy Corp., the owners of Indian Point, argue that it is safe, built to withstand a magnitude six earthquake, which is far greater than any predicted earthquakes in the region. Entergy Corp. is asking the Nuclear Regulator Commission (NRC) to renew the power plant license for another 20 years of operation, as Indian Point’s Unit Two and Unit Three licenses will expire in 2013 and 2015, respectively.

Clearwater and the DEC are supporting the re-evaluation in hope that Indian Point will be closed and de-commissioned. There are health and environmental effects, though minute compared to those in Japan, which result from the leaking of radioactive material. In 2010, for instance, the New York DEC charged Entergy Corp. with killing almost a billion fish — some of which are on the endangered species list — by polluting the Hudson River as it circulated water. Although the threat of a large- scale nuclear disaster is more evident now, there always has been and always will be the lingering possibility that something will go very wrong.

Some argue that the pros of nuclear power far out-weigh the cons.

As nuclear power plants produce around 20 percent of the energy in the U.S., something has to be done with the resulting waste. Hot, radioactive fuel rods that are no longer powerful enough to be used by the plants after a few years are stored in pools that cool down the rods and protect the environmentfrom radioactivity. Where do they go from there?

While the debate continues, nuclear power is not something many will give up on when combating climate change, although the obvious answer would be to invest in safer types of renewable energy. It is not reason to turn back towards fossil fuels; there are consequences either way.

MORE PROS & CONS

Sources:

http://theenergycollective.com/pmlydon/78423/indian-point-nuclear-plant-unsafe

http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Indian%20Point%20Nuclear%20Power%20Plant

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/03/indian_point_nuclear_plant_cuomo.php

http://energy.aol.com/2011/12/29/is-indian-point-nuclear-plant-safe-for-another-20-years/

Welcome to Blogs.cas.suffolk.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it under Manage>Posts or make a new one under Write>Posts then start blogging! Be sure to visit the Design tab to choose a new look for your blog as well.

Also, for immediate “how-to’s” visit the Tutorials section, or the Getting Started section.