and option awards, pension and perks for 2011, up 11% from 2010 and politicians are still castigating the President for the loss of $400 million in Solyndra.... Something is wrong.... We need to aggressively pursue an array of new technologies and government needs and should play a role, even though the

muter cars, electric bikes). With the hope that this infusion will ignite entrepreneurs to create electric and hybrid vehicles. After the failure of Solyndra, this type of government investment is almost impossible in the United States leaving both our auto industry and consumers at a disadvantage and fe

g to do with environmental protection and ecological progress, because they assume that electricity comes from an outlet and gasoline from a pump. Solyndra, a promising startup company in the sunny town of Fremont, California, which had a seemingly brilliant idea to make more effective solar panels, be

mise of clean energy isn't just ... some abstract possibility for science fiction movies," Obama said. But that was wrong, at least when it came to Solyndra. The company went bankrupt in 2011, 1,100 employees lost their jobs, the government's money was gone and the Republicans had fodder for the electio

he fastest-growing job sectors in the nation. Finally we have some good environmental news, so hopefully detractors will stop citing the failures of Solyndra and Fiskers as the only examples of solar power. This week in CNN World, Fareed Zakaria wrote — Reasons for optimism in today's world. He starts h

Offers for Their Claims NYT DealBook<http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/mf-global-customers-said-to-get-offers-for- their-claims/?ref=business> Solyndra Is Blamed as Clean-Energy Loan Program Stalls NYT<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/business/energy-environment/stalled-clean-energy-loan- program-f

a conflict with China, such forces are irrelevant. As for President Obama, well, he's proved himself irrelevant to technological discussions. From Solyndra to HealthCare.gov, his tech- strategy acumen leaves a bit to be desired. As for the Iranians, I think we both know they are going to get a bomb one

d continue to make money on reactors, but that's only because federal subsidies are=enormous. Insurance costs are limited. Loans are guaranteed (the Solyndra =oan guarantee was half a billion dollars; in contrast, loan guarantees for=new nuclear plants may run $8 billion); cost recovery and return on inve

es our manufacturers to be the most innovative. No one is suggesting that the government pick winners or losers. Some bets on new companies, such as Solyndra, are bound to fail. But such failures should not deter the government from investing in DARPA, a strateg=c agency at the Defense Department, or ARP

s our manufacturers to be the most innovative. No one is suggesting that the government pick winners or losers. Some bets on new companies, such as Solyndra, are bound to fail. But such failures should not deter the government from investing in DARPA, a strategic agency at the Defense Department, or ARP

ed continue to make money on reactors, but that’s only because federal subsidies are enormous. Insurance costs are limited. Loans are guaranteed (the Solyndra loan guarantee was half a billion dollars; in contrast, loan guarantees for new nuclear plants may run $8 billion); cost recovery and return on inves

yses sho=ing its cost-effectiveness for taxpayers, Sunday's segment focused on two n=table failures -- automaker Fisker and solar panel manufacturer Solyndra. Whil= interviewing former Energy Department undersecretary Steven Koonin, "60 Minutes" host Les=ey Stahl rattled off seven other failures of the 4

ed continue to make money on reactors, but that's only because federal subsidies are enormous. Insurance costs are limited. Loans are guaranteed (the Solyndra loan guarantee was half a billion dollars; in contrast, loan guarantees for new nuclear plants may run $8 billion); cost recovery and return on inves