1. Accepting for a moment that the purpose of the loan program under which Solyndra received its money was truly reduction of CO2 output and fossil fuel use, what is the metric the DOE uses to score these investments against these goals (e.g. tons of CO2 output avoided over the next 10 years per dollar of government investment).
2. How did Solyndra and other companies that were accepted for the program score on your metric? How did companies that were turned down score?
Of course there was no such analysis -- the government appears to have invested in whatever companies raised the most money for Obama or got Joe Biden's heart palpitating or both. Even if one pulls the obvious politics out of it, it appears they invested in stories they found appealing, the same mistake many novice investors make.
The Left works hard to wrap itself in the mantle of science, and Republicans just let them do so. If Chu wanted to take the high ground of trying to do the right thing for US energy policy, questioners should have taken him at his word and challenged how well his internal process matched his bold words. Politicians are too obsessed with finding some crime or smoking gun. The underlying failure is that the loan process does not, never will, and in fact cannot match the stated ideals and goals of the program.