by Jocelyn Fong, reposted from Media Matters

The all-day grilling of Secretary of Energy Steven Chu over the Solyndra bankruptcy by the House energy oversight subcommittee was an eye-glazing embarrassment, reporters agreed. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) tried to defend his belief that the United States can’t compete with China on clean technology by attacking Chu, even calling for his firing. “America faces a simple choice: compete or accept defeat,” Chu shot back at Stearns in the hearing. “I believe we can and must compete.”

Without any evidence of wrongdoing, the Republican-led hearing drove outside observers to tears. “Stop it with the Solyndra nonsense,” Scientific American energy editor David Biello pleaded on Twitter. “Just stop it.”

Fortune editor Dan Primack scathed the hearing as a colossal waste of time:

My eyes have glazed over. I’m hungry, dumber than I was this morning and very angry with myself.

Don’t be coy, you know what I’m copping to having done: I spent almost the entire workday watching yet another Congressional hearing on the Solyndra “scandal.”

This is at least the third such hearing, all in a flailing effort by GOP reps to prove that Solyndra wasn’t simply an honest loan gone bad, but rather an example of corruption and self-dealing in the Obama White House. For all the talk about this deal, there still has not yet been any actual evidence — including cherry-picked emails released by the Republican-led committee — that Solyndra received its $535 million government loan because of crony capitalism. And that remains the case, after five hours of testimony from U.S. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu.

The Solyndra witch hunt has been fueled especially by Politico, whose large team of energy reporters have fixated on the story. Two-thirds of Politico energy stories since Sept. 12 have been on Solyndra. Senior energy and environment reporter Darren Samuelsohn has dominated the coverage, with 90 percent of his prolific output dedicated to fluffing up the Solyndra “scandal.”

Energy Secretary Steven Chu is the sole witness at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Solyndra (webcast at 10 am).  The DOE posted Chu’s testimony and this nice chart:

U.S. solar cell (PV) and module manufacturing market share.  Yes, the peak coincides with the ascension  of the Gingrich Congress and its efforts to stop clean energy deployment

Here are some key excerpts on the clean energy race:

Investments in clean energy reached a record $243 billion last year. Solar photovoltaic systems alone represent a global market worth more than $80 billion today. In the coming decades, the clean energy sector is expected to grow by hundreds of billions of dollars. We are in a fierce global race to capture this market.

In the past year and a half, the China Development Bank has offered more than $34 billion in credit lines to China’s solar companies. China is not alone: To strengthen their countries’ competitiveness, governments around the world are providing strong support to their clean energy industries. Germany and Canada operate government-backed clean energy lending programs, and more than 50 countries offer some type of public financing for clean energy projects….

When it comes to the clean energy race, America faces a simple choice: compete or accept defeat. I believe we can and must compete.

And on Solyndra:

As the Secretary of Energy, the final decisions on Solyndra were mine, and I made them with the best interest of the taxpayer in mind. I want to be clear: over the course of Solyndra’s loan guarantee, I did not make any decision based on political considerations.

My decision to guarantee a loan to Solyndra was based on the analysis of experienced professionals and on the strength of the information they had available to them at the time.

The Solyndra transaction went through more than two years of rigorous technical, financial and legal due diligence, spanning two Administrations, before a loan guarantee was issued….

Here is Chu’s whole testimony:

Read more

Energy Secretary Steven Chu is going to be in the hot seat tomorrow when he testifies before a House committee investigating the Solyndra bankruptcy.

If Chu’s previous remarks to the press are any indication of what he’s going to say to Congress, he’ll be stressing the need for continued strategic federal investments in clean energy — after defending himself from accusations of political influence in the loan guarantee process.

In this week’s podcast, we’ve got a brief conversation with Secretary with Chu, who laments the political response to the science of climate change, and who reiterates his support for continued federal investments in renewables.

“Even in desperate times like the Civil War, the United States was spending money, giving subsidies to railroad companies to build the transcontinental railroad. That wasn’t free. The United States invested their resources in federal lands to generate land grant universities that would increase the productivity of U.S. agriculture and schools like the University of California Berkeley and MIT and Cornell. That wasn’t free. And so, when push comes to shove, yes we have to make tough decisions, but we never took our eye from the long view. We didn’t eat our seed corn, we didn’t sell our plow horse.”

Chu sets up our conversation with Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who describes why the military can be a force for accelerating the commercial deployment of cutting-edge renewables.

Read more

Our Nobel-Prize-winning Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, gave a blunt speech to the Washington Post Live Smart Energy Conference today.

Of course the WashPost event is sponsored in part by Shell Oil.

And you can watch it here through about 2 pm (DC time).

Here are some highlights of Chu’s remarks:

Once again, there is a huge opportunity before us – a global clean energy market that is already worth an estimated $240 billion and is growing rapidly.  In fact, a very reasonable estimate is that solar photovoltaic systems alone represent a global market worth more than $80 billion this year.

China – like many countries – has learned from the U.S. how government can support critical emerging industries.  Last year, China offered roughly $30 billion in government financing to its solar companies, including $7 billion to Suntech.  At least 10 countries have adopted renewable electricity standards, and more than 50 countries offer some type of public financing for clean energy projects.  For example, Germany and Canada operate government-backed clean energy lending programs, and in the last several months, the UK, Australia, and India have announced plans to do the same.

America faces a choice today: Are we going to recognize the opportunity and compete in the clean energy race or will we wave the white flag and watch all of these jobs go to China, Korea, Germany and other countries?

The global competition is fierce, and support for innovative technologies comes with inherent risk. Not every company or every product will succeed, but that is no reason to sit on the sidelines and concede leadership in clean energy. Some in Washington are ready to throw in the towel and write off the clean energy industry.  They don’t think America can compete or they don’t think it’s worth trying. Others think that the best thing we can do is for the government to get out of the way and let the free market work.

To those in Washington who say we cannot or should not compete, I say: that’s not who we are.  In America, when we fall behind, we don’t give up. We dig in and come back. Why should we concede one of the biggest growing markets in the world that is in our sweet spot: technological and manufacturing innovation? America has the opportunity to lead the world in clean energy technologies and provide the foundation for our prosperity. We remain the most innovative country in the world … but “Invented in America” is not good enough. We need to ensure that these technologies are invented in America, made in America and sold around the world.  That’s how we’ll prosper in the 21st century.

Chu used a different metaphor than “white flag” last year — see Video: Chu on why China’s bid for clean energy leadership should be our “Sputnik Moment.” Either way, it’s great to see a scientist use metaphors, a cornerstone of persuasive messaging — see “The greatest thing by far is to be a master of metaphor”: How to be as persuasive as Lincoln.

The speech only disappoints because Chu never once mentions global warming, which is clearly a major reason why other countries are putting so much money in renewables and why clean energy is ensured of staggering market growth in the coming decades.  Chu used to be blunt on this, too, back in early 2009 — see Chu on climate change: “Wake up,” America, “we’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.”

I suspect the White House communications shop has, subtly or not, told Chu they (idiotically) believe climate change is not a winning political issue, which is the exact opposite of the truth — see Bombshell: Democrats Taking “Green” Positions on Climate Change “Won Much More Often” Than Those Remaining Silent.

Here are Chu’s full remarks (with links to sources):

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

Read more

The U.S. energy secretary says the debate about climate change reminds him of the old argument that smoking isn’t bad for you.

Steven Chu also urged greater investment in clean energy as he spoke Tuesday in Paris to an International Energy Agency meeting of energy ministers and industry leaders.

He says that because the evidence of climate change is growing more compelling and the price is oil is likely to rise, countries must turn to clean-energy production.

Chu criticized attempts to “muddy the waters” on climate change science.

He said the debate in the U.S. reminds him of what he “heard as a young person growing up about how cigarette smoking was not really bad for your health.”

This isn’t the first time Chu has made this argument.  Last year he spelled it out in a little more detail that the AP does:

Read more

On Saturday, our Nobel prize-winning Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, slammed those who want to gut clean energy programs:

Chu dismissed criticism from those who he said “are ready to wave the white flag and declare defeat.”

The United States faces a choice, he said, to sit on the sidelines or try to win the “clean energy race” with China, Germany and other countries.

He said the U.S. “can’t afford not to” invest in clean energy.

“It’s not enough for our country to invent clean energy technologies, we have to make them and use them, too,” Chu said. “Invented in America, made in America and sold around the world. That’s how we’ll create good jobs and lead in the 21st century.”

Chu was speaking at the Solar Decathlon where collegiate teams from around the world compete to build model solar homes.  He didn’t mention the over-hyped Solyndra story by name, but he defended the tremendous value the loan program brings to Americans:

Read more

A round-up of climate and energy news. Please post other stories below.

Coal Industry Backs Boehner

U.S. coal companies have pumped $1.5 million into House Speaker John Boehner’s political operation this year, a sign of the industry’s beefed-up efforts to fight new and proposed regulations from the Obama administration.

The coal industry now ranks as one of the top sources of cash for the Ohio Republican, rivaling such perennial GOP donors as Wall Street and the real-estate industry. A large part of the coal industry’s donations came in a single week at the end of June.

Donations from coal-industry interests account for more than 10% of the $12.5 million Mr. Boehner collected from Jan. 1 to June 30 for fund-raising accounts he directly controls. Mr. Boehner’s personal campaign account collected less than $200,000 from the coal industry during the entire 2009-10 election cycle.

Read more

With the State Department’s final environmental assessment of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline complete, major public figures are starting to weigh in before a decision is made on whether or not to approve the project.

Keystone XL is a 1,700-mile pipeline that will bring hundreds of thousands of tar sands crude from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico to be refined. Producing crude from tar sands is the most energy and carbon intensive form of oil extraction – a process that environmental groups have called “the biggest global warming crime ever seen.”

Along with climate scientist James Hansen and the Center for American Progress, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Nebraska GOP governor Dave Heineman issued their opinions on the impact of the pipeline this week.

And their responses aren’t what you might think.

In an interview with EnergyNOW! at the National Clean Energy Summit, Steven Chu explained that the pipeline was a “tradeoff.” While he didn’t explicitly throw his support behind the project, he did say that companies extracting tar sands “are making great strides in improving the environmental impact of the extraction of this oil.”

However, the Canadian government expects carbon emissions from Alberta’s tar sands to double by 2020, cancelling out any emissions reductions that could come from developing renewable energy in the country by that time.

Directly after taping that interview at the summit, Chu explained in a brief conversation with Climate Progress that he believes that the fossil fuel industry has “an interest in seeing that action isn’t taken” on climate change and lamented the lack of understanding of climate science among political leaders.

“It saddens me. And I think as a scientist you have to re-double your efforts,” said Chu.

So which is it? Climate activists like Bill McKibben and James Hansen say that support of the Keystone pipeline “would be game over for the climate.” But Chu’s comments on the Keystone pipeline suggest that he would allow the pipeline to be built.

Read more