But government can, as part of its existing duties, provide a database of cleantech technology assessment where new ideas can be vetted before big money is spent on a mistake. That certainly would help constructive new ideas get funded by private capital. To have been validated by the government would be a huge boost for cleantech proposals still in the design stage.

I believe that sequestration (geological storage of CO2 in deep saline formations) is a serious mistake, not only a waste of most of the stimulus money but also a danger to fresh water supplies and to future generations from fugitive carbon dioxide plumes. That’s another function of letting the public be heard: preventing mistakes intended by government.

There is no way for a new or dissenting idea even to be considered by the government, let alone get vetted by the experts in the public sector through government-provided crowdsourcing.

A very, very small portion of our budget is set aside to give promising “long shot” ideas a chance to succeed. The idea is not to earn returns on the investment, there’s not even an expectation that all the loans will be repaid. Losses are expected.

But in exchange for some tiny, tiny losses we stand to create new industries in the US and create new, good jobs. We, the tax payers, get paid back with new businesses and employees paying taxes.

Now, if you will do some deep thinking you’ll realize that the government did not lose all that much with Solyndra.

While the company was in operation a large portion of the money went to salaries and that reduced the unemployment payouts and increased tax revenue. Much of the money spun its way through the economy as a factory was built and equipment purchased. All of those activities reduced unemployment and increased tax revenues.

Sequestering CO2. A long shot, but were it possible it could be a valuable way to reduce our carbon output while we build out a carbon-free grid. If you look at how much we’ve spent this last year recovering from extreme storms and floods it’s not hard to see how much we could save in the future if we could avoid making this problem even worse. This is what we’re getting with 4% extra water in the atmosphere. Imagine the flood damage we’ll have when we raise that level to 6% or higher.

Investing in cleaner energy won’t return direct earnings to the government. But it’s likely to create very significant savings over time. It’s a different type of investing.

Silicon Valley VCs grew up with and still operate with the dotcom VC business model, expecting to keep partying like it’s 1999. Patrons have always been necessary for technology, but because the VC herd conforms to this business model they can’t act like patrons at all. Their short time horizon precludes the long-term support that is needed, so because the 1% have shirked their noblesse oblige and offloaded the responsibility on government (which is not only broke but way in the hole) America is faltering in cleantech development while the VCs frolic on their yachts.

DOE has no database of technology assessment, as the GAO discovered. So picking winners and losers is not even possible for DOE. NASA does technology assessment, so it’s not a lot to expect of DOE. Because of this lack of intelligence, we got boondoggles like sequestration and Solyndra.