Tax dollars backing some "risky" energy projects WASHINGTON - Solyndra, the solar panel maker, got a half-billion dollar government-backed loan - and then went bankrupt. That risky investment strategy didn't stop there. An investigative report by correspondent Sharyl Attkisson has found a pattern of the government pouring your tax dollars into clean energy. Take Beacon Power -- a green energy storage company. We were surprised to learn exactly what the Energy Department knew before committing $43 million of your tax dollars. Documents obtained by CBS News show Standard and Poor's had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of "CCC-plus." Read the documents Would you put your personal money into an investment that's Triple C-plus? Attkisson asked economist Peter Morici. "Not on purpose," he replied. Is it a junk bond? It's, it is a junk bond. But it's not even a good junk bond," he replied. It's well below investment grade. The Energy department was investing tax dollars in something that's not even a good junk bond? Exactly. This level of bond has about a 70 percent chance of failing in the long term," he said. In fact, Beacon did go bankrupt two months ago and it's unclear whether taxpayers will get all their money back. And the feds made other loans when public documents indicate they should have known they could be throwing good money after bad. It's been four months since the FBI raided bankrupt Solyndra. It received a half-billion in tax dollars and became a political lightning rod - Republicans claiming it was a politically motivated investment. CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: the junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES' subsidiary Eastern Energy, and Solyndra. Others are also struggling with potential problems. Nevada Geothermal --a home state project personally endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, warns of multiple potential defaults in new SEC filings reviewed by CBS News. It was already having trouble paying the bills when it received $98.5 million dollars in Energy Department loan guarantees. SunPower landed a deal linked to a $1.2 billion dollar loan guarantee last fall, after a French oil company took it over. On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth. SunPower's role is to design, build and initially operate and maintain the California Valley Solar Ranch Project that's the subject of the loan guarantee. First Solar was the biggest S&P 500 loser in 2011 and its CEO was cut loose - even as taxpayers were forced to back a whopping $3 billion in company loans. Nobody from the Energy Department would agree to an interview. Last November at a hearing on Solyndra, Energy Secretary Steven Chu strongly defended the government's attempts to bolster America's clean energy prospects. "In the coming decades, the clean energy sector is expected to grow by hundreds of billions of dollars," Chu said. We are in a fierce global race to capture this market. Economist Morici says even somebody as smart as Secretary Chu -- an award-winning scientist -- shouldn't be playing "venture capitalist" with tax dollars. "Tasking a Nobel Prize mathematician to make investments for the U.S. government is like asking the manager of the New York Yankees to be general in charge of America's troops in Afghanistan," Morici said. It's that absurd. Charlie Rose asked Attkisson, "A couple of questions. Does the government believe that this kind of economic support to these companies is a success story? "Yes, I think they do," Attkisson replied. The energy department which wouldn't agree to an interview would tell you that this program is high risk by design. All of the programs are. They understand that they're putting tax dollars at risk. But they've built into the program $2.4 billion in potential losses. That's already factored in. They understand there's a, what they say valid debate over whether this is the government's role. They point out that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and Democrats and Republican presidents in support of the idea. "So how do the companies explain the failure," Rose asked. The companies are saying, the ones that failed, there's nothing much to say about that. The ones still in business say they are very different than Solyndra. There's not many similarities. That their project have more support, that the projects are sound even though they've hit bumps across the way. In some cases they actually have guaranteed markets for their clean energy products. I should mention one of the companies, AES, has canceled the loan and the House Oversight Committee is investigating all of this.