WASHINGTON

The Obama administration claimed this week that $100 billion invested in innovative technologies under the economic stimulus law is ''transforming the American economy'' by putting the nation on track for technological breakthroughs in health care, energy and transportation.

A look at how the administration's claims compare to the facts:

Renewable energy

The claim: Thanks to the stimulus, the United States is on track to ''doubling U.S. renewable energy generation capacity and U.S. renewable manufacturing capacity by 2012.''

The facts: While the Recovery Act has helped increase renewable energy, the fact that it is a one-time jolt makes it difficult to project that the growth will continue for the next couple of years. George Sterzinger, executive director of the Renewable Energy Policy Project, a Washington think tank that promotes renewable energy, said the Recovery Act's cash grant program for renewable energy projects ''jump-started a lot of stuff. But there's nothing beyond that.''

Solar power

The claim: Government stimulus money will lead to ''cutting the cost of solar power in half by 2015, putting it on par with the cost of retail electricity from the grid.''

The facts: That projection assumes a huge payoff from stimulus spending on technology improvements in solar energy.Sterzinger said there was too much uncertainty in the world economy to make such a prediction.

Genetic mapping

The claim: Stimulus funding is spurring National Institutes of Health research to make unraveling people's individual genetic codes, or genomes, easy and cheap enough that the number completed could ''dwarf, by 50 times or so'' the number so far finished.

The facts: NIH research kicked off the revolution in human genome sequencing and continues to play a crucial role, but it has lots of help today from universities, international research foundations and even private companies jockeying to sell better gene-scanning machines.

The bigger challenge, still in its infancy, is deciphering what the genetic variations mean and how that information might be harnessed for better care.

High-speed rail

The claim: ''With $8 billion in funding, the Recovery Act is beginning to make high-speed rail a reality across the country.'' Projects selected for funds represent ''strategic investments'' that will yield high-speed service or lay the groundwork for future service.

The facts: The largest project is one that would connect San Francisco with Los Angeles, using trains traveling up to 220 mph. But some of the projects getting stimulus money would primarily upgrade existing freight rail tracks so they could be used for faster passenger service, reaching speeds of up to 110 mph at least part of the time -- well short of the speeds in other developed countries.

The capacity to manufacture passenger rail cars and other high-speed equipment exists in the U.S. But it may take years beyond the 2017 deadline to spend the funds to design and test new rail cars that meet U.S. crashworthiness standards, which are different than much of the rest of the world.

Health info technology

The claim: Stimulus spending is ''a significant boost'' to goals of converting to electronic health records, computerized prescriptions and remote treatment of patients in hard-to-reach locations.

The facts: Economic dividends from greater efficiency and fewer costly medical mistakes could be years away.

For one thing, about 90 percent of roughly $20 billion the stimulus legislation allocated for this purpose has yet to be spent.

Most of the stimulus money is to help doctors and hospitals defray the cost of installing computer systems, but the Health and Human Services Department only recently spelled out the capabilities that those systems will need to qualify for federal money. No systems have yet been certified as meeting the required capabilities.

Electric vehicles

The claim: The stimulus has helped produce ''significant steps toward affordable electric cars that can drive 300 miles on a single charge, powered by $10 of clean electricity instead of $50 dollars of oil.''

The facts: Even a White House task force on the auto industry's recovery said while General Motors' extended-range plug-in hybrid, the Volt, ''holds promise, it will likely be too expensive to be commercially successful in the short term.''

At $41,000, the Volt is about twice the price of a conventional midsize car. The price of electric cars will drop, but automakers are years from being able to sell them at the same price as cars with internal combustion engines.

Another hurdle is fuel prices, which are relatively low and provide little incentive to consumers to spend thousands of dollars extra for a hybrid or even more for a plug-in car.

And there are questions about whether the large lithium ion batteries needed for electric cars are durable, safe and affordable enough for use.