Subscription Center
Feb 12, 2009 05:30 PM | 16
The world needs a "revolution" in science and technology to solve global warming, says Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, made the remarks in today's New York Times. The article was short on specifics, but Chu, former director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, said Nobel-level breakthroughs were needed in electric batteries, solar power and crops that could be turned into fuel. "Science and technology can generate much better choices,” Chu, a long-time proponent of alternative energy development, told the newspaper. “It has, consistently, over hundreds and hundreds of years.”
Among the points he made:
The U.S. has to find a way to burn coal cleanly, especially since India and China won't stop using it. Scientists also need to look for new types of plants that don’t take much energy to grow and can be converted into clean, inexpensive alternatives to fossil fuels.
There may be alternatives to cap-and-trade (a federal program under which the government sets an overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions, and utilities that produce lower levels than allotted can sell their chits to those that fall short) as a means of curbing Earth-warming emissions. “The concern about cap-and-trade in today’s economic climate,” Chu said, “is that a lot of money might flow to developing countries in a way that might not be completely politically sellable.” Two possible alternatives: a modified cap-and-trade program or a tax on carbon emissions. Chu didn’t say how these systems might work, but he did say he supports pricing the carbon dioxide that invisibly billows from fossil fuel-fired power plants, factories and cars.
Chu wouldn't say if the Energy Department would open Yucca Mountain in Nevada for burial of radioactive waste if it gets permission from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. President Obama has expressed opposition to the controversial project, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed, a Democrat from Nevada, has been aggressively trying to derail.
Image of Energy Secretary Steven Chu/Department of Energy via Wikimedia
Tags:
Steven Chu,
coal,
alt-energy,
nuclear,
solar,
Yucca Mountain,
fossil fuel,
battery,
energy
More News Blog:
Next: Satellite collision debris could persist for years
Previous: "Digital hand" researchers score second round of NSF funding
See what we're tweeting about
philipyam @dcastelvecchi @Yahoo It's annoyingly hidden in your name, forcing you to hover over it to see. But still not as bad as Gmail's
BoraZ I can co-sign: Alexis Madrigal: “Follow your own curiosity” http://t.co/8HLCJ1wX8W #sci4hels BoraZ How to Really March Against Monsanto. http://t.co/u93UxagQfT cc @Kevbonham @sci2mrow @patrickmustain @juliannewyrick
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
16 Comments
Add Commentthe best way to start is to build rails everywhere along the interstates and link them with plasma generators to produce the electricity to power them. and at the same time clean up the mess that is choking our planet.Check out startech environmental corporation and their plasma generators.they produce 50 megawatts of surplus electricity once they are up and running and by putting them along rail routes it will work,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think he is almost spot on. First off, we need Global Participation in the areas of science of energy. Then we need to Venture forth and find all aspects of energy and break it down with theory and physics!! NEVER put all your eggs in once basket.. sounds cliche, since we buy eggs that come in their own basket. This is a Quest to keep Humanity going despite the worlds issues. One true focus is energy as a whole, not a division or a single career focus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHell if my house was big enough to house enough broke scientists i would. Longs as they don't Chase the Fame and Fortune , They can work well as a team, and truly understand energy as a whole!!
Good Luck to Everyone!!
We are very unlikely to succeed in transforming our energy infrastructure before civilization goes into a death spiral. For instance, a 20-40% fall in 2009 global food production is predicted ( http://informationclearinghouse.info/article21955.htm ). Furthermore, in about 30 years mass famine is predicted:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07
On the other hand, our transition away from fossil fuels will take decadesif it happens at all. ( http://www.american.com/archive/2008/november-december-magazine/moore2019s-curse-and-the-great-energy-delusion ). Finally, our current political system is not suited to addressing big controversial issues quickly:
"Ultimately, responding to global warming is a political issue." --Lorrie Goldstein, Sun, 16 March 2008
"What I learned in the past few years is that politicians often adopt convenient policies that can be shown to be inconsistent with long-term success, given readily available scientific data and empirical information on policy impacts." --Dr Jim Hansen, NASA
Besides, such a transition will probably need an improbable change of paradigm:
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." --Albert Einstein
Today, most of our electricity is produced by "electromagnetic induction," where a magnet is moved in and out of a coil of wire in a closed circuit.In other words, we now have to power the motion of either the magnet or the wire to produce electricity. Instead, wind a solenoidal coil around a magnet, and apply electricity. The magnetic field is amplified, and the magnetic gradient can be exploited to yield more electricity than was used powering the solenoidal coil. A private California company called Magnetic Power Inc ( www.magneticpowerinc.com ) exceeded breakeven in 2004.
It’s nice to see that Mr. Chu and the Department of Energy are moving quickly to fund alternative energy projects. We do need a revolution in energy ,however most of what you see are the obvious and well known programs like wind and solar. We need to concentrate more on new technologies! Otherwise we will never really change the world! I recently discovered a company called Energetics Technologies. They have a process called SuperWaveFusion, which could be a possible breakthrough in cold fusion. The use of SuperWaves in the loading stage creates reported levels of excess heat that have never been obtained before. I am trying to learn more about this process and would like to hear from others about what they think. Their website is www.superwavefusion.com. Let me know your thoughts. Also please suggest other forms of alternative energy that we should be pursuing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere they go again offering nothing new and wanting to tax people instead of working on common sense solutions. While technology is the answer to our future problems. Control of world population growth and it's eventual reduction to around 3 billion worldwide and maintaining that level needs to be achieved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am so impressed by the level of thoughtful discourse taking place by the new administration. As for Secretary Chu's comments re: cap and trade vs. carbon tax, we need a full and open debate that includes economists, scientists, opinion leaders and politicians. Then, and only then, we need to implement a plan based on merit as opposed to political expediency. And while I think a carbon tax is the better option for a myriad of reasons (to avoid the evasion and market manipulation inherent to cap and trade, for one) the first step has to be an open debate. www.climatetaskforce.org
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDespite still being far from possessing full power in any country, the environmentalists are already responsible for approximately 96 million deaths from malaria across the world. These deaths are the result of the environmentalist-led ban on the use of DDT, which could easily have prevented them and, before its ban, was on the verge of wiping out malaria. The environmentalists brought about the ban because they deemed the survival of a species of vultures, to whom DDT was apparently poisonous, more important than the lives of millions of human beings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe deaths that have already been caused by environmentalism approximate the combined number of deaths caused by the Nazis and Communists.
If and when the environmentalists take full power, and begin imposing and then progressively increasing the severity of such things as carbon taxes and carbon caps, in order to reach their goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent, the number of deaths that will result will rise into the billions, which is in accord with the movement’s openly professed agenda of large-scale depopulation. (The policy will have little or no effect on global mean temperatures, the reduction of which is the rationalization for its adoption, but it will have a great effect on the size of human population.)
It is not at all accidental that environmentalism is evil and that its leading spokesmen hold or sanction ideas that are indistinguishable from those of sociopaths. Its evil springs from a fundamental philosophical doctrine that lies at the very core and deepest foundations of the movement, a doctrine that directly implies the movement’s destructiveness and hatred of the human race. This is the doctrine of the alleged intrinsic value of nature, i.e., that nature is valuable in and of itself, apart from all connection to human life and well being. This doctrine is accepted by the movement without any internal challenge, and, indeed, is the very basis of environmentalism’s existence.
You folks realize that CO2 is a harmless gas and has absolutely nothing to do with climate change don't you? In fact man has nothing to do with climate change. The IPCC is a complete and utter fraud perpetuated by greed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's a little quiz for everyone. Check out the molecular weight of Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide. Then report back and tell the class what the Laws of Physics say about CO2.
It's mind boggling how if something is repeated enough times, no matter how ludicrous, people will buy into it.
With extreme respect to Dr. Chu, he is on the wrong glide path. Paraphrasing Einstein, Its not the technology, it’s the politics. Albeit a small company, we have a high efficiency, low cost multi -fuel engine (MFSD) that would save 1 billion barrels/oil annually, cumulatively. There is that much inefficiency in powering 6.5 million 18 wheelers, 100 million US cars, given that MFSD achieves only a nominal market penetration. MFSD would also make small farms, nationally and internationally, self sufficient, as well as power green emergency generators, which are standard for reliable power throughout Africa, but would also help in perennial severe weather outages in the US. We have high efficiency, low cost, wind turbines (under $1K/KW), and geothermal where $.05-$.03/kWh is achievable. The MFSD innards applied to Solar Thermal, may give the golden ring, namely, affordable personal, residential, small industrial units which generate electricity. These Personal Solar Units (PSU’s) could be mass produced in the 100’s of millions, in each continent. Large Solar thermal has many problems in NET efficiency problems, yet cost investors hundreds of millions of dollars. That level of scientific acumen is on a par with the Wall Street/ Banksters acumen The deeper problems are – the push back, Not Invented Here, Risk Taking, and structures that sponsors “corporate” solutions, such as hydrogen (and its massive infrastructure costs), ethanol – a boon for the Farm Belt, which is energy negative, but jacks up scarce food resources. There’s only so much oxygen available for funding and the handouts go to the best at queuing up, with sterling CV’s, to tap these funds. The vision/ problem solving understanding is missing, not the technology. And don’t forget international intrigue, Other nations realize cheap energy equals widespread education, standard of living, thus, 10’s of millions more engineers in the technology wars, in which they are the soldiers. Add the attitude of a number of very successful renewable companies in a sellers market. They will not cannibalize their own cash flows (or retool) to give the users a cost effective solution. They understand it’s a brandless zero sum game, coupled with Value Pricing which is diametrically opposite to a solution. Charging for a barrel of kilowatts may only change the energy cartels but not the paradigm – and ultimate objective: Cheap, Copious, Carbon Free Energy. Less than 3 out of 3 looses. JR – CEO, Sannerprojects, Inc Sannerwind@gmail.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswant to see something real and requires no fuel then goto youtube and type in free magnetic engine and watch and demand. this is a fine example of how stupid we earthdwellars are for paying to drive,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeautiful Eve! So right on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoberman : There is no need for the 960,000,000 starving in the modern world to suffer. The UN has calculated that reducing intensive beef and mutton production will liberate enough cereals to feed everybody. When old people are fed, they encourage smaller families as has happened everywhere in the developed world. So there is no reason why the current demographic explosion cannot be checked. Hence less ressource pressure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn important article in the German publication Spiegel Online suggests that commercial wind energy has not reduced CO2 emissions "by one gram," principally because Europe's cap-and-trade system allows carbon credits for wind to be sold to coal-fired power plants, increasing coal plants' CO2 more than what was planned. Thus wind energy fails to achieve its primary mission as a measure to affect climate change. Moreover, wind power is substantially more expensive than other CO2 reduction measures. The fix: stop giving carbon credits to wind developers (in a cap-and-trade program, suggesting the general ineffectiveness of such programs):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,druck-606763,00.html
Eve: People are not starving because of the ban on DDT. They are starving because the developed world give their farmers subsidies that would never exist if free trade policy was fairly applied. There is also the matter of arms salesmen disrupting local economies by fomenting civil wars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf DDT is so harmless, why don't you try eating some it as a condiment on a regular basis?
best solution is cheap, simple, clean technology named free energy engine, for more info tomaz_a@yahoo.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe best energy solution is free energy engine, simple, cheap technology, affordable even for poorest countries, useful in cars, homes, ships, industry...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisinvention is in the stage of provable idea, for more info write on tomaz_a@yahoo.com