Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Steven Chu's Energy Plan
At yesterday's hearing, Obama's selection for secretary of energy outlined his priorities.
By Kevin Bullis
Steven Chu, president-elect Obama's pick for secretary of energy, emphasized the need to address climate change and decrease reliance on foreign oil during his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, January 13, and he backed off of some of his earlier rhetoric against coal (which he'd previously called his "worst nightmare"). Here's a sampling of his take on key issues.
Oil and gas, and efficiency:
He tiptoed around the issue of increasing oil and gas production on the outer continental shelf and elsewhere, saying that he supported it, but immediately qualifying his statement. He said that only 5 percent of the world production of oil comes from the United States, implying that increased production won't make much difference. Then he said, "The more efficient use of energy in the United States is the one big factor that can help us reduce our dependency on foreign oil."
Nuclear:
It has to be part of the energy mix, so we need to figure out how to dispose of it. That means, in part, some more research on recycling waste.
Electric grid:
A "very crucial" part of the development of natural resources. Steady winds and clear skies for solar power are often far from big cities where power is needed, so we'll need better electrical transmission. Challenges: cost, state boundary issues, siting the power lines.
Renewable energy:
"Renewable energy is something we really have to work on as quickly as possible . . . It will be my primary goal as secretary to make the Department of Energy a leader in these critical efforts." (Quote from CQ Politics.) Chu's work as the director of the Lawrence Berkeley Lab focused on advanced biofuels, artificial photosynthesis, and solar technologies.
Hybrids, electric vehicles:
"These first electric hybrid cars don't have the energy capacity and the battery lifetime we need," he said today. "Let's push hard towards more fuel-efficient personal vehicles." (Quote from Earth2Tech.)
Coal, carbon sequestration:
Coal is the most abundant fuel source in the U.S., and the dirtiest. But capturing the carbon dioxide that it produces and burying it could make it cleaner. Chu supports developing technology to do this.
"If the world continues to use coal the way it is now, that is a pretty bad dream," he said at the hearing, pointing out that carbon dioxide isn't the only problem. In many places, pollutants like sulfur dioxide and mercury aren't captured, he said. "It is imperative that we figure out a way to use coal as cleanly as possible. My optimism as a scientist is that we will develop those technologies to capture a large fraction of the carbon dioxide that is emitted from power plants and to safely sequester it."
Comments
I think that there should be a way to have efforts on these three challenges to dovetail. A house with solar on it reduces demand on the electric grid, is more likely to have highly efficient devices, and reduces polluting and CO2 producing fuel use. DG sounds like a prudent choice for Mr. Chu.
jwgorman
01/15/2009
Posts:10
mwr
01/24/2009
Posts:2
I challenge the statement of Dr. Chu enclosed in the quotation marks, below.
Aside from the performance of Tesla roadsters, powered by lithium batteries, Stanford Ovchinski’s claims made of his amorphous type nickel metal hydride batteries have been proven to be equal, if not superior to lithium, in power, charging capacity and mileage.
“What happened to this battery”? http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/553.html
(Quote from CQ Politics.) Chu's work as the director of the Lawrence Berkeley Lab focused on advanced biofuels, artificial photosynthesis, and solar technologies.
Hybrids, electric vehicles:
"These first electric hybrid cars don't have the energy capacity and the battery lifetime we need," he said today. "Let's push hard towards more fuel-efficient personal vehicles." (Quote from Earth2Tech.)
I feel that this glaring contradiction of the facts is most critical, coming from someone advising (misleading?) President Obama on US energy strategy.
I urgently await your reply.
Yours very truly,
David Thomson
725 Franklyn Road
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
(250) 765-6826
idslayer
03/24/2009
Posts:2
For details, please read the electricity without price controls (EWPC) article IOUs Perverse Communism, which is based on the EWPC article Dr. Chu backed away slightly and responds Energy Central Network's vice president Warren Causey's articles We'll see who was right, Keynes or Adam Smith & Milton Friedman and Chu trying to appear less ‘scary’.
javs
01/15/2009
Posts:89
RD
01/15/2009
Posts:112
Gene_Preston
01/16/2009
Posts:2
mwr
01/24/2009
Posts:2
· Coal is not likely to find a CO2 storage solution. This will cause a phasing out of coal for electric power.
· The era of cheap oil is coming to a close. Natural gas and oil will be available but will be very expensive.
· Electrified transportation will drive up the demand for electricity and the need for new lines and power plants.
· Solar cell manufacture is still too expensive. It's not clear when a low cost process will be realized.
· T. Boone's wind power plan will need many new transmission lines which I think will take years to implement.
· A power system that relies only on wind and solar will require energy storage, which is not economically available.
· Nuclear fission has two problems which have technical solutions. One is nuclear waste and the other is cost of plant.
· The nuclear waste problem is solved by reprocessing and reburning the waste. France and the US have plans on how to do this.
· The US should implement the way the French hold down the capital costs of nuclear plants by reducing the investment risk.
· More R&D fusion power projects are needed in the US. There is an infinite supply of fusion deuterium fuel in the oceans.
Gene_Preston
01/16/2009
Posts:2
Manufacturing - use coal?
Buildings - natural gas?
Transportation - petroleum and coal
Agriculture - petroleum?
mkogrady
01/16/2009
Posts:198
...we are able to develop a economic way to use coal as liquid fuel which is a reliable process since 1940 and new processes can raise if we work hard on it.
advill
01/20/2009
Posts:15
I challenge the statement of Dr. Chu enclosed in the quotation marks, below.
Aside from the performance of Tesla roadsters, powered by lithium batteries, Stanford Ovchinski’s claims made of his amorphous type nickel metal hydride batteries have been proven to be equal, if not superior to lithium, in power, charging capacity and mileage.
“What happened to this battery”? http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/553.html
(Quote from CQ Politics.) Chu's work as the director of the Lawrence Berkeley Lab focused on advanced biofuels, artificial photosynthesis, and solar technologies.
Hybrids, electric vehicles:
"These first electric hybrid cars don't have the energy capacity and the battery lifetime we need," he said today. "Let's push hard towards more fuel-efficient personal vehicles." (Quote from Earth2Tech.)
I feel that this glaring contradiction of the facts is most critical, coming from someone advising (misleading?) President Obama on US energy strategy.
I urgently await your reply.
Yours very truly,
David Thomson
725 Franklyn Road
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
(250) 765-6826
idslayer
03/24/2009
Posts:2