Skip to Content

Q&A: Steven Chu

The former energy secretary, who has begun chasing emerging technologies again, looks back on his successes and failures in government.
February 9, 2015

As a leading and active scientist, Steven Chu broke the mold when he became energy secretary of the United States in 2009. In his four years of service, he made the Department of Energy more innovative, launching the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy to support projects not yet ready for private investment. He also created Innovation Hubs to bring people from different disciplines together on energy problems and rejuvenated funding for solar research. Chu, who shared the 1997 Nobel Prize in physics and directed the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory before his government appointment, is now restarting his research group at Stanford. In a conversation with David Talbot, chief correspondent of MIT Technology Review, he reflected on his time with the federal government and talked about the research and technology questions absorbing him today.

What left you the most frustrated or disappointed at the Department of Energy?

The press was sometimes frustrating to deal with. Often, reporters or their editors wanted to “make news” by generating controversy.

Inside the department, there was inertia to keep old programs unchanged, and friction against new approaches. For example, in research in biofuels, I wanted to cast a wide net for new ideas, but I was getting resistance against doing new research that didn’t fit existing definitions of fuels listed by the Department of Agriculture. I wanted new ideas to be funded on the merits, and worry about categorization later.

What do you see as your biggest success and your biggest mistake?

My biggest success is that I was able to help recruit very capable scientists and engineers. Also, as a practicing scientist—during late nights or weekends—I was in a better position to ask the right questions. Perhaps my biggest mistake was to defer too much to “experts” on nonscientific matters at the beginning of my tenure. This was especially true if the advice was coming from handwringers who were more worried about negative reactions than doing the right thing.

What should President Obama try to get done on energy in his final two years?

President Obama, through the EPA, is doing the right thing by pushing on mercury, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide standards for all power plants above a certain size. I would like to have him begin a dialogue on policies for countries that have a meaningful price on carbon or are working to be less carbon-intensive in each particular industry.

For example, the carbon emission from the production of a particular grade of steel varies greatly. We need to think of how to prevent manufacturing and extraction industries from constantly migrating to the lowest-cost, most polluting producer. China is working hard to reduce the carbon intensity of its industries and is likely to put a price on carbon. I believe China and the U.S. can be leaders in starting this dialogue.

What projects excite you now?

After I left DOE, many companies asked me to join their boards of directors. I chose very few, including Amprius [a Stanford startup working on lithium-ion batteries]. Professor Yi Cui [a 2004 member of MIT Technology Review’s Innovators Under 35] and I brainstormed about new approaches to lithium-metal-anode batteries. We’ve published a couple of papers on new approaches. It’s long been known that a lithium-metal–sulfur-cathode battery can potentially have five times higher energy density. We also seek a durable battery that can charge 10 times faster. Of course, as in all research, we may or may not succeed, but I think we have a shot.

You’re also on the board of a Canadian startup called Inventys. Why?

I’m trying to help with some of the more technical aspects of capturing carbon from a natural-gas power plant—but also a coal, steel, or cement plant. Currently conventional methods that use amines [chemicals that absorb and then release carbon dioxide at different temperatures] are too expensive. We’re hoping to reduce capture costs to $15 a ton for carbon dioxide; current technologies, when scaled, would cost around $60. Getting to $15 would make carbon capture feasible in the U.S. and China.

What’s the fundamental physics breakthrough you’d most like to see?

Breakthroughs, by definition, are unanticipated surprises that lead to great things.

Keep Reading

Most Popular

Conceptual illustration of a therapy session
Conceptual illustration of a therapy session

The therapists using AI to make therapy better

Researchers are learning more about how therapy works by examining the language therapists use with clients. It could lead to more people getting better, and staying better.

street in Kabul at night
street in Kabul at night

Can Afghanistan’s underground “sneakernet” survive the Taliban?

A once-thriving network of merchants selling digital content to people without internet connections is struggling under Taliban rule.

Conceptual illustration showing a file folder with the China flag and various papers flying out of it
Conceptual illustration showing a file folder with the China flag and various papers flying out of it

The US crackdown on Chinese economic espionage is a mess. We have the data to show it.

The US government’s China Initiative sought to protect national security. In the most comprehensive analysis of cases to date, MIT Technology Review reveals how far it has strayed from its goals.

IBM engineers at Ames Research Center
IBM engineers at Ames Research Center

Where computing might go next

The future of computing depends in part on how we reckon with its past.

Stay connected

Illustration by Rose WongIllustration by Rose Wong

Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

Explore more newsletters

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at customer-service@technologyreview.com with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.