iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Chu Warmly Received, Says Nuclear And Coal Are "Critical"

H. JOSEF HEBERT   01/13/09 04:05 PM ET   AP

Chu

WASHINGTON — Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu promised Tuesday that if confirmed as energy secretary he will aggressively pursue policies aimed at addressing climate change and achieving greater energy independence by developing clean energy sources.

But he also told lawmakers that he views nuclear power and coal as critical parts of the nation's energy mix and said he was optimistic that ways can be found to make coal a cleaner energy source by capturing its carbon dioxide emissions.

Nominated by President-elect Barack Obama to head the Energy Department, Chu appeared before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee where he received immediate support from both Democrats and Republicans.

Committee chairman, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said Chu has "the insight and vision" to press Obama's energy policies. Bingaman said he saw no serious opposition to Chu's nomination and that a committee vote approving his selection would likely occur later this week.

Chu, a Chinese-American who has been director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory since 2004, told senators that climate change is "a growing and pressing problem" and the nation's dependence on oil represents a threat to the U.S. economy and security.

Of the risks from global warming, Chu said: "It is now clear that if we continue on our current path, we run the risk of dramatic disruptive changes to our climate system in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren."

But senators wanted to know how he might bring China into a global agreement on climate change.

The United States and China are "in a standoff" over taking initial steps to reduce greenhouse gases, Chu said, and the United States should "take the first step and China closely follows."

"If China doesn't follow we'll have to re-look at it," he added.

Simply trusting China? asked Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. "That approach will not be enacted by the United States Congress."

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the committee's ranking Republican, also called Chu well qualified, but pressed him on his position on offshore oil development and nuclear energy.

Chu said nuclear energy produces a fifth of the nation's electricity and 70 percent of the carbon-free electricity and "is going to be an important part of our energy mix." About domestic oil production, Chu reiterated Obama's views that some expansion of offshore oil and gas development should be included as part of a broader energy plan.

But Chu sidestepped Murkowski's question on whether he would oppose any reinstatement of a broad ban on offshore oil drilling on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. "Improvements in energy efficiency is the one single factor that can most reduce our dependency on foreign oil," said Chu.

A widely respected scientist who shared a Nobel Prize in physics in 1997, Chu has been a strong advocate for more energy-related research, especially work on advanced biofuels and solar energy technologies.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., asked Chu about early research into using plants to produce not ethanol, but direct substitutes for gasoline or diesel.

"Now we're getting into the science. I love this," replied Chu, 60, before going into a detailed explanation of the challenges in such research and progress being made.

Chu's passion about developing new types of nonfossil energy and his concerns about climate change have been well documented.

But when pressed by senators, Chu acknowledged that coal cannot be abandoned as a primary source of energy, although he promised that research into capturing carbon emissions _ pollution linked to climate change _ would be pursued aggressively.

"Some people think perhaps we can turn off coal," said Chu. "Even if we do it, China and India will not."

Chu shared the Nobel Prize for physics in 1997 for finding a way to cool and trap atoms by using laser light. He is a former chairman of the physics department at Stanford University, and before that was head of the electronics research laboratory at Bell Labs.

___

On the Net

Energy Department: http://www.doe.gov

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: http://energy.senate.gov/

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON — Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu promised Tuesday that if confirmed as energy secretary he will aggressively pursue policies aimed at addressing climate change and achieving...
WASHINGTON — Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu promised Tuesday that if confirmed as energy secretary he will aggressively pursue policies aimed at addressing climate change and achieving...
Filed by Dave Burdick  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 20
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:18 PM on 01/14/2009
Another point of view on the role of mankind and global warming:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine/beware-the-church-of-climate-alarm/2008/11/26/1227491635989.html
12:02 PM on 01/14/2009
The only way I can work up much enthusiasm for nuclear reactors is if we commit to fast neutron
reactors, which fission the transuranics that have to be isolated for 10-20K years. If the transuranics
are under fission, the fission products are safe in about 300 years. If the products are made into
borosilicate logs, they might even be useful as heat sources.
12:05 PM on 01/14/2009
Sorry, the third line should be undergo fission.
BlackbirdHighway
Brawndo's got electrolites!
05:49 AM on 01/14/2009
Our new energy secretary supports the myth of clean coal? Wow, I'm sure glad I didn't vote for Obama!

That argument that China and India will still use it, so that makes it ok? Well, I guess he thinks we should all rob banks, since other people will do it anyway and that makes it ok. How can someone be so incredibly stupid?
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
06:54 AM on 01/14/2009
That's not what he said.

My take, as someone who has met Chu professionally, is that he realizes that we need the technology to clean up coal as best we can because these other actors are very unlikely to change from using coal. Therefore, if we are to succeed at halting and even reversing the destruction to our atmosphere, we - humanity - must have "clean coal" technology.

As a scientist myself, though he didn't say so in the hearings, my bet is that he's interested in gassification wherein coal is liquidified as a precursor to being used as a fuel. As a liquid, there are a lot more chemical reactions - processes - that we can apply to it to clean it up before combustion. We can actually do this today, however the trick is to do so on an energy efficient manner so that the process isn't much like ethanol today wherein you don't get much out of it after you factor in what you have to put into it just to create it...
.
02:34 PM on 01/14/2009
I heard Dr Chu,on Cspan, I don't really think Dr Chu would even say all he knows!
I know I wouldn't, Because in this world his thoughts and ideas would probably be stolen,from someone and used as their own. I was so interested in this I watched his whole hearing. It was fasinating.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TJCole
12:52 AM on 01/14/2009
LOL..!

Clean Coal and Nuclear...man we really got had...

Nothing ever changes...
12:34 AM on 01/14/2009
How about that? An Energy Secretary admits that the most critical current sources of our electricity are in fact "critical". Next I suppose that our new Transportation Secretary will declare that roads are critical.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Mikeeee
Private corps can't do it better!!!
01:10 AM on 01/14/2009
Current sources of our electricity are in fact critically in dire need of being replaced.
Roads are critical, but not as critical as rail which has been badly neglected for too long.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Mikeeee
Private corps can't do it better!!!
12:17 AM on 01/14/2009
I'm wondering why geo-thermal isn't in the forefront? I'm betting that while it is expensive to start up, you have very little maintenance costs, no disposal issues to deal with as you do with nuclear or any type of carbon burning and wouldn't cost more than all the dollars that'll be poured into nuclear and carbon whether through outright grants or tax exemptions.
12:34 AM on 01/14/2009
And you would lose that bet.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Mikeeee
Private corps can't do it better!!!
12:52 AM on 01/14/2009
Ok, show me.
Explain how storing nuclear waste for the next 100,000 years is going to be cheaper. Explain how multi billions of dollars being handed to the oil companies is helping clean the air for your child.
Explain how the billions of dollars of research that will be spent on a wasted effort like clean coal wouldn't be better spent on geo-thermal.
When you're dealing with carbon and nuclear fuels, you have to include all the costs. Including the current debacle in Tennessee, (which you know in the end, the tax payer is going to be on the hook for it) and i suspect more to come as these damns age and deteriorate.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
JScott
John Galt's last name is McGuffin-Smithee
12:14 AM on 01/14/2009
So tell us more about what's goin on at the National Ignition Facility, will we get fusion power?
02:14 AM on 01/14/2009
NIF is a facility to test samples of fission and fusion materials from the nation's nuclear stockpile. By compressing these samples with the laser similar conditions can be created (at least to some extent) as they can be found in an exploding nuclear warhead. By measuring the radiation from the sample one can assess (at least theoretically) if the complete bombs would actually have the designed yield. More importantly weapons designers hope to learn from these experiments enough to design new warheads on the computer without ever having to explode one. The holy grail of nuclear weapons design are tiny, almost radiation free warheads with 1-100 ton yields. They would allow to put tiny nuclear ammunition on fighter jets or UAVs that could vaporize city blocks or underground caverns without the need for sending in bulky intercontinental bombers with MOAB style weaponry.

NIF has very little to do with fusion research and will not lead to any functional power reactor design. It was never designed to do that.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
HillbillyBob
09:36 PM on 01/13/2009
We will NEVER make coal clean. Can't be done, not without destroying the rest of the Appalachia Mountains. Everyone wants to sequester the carbon..well ok, but they are still destroying one of the oldest mountain chains in the world to dig out the coal, it ruins the countryside, fouls the water and air and that is just the mining let alone the using of it. Nuke same thing. In Chatam VA, just North of where I live they are in the process of trying to start a mining operation that will be on the scale of mountain destruction as in WV.
That will affect our area with runoff from the operation into the Dan river system which is part of our drinking water. Coal has radio active components, as well as mercury, arsenic, lead, sulfur which becomes water and air borne.
We have this great big Sun that produces enough energy in a day to supply us for a good long time.
WHAT is it that we have to burn or use fission with all of the harm we already know about.
Our eco farm is on a plan to be close to fossil fuel free (on a tight budget no less) in the next ten years. Why do we have to kowtow to the central powers? Politics? I call that BS
06:59 PM on 01/13/2009
I assume Dr. Chu is referring to existing nuclear and not new reactors. The real cost in terms of construction, fuel processing and disposal makes nuclear more expensive than wind or solar. Plus, the lag time between proposal and delivery of electrons from a nuclear plant is 15 years. in addition Uranium is a scarce commodity. I take my fission 93 million miles away, thank you very much.
07:39 PM on 01/13/2009
You get your Fusion from 93 million miles away, not fission. (Although it's finally looking like fusion might finally be getting close to technically and economically feasible here on Earth.) As far as existing nuclear reactors, we have a few around the country that were built but never became operational; the intentions are to get those up and running. Disposal, in the end, is what makes fission so expensive--you are correct about that. Nuclear power does have the benefit of not contributing to climate change, so a bit of extra expense is part of the compromise. In the longer term, renewables are what we want, of course... it's going to take time, and as Dr. Chu pointed out, we're going to have some tech we don't like through the transition.

And, posters: please, don't go crazy over his statement that we'll be using nuclear and coal for the time being. Energy policy has to be based on what is technologically and financially possible. We could already be much further down the road to what we would prefer if earlier administrations had put priority on these issues, but they did not. Breakthroughs are coming fast, but they are mostly incremental. We're getting there; let's not rock the boat too much on this one. Obama made an extremely good choice with Dr. Chu. Patience.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gevan
big dubya
06:34 PM on 01/13/2009
I wouldn't mind seeing wind turbines on top of the beach front highrises across the street from me. I thought that what we were we going for is to have China and India to emulate us, not the other way around. Sure, it will take time; but we better begin while there is still some polar ice left, no?
05:58 PM on 01/13/2009
Welcome Mr. Chu, I am glad that nuclear is being considered. I live in Spain, and this country opposes nuclear. However, Spain buys a huge amount of electricity from France, which is 85% nuclear in electricity production ! France is VERY happy with having gone nuclear, it gives them independence, and have found that it is the cheapest and cleanest.

Very interesting : there are new portable nuclear plants, made in USA : a possible new line of activity, for export, etc.
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

Cheers and good luck for Mr. Chu !
02:16 AM on 01/14/2009
If you want a portable nightmare in your backyard, Hyperion is at your service.

:-)