Steven Chu, Energy Chief

It's not surprising that scientists would applaud the nomination of a Nobel Prize-winning physicist to be U.S. Secretary of Energy, but the promise of Steven Chu's nomination goes far beyond clan identity. What's especially exciting is the prospect of having someone who understands, and believes in, complex scientific inquiry in charge of the complex science inherent in the major energy issues facing America.

Too often, energy policy is reduced to the "Drill, Baby, Drill" refrain made famous in the recent presidential campaign. But the future of U.S. energy is not simple. It's not just a question of drilling in Alaska or offshore or in other environmentally sensitive areas. It's a matter of building a multifaceted strategy, composed of a variety of approaches, many of which involve highly complex scientific challenges.

And that's where Steven Chu's background, approach, and potential are so intriguing. He understands that energy policy is not just about oil, and he has a distinguished history of involvement in the kinds of transformational science that could radically alter U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Dr. Chu is co-winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics for the "development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light." At the time, he was a professor of Physics at Stanford University and later Chair of the Department of Physics, where he was instrumental in bringing scientists with physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering backgrounds into one building, in order to facilitate collaboration. He has been director of the prestigious Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory since 2004, where he has become a major national advocate for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and for collaboration between business and science to address climate change.

In 2007, he made a bold move when he agreed to allow the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to become a partner in the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI), a half-billion-dollar partnership with British Petroleum and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne to conduct research needed to produce biofuels from plant material. While some environmentalists have characterized this arrangement as a dance with the devil (BP), cross-discipline collaborations are precisely what are needed to solve big complex questions of critical global importance.

Dr. Chu's explanation of his decision at the time underscores his approach: "We believe EBI will create a culture where vibrant interpersonal interactions will generate extraordinarily innovative research. The 'team science' approach introduced by E.O. Lawrence [builder of the first large cyclotron for subatomic research] 75 years ago and the invention of the transistor at Bell Labs are striking examples of how large-scale multidisciplinary problems were solved by establishing the proper scientific culture where the most brilliant minds can work together."

This commitment to multidisciplinary initiatives in pursuit of transformational ideas is important across a wide range of energy issues confronting America. In solar energy, for instance, another area of great interest to Dr. Chu, there are major questions that must be answered about collecting energy on a large-enough scale, storing it appropriately, and distributing it widely. Not only will a range of sciences, as well as engineering, need to be involved, but the participation of industry will also be required, because the only model that can reach sufficient scale is one that embraces the private sector. With its involvement, as well as government's, the United States could, through solar power, address our national energy needs, rebuild our economy along the way, and become a major exporter of solar energy technology in the process. By doing so, we could improve the global environment on a major scale.

The U.S. Department of Energy is one of the top four federal funders of research, according to ScienceDebate2008.com, and it's the No. 1 funder of physics research. By nominating Dr. Chu, President-elect Obama has ensured that the United States will have an energy leader who understands the opportunities that America has before it and who will use his position to inspire - and to fund - the multidisciplinary transformational science that can truly change the world.

The author is President of Research Corporation for Science Advancement, a foundation dedicated to science since 1912.

Comments

[PDH5204]

I hate to break the news to the blind ideologues, and the mere ignorant, but 2008 is the coolest year on record since 2000. See:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4BF31120081216

[Overtone]

Ambient temperature Ultraconductors„¢ open a path to better transmission Lines " a future UltraGrid tieline can link the nation"s electric utilities. These remarkable materials will also provide a means to store energy for utilities. Storage rings can be fabricated in factories and stacked where needed to create a new means of economically sound energy storage.

Revolutionary electric power generators will replace batteries. They can turn parked cars into power plants that may pay for themselves, by selling power to local utilities during peak periods of demand. Up to 150 kW can be wirelessly sent from the vehicle to the grid. Imagine the potential to provide power following outages!

For additional information see magneticpowerinc.com and Ultraconductors.com

[GoldEnergy]

How stupid are the "Drill Baby Drill" Republicans!? Imagine the appointment by a McCain/Palin ticket! How refreshing to have actual scientists running the DOE and other cabinet posts - way to go Obama!

[texfly]

I was also a Member of Technical Staff at Bell Labs when Stve Chu was there. He has continued a stellar career in research in his endeavors at Stanford and LBL. He is a good choice provided that he can be pragmatic and not married to the technologies of his research studies. The facts are clear. We can deploy renewable energy electrical systems on a large scale now, especially SEGS - msolar electrical generating sytems - that use HEAT from the sun not photvoltaics(PV). Right now they are vastly superior to PV if you consider a figure-of-merit:

FOM = [$ per Watt-electric] divided by [ Capacity Factor(hr/day) x effciency (percentage)]

SEGS will be at 0.78, solar PV now is at 5.2. Solar PV will have to get to $0.75/We to match SEGS at current PV efficiencies (12%) or 40% efficiency at $2.50/We. Wind is rapidly being deployed in the central US wind corridor, but Capacity Factor and Dispatchability are still issues. Of course we have to consider storage and grid to make a complete case. HVDC seems best for the grid - it can be buried in existing right-of-ways. Storage is the biggie - mainly the best engineering choice. I'm trying to assess all the options at my website ( http://www.pennies4power.org ) where I still have to asses wind, grid and storage. But I think you'll get the point.

[orangepetal]

Soooo exciting !!!!

[KQuarksSuperKollider]

As a scientist I share your and Chu's views on interdisciplinary collaboration with science projects. I had worked in corporate R&D for over twenty years and have been involved with many such efforts with good success. Being on the corporate side I also understand how necessary private investment is in developing new technologies for our energy future.

While I greatly appreciate you column and realize it was written for the lay person it would be nice if you added some references and links to new technology projects for some of us who are scientifically inclined to read more about these technologies.

[WilliePilgrim]

While I'm glad that Chu is not one of the "drill baby drill" energy chiefs, I sure hope he's not also one of the "cap and trade now, cap and trade tomorrow and cap and trade for ever" school of thought too. Cap and trade was effective for CFCs because the sources were so limited and the goal was so specific and demonstrable, but CO2 is so diffuse and ubiquitous, and for all we know, will be so difficult to determine if it's being effective at achieving what many would like to see happen, that it has a potential to become a very expensive "white knight" program that then extends ot any and every manner of environmental sin that a beaurocracy, fearfull of not growing, will extend far beyond its intention. While there's big money opposed to controlling CO2, let's not forget that there's quite a bit (potentially several trillion dollars) that will be channelled through the proposed cap and trade programs.
In the mean time solutions that might not require cap and trade would not get the kind of support they need, and indeed might find it blocked for "practical" or "political" reasons. Greed and shortsightedness is a two way street.