Energy Secretary Chu: Win a Nobel, save world

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the Department of Energy plans to establish research centers modeled on Bell Laboratories to spark the development of disruptive energy inventions.

Chu delivered the Compton lecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on Tuesday, where he told academics and local green-tech business people that the world needs technology breakthroughs in energy to hedge against high fossil fuel prices, to improve national security, and to mitigate the effects of climate change.

During his talk, Chu singled out a number of energy technologies that demand more research, including batteries, solar cells that convert sunlight into electricity, bio-energy, and capturing carbon dioxide and storing it underground. Buildings equipped with sensors and better building material, for example, could be 80 percent more efficient, and synthetic biology could coax microbes into producing gasoline from plants, Chu said.

Energy secretary Steven Chu delivering the Compton lecture on research at MIT.

(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET)

By pursuing these low-carbon technologies, researchers will undoubtedly invent technologies that will lead to different applications, much the way the development of the transistor for communications at AT&T's Bell Labs led to the computer revolution, Chu said.

"There's going to be very exciting science that will come out of this. And just like Bell Labs, where you wanted to deliver some goods in the end, but boy there is going to be a lot of very fundamental stuff you have to develop along the way," he said. "So you can have a Nobel prize and save the world at the same time."

The Energy Department's budget will balloon in the near future, with $37 billion from the federal recovery act coming in the next two years, on top of its existing $26 billion budget. There will be money dedicated to basic research, but Chu said that he intends to promote applied energy research as well with the creation of eight "innovation hubs."

These hubs will be modeled on three existing bio-energy research centers, but expanded to include centers for batteries, building science and other areas, Chu said. His 2010 budget calls for $280 million to create these hubs.

The three centers have adopted a Bell Labs-like structure where people work on different areas and there is meant to be collaboration with industry as well, he said. At Bell Labs in the past, managers were top-notch scientists which helped the lab to make decisions quickly and develop many basic technologies, such as the photovoltaic solar cell and the laser, Chu said.

"A lot of the best research started as mission-oriented, applied research," he said. "Even when they worked on commercial applications, the research led to other inventions."

Basic versus applied research
In response to a question from a student, Chu said that the DOE does not at all intend to shy away from basic science research. President Obama in March called for doubling the amount of spending on basic science over the next 10 years to address the need for new energy technology and spur economic development. The Energy Department has also created DARPA-E, an agency modeled after the defense agency that led to the creation of the Internet.

But the amount of money that the U.S. spends on R&D is tiny in relation to the trillion dollars spent on energy every year, Chu said.

"Energy of the future will certainly have to be more high-tech, so in a high-tech industry what you typically do is invest on the order of 10 percent or more of sales in R&D," he said. "Well, 10 percent of a trillion dollars is $100 billion a year. That's a lot of money and we're really investing a couple billion, so the scale is not proportional to what is needed."

A slide from Steven Chu's speech on research at MIT.

(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET)

That influx of money to the Energy Department, for both research grants and loans to companies seeking to bring new technologies to market, has people concerned in industry that the money will not be well spent.

Chu acknowledged that this is a serious challenge for the Energy Department. In an effort to streamline the bureaucracy, he has made some organizational changes including a board established to efficiently vet loan and grant applications.

In addition, Chu said that in the coming weeks he will be sending letters to university teachers and students asking for their help in assessing the merits of research applications.

"This is a huge load on the system and we need the best help we can get," he said. "The quality of reviews has to go up. It's very important we get it right."

Earlier on Tuesday, Chu held a press conference in Boston to announce the award of $25 million to a research center for testing wind turbine blades in Charlestown, Mass.

Economic growth
Chu started his talk reviewing the latest data on the effects of climate change, which is happening as fast as--or even faster than--scientists have predicted.

Polar ice cap coverage is decreasing and the rate of sea level rise has accelerated over the last two decades. In British Columbia, 2006 data showed that 40 percent of pine forests were killed by pine bark beetles, fewer of which are killed by winter frosts because of warming temperatures.

In addition, there is growing awareness of potential tipping points, such as the release of methane from permafrost in the tundra. "We're getting close to where it's a very nervous time," he said.

But Chu is hopeful that the world can move to sustainable energy because of the breakthroughs scientists have achieved in the past. The so-called green revolution allowed people in the middle of the 20th century to get more food from the same amount of land.

He said he is a strong believer that investments in science and technology are also the best way to spur economic growth.

"I'm a big believer in the fact that science and technology will be a cornerstone, if not the cornerstone, for how America will prosper in this century, so what we're investing now is nothing," he said.

[George_Marenco]

Global Warming is a fraud. It's called a normal cycle.

[rapier1]

Okay, lets assume that this is a 'normal' cycle and not influenced in any way by human activities. Does that make it any better? Does it make it less of a potential disaster? Of course, it really doesn't matter what you answers are because you have at least made the first step in admitting that there is a problem. The important question at this point is what do we do about it? If nothing else we need to plan to deal with massive population movements, increased ranges for tropical and mosquito borne diseases, coastal flooding, and changing weather patterns. So even if there isn't a human component we still have a lot of work to do in order to mitigate the potential impact. Or are you suggesting that we should just lay back and think happy thoughts?

Now, lets assume that we're not entirely sure about what might be causing this cycle. It may be completely normal, it may due entirely to human influences, or maybe its a combination of the two. Unless you are unscientific then you can't say with absolutely certainty that there is no human involvement in the process. The level of human involvement may be small or it may be large but the potential is there. If the potential is there then doesn't it make a certain amount of sense to work on methods of reducing the possible impact we might be having in the hope that it will mitigate the overall detrimental impact of global warming? Think of it like fire insurance. The chance of your home actually burning down during your life time is actually very very low. However, if it does happen the impact on our lives is very very high. So we buy insurance that will reduce the overall destructive impact of losing our home to fire will have on our lives. Most people will never ever use their fire insurance but almost all of us believe that you'd be foolish to not have it because we *know* it *can* happen. So we take a small financial hit in order to guard against a larger one. Likewise, we don't know the global warming is due to human influences but we *know* its a possibility. The science on that is clear and inarguable. Does it make sense to take a small financial hit now on the chance that global warming *is* human influenced? It may not be and any money or effort we spent would have been wasted. Of course, if it is and we did nothing then the costs will be astronomically high. The problem is determining what level of risk we're willing to accept.

[franswas]

Rapier1 is very patient, George. I find it hard to believe that we are still wasting time and energy arguing about the causes of climate change. Please people accept the fact that it's occurring and the only problem left is HOW TO ADDRESS IT.

[Voice_Of_Logic]

Please accept Jesus as your savior. Please also accept the Boston Red Sox as your baseball team. If you have done that too, then please go to work for a charity and give up your day job. Dont like things shoved down your throat?? Neither do I. Stop shoving your global warming religion down people's throats.

[rapier1]

I wouldn't ask that anyone simply accept any scientific position without doing the actual research behind it. Once they've done that they can formulate their own position and present a nuanced thought out cogent and coherent argument to promote and/or defend that position. You do see a lot of people simply accepting the idea of global warming on faith but there really is no need to do so. There is more than enough evidence out there to strongly support the idea that global warming is real and it is being influenced by human actions - which really shouldn't surprise anyone. Humans have been shaping the global environment for centuries (the deforestation of europe and america and the impact that has had on regional weather), the salinization and desertification of the Iranian plateau going back to the irrigation efforts of the babylonians, etc etc etc. Humans can have a demonstrably real impact on the the planet. Is it really that hard of a stretch to contemplate the idea that we might be impacting atmospheric chemistry?

In any case, the argument I presented to Marenco isn't even predicated on the idea that humans definitely a significant factor in global warming. In fact, I concede that the degree is uncertain. The argument really centers around the level of risk you are willing to accept. Of course, if you believe, without any doubt or uncertainty, that humans have nothing to do with global warming then the argument will fall flat for you. Of course, if you believe that then you aren't looking at the issue scientifically but as a matter of dogma.

[Voice_Of_Logic]

Global warming is a hoax. Read sites like http://www.discussglobalwarming.com and www.junkscience.com - not just the propaganda sites that are backed by Al Gore and his cronies. If people were SERIOUS about their global warming religion then you'd see these same people (nancy Pelosi for example) give up her private planes and not actually get larger ones as she did a few months ago. There is NO NEED for that waste. So no. No one takes these people seriously. The sky is falling crap doesnt work anymore. We have DOZENS upon dozens of real, tangible problems yet to solve. Gangs, illegal aliens, crime, cancers, drunk driving murderers, **** poor education, outsourcing of product production and jobs to other nations... do you want to put the final nail into the US' coffin? Go ahead and steal more money from us so that you can play with your cause. Otherwise, talk to a tree. I am sure it will give more of a crap than most people about your little global warming hoax.

[rapier1]

Discussglobalwarming.com and junkscience.com are based on the assumption that the overwhelming majority of climatologists, meterologists, and atmospheric researchers and the like are lying to us for some variety of convoluted reasons. However, the science is real and solid. There are some areas of debate - such as the long term ramifications, the magnitude, and mitigation methods but there is very little disagreement among reputable scientists about the basics. Being that you are the Voice of Logic one would hope that you'd actually apply some logic to the relative merits of the people involved in the discussion. I don't mean Al Gore - I mean the actual scientists that are doing the work.

[edtechlab]

Only dumb inbred GOP Limbaugh followers believe in No Global Warming and intelligent design... DUMB.