I heard most of his lecture on C-Span and was impressed. The Guardian
article
hardly scratches the surface. Chu got into a whole range of topics he
obviously
knows a helluva lot about.
About hybrid cars, he might more-or-less agree with you. But the thrust of
his comments
in this area was about new batteries now being developed that have the
ultimate promise
of a 500 mile radius, He went into details of materials science I could
only grasp
somewhat, but it did not sound like he was bull-shooting.
His main point was about American R & D vs that for other industrial
nations.
Forgotten the exact figures but something like this, China spends 10 % of
its
national budget for tech research, Germany spends maybe 5 % and
the USA whopping 1.3 %. The implications ought to be obvious.
Granted Ernie's point, with which you doubtless concur, business R & D more
than makes up the slack and is preferred in the private sector, but there
is a
counter-argument to make, namely --
( 1 ) SOME businesses like the idea of the pre-eminence of pvt R & D,
but mostly this is to discuss industry leaders, Apple , for instance. I am
not in
the least convinced that small businesses, even medium sized ones, share
Ernie's viewpoint. But even if this is mostly moot, here's the kicker :
( 2 ) Some things simply cannot be done by the pvt sector. Or can only be
done
after a major boost from gvt R & D. Think the space station and its 600+
scientific experiments in the past 15 years or so, think giant sub-atomic
particle
accelerators, think the GPS system ( although maybe parts of it are private
),
and so forth. And, besides, nothing says that gvt cannot work
co-operatively
with businesses.
For example Chu discussed Chinese developments in solar. While it still is
true
that solar is not competitive with fossil fuels,especially ntl gas, few
people appreciate
how fast the gap is closing, led by China. With a name like "Chu" you can
bet
he is on top of all energy progress made in the Peoples Republic. Fact is,
a
heck of a lot of the solar stuff sold to US consumers, including
businesses,
is made-in-China, a direct result of Chinese R & D.
There is a serious qualification to make. Another lecture , days ago,
featured an
industry expert who was not at all a big fan of gvt research, His area of
expertise was
nuclear power. Turns out that after 30 years and somewhere in the vicinity
of
$ 100 Billion spent on the problem in that time, almost none of the goals
for atomic energy
research have been met, in areas like efficiency and cost especially. Chu,
to my regret,
did not address this issue. Which is obviously important. Regardless, what
he did
talk about made a great deal of sense.
Smart as hell and really knows energy science.
Billy
=========================================================
message dated 12/1/2010 [email protected] writes:
All of the "green technology" that I've seen falls back on good old
non-green technology. The electric cars need to be charged-usually by
electricity
generated by the use of fossil fuels and even then the range of the
vehicles is abysmal, the hybrid cars still require some gasoline, solar panels
are great when it's sunny-they're idiotic in the Arctic half the time when it
is dark 24/7 for periods of time (granted it is also light 24/7 some of
the time, but electric heat is terribly inefficient), windmills work when
there's enough wind, but a hurricane or tornado will turn them into pieces of
shrapnel all the while they kill birds that fly into their blades.
What's left? Fuel cells powered most of our spacecraft, but those
spacecraft were designed with the relatively low output of the fuel cells in
mind.
What's the practicality of fuel cell powered cars? Does the re splitting of
the hydrogen and the oxygen in the output of the cells consume more energy
than they save?
And they wonder why folks are skeptical???
David
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
US energy secretary warns of 'Sputnik moment' in green technology race
Steven Chu says US must invest urgently in research and innovation to keep
pace with China and other countries
* _Suzanne Goldenberg_
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/suzannegoldenberg) , US environment
correspondent
* _guardian.co.uk_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/) , Monday 29 November
2010 21.15 GMT
<FIGCAPTION>Steven Chu says the US must respond to the energy technology
race much as it did to the Soviet Union's Sputnik launch in 1957.
Photograph: Frederic J. Brown/AFP/
The _United States_ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa) faces a "Sputnik
moment" in the global clean _energy_
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/energy) race and risks falling far
behind advances by _China_
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/china) and other countries, the US energy
secretary,
Steven Chu, warned today.
Hours before the opening of the _United Nations climate summit in Cancún_
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cancun-climate-change-conference-2010)
, Chu said that the US urgently needed to invest in research and
innovation – much as it responded to the _Soviet Union's launch of the world's
first
space satellite in 1957_ (http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/) – if it
wanted to remain a leader of innovation.
"We face a choice today. Are we going to continue America's innovation
leadership or are we going to fall behind?" Chu said in a speech to the
National Press Club in Washington.
_Chu, a Nobel prize winner in physics_ (http://www.energy.gov/organiza
tion/dr_steven_chu.htm) , said his own career had been shaped by the orbit of
that first space satellite. But, he said, over the last 15 years the US had
steadily been losing ground to China and India in research and hi-tech
manufacturing.
For the first time last year, the majority of US patents were awarded to
inventors based outside America.
Meanwhile, China had emerged as the world's largest producer of wind and
solar power, and was breaking ground on 30 new nuclear reactors. It now has
the fastest high-speed trains in operation, with running speeds of 220mph.
Gao Guangsheng, a senior Chinese official for climate change policy, told
a conference in California this month that China was gearing up for even
bigger investment in clean energy technology in its next five-year plan.
Gao went on to tell the _conference, which was hosted by California's
governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger_
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/16/arnold-schwarzenegger-climate-change-summit)
, that China had reached
its goal for wind power 10 years ahead of schedule.
"We set up a concrete conception of low carbon development," he said. But
he doubted America could profit from China's example: "I am afraid China's
experience of green development may not be useful for the United States
because of different domestic situations."
Chu, however, in his speech today said the US could recapture its
leadership position with investment in research and incentives for clean
energy
manufacturing.
"America still has the opportunity to lead in a world that essentially
needs a new industrial revolution," he said. "But time is running out."
In his two years as energy secretary, Chu has served as Barack Obama's top
salesman for clean energy technology, directing some $80bn (£51.3bn) of
last year's economic recovery package to investment in advanced batteries,
plug-in cars, and the smart grid.
He also touted the government's efforts to build research hubs for clean
technology. "What I am trying to tell the American public is that this is an
economic opportunity," he said. His comments echoed those of David Cameron
at the weekend. _Writing in the Observer_
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/28/david-cameron-climate-change-cancun)
, Cameron said: "I
passionately believe that by recasting the argument for action on climate
change away from the language of threats and punishments and into positive,
profit-making terms, we can have a much wider impact."
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
