RSS Feeds
Chu as DOE Chief Greeted Favorably
John Dodge, Editor-in-Chief -- Design News, December 11, 2008
While expected energy secretary nominee Steven Chu faces a daunting set of challenges, engineering and renewable energy advocates applaud his expected selection given his stellar scientific background.
"I don't see how the president-elect could have picked anyone better," IEEE-USA President Russ Lefevre said in a press statement before it was publicly released. "I'm particularly impressed with his emphasis on green energy. Plus, he has experience in managing a very difficult energy organization. He has to deal with scientists and engineers regularly."
As of this writing, news of Chu's selection came via democratic sources across all major news outlets. However, Obama and his aides had yet to make a formal announcement.
Tough tasks await Chu assuming he's picked and confirmed. He will be Obama's point person to "ensure" that 10 percent of the nation's electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012 and a quarter by 2025. He must make sure technology is developed so one million plug-in hybrids capable of 150 mpg are on the road by 2015. Within a decade, the U.S. must "save" more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela. And while he's doing all that, he has to rebuild America's electrical grid, maintain and safeguard our nuclear stockpiles and oversee a government agency with an annual budget of $25 billion and more than 16,000 employees.
Chu, 60, has a deep scientific background, climaxing in his sharing of a Nobel Prize for Physics in 1997 for trapping and cooling atoms with a laser. He is presently employed by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory where he was named director in 2004. A native of St. Louis, he has compiled a lengthy autobiography on the Nobel website which talks extensively about how he hails from a long line of engineers. His father emigrated from China in 1943 to study chemical engineering at MIT. And his mother's grandfather earned a civil engineering degree from Cornell.
In high school, Chu confesses to earning a "lackluster" A- average which resulted in his rejection from Ivy League schools. So he attended the University of Rochester where he majored in math and physics. He did his graduate work at UC Berkeley where he remains today with a nine-year stop at Bell Labs before that to measure the energy output of atoms and to design an electron spectrometer. He also did a teaching stint at Stanford.
|
Hydrogen and fuel cell advocate James Provenzano, co-author of the The Hydrogen Age, is delighted with Chu's scientific background.
"It's refreshing to have someone on the science end of things and less on the political. For so many years, we had the political and industry side running DOE," he says. "He's a strong supporter of reducing greenhouse gases and working on climate change. Overall, he sounds like a fantastic choice. I've looked at some of his papers and he will bring a holistic approach to problem solving. He doesn't seem myopic which many people can be in this position."
Provenzano, also president of Clean Air Now in California, says he is still researching where Chu might come down on hydrogen. "He seems to have the propensity to promote hydrogen, but I don't know."
The IEEE's Lefevre echoes the similar sentiments about Chu's science background. "The Obama campaign and transition team have shown a tremendous appreciation for science and technology. Dr. Chu's selection underscores their commitment."
One blemish on Chu's otherwise sterling record was his acceptance of improper perks and compensation in 2006 at UC Berkeley. Administrators were criticized in a state audit of misusing public funds. Chu makes close to $400,000 a year in his current position. As the Secretary of Energy, his base salary will drop by almost two thirds.
-
Look at how many existing Wilderness Areas have abandoned oil / gas wells and also mining sites within their boundaries. Why is that permissible? How is it that reclamations of well drilling sites are either ignored or denied by the environmental groups now? There have been many private groups in the Pacific Northwest (like my grade school in the 1960's) that went out and planted trees, grass, and shrubs in the forests. We even saw some of the lumber companies replanting trees and shrubs. But apparently, none of those good efforts count in the mind of the environmental groups, as seen in recent publications and notifications.
Take a deeper look at what really is going on. Natural resources are needed for everything in our lives, even medical items and alternative energies. But when our natural resources are being closed up and as reclamations are either ignored or badmouthed, we are loosing the materials needed for our daily lives, even for the "nice" Alternative Energies. As a final note, my 1990 car gets the same gas mileage GPM as a modern hybrid car. Go figure.
In a publication from early 1992, the Sierra Club in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, openly announced that oil / gas well drillers were still using lead-based (Pb) lubricants. Never mind that the EPA banned their use several years before in the mid-1980s and that the drilling industry had already switched to biodegradable lubricants even before that. Never mind that law enforcement and the EPA later on checked for compliance in the industry. Also, there is new drilling technology, called Coiled Tubing, that allows certain types of well drilling operations from the back of a pickup, thus less impacts than the vehicles you drive. Why don't we don't hear that from the Environmentalists.
Are you familiar with the wilderness near Ruidoso, NM, USA? The wilderness boundaries "captured" some gold and silver / lead mines. The government threatened to sue the mine and claim owners with EPA Superfund status if they did not surrender the land for wilderness designation. Now how is it that places that are supposedly EPA Superfund sites can now be "wilderness" and untouched areas? The 1964 Wilderness Act specified that undeveloped, untouched, and natural areas were to be part of the wilderness areas.
retired University of California technical staff member
Los Alamos, NM, USA'>DOE, the Labs, and Alternative Energies destructive of earth -- How can Alternative Energies (which will be touted a lot more) be good when they require materials that originated from places that all environmentalists say are "evil and destructive"? Alternative Energies require "bad" materials for assembly, such as ceramics, carbons, and metals from Mines, and sometimes plastics and other carbon-based materials, which originate from Oil Wells and Coal mines that environmental groups say are all "evil and destructive". Even “natural†plant fiber materials require machinery and processing and transportation, which also require metals, ceramics, and carbon.
From where do we get the source materials for wind mills, fuel cells, hydrogen and other alternative energies? Most solar electric panels require ceramics and special elements, such as gallium, arsenic, germanium, etc., that came from mines and smelters. Windmills require metals (originally from mines and smelters). Passive and active solar ventilation and tubing for houses usually require metals and sometimes ceramics, which came from mines and smelters.
Environmental groups say that all Mining and Oil / Gas Wells are "bad" and "evil", even with full-scale reclamations and restorations. So how can we go to Alternative Energies when these requires materials that are not accepted by the Environmentalists?
Even fuel cells require materials originally from mines and smelters. Fuel cells have to have metals and / or ceramics for the containment, tubing, chemical reactions, etc. The cells, containments and associated materials use materials from mines and oil wells. Think about the engineered things used to even make hydrogen fuel get started for producing energy.
Look at the Periodic Table of all the elements of the earth. Hydrogen (H2) is a usually a gas. When hydrogen is used in a chemical bonding or mixture, it is usually released as a single free ion (H- or H+). Sometimes getters are used to store and transport hydrogen.
It is the cells and containments and associated materials that use materials from mines and oil wells. Go and look at the engineered things used to even make hydrogen get started!
To make Hydrogen "burn" and gain energy from it, there must be the chambers, vessels, tubing, connections and fittings. A characteristic of Hydrogen is that is can embrittle materials over time, especially certain types of metals and steels. Normally stainless steels or other specialty metals are used for most Hydrogen activities. These steels and steels are composed of iron and sometimes chromium and / or nickel to control any corrosion from Hydrogen and also prevent embrittlement as much as possible. The materials for steels ALL come from mines and smelters.
But how is hydrogen (H2 and the H ions) produced from water or other source materials? Either in the reaction apparatus and chambers of the cars or else in processing plants, both of which use metals and ceramics and plastics. If we get H2 from the air, we get it from gas separators which are composed of metals and other "bad" materials.
Environmentalist point to bicycles as environmentally-friendly transportation. To make bicycles, manufacturers must get materials that originated from mining operations (iron, molybdenum, aluminum, ceramics, etc.), oil wells and coal mines for Carbon and plastic materials, and sometime timber for wood. These materials are then processed in plants that also use products from mining and oil wells, and use electricity. How can this be "good" by any environmentalist's definitions?
Look at how many existing Wilderness Areas have abandoned oil / gas wells and also mining sites within their boundaries. Why is that permissible? How is it that reclamations of well drilling sites are either ignored or denied by the environmental groups now? There have been many private groups in the Pacific Northwest (like my grade school in the 1960's) that went out and planted trees, grass, and shrubs in the forests. We even saw some of the lumber companies replanting trees and shrubs. But apparently, none of those good efforts count in the mind of the environmental groups, as seen in recent publications and notifications.
Take a deeper look at what really is going on. Natural resources are needed for everything in our lives, even medical items and alternative energies. But when our natural resources are being closed up and as reclamations are either ignored or badmouthed, we are loosing the materials needed for our daily lives, even for the "nice" Alternative Energies. As a final note, my 1990 car gets the same gas mileage GPM as a modern hybrid car. Go figure.
In a publication from early 1992, the Sierra Club in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, openly announced that oil / gas well drillers were still using lead-based (Pb) lubricants. Never mind that the EPA banned their use several years before in the mid-1980s and that the drilling industry had already switched to biodegradable lubricants even before that. Never mind that law enforcement and the EPA later on checked for compliance in the industry. Also, there is new drilling technology, called Coiled Tubing, that allows certain types of well drilling operations from the back of a pickup, thus less impacts than the vehicles you drive. Why don't we don't hear that from the Environmentalists.
Are you familiar with the wilderness near Ruidoso, NM, USA? The wilderness boundaries "captured" some gold and silver / lead mines. The government threatened to sue the mine and claim owners with EPA Superfund status if they did not surrender the land for wilderness designation. Now how is it that places that are supposedly EPA Superfund sites can now be "wilderness" and untouched areas? The 1964 Wilderness Act specified that undeveloped, untouched, and natural areas were to be part of the wilderness areas.
retired University of California technical staff member
Los Alamos, NM, USA
Catherine French - 2008-16-12 18:53:46 EST
