Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals
by Jane Mayer
Buy it
by Jane Mayer
Buy it
A conversation with environmentalist Amory Lovins, Chairman and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, focusing on renewable energy and energy policy.
DVD
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Audio
Audio available through Audible.com.
Audio available through Audible.com.
Transcripts
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Pardon me, I meant Mr. Lovins.
I don't understand how Mr. Roberts can say there is no technology for "sequestering" CO2 emissions when the technology has been around for 20 years, namely diesel and stationary ceramic filters and traps. Either the technology makes false claims or he doesn't know what hes talking about. Which is it?
My thanks to jim (Aug 6 at 12:37 AM) and I don't claim to be up-to-date with EDF activities. I have never advocated huge nuclear power plants rather, that they should be standardized. Indeed, I intuitively support a high degree of diversification and as much small scale generating capacity as will work OK. I still have to ask, if there is to be no nuclear power, how do we (or should we) maintain grid stability (I saw nothing about that in Lovins's piece) while protecting against atmospheric pollution and global warming? Today I was reading an article entitled Are we Doomed? in the April 5, 2008 edition of The New Scientist. Debora MacKenzie discusses the interaction of complexity and fragility and how societies have collapsed when they became too complex. Almost all civilizations fail eventually: "Cities mostly disappeared, literacy and numeracy declined, their economy became less monetised and they switched from professional army to peasant militia." MacKenzie quotes only one (Byzantine) which managed to simplify its way back down its complexity ladder. She suggests we look to nature for solutions, for example: the ability of a healthy forest to renew its ecosystem piecemeal where it has failed in patches.
ps - re Alaska - Perhaps some of you read Debt of Honor by Clancy which described the use of a commercial airplane as a weapon years before Condi Rice claimed "no one could have imagined...(such a thing)". Well Alistair MacLean wrote a fictional novel based on the vulnerability of the pipeline twenty years before Clancy. Just because no one has succeeded yet doesn't mean it couldn't happen. A wintertime sabotage that stops oil flow for a week makes the pipeline a long tube of chapstick. That and as Lovins stated, it's at the end of it's servicable life. Actual drilling issues aside, Alaska is a huge business risk. There are better ways to drill for energy as he said, in Detroit and Seattle.
Chris R - listen again to what Lovins said about new power generation coming on line. The French are NOT buying more nuclear and a side-note, their technology is different than the nuclear technology used in the US which was largely based on a scaled up submarine model and therefore not particularly well suited to for the purpose they were actually used for. So how many French reactors have come online since 2000? Compared to how much capacity from micropower? It's also untrue that excessive regulation is the sole reason nuclear power is so expensive. But if you are going to go down that road, are you really arguing that huge nuclear power plants are a good choice for future de-regulation? Will nuke proponents agree to seek their own liability insurance without govt limitations in this brave new unregulated world? Lastly, nuclear plants have both finite lifespans and regular service interruptions. It's simply not true that we can't depend on other alternatives due to reliability issues. Ask the folks in NH what Seabrook did to their rates and whether they would like another one. Lovins' main point, which seems to be missed by several of the folks above, is that other alternatives make more/better economic and business sense, which is why, as he put it, those alternatives are eating nuclear's lunch in the market. Re-listen to the interview, then go read "Forget Nuclear" at RMI.org. I fully concur that Lovins would be a great choice for Sec of Energy in the next admin.
This is an impressive interview because of the practical solutions Dr. Lovins brings to the table. I have been reading through the many studies posted at his Rocky Mountain Institute. I am afraid most people will not. There are solutions available for our energy and environmental issues. Special interests have corrupted implementation. In the interview Mr. Lovins makes the point that the market cannot make the decisions necessary until the massive subsidies to the favored sources are ended. End all government subsidies. Then truly what is economical feasible will occur. But this is not what now is occuring. Coal and oil have been greatly subsidized for decades. Nuclear can only go forward with huge tax payer subsidies. Corn based ethanol is getting major subsidies for the same old political reasons. Until something happens here, it is hard to imagine a real solution will occur. Unless, the political blowback is so great that we throw the bums out.
Incredible interview. I agree with the "required reading" posters. Mr. Lovins and the people at RMI are leaders on energy, whether we recognize this or not.
I may have jumbled up the link to the post on oil prices: <a href="http://unclemellow.blogspot.com/2008/07/oil-ritch-history.html">Uncle Mellow</a>
I found this site while researching for a comment to a blog post dealing with oil prices. http://unclemellow.blogspot.com/2008/07/oil-ritch-history.html I remembered seeing this interview and and was very impressed. If only we had kept at conservation/alternative energy after the first oil shock of the early 70's!
David Humphrey (Jul 19 at 03:43 PM) touches on a hot issue "Utilities are not allowed to have brownouts." I wonder if we could gradually learn to sacrifice that requirement. I sat for ½ hour early one morning in an Internet café in Bhopal, India chatting with a couple of nice guys for whom an outage at 9 a.m. was a normal occurrence. Perhaps there's a brave US politician out there who might suggest that safety and reliability are separate issues. Also, maybe there's technology we can develop to help anticipate these periods of inconvenience. Safety is paramount but, if we could learn to live with a little inconvenience, perhaps then we could use a lot more renewables and help save the planet.
Charlie, I wonder how one of your frequent visitors, Mr. George Soros would react to Amory's confidence in market fundamentalism? For example from your interview this week- Lovins: "I don't think very many progressive politicians understand that what we most need in energy policy is a dose of conservative economic principles. That is, we ought to let all ways to save or produce energy compete fairly at honest prices, regardless of which kind they are, savings or supply, what technology they use, where they are, how big they are, or who owns them. Let's see who's not in favor of that. Who's not in favor of that will be all the free marketeers in outward appearance but are actually corporate socialists in free marketeers clothing." Questions: Which set of conservative economic principles do you have in mind? Conservative economic principles state that you let the market determine fuel efficiency standards- that was the rational that Reagan gave when he eliminated the Carter standards and as you say, wasted an entire artic refuge of oil in the first year. So clearly you are in favor of a strong government role that conservative economic theorists would vigorously oppose. Is your statement one of opposition to particular tools such as subsidies and price supports that played a part in the corn ethanol situation? After the failure of "conservative economic theory" in so many sectors of our economy, our best experts are struggling with this dilemna conserning regulation and other government interaction with the economy. Can you draw for me a theoretical principle that tells me what government interaction with the energy economy is propoer, and which is not?
Mr. Rose, such a nice conversation; please bring more of Dr. Lovin's kind of guests. Dr. Lovin is one of the most respected environmental scientists, after having 29 books under his belt I can only have tremendous respect for his never ending commitment towards the well being of our world. I am glad there is someone of his caliber who is looking at closely the efficiency of our vehicles we have roaming in the streets and freeways. I am surprised modern mechanical engineers are not forcing their mind to see beyond Carnot heat engine concept developed nearly some 200 years ago. Today's automobiles are ideas only expanded on his concept of heat driven engines. If I am not mistaken his concept can only allow 40% hydrocarbon energy efficiency per volume of ethane gas spray into the engine, which means extremely INEFFICIENT by today's definition of efficiency. -->>I am happy to see someone is working in making today's automobile more efficient. But I would be more happy is there was a total abandonment of hydrocarbon as a source of energy to drive any form of engine, including coal being used as source of electric generation. Recent speech by former VeeP Al Gore has for the first time interested me with the declaration of 100% clean electric generating power within the next ten years. Personally, I am for it. However, realistically its not feasible to abandon America's 56% of electricity generating energy source (coal) in ten years time. America's economy is already experiencing difficulties and has sparked fear in many of us with the question could this be it for USA? But then again it's the same hydrocarbon energy security that immersed us into the mess we are swimming in. -->>It would be like quitting smoking cold turkey. If I was to diagnose someone that needs to quit smoking, I would say first reduce the smoking and slowly develop a habit to replace the smoking with other hobby, then face the withdrawal and finally go for total dissociation. Much like the strategy put forth in quitting smoking, America's addiction to hydrocarbon is so deep and a strategically withdrawal path must be designed, and it must be feasibly attainable. Dr. Lovin's idea of HyperCar is all-nice but the capitalism market is not creating the condition for the idea to be realized, some pressure from the feds on automobile industry is not only necessary but also vital. I would say Mr. Gore's challenge to America is welcome, but must be an attainable goal.
The high cost of nuclear in the U.S. isn't the plants, per se, but the regulatory burden placed by the government, which is paid by the power companies that own the plants, and the present and future cost of the Yucca Mountain facility, which will soon hold the high radiation waste for most of the world, France included. Even so, there have been 30 units signed up for in 2007 and 2008. That is how fast the power companies have reacted to the high risk of building another coal plant. It also speaks to Lovins' ignorance of the economics of electrical utility power. Guess what the number one driver of the utility companies is? Not profit, but reliability and saffety. Utilities are not allowed to have brownouts. When they do, they pay a penalty. To avoid it, they buy power from the grid at a very high price, even up to a dollar per kwh at the highest 15 minute peak. That is the weak side of wind and solar power. It is intermittent. Buy low reliable power and you have to pay big bucks to back it up. The little known secret about wind and solar. Which is why you don't see more of it. Otherwise, it would be all over the place. I saw a comparison of the German-French comparison power-wise. Germany pays serious tax dollars to support the solar program. That is why farmers, herders, etc. are so willing to dedicate a large landspace to solar. It would never fly on its own. BTW, of all the Western countries record of carbon reduction in the past ten years, the U.S. has been beaten only by France. What does that say for Kyoto?
Chris Roberts (Jul 17 at 08:40 PM) makes an important point. While watching the interview, I too was silently pleading for Charlie to ask Amory how France generates power from nuclear reactors economically while the USA cannot. I guess that Amory would have enlightened us had Charlie put the question. Besides the nontechnical problems in the USA that Chris notes, there's a paranoia that "nuclear" evokes, which leads to misinformed decisions of many kinds. As part of safety-monitoring for their reactors, the Hanford WA works ordered some electronic instruments from my company about 1970. The engineers designing the monitoring system were experts in reactors but not electronics. I could see that their instrumentation system would be less reliable than the processes it monitored, but I had no standing as consultant nor data to prove the point. We filled their order. Probably they got a lot more false alarms than undetected failures. Both are expensive at best. In the USA, I understand there's a stalemate between some who say Yucca Mountain is a safe place to bury radioactive waste and others who say that seismic activity and ground water make burial there a threat to aquifers. A few years ago I met a Texas oil-man who described how the French deal with radioactive waste. They saw the spent fuel into pellets, encapsulate the pellets in glass, put the glass capsules into steel barrels, then seal and bury the barrels. Presumably, the French have an answer to the obvious question about rusting of the barrels. I suppose there's burial ground in France that will be stable long enough for radioactive decay. I suppose the same is true in the USA, even if it's not Yucca Mountain.
Enthralling interview, required viewing for every intelligent American. I need a transcript asap. Anyone know where to find one? ty
Mr. Lovins correctly identifies the GOAL we are all seeking - development of alternatives to oil. However, he does not clarify the MEANS needed to reach this goal. The best way to encourage development of alternatives to oil, in my view, is to impose a variable tax on oil which guarantees that its price will not fall below some fairly high minimum level ($100 per barrel, say) far into the future. This single measure will provide powerful incentive to develop alternatives to oil. It will also provide strong encouragement to conserve it.
"Bought him off"?! That's a poor excuse for an argument. Lovins has been making the same case for years. Back in March of 02 he argued that the Alaska Pipline was dangerous and he was joined by former CIA Director James Woolsey. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0329/p11s02-coop.html
What a down to earth and sensible scientist! Too bad he does not have the lobbying power as the oil guys. Please have him back on your show again sometime soon, very soon.
How is drilling in Alaska "high risk"? I don't believe that. Then he talks about the pipeline being vulnerable? He is just throwing excuses out. Someone bought him off.
I was surprised you didn't speak more about France. EDF produces 80% of their power from nuclear. So why is that if it is as cost prohibitive as Lovins says? Many of the French plants use good old American technology so that's not the answer. Part of it, I would contend is the lack of discipline on the part of utilities in this country and the failure to standardize. Another part I suspect are the unending inquiries associated with building nuclear in this country. Finally, the person in the street would be amazed how much paperwork goes into quality control. I was told once that a $150 valve would cost ten times that for a nuclear installation pretty much irrespective of where, in the plant, it was to be installed. Now that's bureaucracy run amok. I support, appreciate and agree with much of Lovins' work but we need to do all of it including nuclear. One problem with renewables is grid stability. I understand this means that if we want to prevent outages unreliable sources (like wind and solar) are only good for 20% of our needs. I suggest nuclear offers a route that can contribute mightily to the 80%.
Thanks for an enlightening interview Mr. Lovins and Mr. Rose. I've shared it with everyone I know.
Here's a link to a talk Lovins gave at the 2005 TED conference. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame.html
To Linda Mae > Exactly which global warming denier/propaganda group do you work for?
Excellent interview. Required viewing for the presidential candidates. The key take away for me is that we need to get rid of the corporate socialsm or other undue subsidies that inhibit growth. I don't think this means government just sits on its hands, but instead puts laws in place (like efficiency standards) that force competitors across the board to get more efficient. Government should stir the boat, not row for one or the other competitor. Government should make the big principled decision (like we need to wean ourselves off oil) and let the market come up with solutions. That strikes me as the best policy and it would create jobs and start a huge wave of new tech, new markets, new everything. Let's get going and stop subsidizing one thing or the other. I suppose, this too is a result of the entrenched and bothersome lobbying that is getting us down. The sooner we can get rid of that special interest bribery and money the sooner we can get started on having government and voters set standards and then let a free market come up with solutions.
if all the required technology is available? it remains to be seen, but it is time to wake up fellow Americans, although falling is nice --according Villon--since the air is soft, but the problem is at the arriving down... investing more to be able to save more later, that is what we did in the old world and good American were laughing about that on us... Well times are changing, but that guy has at , least the right attitude, he is thinking very logically, has the right arguments, and some ideas about what he is talking, unfortunately he is one of the few examples
Having read Natural Capitalism, it was a real treat to listen to the author, Amory Lovins, live. I'm always amazed by his insightful solutions to major problems. Though his words might be lost on Congress, I do hope the presidential candidates are listening!!! Great show, Charlie, as was the Michelle Rhee interview.
To Paul F. >Be advised that Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize given to him by 5 judges who also share his "green" view. Please check it out by googling Gore's Nobel Prize Judges. Note that it was NOT the Nobel Prize in Science. A panel of scientists DID NOT examine his work and declare it to be scientifically accurate or of a quality to receive the Nobel Prize in Science. Too many scientists from all over the world have questioned the idea that man has created global warming to ignore them. >The cost of the cars of the future will cut off many of our citizens from car ownership. Frankly, I welcome a society in which kids will not be able to afford cars and will then put their efforts into their school work. Also, you might want to check the way cars are purchased in Singapore. Very few people can afford them. You must wait. You buy one of 2 types of cars. One allows you to drive Monday - Friday for @ $35,000. You can purchase a special pre-pay day permit if you need to drive on a week end day. For more money (I think $45,000 but it's been a few years since my friend worked in Singapore so the numbers might be different but the principle is the same.) you can buy a car you can use for the 7-day week. I certainly don't want this. It seems that all of the "energy" ideas will cost much more money than middle class American can afford never mind those who work and are at the poverty level. I don't think tax monies should be spent to make up the difference. There is no easy answer to this issue but the amount of discussion brought from it is beneficial.
His points about the growth rates of "micro-power" vs. nuclear and coal are misleading. These alternatives might indeed have higher rates of adoption (at least in the short-term) but not for the reasons he mentions. For example, nuclear is highly regulated while "alternatives" are receiving large government subsidies. Also, he doesn't mention the capital and operating costs with alternatives like wind and how that effects their usefulness on a cost-benefit BTU basis. And where does he get the statistics he so cavalierly mentions?
Great interview Mr. Ross! I am viewing it on your website for the second time, Mr. Lovins is brilliant. But Charlie, for the love of Pete, having viewers of your show talk about an Enviromental Wacko movement and still demonizing Al Gore (Nobel laureate we might add), is just doing a diservice to all viewers not to mention the human race. This is not even partisanship rhetoric, it is just plain stupidity!
Charlie, I tuned in and sat transfixed in my hotel room. I did not have my laptop with me and couldn't wait to get home to google your site. I am a high school teacher and we are grappling with these issues and certainly will be very involved with the upcoming general election. Next, I am going to find out as much as I can about this man. He speaks with such obvious expertise and knowledge. I think I'm hooked, but must investigate further. Thanks for the springboard!
I was uplifted by your interview with Amory Lovins, who I had never heard of before last night's show. It's people like him that give me hope for this country. Thanks Charlie...
Amory Lovins should be the head of a dept of energy in the next administration. Thanks Charlie.
I first heard Amory Lovins in person as an engineering graduate student in 1984 at Stanford. He was a revolutionary then and is a revolutionary now. However, it was clear then that the small, lower cost, and lower impact energy options did not hold as much profit potential for some firms. He is still tilting at the windmills. Hopefully, the nation will listen to his input now.
It's guests like Amory Lovins which make it all the more impossible to stomach all those other so called important guests recently who have appeared on this show and in their somber mock seriousness on energy issues have called for a renaissance and reconsideration of nuclear power and a consideration of "clean coal" which does not exist. I hope our presidential candidates are listening.
Well I was almost about ready to join the Push the Pickens Plan until I read alot of the reviews. I see that this is just another attempt to push an Enviromental Wacko movement. It's a shame that it has turned into that considering I think Mr. Pickens Plan has a lot of merit; but I for one will not be a part of blame the Republicans or Democrats for the problems we're in now. I'm an independent and they both are equally to blame but I was hoping for some serious open discussion to try and fix our problems; but all I see is one side's views and opinions being pushed and if you don't step in line it will end up being the same, just another opportunity for both sides to call each other names and the same old blame game. So count me and everyone I know and come into contact with out. I'll tell them to look between the lines, look who is leading (besides Mr Pickens) and you'll see that this is just another Al Gore group with different feathers.
"Birds of a Feather... Visit: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reform-autos/ http://reformautos.org/default.aspx Flock Togeather!!!
Amory Lovins is a man I have admired since I discovered him in the 70's via Mother Earth News as well as a show PBS had at the time which was all about saving energy, and in my opinion was ahead of its time. One thing the man has done since the 70's is 'walk the talk'. And because of this, he is someone I pay attention to. i suggest those interested, check out old issues of the magazine to see how ahead of his time he was and is.
Mr. Lovins has inspired me and hopefully all the former BIG 3 auto makers. Do they see the practicality of his suggestions? Thanks for asking him to join your show, Charlie Rose.
Finally. We now know that Reagan was the one who overturned the progress we made after the energy crisis of the '70s. Non-partisan? I think not. Just look at who most Republicans hold up as their model president. And they have the nerve to disdain Carter.
This gentleman, in his own quiet way, blew my doors off. His extremely positive attitude in the face of our current cluster of energy challenges is quite refreshing since it's based in science. I hope that whoever is elected president in November would ask Mr. Lovins to come on board at least as an advisor if not Energy Secretary. Just think of what the nation could do as far as tacking to a positive angle on energy with Mr. Lovins providing background and guidance! Whether you and your producers know it or not, Mr. Rose, this program segment is the type that makes it darn near impossible to miss your broadcast. The cost would be too high if you did. Thanks, Charlie. This one was a dandy.
Charlie, thanks for having Amory Lovins on your program. I appreciate his insight and the clear direction he espouses. There is one thing that everyone in Alaska knows , but no one seems to mention, including Amory. The Alaska pipeline is built above ground on permafrost. Amory mentioned rusting, antiquated pipelines and security issues, however, he failed to mention that once the permafrost melts, which could happen fairly quickly, the pipeline as we know it is history.
Thank you! At last answers and hope. When do we get started!
Mr. Lovins gives only one view of the energy solution. I believe that there are good data showing that conservation does not actually save total energy use -- because people use the "saved" energy on other things. Therefore conservation while important, is only a small part of the solution . Mr. Rose, your program has been lacking innovative discussions from scientists and engineers on the energy question. I would be refreshing for you to discuss with people such as Nathan Lewis, Ken Zweibel and Joe Romm, Leslie Glustrom and others associated with solar and electrical transmission questions to talk about their work and theories. These people are 1) mostly against Hydrogen as fuel source and 2) in favor of solar, and public and PHEV's for transport. These types are not given much (any) time on mass media. A discussion of what's needed on the GRID (and it's cost -- to convert to at least High Voltage DC) and of how much wind and solar could be generated, and what are the obstacles is sorely needed. You should have a regular "science" series on energy questions, in fact! Sincerely Susan Daum
Mr. Rose: Your conversation with Mr. Lovins was insightful and inspiring. If you have not done so already, it would be interesting to have Tom Friedman and Mr. Lovins on for an hour. I would ask them to answer the following questions: With current and anticipated future expectations for US employment, energy, and financial difficulties, what should be the first and second steps for the next President and Congress?
The knowledge this man has may be the single most important ingredient to the survival of the U.S.A. in the next 30 years. He is the Albert Einstien of the Energy field. The next President needs to invite him to the White House the day after Inauguration
Geon, you said, "Partisan political posturing here does not help the situation and will only result in starting a fight with partisans from the other side." I agree. That's what we've had for the last seven and a half years out of the White House. To suggest, as I and one other commenter has done, that partisanship and ignorance has gotten us into this mess in the first place isn't just more partisanship. It's a historic fact.
Excellent interview. Very refreshing. I'm amazed at Amory's depth of knowledge. Looking forward to the video so I can have friends watch it as well. As always, thanks Charlie!
Amory Lovins and Charlie Rose conversation provided a desperately needed breath of fresh air and injection of true American values of hope, opportunity, and stewardship of our natural heritage. The lessons learned, at great cost, from the last thirty years, can lead the next thirty years towards an exciting renewal of our economy and prospects for the next generation to be genuinely better off than our own. This is THE American Dream that I was raised by my parents and grandparents to pass along to my children and theirs. We need more meaningful conversations of this caliber, keep them coming!
Level headed, thoughtful and somehow not angered by the fact that no one except Carter seemed to get the message. It would be very difficult to avoid being bitter about the mess we've gotten into but that doesn't seem to be the case with Mr. Lovins..
Wow! I missed the first half of this conversation with Amory Levins, while penning a post about the Conservative Conundrum of "Elitism", but the part I caught of the interview was mind blowing! By far the best, most informative guest I've seen on your show since I have watched the program. Charlie, please bring back Mr. Levins for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th and even 5th hour of discussion. His knowledge needs to be spread far & wide and if it takes redundancy out the waazoo, so be it as it is direly needed! I can't wait to post the link & transcript.
To the posters here: Partisan political posturing here does not help the situation and will only result in starting a fight with partisans from the other side, leading to stalemate. We can make progress or we can get bogged down in partisan squabbling. Mentioning Obama or McCain or blaming Bush will result in petty reciprocity. Choose what you want. To fight and blame or to make progress.
Amazing. Amory Lovins needs to be put into the center of any energy policy. Make sure he and Obama get together.
Bravo, Charlie Rose! A brave new direction seems possible if politicians will listen to folks like Lovins instead of basing energy policy on oil industry input alone. He gives me hope... thanks for all your insightful guests.
When did our nation accept sound-bites as a substitute for public policy discussions supported by empirical fact? We might actually become the nation of progress and virtue again if we could elect leaders who actually had to defend the public policy options they propose, instead of idiots like Bush who can barely utter the words "drill more, ocs, that means outer continental shelf, drill, oil, good." Thanks Charlie. Amory Lovins speaks with reason and knowledge. I wasn't going crazy these last seven and a half years after all. There is an alternative to just drilling more and spilling American blood to invade oil-rich nations.
It was a pleasure to listen to a man with actual knowledge. The polite disdain he showed for Bush was priceless. The problem is that this administration only listens to people who tell them what they want to hear. Its a very dangerous practice and very frustrating when you realize the talent and mind power available. Here's hoping the next President has big ears!
I was delighted to hear a positive, solution oriented conversation regarding our present energy situation. Your interview with Amory highlighted how current challenges could lead to unprecedented American progress in this area. The US is filled with intelligent and resourceful people such as you – this issue can be solved for the betterment of all. Love your show Charlie – thanks for taking the road less traveled!
Put this guy in touch with our Congress and Obama!