In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/10138
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
fireofenergy 04/21/2009 12:29 AM Report
Awesome! I wonder what Mr Chu's take on nuclear thorium (not uranium) fission is? The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor if (re)developed would produce only about 1% of the wastes by volume which decay in only about 300 years as opposed to like 300,000 years with conventional "wastes" (which is actually 1% or so spent fuel). Such must be used to kick start the LFTR, thus the solution (for centuries of clean and unlimited clean energy too) as opposed to burying it like retards.
It would take close to 10,000 square miles of mirrors to create baseload solar (CSP into heat reservoirs) capable of powering all of America's needs for about 75% of the time. The problem with this perfect jobs approach is the desire to bulldoze that great amount of land (think major dust bowl and habitat destruction).
I am really excited about the fact that he is "the battery guy" since no matter where the clean electricity comes from, it can finally be stored! (Great for CPV and Stirling dishes which don't need perfectly flat bulldozed land!).
Don't kill a watt, MEGAWATT! (Clean ones that is) and...
NO ENERGY, NO FREEDOM!
beyondgreen 03/15/2009 06:36 PM Report
There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent! We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources. Create cheap clean energy, new badly needed green jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. The cost of fuel effects every facet of consumer goods from production to shipping costs. After a brief reprieve gas is inching back up.OPEC will continue to cut production until they achieve their desired 80-100. per barrel.If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV's instead had plug-in electric drive trains the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota.We have so much available to us such as wind and solar. Let's spend some of those bail out billions and get busy harnessing this energy. Create cheap clean energy, badly needed new jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What a win-win situation that would be for our nation at large! There is a really good new book out by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. http://www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com
DocScience 03/12/2009 02:22 AM Report
Notice that both interviewer and guest put Nuclear in with renewable energy sources.
Nuclear is not a renewable source, and more then 99% of every nuclear plant in the world, is a once through design, which is the worst possible case.
How can these speakers be so misguided ?
Paulp_Nonfiction 03/11/2009 02:14 PM Report
Dear Mr. Rose:
'Really enjoyed your/the interview with Mr. Chu. President Obama picked the right person for such an important position.
During the interview, you asked why alternative energy (sources) was/were so important. The reason why alternative energy sources are so important is that in peak demand the grid gets a "surcharge" of demand for energy: so if you add different sources, it allows the grid to better meet the demand surcharge for energy in peak seasons (ie in the summer or in the winter).
The blackout that occurred a few years ago which affected the northeastern states and also part of the midwest (if I am not mistaken)was a bit of a wakeup call that the energy grid needed to be upgraded.
Really enjoyed the show, Sir.
Paulp non-fiction
robotpoop 03/11/2009 03:42 AM Report
Ouch. Steven Chu, learn to speak coherently when the pressure's on; you are in the Big Leagues now.
quentin1 03/10/2009 09:24 PM Report
Wow! Isn't it great to have a world-class research scientist heading the DOE. Finally, we will begin to make the kind of pivotal investments in our future based on the best available scientific data (as opposed to political ideology).
charlizecourriers 03/10/2009 05:39 PM Report
Chu's laser seems unfocused. Wishful gibberish. Mostly pap,all rap-just what the Boss wants. It's all about the weapons in the "Energy" Department. This is silly talk,Charlie. We all know 99.99% of the buildings in Manhattan are obsolet dinosaurs. How about some quantification, you know, what science starts with!
jwest47 03/10/2009 04:00 PM Report
I was disappointed that Chu was not asked to explain the plan for disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The Administration's budget has all but eliminated Yucca Mountain as an option, apparently to appease Reid and the Nevada legislators. What's the plan now? How will NRC approve new plants, when there is no plan for a disposal site?
alesia 03/10/2009 02:46 PM Report
Wow!
Awful!
Terrible!
A real disappointment!
Looks like the energy department is just a way to fund academics.
We really need a Manhattan project to climb out of the energy problem and this guy says NOTHING.
Charlie proded as good as he could but NOTHING.
Chu was mum on almost every subject.
Oh yeah,BTW, battery powered cars don't work( but a 15 year battery is around the corner..maybe)!
Oh yeah, wind/renewables can do 10-15% of our electricity at most!
Oh yeah, smart grid will turn out the lights when you sit on the toilet.
Oh yeah, we can make biofuels(not just ethanol!) from corn stover(tiny contribution).
Oh yeah, we are hurrying up approvals for few nuclear reactors.
Oh but we have (wait for it)...brain-power!
DEEPLY, DEEPLY DISAPPOINTING.
Charlie, bring back Robert Hirsch and Amory Lovins.
Light up the fire under Obama's butt on energy.
Chu is a Nobel Prize winning MORON.
J. Robert Oppenheimer, he ain't.
Wrong man for the job.
Socrates 03/10/2009 12:09 PM Report
Excellent interview with one of our country's finest scientists, Secretary Chu. The foresight of President Obama to select this distinguished individual will serve us well in the near future as the US re-tools with a new energy policy. Chu's work at UC Berkeley Labs was ground-breaking. About time someone so accomplished in this field at the research level is running our energy department.
I appreciate Chu's broad outlook regarding resources as he understands that many forms including nuclear and wind are a viable option if processed properly and used together in a smart grid.
The only downside is an irony - for business investors, there is uncertainty because there is not a singular winner among resource types, nor a clear timetable about when the plans based upon ongoing research will all be implemented. Hence investors and new energy businesses may not know whether to concentrate on solar, oil, coal, or wind for a time.
However, I am confident we will be moving quickly in the right direction.
GarryGolden 03/10/2009 11:48 AM Report
Charlie,
Thank you for this solid conversation with Sect Chu!
I am thrilled to have him leading our efforts to put basic science at the top of the DOE's list. And your end note capture of the 'convergence/merger scientific know-how' will determine our future was spot on! Solid interview! Thank you!
On that note-- there are a number of concepts that I'm certain are on the DOE's list that might be too much to introduce in such a focused policy level conversation.. but might be important to introduce in the months and years ahead.
The most significant transition is from 'micro' to 'nanoscale' science and engineering.
Nanoscale design has tremendous implications for the design of core energy conversion and storage components like 'catalysts' involved in gas separation, gas storage, photovoltaics, et al. At the nanascale things like 'surface area' and 'shape' change the fundamental properties of basic materials like carbon, platinum, gold, nickel, et al. Nanoscale catalysis offers a non-linear leap forward in our ability to manipulate molecules, electrons and light.
The other new 'era' for energy science relates to Bioenergy. The important distinction is that the future disruption is likely to come from plant based conversion, but via algae and bacteria (which offer more efficient utilization of carbon and a higher hydrogen ratio for cleaner compounds).
Take this all a step forward into the era of Synthetic biology- and we're talking about entirely new paradigms for energy production ('growing energy' vs extraction) and carbon utilization.
I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention that batteries are not our only option for chemical storage, and that hydrogen and hydrogen-rich fuels (methanol) offer tremendous upsides in cost/performance/manufacturing compared to batteries. Despite failing to meet the 'hype' in the late 90s, the storage of energy via clean H2 chemical bonds, and binding of carbon to hydrogen (not oxygen), remains a critical area for basic science.
I'm very thankful for the interview - and look forward to more energy conversations ahead!!
Good luck in D.C.!!
Best,
Garry
(Brooklyn, NY)
Garry Golden
Editor
The Energy Roadmap.com
http://www.theenergyroadmap.com
REMant 03/10/2009 11:23 AM Report
Oil prices are down now, Charlie, but so are incomes. If we are able to recover some productivity, they will stay down, while incomes increase. That's the objective. As Chu says we have the research universities and govt (as well corporate and non-profit) labs to do this work, but, in the past, we have failed to implement our own discoveries, while it has been done elsewhere. The Europeans complain about their R&D budgets, but they do better than we at deriving benefit from it. And we do not have the collegiate, secondary and elementary education to match, or match many other countries. Our young ppl have either not been taught math, science and engineering, or have been encouraged to go into finance instead by an ethic of greed and selfishness. I have never known any scientists who worked for the money. I think the emphasis on transportation and building energy efficiency is good, and that science and engineeering must be on a level of importance with saving and solving our wealth distribution problem in getting us out of the current situation.
I thought I'd take this opportunity to share something from Len Deighton's 1993 look at WWII I've been perusing: "[After Waterloo] Britain became the first world power in history as the machines of the industrial revolution processed raw materials from distant parts of the world and sent them back as manufactured goods. Machinery and cheap cotton goods were the source of great profits; so were shipping, banking, insurance, investment and all the commercial services that followed Britain's naval dominance. The British invested abroad while Britian's own industrial base became old, underfinanced, neglected and badly managed, so that by the mid-nineteenth century the quality of British exports was overtaken by her rivals. Manufacturing shrank, and well before the end of the century service industries became Britain's most important source of income. The progeny of the invincible iron masters dwindled into investment bankers and insurance men. To cement the nineteenth century's Pax Britannica Britain handed to France and the Netherlands possessions in the Caribbean, removed protective tariffs and preached a policy of free trade, even in the face of prohibitive tariffs against British goods and produce. The Royal Navy fought pirates and slave traders, and most of the world's great powers were content to allow Britain to become the international policeman, especially in a century in which restless civil populations repeatedly threatened revolution against the existing order at home....As the nineteenth century ended...The new-found strength that industrialization, much of it financed by Britain, had given other nations ended their willingness to let Britain play policeman." I would add that they also were less inclined to let Britain play banker, as well, and that in all of this Britain followed the same trajectory that the Dutch had followed before them, and the Italians before them, and we are certainly now.