Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy
Steven Chu, Ph.D (St. Louis, Missouri on February 28, 1948),[3] an American physicist, is the 12th United States Secretary of Energy. As a scientist, Chu is known for his research in cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997.[3] At the time of his appointment as Energy Secretary, he was a professor of physics and molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Berkeley and the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where his research was concerned primarily with the study of biological systems at the single molecule level.[1] He is a vocal advocate for more research into alternative energy and nuclear power, arguing that a shift away from fossil fuels is essential to combat global warming.[4]
Chu, a Chinese American, was born in St. Louis, Missouri, and graduated from Garden City High School.[5] He received his bachelor’s degree in 1970 from the University of Rochester, and his doctorate degree from University of California, Berkeley in 1976, during which he was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.[6] He remained at Berkeley as a postdoctoral researcher for two years before joining Bell Labs, where he and his several co-workers carried out his Nobel Prize-winning laser cooling work. He left Bell Labs and became a professor of physics at Stanford University in 1987,[3] serving as the chair of its Physics Department from 1990 to 1993 and from 1999 to 2001. While at Stanford, Chu, together with three other professors, initiated the Bio-X program, which focuses on interdisciplinary research in biology and medicine,[7] and played an important role in securing the funding of the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology.[8] In 2004, Chu was appointed as the director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, during which time he also accepted a position as a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley.[9]
Chu comes from a family of scholars. His father earned an advanced chemical engineering degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and taught at Washington University in St. Louis and Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, while his mother studied economics. His maternal grandfather earned advanced civil engineering degrees at Cornell University and his mother's uncle Li Shu-hua studied physics at the Sorbonne before they returned to China.[3] His older brother Gilbert Chu is a professor and researcher of biochemistry and medicine at Stanford University. His younger brother, Morgan Chu, is a partner and the former Co-Managing Partner at Irell & Manella LLP, a law firm.[10] His two brothers and four cousins earned three M.D.s, four Ph.D.s, and a J.D. among them. Chu married Jean Fetter, a British American and an Oxford-trained physicist, in 1997.[11] He has two sons, Geoffrey and Michael, from a previous marriage to Lisa Chu-Thielbar.[3]
Besides his scientific career, Chu has also developed interest in various sports, including baseball, swimming and cycling. He taught himself tennis by reading a book in the eighth grade, and was a second-string substitute for the school team for three years. He also taught himself how to pole vault using bamboo poles obtained from the local carpet store.[3] A second generation Chinese American, Chu said that he never learned to speak Chinese because his parents always talked to him and his brothers in English, although he said (in 1997) that he was trying to learn Mandarin, believing that if he could stay in China for "at least six months", he would become fluent in Chinese.[11]
[edit] Research
Steven Chu’s early research focused on atomic physics by developing laser cooling techniques and trapping atoms using lasers. He expanded his research area to polymer physics and biophysics while he was at Stanford. His current research focuses on the study of biological molecules and systems at single molecular level. Many Ph.D. students and postdoctoral fellows from his group have become professors at research universities around the world.
[edit] Energy and global warming
Chu has been a vocal advocate for more research into alternative energy and nuclear power, arguing that a shift away from fossil fuels is essential to combat global warming.[4][12][13] Chu said that a typical coal power plants emits 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant. [14]
Chu warns that global warming could wipe out California farms within the century.[15]
He has joined the Copenhagen Climate Council,[16] an international collaboration between business and science, established to create momentum for the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.
Chu was instrumental in submitting a winning bid for the Energy Biosciences Institute, a BP-funded $500 million multi-disciplinary collaborative project between UC Berkeley, the Lawrence Berkeley Lab and the University of Illinois. This sparked controversy on the Berkeley campus, where some fear the alliance could harm the school’s reputation for academic integrity.[17][18][19][20][21]
He is an early signatory to Project Steve, an educational campaign supporting the conventional scientific understanding of evolution.[22]
[edit] Honors and awards
Steven Chu is a co-winner of Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997 for the "development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light", shared with Claude Cohen-Tannoudji and William Daniel Phillips. He is a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society and the Academia Sinica, and is a foreign member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and of the Korean Academy of Science and Engineering.[23] Dr. Chu also received an honorary doctorate from Boston University when he was the keynote speaker at the 2007 commencement exercises.[24]
[edit] Energy Secretary
Steven Chu meeting with President Barack Obama.
His nomination to be Energy Secretary was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on January 20, 2009.[25] On January 21, 2009, Chu was sworn in as Secretary of Energy in the Barack Obama administration. Chu is the first person appointed to the Cabinet after having won a Nobel Prize. He is also the second Chinese American to be a member of the Cabinet after Elaine Chao.[26]
[edit] Publications
* Chu, S."Observation of the Forbidden Magnetic Dipole Transition 6{sup 2}P{sub ½} --> 7{sup 2}P{sub ½} in Atomic Thallium", Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, United States Department of Energy (through predecessor agency the Energy Research and Development Administration), (October 1976).
* Chu S et al. (1985). "Three-dimensional viscous confinement and cooling of atoms by resonance radiation pressure". Phys Rev Lett 55 (1): 48-51. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.55.48. PMID 10031677.
* E. L. Raab, M. Prentiss, A. Cable, S. Chu, and D. E. Pritchard (1987). "Trapping of Neutral Sodium Atoms with Radiation Pressure". Phys Rev Lett 59 (23): 2631-2634. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2631. PMID 10035608.
* Chu S, Bjorkholm JE, Ashkin A, Cable A (1986). "Experimental observation of optically trapped atoms". Phys Rev Lett 57 (3): 314-317. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.314. PMID 10034028.
* Perkins TT, Quake SR, Smith DE, Chu S (1994). "Relaxation of a single DNA molecule observed by optical microscopy". Science 264 (5160): 822-6. doi:10.1126/science.8171336. PMID 8171336.
* Quake SR, Babcock H, Chu S (1997). "The dynamics of partially extended single molecules of DNA". Nature 388 (6638): 151-4. doi:10.1038/40588. PMID 9217154.
* Ha T et al. (2002). "Initiation and re-initiation of DNA unwinding by the Escherichia coli Rep helicase". Nature 419 (6907): 638-41. doi:10.1038/nature01083. PMID 12374984.
* Chinga T, Mamada I, Pum P, Chu S (2002). "Quantum coherence aligns single amino-acids for Escherichia coli detonation". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 59 (41): 368-71. doi:10.1073/pnas.59.2.368. PMID 16591608.
* Zhuang X et al. (2002). "Correlating structural dynamics and function in single ribozyme molecules". Science 296 (5572): 1473-6. doi:10.1126/science.1069013. PMID 12029135.
* Blanchard SC et al. (2004). "tRNA dynamics on the ribosome during translation". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101 (35): 12893-8. doi:10.1073/pnas.0403884101. PMID 15317937.
* Uemura S et al. (2007). "Peptide bond formation destabilizes Shine-Dalgarno interaction on the ribosome". Nature 446 (7134): 454-7. doi:10.1038/nature05625. PMID 17377584.
* Cui, B, Gonzalez RL Jr, Puglisi JD, Chu S. DNA lasers interrogated via Shine-Dalgarno entanglement. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;144(45):5803-9.
[edit] See also
* Timeline of low-temperature technology
[edit] References
1. ^ a b "Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy". United States Department of Energy. energy.gov. Retrieved on 2009-02-24.
2. ^ "??????? ???????" (in Traditional Chinese). SINA. 2008-12-11. news.sina.com. Retrieved on 2008-12-11.
3. ^ a b c d e f Tore Frängsmyr, ed. "Steven Chu Autobiography". The Nobel Prizes 1997. Les Prix Nobel. Stockholm: The Nobel Foundation. nobelprize.org. Retrieved on 2007-06-25.
4. ^ a b H. Josef Hebert (2008-12-11). "Energy secretary pick argues for new fuel sources". Associated Press. sfgate.com. Retrieved on 2008-12-16.
5. ^ Kathleen Kerr (2008-07-16). "They Began Here". Newsday. newsday.com. Retrieved on 2008-09-17.
6. ^ "Steven Chu, 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics". NSF-GRF. nsfgrfp.org. Retrieved on 2009-01-25.
7. ^ "About Bio-X". Stanford University. biox.stanford.edu. Retrieved on 2009-02-27.
8. ^ "Steven Chu named director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory". Stanford News Service. 2004-06-21. news-service.stanford.edu. Retrieved on 2009-02-24.
9. ^ Steven Mufson and Philip Rucker (2008-12-10). "Nobel Physicist Chosen To Be Energy Secretary". Washington Post. washingtonpost.com. Retrieved on 2008-12-11.
10. ^ "Morgan Chu". Irell & Manella LLP. irell.com. Retrieved on 2008-12-16.
11. ^ a b Bert Eljera (1997-10-23). "Stanford Professor Steven Chu graduates to the rank of Nobel laureate". AsianWeek. asianweek.com. Retrieved on 2008-12-16.
12. ^ Sarah Jane Tribble, 'Nuclear: Dark horse energy alternative,' Oakland Tribune, 2007-06-18. [1]
13. ^ Directors of DOE National Laboratories (August 2008). "A Sustainable Energy Future: The Essential Role of Nuclear Energy". Department of Energy. ne.doe.gov.
14. ^ Steven Chu: ‘Coal is My Worst Nightmare’, Wall St. Journal, December 11, 2008
15. ^ page10.org
16. ^ "Councillors: Steven Chu". Copenhagen Climate Council. copenhagenclimatecouncil.com. Retrieved on 2008-12-11.
17. ^ Rex Dalton (2007-02-15). "Berkeley's energy deal with BP sparks unease". Nature Publishing Group. nature.com. Retrieved on 2008-12-16.
18. ^ "Physicist Searches for Alternative Fuel Technologies". Public Broadcasting Service. 2007-05-02. pbs.org. Retrieved on 2008-12-16.
19. ^ Angel Gonzalez (2007-05-14). "BP Berkeley Venture Means Big Money, Big Controversy". City of Berkeley, Central Administrative Offices. ci.berkeley.ca.us. Retrieved on 2008-12-16.
20. ^ Goldie Blumenstylk (2007-09-28). "TV's Take on the Influence of Big Oil". The Chronicle of Higher Education. chronicle.com. Retrieved on 2008-12-16.
21. ^ "International Petition on BP's $500m Project to Genetically Engineer Biofuels". thepetitionsite.com.
22. ^ National Center for Science Education (2008-10-17). "The List of Steves". ncseweb.org. Retrieved on 2008-12-10.
23. ^ "MIT World Speakers: Steven Chu". Massachusetts Institute of Technology. mitworld.mit.edu. Retrieved on 2009-01-13.
24. ^ "Commencement 2007: Address and Honorees". Boston University. bu.edu. Retrieved on 2009-01-25.
25. ^ Nicholas Johnston (2009-01-20). "Senate Confirms Seven Obama Nominees, Delays Clinton". Bloomberg L.P.. bloomberg.com. Retrieved on 2009-01-25.
26. ^ Ed Henry (2008-12-10). "Obama makes pick for energy chief, sources say". CNN. edition.cnn.com. Retrieved on 2008-12-11.
[edit] External links
Sister project Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Steven Chu
* Bio from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
o Energy@Berkeley: Solutions for Global Warming, Berkeley University, November 13, 2007 includes link to event on YouTube
o BP Makes Berkeley World Center for Biofuels press release on the BP collaboration February 16, 2007
o Alternative Energy Sources March 28, 2005, Chu's PowerPoint presentation
* Boulder’s physicists give Chu thumbs-up Article on other Nobel laureates' reactions to Chu as secretary of energy
* Biography and Bibliographic Resources, from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, United States Department of Energy
* UCTV Programs with Steven Chu
o Physics Meets Biology
o Berkeley's Nobel Tradition
o Holding on to Atoms and Molecules with Lasers: Laser Cooling - From Atomic Clocks to Watching Biomolecules Move
o What Can Physics Say About Life?
o Conversations with History: A Scientist's Random Walk, with Steven Chu
* Bio and personal page from Stanford University Department of Physics
o Steven Chu: Uncovering the secret life of molecules from Stanford [Online] Report (July 16, 1997)
* Chu's biophysics research group at University of California, Berkeley
o Growing energy: Berkeley Lab's Steve Chu on what termite guts have to do with global warming from UC Berkeley News (September 30, 2005)
* Chu's lecture on the Helios Project for renewable energy at YouTube March 12, 2008
* The Nobel Prize in Physics 1997 from Nobel Prize with biography, lecture, diploma, photos, symposia and links
* "Climate Disasters a 'Significant Possibility' Interview with Steve Chu at Copenhagen Climate Council, November 3, 2008.
* [2] Interview with Steven Chu from "Growing Energy" from the PBS series e² energy.
en.wikipedia.org
Energy's Future
Physicist Steven Chu is poised to become the next U.S. Secretary of Energy, a position in which he will help shape energy policies for the nation. In the spring of 2008, while Chu was still serving as the Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and did not yet know about his selection for the Energy post, NOVA producer Larry Klein spoke with him about California's aggressive initiatives to curtail greenhouse gases and push the state toward renewable sources of energy. Hear what Chu had to say about California's controversial initiatives, global warming, nuclear power, and more.
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
NOVA: Is climate change a grave threat to the world?
Steven Chu: If we continue to put CO2 in the atmosphere the way we're doing, I think there's a high probability that some very tragic things might happen. We are looking towards increased water shortages around the world, a decrease in the agricultural productivity in many places, especially, most critically, in the developing countries of the world. There would be political instabilities, as there would be rising sea levels that would force permanent migration for tens of millions of people. We cannot really take those risks.
Q: Is CO2 accumulating faster than we once thought it was?
Chu: Our projections two to five or 10 years ago, even the most pessimistic predictions, now seem too conservative. We did not expect that developing countries, especially China, would be increasing the amount of CO2 as much as they have. Deforestation has accelerated, and chopping down tropical rain forests is the equivalent of putting more CO2 in the atmosphere. So this is very troubling.
Q: Should we reduce our energy use or turn to alternative sources of energy that don't emit carbon?
Chu: You have to do both. You can't conserve your way out of this problem. Nor can you rely on magical new sources of carbon-free energy to get out of this problem. The lowest-hanging fruit for the next several decades will be in the more efficient use of energy. That's where the biggest gains are going to be.
Q: Some people, even some scientists who recognize the threats of global warming, say, "We should really throw our resources at mitigation—for instance, building floodwalls—because trying to stop climate change is a) unbelievably expensive, and b) almost impossible." How do you respond?
Chu: There is a debate about whether you want to put your resources into trying to prevent as much as possible climate change or just throw in the towel and say, "This is going to happen, and so let's put our resources into mitigation." Well, I think we are going to have to put some resources into mitigation because, quite frankly, our climate is changing. Most climate modelers believe there's at least one degree built into the system even if all humanity stops emitting carbon today.
But I personally think there is no comparison in terms of the amount of investment. You'd rather do some preventive things than pay for the consequences. It really boils down to that.
CALIFORNIA'S CHALLENGE
Q: Why is global warming of particular concern to California?
Chu: California is in a unique position. First, it may suffer the consequences of climate change earlier than other parts of the United States. There's a very sobering prediction that the continual water problem that we have will become much worse. The snow pack in California, a major part of our water-storage system, will decrease anywhere from 30 to 90 percent or more. This will have a profound impact on California. If these predictions come true, much of our agriculture in California will have to move away.
Q: So are farmers in the big valleys right to be worried?
Chu: When push comes to shove, people in the cities will have to get drinking water. There will have to be a readjustment of the water allocations in agriculture. So, their livelihood is at stake.
Q: How do you see the impact on agriculture unfolding?
Chu: If the water available to the Central Valley—which, by the way, produces 20 percent of all the agricultural goods in the United States—is less available for agriculture, some of the very water-intensive crops, like cotton and rice, will have to go. Quite frankly, perhaps we should think about that now, today. But, more worrisome, many other crops may have to go as well, if we're really talking about a decrease in the water supply by factors of two or four.
The Central Valley really is a desert. Without irrigation, you've got a problem. In the coastal areas, there is a little bit of moderation. High-quality wines will probably be the last to go.
Q: Is California on the right track with its energy policies?
Chu: The wonderful thing about California is that the entire state is engaged in the climate-change problem. Both sides of the aisle, the Republicans and the Democrats, know there's a problem. They're willing to invest resources. The electorate is behind this. California has, over the last several decades, shown a real leadership position in energy efficiency. It is beginning to show a leadership position in transferring its energy sources to renewable energies.
It is leading the United States, and quite frankly, even though the bulk of the United States is behind the developed world, I think California in many respects is partially leading the world. It's wonderful to be director of a major research lab that wants to work on this energy problem in a state that is so receptive to this work.
Q: Why do you think California is out in the lead?
Chu: I don't really know why California's taken the lead. If you look historically, maybe it's part of the cowboy, Wild West, Gold Rush mentality. But it goes much beyond that. If you look at what has happened in California—the creation of Silicon Valley, the semiconductor industry, the Internet industry, the computer industry, green technologies, as well as the biotechnology industry—it's been a leader in all of these. It's been the creator, essentially, of these industries, not only in the United States, but around the world.
Q: Does California have a history of progressive energy policies?
Chu: California has a history of very progressive energy policies. During the first oil crisis, it really took note. It started to introduce appliance standards for refrigerators, heaters, gas furnaces, air conditioners. It instituted better building regulations and insulation standards, tighter windows. Now, double-paned windows in residential houses are mandatory. Our residential and commercial building standards in insulation, I believe, are as good or better than [those in] just about any other state in the country, even though we have a very temperate climate.
Since the middle 1970s, California's electricity consumption per person has remained essentially flat. The rest of the United States, excluding California, went up something on the order of 60 percent. Now, Californians want to reduce the amount of electricity consumption per person, and I think we can do this. We also want to reduce the amount of electricity generated by carbon sources, and we will do this.
Q: Can California, and the country at large, make buildings much more energy-efficient than they are?
Chu: The lower hanging fruit is already being captured in California. The compact fluorescent light bulbs, which largely came out of this laboratory, the double-paned windows with the infrared coatings, which also came out of Lawrence Berkeley Lab. The insulation standards, all of those things, are being captured today.
But we can look forward to a different era where we integrate the whole design of the building, and the building can actually regulate its energy consumption, depending on what's happening on the outside.
We are working towards decreasing the energy consumption of buildings not by 20, 30 percent but by factors of two or four or more. It's like the Prius or the compact hybrids of Honda. Did they invent a new motor, a new battery, a brake? No. What they did was integrate a system. So, for instance, when you brake on a Prius, you transfer the energy back into a battery that you can then use to start the car.
In the United States, buildings account for close to 40 percent of our total energy consumption in the U.S. If we can reduce the amount of energy that buildings use by a factor of two, this will have a huge impact on electricity consumption. And I really think we can do a factor of four or five. That's a target I believe we can reach in a few decades.
Q: Can something like new refrigerator standards really matter?
Chu: When you look at something like better refrigerator standards, you might think, "Oh, how can that be significant?" But if you compare the energy consumption of refrigerators in the 1970s to what refrigerators consume today, and you multiply that by the number of refrigerators in the country, the amount of electricity saved is almost comparable to all of the United States' hydroelectric power.
Let me remind you that hydroelectric power is the largest renewable energy source. It's roughly four percent of the electricity generation in the United States. All the other renewables—wind, solar thermal, etc.—constitute three percent.
HOW RISKY IS CALIFORNIA'S GAMBLE?
Q: Are California's energy and greenhouse-gas policies too aggressive?
Chu: People might say, "Are California's policies too aggressive? [Their goals] can't be met." I have to say, it may be so, but I'm fully in favor of these goals. I love it. Now we can set these goals and say, "Maybe we won't get there. But, we can get 2/3 of the way there." Even halfway there would be such a strong statement. I think that's very important.
Optimistically, as a scientist, you also have to believe that you can do these things, and to set a modest goal really is, quite frankly, not as much intellectual fun. But in the end, we actually need [to meet] these goals by mid-century. So the goals that California's setting are things that we actually do need to deliver on.
Having these very aggressive goals is actually a very good stimulus. I have a lab full of scientists who believe in these goals. And they want to deliver.
Q: Some economists say California's policies are going to raise energy prices substantially, and subsequently raise the price of everything. Possible?
Chu: When people say the economic consequences of California's policies will drive up prices, is that possible? Yes. Absolutely possible. Probable. However—and this is where California and the political will of the people of California is so important—they are willing to do this and to set a leadership position in the United States and the world.
Now, having said that, we don't really know what the prices are gonna be. If you look historically at what people said about appliance efficiency, "If you make the refrigerators 20 percent more efficient, then the price will go up." Well, the refrigerators became a factor of four more efficient and, inflation-adjusted, the price went down by a factor of two.
The same was said about seat belts, about catalytic converters for smog—that these prices would drive people crazy, that American car owners would not be able to afford it. When all is said and done, the engineers were amazingly good at keeping the prices down.
I think the moral of this story is, if you try to fight these new standards, these new ideas, by lobbying against them because some industries will feel threatened, as long as the lawyers and the lobbyists are part of this, progress isn't gonna be made. As soon as both sides of the aisle, the Republicans and the Democrats, say, "Sorry, it's gonna happen," it's then assigned to the engineers. And then progress is made.
Q: So you don't think that higher energy costs will cripple businesses?
Chu: I think the cost of energy will not cripple business. I think the cost of energy, slight increase in the cost of energy, will actually stimulate a lot of innovation. Quite frankly, the Bay area sees this as an incredible worldwide business opportunity. Just as it led in the computer industry, in the biotech industry, now we believe we can lead in the green-tech industries that could help save the world.
The United States should realize this as a credible business opportunity. We have incredible intellectual capital in the United States. Why should we drag our feet and say, "We don't wanna do this." Why don't we say, with some regulations that will prompt us to say, "We can go find the solutions. And not only that, we can export it to the rest of the world."
SOLAR, WIND, AND NUCLEAR
Q: Is California ready to turn to renewable energy—wind, solar, geothermal—to provide base load electrical power?
Chu: No, it's not there yet. We need to solve the problem of energy distribution and energy storage before renewables becomes, for example, 50 percent of the base load electricity. There's no way it can become 50 percent until we have a mass-energy storage system or a huge international or national distribution system.
Q: Yet aren't you pro-renewables?
Chu: I am pro-renewables. Absolutely, because I think we can solve these technological problems. I think we can solve them in one or two decades.
California currently buys about 30 percent of its electricity from coal-generated plants. We know this. And California's new regulations want to wean us away from this. We need to do it. But if we want to get 30 percent of our electricity from sources like wind or solar energy, we need to solve the energy-storage problem.
Q: Could nuclear power help ease the transition to the time when we can rely more on solar and wind? Should California reconsider investing in nuclear power?
Chu: The debate as to whether you want to begin to reinvest in nuclear power generation should be brought back on the table. If you consider the options for base load generation of electricity in California, there's coal, there's gas, and there's nuclear energy. If I compare the downsides of coal versus nuclear, I have to say I'd rather see renewed investment in nuclear power plant generation of electricity in this century than to build more coal plants. There's no question in my mind, that's the lesser of the two evils.
STAYING HOPEFUL
Q: Why is investing in science and science education important?
Chu: If you look ahead, if we're gonna get a solution to the climate problem, the energy problem, science has to deliver the answers. Just as science made the Green Revolution possible, just as science enabled us to forestall mass starvations at the beginning of the 20th century, we need science to find carbon-free sources of energy.
But at the end of the day, there's something else about science that we really mustn't forget. Human beings have the ability to wonder about our world, to wonder how does the world work? This is something unique, something so wonderful.
We as human beings have been able to understand the atomic world. We are understanding how the universe was created in the first fractions of seconds till now. We are understanding things that are fantastic. And it's really part of human nature to have this yearning for understanding of the universe around us. It's part of the human condition.
Q: Given your understanding of climate change, your understanding of the technical hurdles ahead, are you fearful or optimistic about the future?
Chu: There are fears and concerns that I have about what we're doing that perhaps most of the population in the world and in the electorate of the United States doesn't fully appreciate the risks we're facing.
But on the other hand—and this goes to my core as a scientist—you have to remain optimistic. If you say, "No, I'm sorry. I'm gonna give up. Too big a problem. Live life, enjoy. Next generation, two generations, that's their problem," I think first of all, it's fundamentally immoral.
Secondly, take this as a challenge. I think the history of the world suggests that the intellect of humans and what science has done in the last several hundred years when it became a quantitative hard science is astounding. We live in a very different world. We live in a much more prosperous world for a large fraction of the human beings on Earth.
I think that this could be given to the rest of the world, if you will, that there is no reason, no physical law that says only a very small fraction of the people of the world should live in the conditions we, in America, enjoy in the wealthier parts of our society. There's no physical law that says we can't be smart enough to use the limited resources we do have on Earth in a sustainable way, and that the population of nine or ten billion people that are predicted can't enjoy the standard of living you and I enjoy today.
Interactives
Listen to audio highlights from this interview.
Steven Chu
"You can't conserve your way out of this problem. Nor can you rely on magical new sources of carbon-free energy to get out of this problem."
"As soon as both sides of the aisle, the Republicans and the Democrats, say, 'Sorry, it's gonna happen,' it's then assigned to the engineers. And then progress is made."
"If we want to get 30 percent of our electricity from sources like wind or solar energy, we need to solve the energy-storage problem."
"If I compare the downsides of coal versus nuclear, I have to say I'd rather see renewed investment in nuclear power plant generation of electricity."
"Just as science enabled us to forestall mass starvations at the beginning of the 20th century, we need science to find carbon-free sources of energy."
"There's no physical law that says we can't be smart enough to use the limited resources we do have on Earth in a sustainable way."
Interview conducted in the spring of 2008 at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California by Larry Klein, producer of "The Big Energy Gamble," and edited by Susan K. Lewis, senior editor of NOVA Online
pbs.org |
