Nobel Prize Winning Physicist As Energy Secretary 498
bledri writes "Officials close to the Obama transition team say that
Physics Nobel Laureate Steven Chu is the likely candidate for Energy Secretary. Some are worried that Chu is not politically savvy enough,
but I'm hopeful that a scientist will base policy on evidence.
Discuss among yourselves."
Terrible Idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
it is far easier to appoint a technocrat to the cabinet position and surround him with brilliant academics
And that's exactly what they are doing. It's just that the technocrat in this case would be the President, and the academics would be his staff, whose primary goal is to advise him. How far along the chain of command do you want to place the smart guys? Down on the basement? Don't forget they are just coming with the ideas; every single decision is the President's.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
There is too much for the president to handle for him to be in that role. That's why they created cabinet positions, OPM, and the like. The executive branch is too large for the president to be the main political player. Besides, you need someone playing the political games when the President is doing figure head stuff. Someone with some savvy needs to be down in the weeds why the president is glad-handing.
You just described the vice president. And never was this description best fitted than in this case, with the VP being more experienced than the president himself.
I completely support the appointment of a Nobel laureate scientist to important govt positions. The problem is not the scientist's lack of political experience, the problem is the system - which is not just broken but fetid-rotten.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
well, part of the reason it's broken is because we have career politicians/lawyers/corporate executives running everything. i think one of the smartest moves made by India as a society was to elect a scientist as president. and while that may never happen in the U.S., having science-related cabinet positions filled by scientists is the next best thing.
in itself this may not fix all of the problems inherent to our political system, but it will at least put people who have some intelligence & integrity in positions of power. also, by putting policy decisions in the hands of scientists/academics rather than conventional politicians, you introduce the possibility of change/reform for the first time. otherwise, if every government official fits the same mold of the archetypal politician you're just setting yourself up for more of the same.
the idea that someone needs to be a career politician who knows how to "play political games" in order to be a good politician is patently false. you might need to be experienced in making backroom deals, giving kickbacks, pandering to interest groups, etc. in order to sleaze your way up to the top in politics, but if someone is simply being appointed straight to the top, then that clearly isn't requisite anymore. and in this case it would indeed be better to appoint a non-politician who hasn't been corrupted by years of being in Washington (and political fund-raising) and will not compromise their morals so easily.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
But he's accomplished something significant in one particular field. How does that make him qualified to do anything outside of that field? And let's leave aside the potential that the Nobel prizes themselves are awarded based on a political basis.
Can you give me an example of a Nobel prize in physics that was awarded on a political basis?
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Informative)
Lets be clear here, the Cabinet secretaries are not the "advisors" of the President in any way but as a formality. The functional component of their advisory role is presenting reports compiled by their subordinates.
Additionally, Secretaries are not simply responsible to the President, they are also confirmed by the Senate and they will frequently be called afterwards to give testimony to Congress.
These people are executives in their own right running large government bureaucracies. That is a huge reason why the corporate executives that many love to hate frequently end up in charge of Cabinet departments. Their past experience is often just as applicable, and possibly more applicable to the realities of running a department.
There is no reason to believe that a Nobel laureate cannot run such a department, and many such scientists do go on to run large research projects with a decent number of colleagues and staff, but the point is entirely valid that you do need a skillset beyond sheer research ability to be a cabinet secretary.
Indeed, the true answer to most of the dreams of those who would try and see science be less politicized would probably be someone with the skills of a consummate bureaucrat whose one necessary redeeming quality is the faith in the well-researched reports of his expert scientist subordinates. This individual would then have the savvy to get that report into the hands of the president and get him to act on its well-researched recommendations. The individual would also have the ability to cause the bureaucracy to actually carry out the President's and his intent.
It is possible that in 1789, one man in the Secretary of State or Treasury or Energy (had it existed then) would have been selected and useful for his own knowledge and skills rather than bureaucratic finesse or political adeptness. That is not the case today and it is important for people to bear that in mind.
No. No. No. Not in the slightest. I'd be surprised if the president makes more than 2% of the actual decisions that operate the government. If you think he does, please obtain a copy of the National Budget and try and read it and understand every page of it before the next budget is released. And I mean the proposed budgets, not the ones that are adopted AFTER Congress gets its hands on it.
The President sets policy, just as any executive does, but he can only act on the information he is given, he only has so much time in a day to make decisions, and he simply has no way to adequately supervise the people who implement his desires.
The cabinet secretaries make *real* decisions every day, just as real and important as the President's, if perhaps more limited in scope. The President can order whatever he likes, but he can't do it himself. He can't even give orders to the military unless they are passed through the Secretary of Defense to the unified Combatant Commanders. There are probably huge swaths of governmental actions that a president technically controls that he doesn't even think about more than once a month. Who is making decisions independently in that time? The cabinet secretaries and undersecretaries.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
With no offense to Steven Chu, this sort of post is why I have to hope his time as the Secretary of Energy goes very poorly. The idea that there is one correct policy and that all we need to do is get a scientist smart enough to tell us what Science says that is come from a gross misunderstand of the nature science.
Any real policy involves trade offs between what's best for a large number of different groups, each of which has different needs, goals, tolerance for risk, etc. Deciding how to make those tradeoffs and select who's interests take priority in any given situation is largely subjective. While science can help determine how feasible a given proposal is (and even then, it's more in the realm of engineering than science), it's silent on which solution is best.
The general public needs to get over its delusion that scientists are some sort of priesthood that exists to tell them The One True Way and save them the trouble of having to understand issues well enough to make their own informed decisions about what is best.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Mankind needs to get over its delusion that some sort of priesthood exists to tell them the One True Way.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Any real policy involves trade offs between what's best for a large number of different groups, each of which has different needs, goals, tolerance for risk, etc. Deciding how to make those tradeoffs and select who's interests take priority in any given situation is largely subjective. While science can help determine how feasible a given proposal is (and even then, it's more in the realm of engineering than science), it's silent on which solution is best.
I'd like to direct you to Dr. Chu's opening speech [youtube.com] from UC Berkeley's California & The Future of Environmental Law & Policy event. While 45 minutes is far too short to go over everything (and far too long for a crowd that almost never bothers to RTFA), he addresses some of the points you make. This is from back in 2005 or so, I gather, but it's clear he has a good grasp on the challenges and potential solutions to be found. I can only imagine that he's refined his positions and proposals since then, but is the first related thing I found when I looked this morning. There's probably something more recent and relevant out there.
In any case, I applaud this choice. It sure beats the venture capitalist/CEO/treasury wonk we've got now (in his credit, he does have an Sc.D. in chemical engineering - but it seems like he's never used it, preferring to go into the financial sector instead). Before him, we had a law professor. Before that, someone who studied French/poli-sci/foreign affairs. Before that, another lawyer. I'm sure you get the idea... There has never been someone with anywhere near his credentials appointed to the job.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Informative)
There is also a video of his 2007 Nobel Conference lecture titled "The World's Energy Problem and What We Can Do About It" available http://gustavus.edu/events/nobelconference/2007/chu-lecture.php [gustavus.edu] which as the title suggests, is very relevant to this discussion.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
You're deeply confused. "science" isn't going to make any decisions. Steven Chu is going to make decisions. From all accounts, he's a capable guy. I'll take someone with roots in physical science, a clear understanding of numbers, and the ambition to get stuff done over a clueless political gamesman any day of the week. I find irony in your description of "real policy" , as it sounds very similar, from my experience, to a description of "real research."
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I think its more likely that Steven Chu was chosen to head the Department of Energy because he is an effective current administrator of a major Department of Energy research facility who, in that role, has done lots of work (including establishing partnership with outside entities) on policy issues that are important to the President-Elect than because the President-Elect views scientists as a mystical priesthood and Chu as the priest most in touch with the deity "Science".
Chu is a Nobel laureate, but he's not just a Nobel laureate.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:4, Interesting)
All to often, academics is too far removed from the real reality of things that they can at times be detrimental to sound policy.
Almost by definition, academics are the people who look at evidence before coming to decisions, and revise their decisions when they receive new information. Sorry if that's removed from your reality--it's certainly alien to Bush's. And what do manuals have to do with academics?
Carter's failure is a good point--if you ask people to act intelligently, they will resent it (I assume that's what you're referring to?). I have no doubt that Obama is quite aware of the parallels; I think that he is a more careful politician, but time will tell whether this country is worthy of him.
Apparently what this country needs is a gangsta president.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Funny)
Just because you can split the atom of a molecule doesn't mean you can lead the nation with a microphone.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've always found it much more dangerous tearing down stupid people, they're less likely to worry about the rights and wrongs of an argument and much more likely to take it personally.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Informative)
Steven Chu is an expert on the technical side. He also runs LBL, so he knows how to make decisions. Why get two people when you can get one who can do both?
Also, Steven Chu is probably smarter than you. Nobel Prize winners aren't *necessarily*, but in this case, Chu is a very, very sharp guy.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because someone is a great scientist does not mean the person is a good administrator or a good politician.
Out of curiosity; do you think current politicians make good politicians?
*Very good, I'd say... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you mean what common parlance means by "politics" -- i.e. "getting elected"
If you mean "running a social unit, such as a state" then most of them suck.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Like this:
http://instantrimshot.com/ [instantrimshot.com]
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Funny)
Pfft, Al Gore got one of those by making a PowerPoint presentation. How tough can it be?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Funny)
Do you have one? ;)
I bet if I search my computers at home I could find a couple old PowerPoint presentations.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
And another important point is that this appointment says quite clearly that Obama expects the DOE to use scientific methods and procedures as the basis for what it's doing. When you're charging an organization with the task of fixing the US energy problem, that's exactly what you want.
Imagine, if you will, a Department of Energy focused on keeping the oil, coal, and gas companies happy. Oh wait, you don't need to imagine that, because that's what we've had for several decades.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The costs of oil, coal, and gas start going up rather rapidly when you start factoring in the costs that are currently foisted on the public. Environmental damage, wars to take over oil fields, and drilling rights to name a few.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think your exaggerating things quite a bit. I also think your doing it for your own self interest. First of all, environmental damages are already charged to the oil companies and spread across their costs. Unless your going to attempt to claim that some unseen damages are present because using oil does the same thing that being alive does- emite Co2, then there isn't really any costs not already covered. If you are going to invent a damage, the costs are still ofset by your ability to purchase products c
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but administrating a group of scientists and grad students is nor the same as running a cabinet level agency. That is especially so if he ends up being alone and politically isolated. This kind of thing takes different skills.
Because we all know, of course, that there are no politics in decision making at research facilities and educational institutions (or the research journals that help advance such careers).
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
It's such a shame that he'll be unable to learn them, what with being such a notorious doofus.
We should instead continue to appoint loyal political apparatchiks who - as we all know - can pick up all that silly old "science" stuff overnight, should they ever feel the need.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Everybody has limitations, and it would be better to get someone who can listen to scientists and engineers and also be a great administrator.
So you mean this one can't?
Just because scientists can be poor politicians, it doesn't mean all are, and this bright guy could just maybe have skills in both departments. These are things they may have found out before moving their eyes to this guy. I'm far from certain Obama in person looked at Nobel prize winners and said "Hey, let's try this guy!"
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Thatcher also wanted to see fibre cable rolled out across the UK back in the 80s but was never given chance also.
Had she been allowed to push this through, the UK would've been a global leader in terms of broadband running alongside Sweden, South Korea and Japan in that area.
The decisions they made were really forward thinking and exactly the decisions needed to take the country forward, the downside is they also involved a lot of pain for many people, hence the reason she was overthrown. Sadly, these people are the people that somewhat deserve the pain- we're talking about people who believe the world owes them a job without them ever having to look for one, without ever having to change jobs, without ever having to retrain. These are exactly the type of people that have eaten away at the UK for over a decade now and are the people who overspend and have got us into such a financial mess.
But the Labour government still doesn't see this, they think no one is at fault, so they try and increase money available for loans, they try and reduce VAT to make people spend even more.
It's sad, because good politicians force people who aren't willing to play fair to play fair and that ultimately leads to their undoing whilst bad politicians protect the incompetent to keep their votes up or simply because they are themselves equally incompetent.
I'm not a Conservative by the way, nor would I ever vote Conservative or Labour. I'd just rather see people take responsibility for their lives somewhat and this is what Thatcher tried to make people do improving the country as a result whilst Labour has done the opposite, destroying the country as a result.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's somewhat my point, you stress that he lost his lifelong job- why should anyone expect to have a lifelong job if their job becomes obsolete? Why should everyone else be expected to subsidise these industries just because these people have an expectation of a lifelong job without ever having to reskill or retrain?
Certainly part of the disagreement is a generation thing, people nowadays on average apparently change career 4 times in their working life but I still can't help but feel it's naive to expect you can just sail through life doing the same thing without ever having to put any effort in keeping your skills relevant.
I also don't see the issue with destroying our manufacturing base when there's absolutely no way our workforce could compete with Eastern countries in this area (Singapore, Taiwan at the time, nowadays India, mainland China) in what was and still is and increasingly global economy. Again, should other people work hard and pay to subsidise an industry that's no longer profitable or irrelevant just because the people in that industry don't feel they should have to adapt and keep their skills uptodate?
Ironically, I live on the Wakefield/Barnsley border so I know the communities all to well that were hit hardest and meet many people who were there at the time and as you say, I shouldn't generalise because there are two classes of these people- there are those who never bothered to retrain who are sat living off handouts to this day and there are those who got past it who did bother to retrain and are now working in other areas.
Perhaps the only mistake Thatcher made in this situation was not making more effort to help these people retrain but again, if you were laid off today because the industry you work in became irrelevant you have to ask, would anyone help you retrain? Would you expect everyone else to pay for you to keep your job? The same problem exists in France with it's heavily subsidised farming industry and it really hurts their economic potential.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because someone is a Administrator or politician does not mean they are a GOOD administrator or GOOD politician.
After seeing the corrupt and just plain old EVIL members of the senate and house, let along cabinet positions. If he does his job honestly he will be better than those that were in the position for the past 8 years.
Cripes we have people in other countries comparing Dick Cheney to Saddam Hussein. And from some of his actions, I dont think a great scientist will have any problem doing a fantastic job in that position.
I just hope he has the intestinal fortitude to tell members of the congress and other parts of the government that they are flat out stupid when they make a suggestion that is absurd.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because someone is a Administrator or politician does not mean they are a GOOD administrator or GOOD politician.
That's true of any job. I guess I don't really understand your point. That we shouldn't assume someone we don't know will be good at a job they've never done?
I don't know if he'll be any good at being Energy secretary. I did see him speak a couple years ago at the Nobel Conference on Energy, and he was a great speaker with very good ideas. From what I recall one of his main messages was "Fail fast", in other words try a lot of ideas and see which ones work and which don't quickly. IMO that's really _exactly_ what we need to do. I will say this though. The past Energy secretaries certainly haven't done jack-squat for energy policy in this country, and the vast majority of them were politicians. So it's not like the politicians have some great track record that Chu has to live up to.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:4, Funny)
...I just hope he has the intestinal fortitude...
I would more want testicular fortitude in the candidate. Although the implication that Congress makes someone who opposes them too sick-to-their-stomach to continue is interesting...
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Your mistake is assuming that a great scientist isn't a great administrator. Chu has been leading LBL with incredible success for four years, and under his leadership LBL has become the most focused national lab, and that focus is on alternative energy generation and storage. I've never met anyone who had a better understanding of both the science and practicality of alternative energy than Steven Chu. Picking Chu is Obama's best choice to date.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Informative)
Obama's pick to solve the energy crisis [salon.com]
"You should interview Steven Chu," the scientist at the Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, Calif., told me. "He already has one Nobel Prize. [nobelprize.org] He wants to get a second one for solving the energy crisis."
That was two years ago, and I sorely regret not following through and landing an interview with Chu, a physicist who has dedicated his post-Nobel Prize career to the development of alternative sources of energy. Because as Barack Obama's nominee for secretary of energy, Steven Chu is going to get a chance to make his dreams come true, with the full backing of the U.S. government.
Since 2004, Chu has served as the director of the University of California-managed Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, spearheading, among other things, a massive research effort in solar power. [nanohub.org] To get a sense of the man's interests, here's the second sentence of his bio at the LBNL Web site. [lbl.gov] (LBNL, located in Berkeley, Calif., should be distinguished from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which does weapons research for the U.S. government.)
Environmentalists and climate change activists are understandably delighted. [climateprogress.org] Consider this: For eight years the United States has boasted an Energy Department that for all intents and purposes was a subsidiary of the U.S. oil industry. Now, should he be confirmed, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who specializes in climate change and renewable energy and already knows how to run a decent-size bureaucracy is going to be in charge of realizing Obama's bold promises to lead the United States toward an energy-sustainable future. Symbolically speaking, one would be hard put to draw a sharper contrast between the Bush and Obama eras than what is achieved by this single appointment.
That said, Steven Chu is no stranger to Big Oil. He was instrumental in helping U.C. Berkeley land one of the biggest corporate bonanzas ever -- $500 million from British Petroleum to establish the Energy Biosciences Institute, an ambitious joint venture [salon.com] that has been controversial from the get-go at Berkeley because of its plans to use oil money to do research and development into energy crops and other biofuel wizardry.
And, as I noted after seeing him talk in early 2007 [salon.com] at a symposium titled "Domestic Bioenergy: Weaning Ourselves From Foreign Oil Addiction," held at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he is on record as being a bit hyperbolic as to the potential of biofuels.
You can find plenty of scientists who will dispute such assertions, [salon.com] right
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I would rather see an inventor run a business than a marketer. Too much of what is wrong with business today is related to the inevitable shift away from decisions favoring integrity and quality to decisions about what is thought to improve the "bottom line." Dell has always made good computers and was the leader in service. They have since moved the vast majority of those key advantage points out of the country and the result has made them less competitive. It is simply a bad business decision that has resulted in a loss of a loyal customer base. And I don't care what business school you went to, in business, there is NOTHING more important than keeping your customers.
Placing experts in their fields in control of policy making is smarter than putting politicians in those seats for the very same reasons.
And to be fair, it is true that some people with one skill set may not often have others. But I have also known many technical experts ALSO have good skills with people. They are rare, but they exist. I work for an architectural firm. My CEO is an architect, not a marketer. He understands marketing and is also an outstanding speaker. But he will not compromise on quality nor on integrity because he sees clearly where that leads. And in today's business environment where construction is slowing and even halting, our office has work stacked up for the next two to three years to come. The reason for this is that he works and plans for the horizon and he has a reputation for taking very good care of his clients with non compromise in honesty or quality of work and he owns his mistakes completely. And yes, I thought he was too good to be true as well. But I have seen it all happen and there is no faking actions. My company has --zero-- debt. My CEO is a multi-millionaire. He is the unquestionable picture of success and he is an Architect, not a salesman.
I am not claiming that technical experts are ideal choices, but I will say that non-experts making decisions about things they don't fully understand is ALWAYS a mistake waiting to happen... and while the experts with social and political savvy are rare, they are not extinct. I've got one right here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
in business, there is NOTHING more important than keeping your customers.
Yes, there is: making new ones.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:4, Informative)
For most businesses, that's actually less important. It's usually much cheaper to get repeat business from an existing customer, than it is to seek out new customers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would rather see an inventor run a business than a marketer.
Such businesses don't usually last long. The reality is that you need both the inventor AND the marketer, as well as the salesman, the finance guy and someone to manage operations, and they should all be under the direction of someone who understands just enough of all of their jobs to make sure that every aspect of the business works -- which, unpleasant as it may be to geeks, means what you need is a person who knows business administration.
Too much of what is wrong with business today is related to the inevitable shift away from decisions favoring integrity and quality to decisions about what is thought to improve the "bottom line."
Hmm. You started out talking about businesses run by marketers
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If it weren't for the DoE, we'd probably get 50%+ of our energy from nuclear now, and we'd be reprocessing our spent fuel rods, giving us an unending energy supply for the next 10000 odd years.
Instead we're going to war for oil and choking on CO2. Good job, Big Gubamint!
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Informative)
Do you have any evidence to support that opinion? Look the DOE is great at running big science projects. Ones that involve tunnels, cryo, massive underground detectors, etc. The DOE almost always does it under budget and on time (the big disaster was the SSC but that fell apart because of politics from the Congress and president). Compare that to the record of the NSF and NASA. NASA is great at large projects at well, but the project management comes in over budget and late more than 50% of the time and anytime the NSF has done anything big approaching the scale of medium DOE, it has always been late and over budget.
If it was not for the DOE big physics outside of astro and cosmo would be run by the military and NSF. Finally the office of science is only one aspect of the DOE.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
All Carter did was roll this functionality as well as the nuclear power waste disposal into a single agency. As for the extended missions of alternative energy, I'd say we need someone to do this because private industry has been sitting on their ass for the last three decades and spending more time developing marketing campaigns about alternative energy than actually developing the energy sources.
I can't believe I bothered spending ten minutes writing this comment, libertarians are so blind, it's pathetic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone in a government position takes the attitude that other politicians have no say because they aren't smart enough, I can guarantee that they will find themselves looking for employment fast.
This is not a post for a position at slashdot or some other anonymous forum where you can ignore something based on where it comes from or who said it. All the politicians- whether they are technically literate enough or not- have a constitutional obligation to have somewhat of a say at their discretion. If any
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
New laws always cause more crime (by definition).
Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
For the first time in *at least* 8 years, I am quite jealous of you US guys. If you ask me, people in senior positions are are not 'politically savvy enough' is *exactly* what the world needs right now.
Re:Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow.
Re:Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Is it wrong of me to find this troll absolutely hilarious?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Great! (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, there should be negative versions of all the positive ones too. -5 NOT INSIGHTFUL
we need a scientist (Score:5, Insightful)
we have to move beyond coal and oil, for all of the obvious environmental and geopolitical reasons. we can't keep dumping carbon into our atmosphere, we can't keep funding saudi wahabbism, russian neoimperialism, and venezuelan blowhards. the only we are going to do this is through science
so hopefully, we'll get the following out of washington dc:
1. more nuclear power plants
2. more funding for fusion research
3. now that we have nationalized the car industry, we put a gun to the heads of the fuckers and detroit and force them to make more, cheaper electric cars. force this on them as a priority
4. the infrastructure to allow for battery swapping nationwide
of course, the american consumer has to be dragged kicking and screaming out of his SUV and into a post-oil and coal future. so be it. the only person who is going to be the visionary to do this is a scientist. he has plenty of support in his bully pulpit role from those of us who "get it". we finally just elected an administration it seems that also gets it
where it= oil and coal need to go the way of history
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More fuel-efficient cars, even just to European standards, should be an initial goal. Very little needed - in fact they could start by just selling European GM and Ford models, instant plus without all the time, money, effort and energy requirements of starting from scratch with manufacture of new technology.
The electric tech is not necessarily a great idea. The batteries and all that's involved there is a nasty messy business, not at all "eco-friendly". The electricity still has to be generated, and there'
i understand the downside of nuclear and electric (Score:5, Insightful)
but all of the downside, including what you listed above, is not as big a downside as that of oil and coal
environment: we pollute our air
geopolitics: we fund our enemies
those two take the cake when compared to nuclear and electric being "messy" and all the other minor issues you list. especially regarding nuclear: lookup pebble bed reactors. we can get 10x the amount of energy out of uranium, and thorium, and produce 1/10th the waste that lasts 2 centuries rather than 10,000 years. nuclear is a no-brainer. the french and japanese have been doing it for decades, deriving most of their energy from nuclear
the french and japanese need to show the way to americans who, like you, seem to suffer from tunnel vision. it doesn't have to be oil and coal. we are using a suboptimal source for our energy needs. all of the downside to nuclear and electric do not stack up as much as the downside of oil and coal
and then we really need to master fusion, in a century, at least. because oil and coal sources are just going to get deeper and more expensive, and uranium and thorium sources aren't going to last forever either
Re:i understand the downside of nuclear and electr (Score:4, Insightful)
we can get 10x the amount of energy out of uranium, and thorium, and produce 1/10th the waste that lasts 2 centuries rather than 10,000 years.
By the way, that's another way of phrasing "waste that is 50 times as radioactive".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ironically many of the European cars which are more fuel efficient, don't meet the American Emissions Standards, so we can't just switch it over. (Need to review the regulation at least)
Nuclear waste isn't as large of a problem as people imagine. If you were to take all the nuclear waste from the entire history of all nuclear plants in the US and stacked them on a football field, you wouldn't even have a stack 10m high. Moving forward with reprocessing plants and such, the amount of waste is very low.
As for
Re: (Score:3)
There's no conversion necessary, except for mindset and lifestyle. If people would bike to work, for example, then the energy demands would be far less than today and we wouldn't have to deal with smog. If people would compost and grow even just 50% of their own food then you Americans could decrease your pollution and consumption even further.
I don't understand why people want to live beyond their energy means and then start complaining when gas prices start rising.
I do not believe that enforced "conversion" is either attainable or desirable. One can however bring in positive discrimination - make things easier for those cycling for example and provide tax reliefs. In many places in continental Europe for example, traffic is arranged in a far more bicycle-friendly fashion than here in Ireland (not American, sorry to blow out your prejudices, although we do betray our position as the nearest country in Europe to the US, excluding Iceland). A dose of reality is needed h
in an alternative universe (Score:4, Insightful)
where suburbs never developed, where cities remained small and compact, where we retained strong investment in our national rail and trolley infrastructure, you would have something valid to say about biking
but the automobile came and completely transformed our communities and how we live our lives. for the better? for the worse? doesn't matter. it's what happened. irreversibly
so now we are tasked with getting off oil and coal in the least painful way possible
oh sure, people will start biking more if gas goes to say, $100 gallon. but this is not an option for many people: the old, the out of shape, those who live in places that are very hot or cold, places that are very hilly, those who live 30 miles from their job, etc. that which works for the 25 year old marathon runner is not an option for most of us
of course the next step then is to see development patterns abandon the far flung suburbs model if energy sources remain difficult. but changing our lifestyles will take decades. it took decades to put us all in the suburbs, dependent on the car
but we just aren't going to abaondon the suburbs. people like their big houses, they don't like small cramped apartments. what will happen instead is people will simply use electric cars, and continue living in the suburbs. because when faced with the choice between:
1. abandoning the big house in the suburbs for a small city apartment and a bike on cold rainy days/ hot stifling days
2. using an electric car instead
people are going to pick #2, 99.9999% of the time
your doomsday scenario of everyone on bikes is just not going to happen. its not beijing, 1970. sorry to burst your fantasy bubble
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not much, if you have to quit your job in order to tend to it, in which case you're going to starve to death sooner or later because you can't afford to buy the other 50% of your food.
Fresh veggies to supplement your diet during the growing season doesn't take up much time or space at all, though. A good product (which is not difficult to build on your own if you're so inclined) is EarthBox [earthbox.com], a container with built-in watering and fertilizer. A couple
socialism is superior (Score:4, Insightful)
i suppose social darwinism is superior?
if a guy breaks his arm and is out of a job, what do you do? let him starve?
no, as a society you give him the healthcare he needs until he is back on his feet. are there those who abuse the system? welfare cheats? yes. so you find them and punish them
but because soomeone tries to cheat the system you'd prefer a world where society just lets people starve for the sake of setbacks in their life? setbacks we all suffer, including you?
where do you derive your support? are you very rich? do you have a lot of strong family ties? good for you! so someone who iw poor or has no family ties deserves to starve in the street? this is a superior moral or just plain logistical approach to the world in your eyes? really?
socialism is superior. wake up america
no, i'm pissed off (Score:3, Interesting)
the american model is broken. you compare our lifestyles and what we worry about with say, the danish. now the danish are taxed at ridiculous rates. but they also gets weeks off every year from work. they never have to worry about their healthcare. you ever fought with an hmo over what is covered or not?
to pay for healthcare on your own, you are putting yourself in effectively the same tax bracket as the danish anyways. so the only difference then is the danish get worry free peace of mind, and we get to fi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not Socialism, that's Communism. You can tell the difference by the level of authoritarianism.
Socialism is about the carrot (tax breaks or even funding for truly socially beneficial policies) while Communism tends to focus on the stick (criminal laws and industry seizures). One is meant to encourage and stimulate, the other is meant to control and force compliance. There is a difference, I promise.
As soon as people stop pretending that Socialism is Communism and Capitalism is Fascism (though eithe
Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis (Score:5, Interesting)
Salon has a story today on Obama's pick to solve the energy crisis [salon.com]:
Re:Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis (Score:5, Interesting)
And hey, here's more. I'm just 8 minutes into this talk and I'm already on his side.
Steve Chu: A New Energy Program [fora.tv]
Re:Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis (Score:5, Insightful)
Environmentalists and climate change activists are understandably delighted. Consider this: For eight years the United States has boasted an Energy Department that for all intents and purposes was a subsidiary of the U.S. oil industry. Now, should he be confirmed, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who specializes in climate change and renewable energy and already knows how to run a decent-size bureaucracy is going to be in charge of realizing Obama's bold promises to lead the United States toward an energy-sustainable future. Symbolically speaking, one would be hard put to draw a sharper contrast between the Bush and Obama eras than what is achieved by this single appointment.
Try to put aside your prejudices and look at the actual facts on the ground.
If one were to draw a break between Secretaries of Energy, it ought to be drawn in 2004.
The Secretaries under Clinton and Bush's first term -- namely, Hazel O'Leary, Federico Pena, Bill Richardson, and Spencer Abraham -- were essentially a bunch of politicians and lawyers. They had little or no scientific or engineering background, and showed little interest in any matters far beyond politics or big business.
But the current Secretary of Energy, Sam Bodman, was a professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT. As a chemical engineer, his work had much to do with the practical side of energy technology. He's done a good job during the last four years.
Steven Chu is a Nobel prize winning physicist whose best known work is a technique for the supercooling of gases. As Director of LBNL, he must also have picked up quite a lot of administrative experience and political savvy.
They are both much more qualified and capable than their pre-2004 predecessors.
Re:Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis (Score:4, Informative)
the current Secretary of Energy, Sam Bodman, was a professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT. As a chemical engineer, his work had much to do with the practical side of energy technology. He's done a good job during the last four years.
I agree; Bodman is no dummy. But practically speaking, he's spent very little time working in science, and almost all of that before 1970. From 1971-2004, he was working in finance - heck, he did a stint as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury! It's good to be well-rounded and all that, of course...
Re:Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis (Score:5, Informative)
Note that national labs didn't have anything like the focus on renewable energy that Chu created at LBL until he did that a few years ago. This man is a very effective politician, a great scientist, and a real visionary.
Chu probably has political skills... (Score:5, Insightful)
Chu must have reasonable political skills, as he the director of the Berkeley Lab, an organization with 4000 people and a budget of half a billion. The management of a scientific organization of this nature is usually quite challenging, if only because many of the people employed by it are (necessarily) independent-minded and headstrong. There is more back-stabbing in academic labs than in Washington DC.
Putting a scientist in charge of energy policy is a good idea. A factually justified, realistic energy policy is urgently needed.
Besides, during the last few years people in the public research departments have been demoralized by a political leadership that made it clearly felt that it couldn't care less about scientific data and factual reality. The DoE needs a leader who has the confidence of its staff. Chu could be that leader.
Entitlement (Score:3, Interesting)
Some are worried that Chu is not politically savvy enough
Politically savvy people don't make good politicians or bureaucrats, but unfortunately that's what they usually become.
Let's hope this is an appointment and not a popularity contest. If he's smart and he has the entitlement to succeed then things may go well.
Great news (Score:4, Informative)
This is great news coming from an administration that chooses people based on competence rather then connections and theocratic similarities.
The current buddy-buddy system got the US in the biggest hole in over 3 decades ( we may even have to go back a century ).
I admit I don't know too much about the apointee but winning a Nobel in Physics is not a small feat and indicates a factual based personality, which is exactly what we MUST have right now, and something that we always should have in any higher position.
There is hope ...
Re:Great news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great news (Score:5, Insightful)
When I look at his appointments so far, I see three extremely respected economists, an absolutely superb and forward thinking Defense Secretary, a Nobel laureate for Energy, a woman with international recognition and appeal for State, a HHS secretary with a record of working for universal health care, and a tough bastard as CoS to push the agenda through. That's what I want.
I don't know what change you were looking for, but I'm happy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Great news (Score:4, Insightful)
So what you really want is the illusion of change. You want to see new faces, but don't care what actually gets accomplished. As for me, I want competent people who know how to get things done. I want action to meet the serious challenges this country faces.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But given the record high approval ratings we've seen for the Obama transition, I'd say most Americans see things my way.
It's Frinktastic (Score:5, Funny)
I'm worried... (Score:4, Funny)
Obama has impressed me and I hope he keeps going. I am worried, I just know Rod Sterling is waiting to spring the gotcha on everybody and that Twilight Zone music will crank up.
Al Gore would have been a better pick (Score:4, Insightful)
He also has a Nobel prize and has become a moral authority on climate change and energy ever since his film, "Inconvenient Truth." He has deep experience in government and has done extensive thinking about energy and environmental policy. In short, he both knows what he's talking about and can get things done.
Perhaps Chu has that, too, but his lack of name recognition will constrain his effectiveness.
Re:Al Gore would have been a better pick (Score:5, Insightful)
He also has a Nobel prize and has become a moral authority on climate change and energy
I saw Al Gore speak less than 2 hours ago (at Polska Akademii Nauk, introducing a presentation by Wieslaw Maslowski, an expert on the arctic ice cap) and during his remarks, he repeatedly pointed out that although he's worked to improve his understanding of things, he is a layman. Yes, he has a Nobel prize - but it's the Peace prize, not one in the sciences. That makes him a moral authority, but not a scientific authority, as he isn't a scientist.
There is no doubt in my mind that he's a brilliant politician and policy guy, and great at raising public awareness, but I'm sure all the scientists at the numerous Department of Energy labs will be happier with Chu in charge.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He would possibly have been a better pick, but he didn't want the position.
The short list (Score:4, Funny)
Nobel in science STRONGLY implies polit. savvy (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, has anyone on this forum ever talked to Nobel Laureates in any sciences? Or read about them?
The vast majority (I'd ballpark it at 80% from completely non-scientific, anecdotal experience) of Nobel Prize winners IN SCIENCE are ego-driven megalomaniacs that are addicted to prestige and influence (since salary rarely goes into 7 digits for professors, its rarely the largest motivator). As such, they've dedicated their lives to feeding their addiction, working their way up from assistant professor to Director of [Weighty Gov. Funding Cash Cow], and navigating the political landscape comes as easily as breathing.
This is no surprise. In nearly any field, there are many more workers whose merit-based achievement qualifies them for advancement than open positions for advancement, so its the self-promoters who actually land the boss's job. Sometimes the value of the work is so strong it outweighs political maneuvering, but its the exception more than the rule. The fact is, every year there are a very limited number of Nobels to hand out, and MANY researchers who have done science of a caliber to deserve them.
The fact that Chu has a Nobel AND is a Director of a Gov. Cash Cow should indicate strongly enough his political experience. The only question remaining is whether he can transplant himself into a wholly new network of players in the politic game.
P.S. I've met Chu. He's a nice guy, and from my inexperienced scientist viewpoint, he's got what it takes to play with the big boys in Washington.
Re:What is an energy secretary? (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_Energy [wikipedia.org]
Jesus 2.0? (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably somewhere in China or India.
Half of the world is there - statistically that is where the second coming should take place.
Re:Jesus 2.0? (Score:5, Funny)