U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-04-25/us-energy-secretary-steven-chu
With gas prices fluctuating around $4, political debate is heating up over reducing the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. The president has called for one-third less oil imports in the next decade. House Republicans have proposed measures to expand and expedite offshore oil and gas drilling. U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu joins us to describe new programs to develop clean technologies, speed the roll-out of electric vehicles and help borrowers make energy-efficient home improvements. The Nobel Prize-winning scientist also talks about his mission to stop global climate change.
Guests
Steven Chu
U.S. secretary of energy
Related Video
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu talks to Diane Rehm about the rise in oil prices and President Obama’s decision to restore offshore drilling.
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu talks to Diane Rehm about fracking and what it means in terms of clean energy.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Dr. Chu is doing a fantastic job on renewable energy in the administration; I only wish there were more people like him.
Can Dr. Chu give an update on the status of the PACE program? PACE stands for Property Assessed Clean Energy, and it was a DOE program in which homeowners could borrow money from their local city or county to finance clean energy improvements on their homes, and pay the loan back in their property taxes.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who at one time were flat on their backs and required a taxpayer bailout to remain solvent) have essentially killed PACE by refusing to allow a PACE loan to have senior lien priority on a mortgage.
If PACE were allowed to work, millions of skilled jobs would be created in manufacturing and construction. Can't the President just solve this with a phone call to Fannie and Freddie?
Just behind the large sums from financial institutions came contributions from some of the largest energy utilities operating and planning nuclear plants in President Obama's first campaign. As a sub-atomic physicist associated with our national research labs Dr. Chu seemed the exact sort these funders would prefer to run the DOE. Duke Energy has proposed to underwrite the 2012 Democratic Convention in Charlotte in the sum of one half billion. Will Dr. Chu concede that we live in a time of corporate consensus and that the time of procedural democracy has passed?
I am a longtime anti-nuclear activist, but I hate to appear ignorant about proposed new nuclear technologies. Such knowledge is crucial for public access considering the Fukushima accident and the fact that uranium mining is far past peak. Earth Policy Institute had already surmised that funding and insurance for conventional American nuclear plants makes them unlikely. If anyone should be able to explain which new methods for electric generation from refined isotopes are about ready to be implemented and how these work, and how they are different from the present day steam turbine designs it would be Steven Chu.
Could he please don his physicist professor hat and share with us what is coming. He might also speak briefly about his sucrose economy model which is a brilliant piece of alternative thinking. (Sugar cane may be the most efficient converter of solar energy in the natural world.)
If there is time could he also discuss the costs involved in decommissioning present day nuclear plants and why cooling pond spent fuel is not being transferred to dry cask storage by American utilities. Also, how will the Germans close their reactors?
rumpole: I have no idea if you're only a homeowner wanting assistance in upgrading your climate control or a provider of energy products or someone who buys distressed properties.
PACE seems problematic at a time when county and city budgets are so strained and under such contention. I wouldn't blame Fanny and Freddie who ate billions in bad loans from banks and others. Right now counties and cities are selling tax liens to speculating corporations which are often offshore and owned by our worst big banks. They pile high interest onto small bills and soon foreclose. I would say anyone foolish enough to borrow local government money is taking a big chance. When you say a loan is made "senior" this means it must be paid first, so that makes me suspect your motives. Imagine losing your home over a roll of insulation. Energy conservation through upgrades is a good thing that should be available through grants and discounts and not predatory lending. rumpole might want to ask Steven Chu his estimate on potential energy savings from conservation and energy upgrades in private residences. I think PACE is a goner.
Dr. Chu: Please explain the environmental benefits of the US government's position on corn-based ethanol, considering the crops complete lifecycle, and especially as it concerns sugar cane-based ethanol. Is this benefit sufficient to offset the apparent effect on general grain prices?
For many years I have thought we should create a "Manhatten Project" for renewable fuels. I think that the DOE would be the natural leader on this and I wonder if Dr. Chu could comment on the possibility of taking the top 5 or 10 ideas into a project of this nature and really making a push to develop the technologies required to accomplish energy independence. Thanks!
Interesting, we know of Geothermal power's ability to drastically lower energy cost through out the U.S. yet our Government has done next to Nothing, aside from assisting with a paltry allowance, to promote this energy savings.
Our Government has been run by oil lobbyist filling the pockets of our Legislatures since day one and until this stops, we will never get off our dependance of foreign oil.
I don't blame the oil companies....I blame our Government.
Government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.
Is there going to be an investigation into the speculators. These are the people who are driving the prices upwards despite there is no major shortage. Libya is an issue but my understanding is that it only provided 2.1 million barrels a day which is just under 2% (1.88%) of the needs for a day for the world. Oil prices have gone up much more than that. This is where the gouging is occurring
Considering who funded Chu's work that earned him the Noble Prize, how unbiased is he?
Please ask Secretary Chu to briefly explain the work that earned hims a Nobel Prize in physics. How that work was related to the nuclear industry. Did British Petroleum fund his work. ? If so, does he think that money influenced his views on the BP oil spill, off-shore drilling? How unbiased is his judgment about continued support of the nuclear industry?
Thank you.
Would it be implausible to have a national policy to install solar panels on all existing rooftops of a certain size or larger before any whispers the words nuclear or "clean" coal?
If you can find an unbiased person in government, at any time in history, please let me know. There are none and never will be one. Dr. Chu more likely to work around his biases due to his training
Dr. Chu, I am very interested in solving our energy problem. #1 we have to learn to conserve #2 we have to use all our means, like water, solar and wind. #3 Why can we not have the energy companies (at their expense), place solarpanels or /and wind turbins on as many homes and businesses as possible and sell the power to the grid. If you do so you can by the energy back at a much lower rate. This would be a win/win for everybody. It would be a lot cheaper for the Electric companies, because they do not have to build new plants, with years of approval time and exaggerated cost. It is no cost to the businesses and homeowners, exept the use of the roofs or yards. My home is in Dallas and we have more sun and wind than we can handle. I would love to be the first customer.
I am a fan of Public Radio and have been a member since it's inception. Thank you for listening. Gerda Reed
I was just listening to Diane list the terrible consequences of fracking - e.g. pollution of drinking water -- with who knows what effects on people's health - and what strikes me is the guest's utter lack of urgency in regard to this and similar issues. We will consult with the industry, and perhaps they will oblige with better practices, anyway, it's probably just few bad apples. No. This is what industry does when the government is as apathetic as this guest and his boss are over the consequences of "bad" i.e. criminal, practices on the livelihood and health of ordinary people.
Diane,
You did not get an answer on mountaintop mining!
Dr Chu is another sell out to big oil and gas and nuclear.
Listen to him claiming fracking can be clean, oil is just waiting to be pulled out of American lands to fill our needs, and he just avoids the pollution cost of coal altogether. Can't wait to hear how safe nuclear is according to him.
Future generations will look back and realize this was the last best time to stop our addictions to fossil fuels which are destroying our planet and our atmosphere.
Your name Dr Chu will be on the list of enemies against mankind and the earth.
Could Dr. Chu Comment on the long term climate warming effect of fracking vs. coal, oil, etc. in view of the methane gas released in the process.
I am wondering specifically what subsidies that oil companies get.
Are these normal business expenses that every business has or are they specific to oil and gas companies?
I think it is inappropriate for Diane to be asking Secretary Chu questions regarding his training as a scientist tending to disqualify him as a political appointee in the Obama cabinet. I think this country needs more people of the scientific stature of Dr. Chu in the central positions of the US government to provide the depth of understanding and the ability to explain technical issues to the president and to the country. I think Diane's questioning is based on a misinformed, prejudiced and ignorant public. I wish she would rise above that fray and bring the dialog up to a higher level.
The abundant element, thorium, is reputed to have more energy than fossil fuels and uranium combined, and it can be used to generate energy from both combustion as well as a more benign form of nuclear fission. Your office has mentioned Thorium as an energy strategy. Would you please elaborate on the potential for its development and on the Administration's plans to support this.
What about conservation? 55 miles per hour on the interstates would seem to be in order here. Didn't it work during the gas shortage of the 70's?
The license of operating the largest nuclear power plant in the U.S. at Palo Verde, Wintersburg, AZ, has just been extended for another 20 years. The plant has been operating reactors for about 25 years. Another 20 years of service will only add to the radiation wear of reactor components, increasing the risk of unanticipated incidents with potentially severe consequences like we witness now with the 40-year old reactors at Fukushima, particularly because spent fuel is stored near the reactors with no solution of end storage in sight. The current experience in Japan teaches us that cheap nuclear energy now may come at high future cost attached:
http://brainmindinst.blogspot.com/2011/03/ionizing-radiation-mind.html
Two observations about the oil market: retail gasoline prices can rise 20 or 30 cents a gallon over a day or two, then drop over gradually over a week. Diesel is about 50 cents more a gallon than gasoline, but does not show the same volatility, even if gasoline is within 10 cents a gallon - doesn't diesel come out of the oil that gasoline?
Last year or so, gold rose drastically in price, yet supposedly one could find bargains in jewelry stores by buying old stock - did they not see how gasoline markets raise prices on old stock too?
Diane is using current weather to confirm the negative effects of global warming. What does she make of the dropoff in hurricane incidence the last 4 seasons?
Thousands of oil and natural gas wells are drilled and operated every year, and we've got less than a hand-full of incidents related to "frac"-ing chemicals. The same emotion seems to have overtaken the nuclear debate as well. Thousands of reactors are operating everyday without incident. Fukushima hasn't claimed a single life.
Wow, the whole BP thing was a red herring! What a waste of our time! Look at the questions above that were ignored so we could chase that one down.
Diane's role is to question public officials (servants?).
She does so in a respectful way.
I am a critic of energy corporations and fear climate change.
Steven Chu's responses to Diane's questions, candid and straightforward if not complete, have actually boosted my confidence in his competence as DOE secretary. He has rebutted several rumors about his career.
Thank you for an excellent informative interview DRShow and Dr. Chu.
This in no way should imply that our country is not in an energy crisis, or that our corporate extractors are not causing several environmental catastrophes.
In the Washington Post analysis of the financial crises, there was an April 2010 article by David Cho titled “Regulator seeks to rein in energy market trading by big Wall Street firms”. It documented how a single equity firm: “United States Oil Fund” was able to gain rights to nearly a quarter of all oil deliveries for a month. An influx of Wall Street money caused violent price swings between $34 and $147 per barrel of crude oil. “Wall Street banks… discovered that they could trade these contracts like financial securities and make money without ever taking delivery of the goods”
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is America’s financial cops on the beat, whose job is to monitor and regulate trading. A weak agency head and constant attacks on the agency by lobbyists and their congressmen intent on cutting its budget for regulators is enabling energy speculation in derivatives and swaps and driving up the price of oil: again.
Wall Street should not have the ability to manipulate the price of oil, wheat and other commodities. That gouges Consumers and hurts legitimate businesses such as Airlines and Farming companies that need stable prices. When Gasoline reached $4~5/gallon at the Pump in 2008 it was not because of supply and demand; it was Energy derivative speculation of Banks and Investment Funds. Here they go again: Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley. Follow the money, including the nifty 40% across the board profits for oil industry giants while paying $0 in federal taxes to support national security.
Dr. Chu made reference to the promise of electric cars. In all the discussion I have heard of electric cars, I have heard nothing regarding the source of the energy to be used to recharge the batteries. If we continue to use coal to generate electricity for our national grid, then our "clean" electric cars are really simply coal-powered transportation. I would love to hear how the use of such cars dovetails with plans for generating clean, sustainable electricity nationwide.
Obama campaigns on clean energy, gives us off shore oil drilling opened up off the east coast, millions of acres of land open gas and oil drilling.
Opening of the Delaware water gap basin to hydraulic fracking which will pollute water for around 35 million people in the region.
Bought and paid for regulators in the interior department, see deep water drilling.
Continuation of subsidies to the tune of 40 billion or more (a lot more if you count the 0 paid in taxes by the big oil companies on their profits made in America)
Continuation of subsidies for ethanol which is an insane way to get fuel. (Iowa caucuses anyone?)
Billions to nuclear energy (Exelon and Rahm Rahm Emanuel anyone?)
Where are the wind turbines Obama? Oh, forgot, your stimulus gave 90% of the money that went into wind turbines to companies from China.
Where are the solar panels Obama?
Oh forgot, your good friend GE makes those in China and pays no taxes in the US but in fact gets 3.2 billion back from us taxpayers.
Where is the clean coal Obama?
Oh forgot, that's just a PR campaign. The reality is coal has polluted the lakes of all 48 states so much you can't eat the fish because of the mercury. Not to mention the heavy metals being dumped into our waters as they "scrub" the coal's emissions.
The Apollo Project?
It's the front to get environmentalists, parents, young people, people with a brain in their heads to vote for Obama.
We are not fooled anymore Obama.
You are the man for the oil, the gas, the coal and the nuclear industry.
Go get your votes from the crazy destruction Right Wing who think Jesus will save them. In the meantime Jesus wants them to drive their SUV to WALMART.
hainc: Only one fracking accident in an aquifer, and only one nuclear accident in a region is required to permanently ruin people's lives and livelihoods, and possibly kill them. You may be too young to have heard of Murphy's Law: What can happen, eventually will happen. Why do you argue from illogical generalities when you know that victims experience specifics? Don't you have a place of residence and a means of earning a living? Are you rootless and without affinities like a global corporation? Yep, they operate 24/7 and more incidents are near.
As Chu noted, all energy sources involve risk including chemical leaching from thin-film solar installations, greenhouse gas and toxic chemical emmissions from geothermal plants, wind turbines involve noise pollution and negative effects on migratory bird populations, ecosystem impacts of tidal turbines ...
Within the power of the DOE Dr. Chu is doing an enviable job funding oil replacement and renewable energy technologies and seeking partnerships with the Department of Defense and private industry for clean energy solutions. Still, many billions are being wasted on so called clean coal.
America uses 25% of the world’s oil but has only 2% of it. No amount of domestic drilling (onshore and offshore) will adjust that number more than a single percentage point on the price of oil on world markets as America’s oil is neither sweet or light. More domestic drilling will have an adverse effect on environmental and marine resources and endanger multi-billion dollar fishing and tourism industries. What price is the Gulf Coast paying for the lost generations of jumbo shrimp, oyster, crab, lobster, crawfish and other crustacean fishing industries?
What will have the greatest effect on creating USA jobs and reducing USA dependence on Oil, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and OPEC is “Using a Lot Less” and replacing oil with domestic Biofuels and Cellulosic Ethanol production.
With the aging U.S. nuclear fleet and new 1.6 Gigawatt (GW) reactors costing $10 billion, 16 GW of nuclear costs over $100 billion not counting the toxic waste, public liability, and decommission cost of $5~$10 billion each. For $100 billion you can buy 30~40 GW of offshore wind w/o nuclear toxic waste liability and build it in a fraction of the time.
According to the United States National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), the Atlantic States would generate $200 billion in new economic activity and create more than 43,000 permanent, high-paying jobs if 54 GW of the 212.98 GW of available offshore wind resources were utilized.
The first detailed cost estimate for Nuclear federal loan guarantees, filed by Florida Power & Light (FPL) for a large nuclear plant off the Florida Keys, came in at $12 billion to $18 billion. Progress Energy announced a $17 billion plan for a similar Florida plant. Georgia’s Vogtle’ 1 & 2 reactor construction costs were $19 Billion, not counting fuel and nuclear waste or for plant decommissioning which is estimated at $5 billion ($10 billion for Japans failed reactors). Current Old reactors are having their permits constantly renewed as the waste is stored onsite at 400% over designed capacity.