Obama chooses Nobel laureate physicist as energy secretary

US President-elect Barack Obama announced on December 15 his choice, the Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Chu as his energy secretary to head the Energy Department.

Chu, 60, who is currently the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, would be the first Asian-American to lead the department.

His 1985 work on laser trapping of atoms at ultra-low temperatures of a millionth degree above absolute zero, led to his being a co-winner of the Nobel Prize in physics in 1997. That seminal work, together with other techniques like magnetic cooling, laid the foundation for achieving one of the holy grails of statistical physics in 1995; the so-called Bose-Einstein condensation which demonstrates a new form of matter.

The phenomenon was predicted by none other than the great physicist Albert Einstein and then-young Indian physicist S. N. Bose in 1926. Those who achieved the goal in 1995 were awarded the Nobel Prize in 2001.

But will he make a good energy secretary?

Chu is no dyed-in-the-wool, ivory-tower type physicist. He is also one of America’s effective advocates for scientific solutions to global warming and the need for carbon-neutral renewable sources of energy. In this regard, he fits perfectly well into Obama’s green energy agenda which the latter has eloquently espoused during the heated electoral campaign. The new presidency aims for a low-carbon society by building more wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and hydro facilities.

Obama understands that crafting a viable energy policy could make or break his presidency. He also understands that the process is complex and requires the brightest minds to help him steer his energy ship to the right direction. His choice of Chu reflects the importance he gives to energy issues.

In his numerous forays around the globe, Chu has delivered a consistent message centered on “stronger storms, shrinking glaciers, prolonged droughts and rising sea levels” in apparent reference to the dire consequences of global warming.

Since assuming the directorship of Berkeley Lab in August, 2004, Chu has marshaled the Laboratory’s considerable scientific resources on energy security and global climate change, the production of new fuels and electricity from sunlight through non-food plant materials and artificial photosynthesis, energy-efficient technologies and climate science.

University of California Chancellor Robert Birgeneau who has known Chu for decades has this to say about the character of the man: “Steve Chu has been relentless about addressing the technical challenges of renewable energy in a deep way. We will now have an energy policy that can mean the U.S. will have a chance of obtaining energy self-sufficiency through new technology.”

Among other things, Chu was credited with helping establish the Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI), a $135 million DOE-funded bioenergy research center and the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI), which was bankrolled by a $ 500 million grant from British Petroleum.

“Steve Chu has been an incredible visionary and true leader, particularly in the area of energy,” said Jay Keasling, who heads JBEI. “Now the country and the world will benefit from that vision and leadership."

He will be missing the ensconced academic life. But LBL’s loss will be America’s gain when the physicist-energy advocate brings his scientific talent, vision and passion for energy and the environment into the highest chambers of national energy policy.

How we wish that such inspired choice to head a very important government agency would be translated to our local situation!
_____
Note added, December 19, 2008: The papers reported today that the powerful senate Commission on Appointments bypassed the confirmation of Department of Energy Secretary Angelo Reyes and Department of the Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary Lito Atienza along with three other cabinet members. The most vocal critics of Reyes are energy committee chairperson Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Senator Jinggoy Estrada, whose father was ousted in 2001 and under which Reyes served as Army Chief of Staff. Defensor-Santiago simply said that Reyes is unfit to be an energy secretary.

Compact fluorescent lamps: Green or clean?

When the Department of Energy (DOE) recently launched its Palit Ilaw program which essentially enjoins government offices and projects to replace incandescent lamps and other energy-hungry lighting fixtures with compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), there was hardly any ripple of approval even from energy efficiency campaigners or consumer advocates.

This is not really surprising because advocating a support for such a move from our politicians would hardly land them in front of the klieglights of publicity. For consumer advocates it would hardly endear them to the masses who would be asked to replace their dirt-cheap incandescent lamps with expensive compact fluorescent lamps. The masses who are desperately trying to make both ends meet on a month-to-month, or even day-to-day basis wouldn’t have the time or the wherewithal to figure out the long-term economic benefits of the move.

 The environmental crusaders on the other hand are somewhat split. The global warming enthusiasts embrace it like a teddy bear, for they have already calculated the amount of carbon dioxide that would be displaced from emissions by fuel-based generators. The ultra-pure green advocates while not openly declaring opposition, snickered when in the course of promoting Al Gore’s opus An Inconvenient Truth, supporters were asked to buy compact fluorescent lamps to replace their incandescent lamps.

 They have a point.

 CFLs do contain the toxic element mercury, albeit in milligram amounts. The lamp works by exciting mercury atoms to generate UV light. The light in turn strikes at the phosphor coating which gives off the white light we enjoy. Without mercury, there is no light.

 Other green campaigners stretch the anti-stance by arguing that disposal of the used CFLs poses environmental hazards and even pointing out that the transport of these mercury-containing lamps emit greenhouse gases (GHG).

 The latter is probably stretching the argument too much. We have been using millions of standard linear or circular fluorescent lamps, and CFLs are no different. There will always be some accidents due to breakage and mercury will be spilled and may actually pose some hazards. But simple precautions like not handling the broken glasses containing phosphor and immediate ventilation of the contaminated area should eliminate most of the danger.

 There are other household items that contain more mercury such as the common glass thermometer, sphygmomanometer and pressure gauges that have escaped scrutiny from our dear green watchers

 Nothing is aseptically clean or immaculately green, whether it is baby products or energy sources. It is just a matter of degree how much dirt or inconvenience we accept or tolerate.

 Even the most accepted clean energy sources have their detractors.

 A nuclear renaissance has not taken hold mainly because of the dim memories of Three-Mile Island near-disaster and the catastrophic Chernobyl accident. But the former was avoidable while the latter used  Soviet-era safety standards and obsolete technology. Some environmental activists even prefer nuclear over fossil fuels power sources.

 Even the concern of nuclear waste disposal is probably overblown when the current “temporary” storage could pass the most stringent safety standards ever. So are the new-generation designs of reactors.

 About the only serious objection of nuclear power is nuclear proliferation in this age of Al Qaeda.

 Geothermal is also a favorite target practice of environmental activists. Sure the wells emit some hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide most of which are dissipated through or absorbed by the foliage and soil. Literally along the same breath, the same critics daily inhale from far more dangerous gas emissions from ill-tuned up car engines, motor cabs and diesel-gushing jeepneys.

 Well-meaning opposition to geothermal points to some disturbance to vegetation when roads are made and pads are prepared, forgetting the fact that coal mining strips down whole forests and mountains—not in China, or Indonesia but in the most advance country on earth, the United States.

 They also point to disturbance to forest dwellers. In the meantime, the rare bats within the Bacman geothermal reservation have not left the area and continue to doze off during the day while the power plants churn electrical power. The snakes and monkeys in Kidapawan have not yet attacked the engineers manning the geothermal plant as an act of environmental revenge.

 Even the cleanest of them all—wind power—have critics. Some complain about the extra decibels these turbines are generating completely forgetting that the levels are far lower than a normal traffic. And if some groups object to these structures because some rare migratory bird species from Siberia are disoriented by the low frequency humming—what shall we put up?

 SO would, or wouldn’t you shift to CFLs?

The alternative to the modern conveniences is a nomadic life or cave-dwelling. Just be sure to know enough taxonomy to avoid eating rare and protected root crops and using natural herbs listed as endangered by WWF.