Steven Chu at the 2009 EIA Energy Conference

Because I am terribly snowed under, I am going to provide the summaries in pieces. But there are some other options if you want immediate gratification on all of the sessions. Professor Dave Summers – aka former editor ‘Heading Out’ at The Oil Drum – has several updates posted at Bit Tooth Energy. Neal Rauhauser, who is founder of the Stranded Wind Initiative, also published a summary over at Daily Kos. Eventually, I believe all of the presentations will be available as was the case for the 2008 Energy Conference.

Day 1 – Steven Chu Speech

I was quite looking forward to hearing from Energy Secretary Steven Chu, so I grabbed a seat up front. Chu started off by saying the DOE is the biggest source of science funding within the government, and that science and technology absolutely must solve the energy issue. The major thrust of his speech was that we must rein in carbon emissions to avoid a climate catastrophe, but he primarily focused on electricity. Chu correctly noted that imported oil has become a huge drain on the economy and that recessions typically follow oil price spikes, but there was otherwise scarce mention of liquid fuels. As Professor Summers points out in his summaries, the speech followed pretty closely a speech that Chu gave two years ago. In fact, he used quite a few of the same slides.

The first step that we need to take, according to Chu, is to make a big investment in energy efficiency. He would also like to double alternative energy production in 3 years, but again the talk was centered around electricity. Chu noted that solar PV will play a major – if not the major – role in energy 100 years from now. He also noted that we really need cheap solar cells with polymer backing. Of course most of our polymers are oil-derived, which is just another example of how we take for granted the role that cheap oil plays in enabling some of these renewable technologies.

When he did talk about liquid fuels, he discussed some DOE programs in which bacteria and yeast are feeding on sugars and producing gasoline and diesel. As I have noted before, I think production of fuels that can phase out of water is the right approach. This greatly minimizes the energy requirements for purification. It is technically very challenging, but there are some companies working on this approach.

Questions/comments were collected from the audience. I submitted a comment and two questions:

1. It seems ironic to me that the domestic oil and gas industry is being marginalized while at the same time you are pleased with OPEC for not cutting production. (What I was thinking but didn’t write: If you really want to see what it might be like to marginalize our own oil and gas industry, encourage OPEC to cut a couple more million barrels/day of production.)

2. Predict the year that cellulosic ethanol achieves true commercial viability. (I was really interested in his thoughts here, and whether he distinguished between gasification and true cellulosic ethanol).

3. What percentage of our transportation fuel will be biofuels in 2030? (Most projections show that it will still be overwhelmingly petroleum-based, and I wanted to see if he thought the same).

These questions were basically designed just to get a feel for whether I think his views are overly optimistic. However, he only took two questions from the audience:

1. What is most important – energy independence or CO2 reduction? Chu’s answer: He compared it to the game he played as a kid: Which would you rather be, blind or deaf? Of course they are both important, but I think the gist was that he considered the CO2 issue more pressing.

2. How does nuclear power fit into your plans? Chu’s answer: It must play an important role this century.

Following that, he exited out the back. I thought he had left the building, but when I stepped out to grab a cup of coffee I bumped into him. He had about 10 people lined up to shake his hand, so I passed on that opportunity. Maybe next time. But in an upcoming essay, I am going to address a theme that I think about often: What If I Am Wrong? It will essentially be about risk assessments (What If?), but I also want to pose the question to someone with Chu’s basic views, and ask about the consequences if he turns out to be badly wrong on some of his assumptions.

In the next essay, I will run through the rest of the conference by focusing on bits that I found interesting/odd/etc.

13 thoughts on “Steven Chu at the 2009 EIA Energy Conference”

  1. Energy is a huge topic for debaters and scientists because it plays such an important role in our lives and industries. It is because of this that kids working on science fair projects often turn to energy as their topic. It is great posts like this one that help students to understand how important energy is and how controversial current production and regulation strategies are.

  2. Rufus, what the EIA does well is provide energy statistics. They have a much spottier record at forecasting. I have said that to several EIA employees. One told me a couple of days ago when I pointed out that their oil forecasts were wrong year after year “Guilty as charged.”

    So if you are banking on that 40 billion gallons, history says you are going to be disappointed. Worse, if it influences policy decisions (as it is), a lot of people are going to be more than disappointed.

    RR

  3. I’m not banking on anything. I’m sure I’ll be long dead before we reach (if we ever do) 40 Billion Gallons/biofuels. It just matched, I thought, the subject of the post, EIA.

  4. Robert, was there any discussion of cogeneration and district heating? If energy efficiency is key, it seems insane to transfer the waste heat from thermal powerplants to air or water when it could be used for useful heating (or even cooling) purposes. Not all power plants are situated in places where this is feasible, of course, but many are or could be.

  5. …which is just another example of how we take for granted the role that cheap oil plays in enabling some of these renewable technologies.

    You certainly said a mouthful there. In fact, that dependency is far greater than most people imagine. And while you say “some” renewable technologies, which ones are not significantly dependent on oil and coal for their plant and equipment? Same goes for nuclear. Therefore the expansion of renewables and nuclear can only continue as long as we have two essential ingredients: cheap fossil fuels and plenty of credit.

  6. “But in an upcoming essay, I am going to address a theme that I think about often: What If I Am Wrong?”

    We are in the middle of “The Black Swan”. Have you read it?

  7. Robert, was there any discussion of cogeneration and district heating?

    David, I didn’t hear any cogen discussion. But I did miss some of the sessions, so it may have been covered. But I don’t see any mention of it on Dave Summers’ summaries either.

    RR

  8. Therefore the expansion of renewables and nuclear can only continue as long as we have two essential ingredients: cheap fossil fuels and plenty of credit.Well, there’s a mouth full of BS. Start by cutting the fuzz: what is cheap fossil fuels? How much is plenty of credit?

    Next explain why we need either. How on earth will we ever develop serious renewable energy if oil is only $50/bbl? At these low energy prices, we get more manipulation: corn ethanol and food-based biodiesel. Cheap talk about cellulosic ethanol. Or are you saying this is a Catch-22: no renewables with cheap fossil fuels and no renewables with expensive fossil fuels?

    We need expensive fossil fuels, if we are ever going to develop sensible options for renewables. We just don’t need to do it otherwise: that’s why we haven’t done it yet: why develop a product before there is a market for it?

    We get a ton of renewable fuels delivered free of charge at landfills all over the planet. Something that is likely to continue even if fossil fuels are expensive and credit scarse.

Comments are closed.