Cart (0)
business newsFuture of Energy Sector Unclear Under Secretary Chu
By
Oilprice.com Feb 07, 2011 2:45 pm
Many of Energy Secretary Steven Chu's visions are unsubstantiated and unrealistic.
PRINT
 |
|
Dr. Steven Chu is the energy secretary of the United States, a physicist, and a Nobel Laureate. Discover Magazine, in its latest issue (2011), selected what it called the "100 top stories of 2010," one of which was authored by Corey Powell, an editor of Discover whose main purpose was to verify Secretary Chu's green credentials.
Some important observations of the Econ 101 variety were missing from Secretary Chu's answers, which unfortunately prevents me from recommending the article to serious readers.
Powell began this Q&A with a reference to the Gulf Coast oil spill, asking how an accident of this magnitude could happen. I won't bother to discuss Secretary Chu's answer because both question and answer were irrelevant. Statistically, accidents of that type are unavoidable, and have always taken place. If we go back to World War II, we can look at the unnecessary invasion of Peleliu Island and the attack on Manila, the failure to clear the approaches to the port of Antwerp as soon as possible, and perhaps the worst blunder of all, which was adopting the Sherman as the main American battle tank. Compared to those "accidents'" the Gulf Coast tragedy was small beer.
For long-term energy investments, Secretary Chu pictures the US moving toward the electrification of personal vehicles. So do I, only I don't have a clue as to the details or how rapidly a large-scale electrification could be completed if deemed necessary. I therefore wonder if the secretary and his foot soldiers could provide us with the kind of information that we can use in our teaching and publications, and to do so as soon as possible -- assuming that they, unlike my good self, have examined this issue sufficiently to tell us something beyond public relations hype.
His thoughts on nuclear energy bother me somewhat, because he states that large reactors will cost $7 billion to $8 billion. I regard that estimate as completely and totally wrong, and suggest that he should have a talk with Anne Lauvergeon about her plans for her firm Areva, as well as what she knows about the new Chinese reactors. Evidence from the nuclear past and present leads me to insist that "large" reactors, whose construction is organized by competent managers, will soon cost a maximum of $5 billion. This is because the time span from ground break to grid power will be less than five years, and when the nuclear renaissance moves into full swing, perhaps much less.
"Future-gen" (in the form of zero-emission coal power plants) evidently plays a prominent role in Secretary Chu's vision of an optimal energy structure. It plays none whatsoever in mine however, and I never use the expression "future-gen" or listen to anyone discussing it. Carbon Capture and Sequestration (shortened to CCS) is an element in this activity, and the Swedish firm Vattenfall once made certain optimistic promises to the German government and newspaper readers concerning its efforts in that direction. Jeffrey Michel, an MIT graduate and energy consultant living in Germany, calls CCS a thermodynamic travesty, and remembering my own long and delightful study of thermodynamics and engineering economics causes me to say that Michel's judgement is much too mild.
A carbon-free United States in 2050 seems to be one of Secretary Chu's more abstract notions. Interestingly, a recent large energy meeting in Berlin was on the same wave length, where the emphasis was on solar and wind's place on the German energy scene in the same year. As far as I'm concerned, the German intentions are strictly off-the-wall, and in 2050 the German nuclear intensity will match or overmatch that in France. The nuclear equipment will be breeders, and I sincerely hope that the security problems associated with those reactors are solved the way that they should be solved, because if not somebody could be in a world of hurt.
Finally, Secretary Chu mentions that "there is no law of physics which states that the whole society can't benefit," and unlike the contention of Gordon Gekko (in the film Wall Street), he says that "there is no zero sum game here." It was really very decent of the secretary to inform us of his interest in the subject of game theory, because in a world of 9.5 billion souls (which is his prophecy for 2050) a complicated version (or extension) of the zero sum paradigm is going to be the order of the day, and there is very little -- or more realistically nothing -- that he or all the Nobel Prize winners in history can do about that.
Follow the markets all day every day with a FREE 14 day trial to Buzz & Banter. Over 30 professional traders share their ideas in real-time. Learn more.
No positions in stocks mentioned.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.
Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
