Secretary of Energy Chu gave an interview at the EIA convention which was broadcast on CSPAN yesterday. He gave a general outline of where the administration plans to go and how they describe their energy policy. The turning the Titanic (or the Aircraft Carrier) metaphor seems to be the Administration analogy of choice. There does seem to be a clear policy emerging.
Takeaways
- It sure is nice to have scientifically literate people who give answers with real grounding. Even if I do not agree on all points. What a change from the "we need oil" days.
- Conservation and efficiency are number one priorities
- Increased Renewable is basically a given, grid improvements to help are the real priority.
- Cap and Trade lessons have been learned from Europe
- New Nuclear is very much on the table
Steven Chu talked research and clearly indicated the number one priority in energy for the Administration: efficiency. It was an ok interview, one where the answers were actually more on point than the questions in some cases. A change from the past. Here are some highlights as I jotted them. Hopefully someone who was there will have more.
Scientific research into efficiency in building, distribution systems and sources were stressed. The common metaphor was turning an ocean liner. Chu used an example I am sure he will use again: The increase in efficiency in refrigerators over the last 30 years has saved more power than all the solar and wind power that has been produced. He is calling for a 3x improvement in building efficiency. Since buildings use 40% of power he is looking at 30% decrease in power usage (HVAC, electricity for lights, monitoring, etc.) Wants to invest in research in this area and get private sector involvement by creating incentives to deploy this.
Thinks cap and trade might work if we learn to not give too many free and cheap permits. Learn from Europe in other words. He also sounded like he thinks there will be negotiations and buffers built in. Sounded like he thinks there will be a fight here, although he said nothing overtly.
Smart distribution networks will be key to the future electrical grid. His analogy here was to the Interstate system. We need to think of the grid a little more top down nationally then as a collection of regional jigsaw pieces that don't really fit together as things are now. Wind, Solar, geothermal will drive this if they are to really contribute on a significant scale. That is at the 30 or 40% or greater scale. He did say Solar power in all its forms will dominate energy generation in 100 years. (He included Wind direct Solar, biofuels, etc in Solar).
Nuclear is on the table. He was plugging research and deployment. He didn't talk specifics , or I missed it, but he was definitely positive.
He does not know what the "major " source of energy will be in 30 years but the question was badly put. What if there isn't a single major source of power then, as is most likely?
Anyway, I thought the interview was slightly odd in one sense. The audience was at an EIA conference, that is, experts and very interested people. The interviewer (from Newsweek) was not an expert or played to be a non-expert, and the answers were aimed more at the general public. Seemed a mismatch. It is obvious that the big themes of efficiency and electric distribution (as opposed to oil) seem to be primary right now. It also seemed to me that this policy isn't fully baked. I expect more in the future.