ADVERTISEMENT
Banner
 

eNews Park Forest

Tuesday
Feb 09th
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Latest Science and Environmental Chu: U.S. Can "Lead this New Industrial Revolution" in Clean Energy

Chu: U.S. Can "Lead this New Industrial Revolution" in Clean Energy

E-mail Print PDF
(0 votes, average 0 out of 5)

WASHINGTON, DC--(ENEWSPF)--July 22, 2009.  The Wednesday, July 22, 2009 edition of the Richmond Times-Dispatch includes the following opinion piece from Energy Secretary Steven Chu:

Cleaning Up: Energy and Climate Bill Will Boost the Economy

US ENERGY SECRETARY STEVEN CHU
Published: July 22, 2009

Over the next few months, Congress will decide on historic energy legislation that would create a generation of clean-energy jobs here in America, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and prevent the worst effects of climate change. I believe passing a strong energy and climate bill is the single most important step we could take to secure our economic prosperity and leave a healthier planet for future generations.

The status quo on energy is unsustainable. Today, we import about 60 percent of the oil we use, which is a huge drain on our economy and which weakens our security. When we burn fossil fuels for energy, we emit enormous amounts of greenhouse gases, which have already begun to change our climate. Climate experts predict that, on our current course, the planet could be around 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer by the end of this century. Such an increase could cause more frequent extreme weather events like droughts, heat waves, and hurricanes; rising sea levels and coastal erosion; serious agricultural losses and water shortages; and many other impacts in the United States.

There is no question that our energy habits need to change. The only question is whether we can turn this energy challenge into an energy opportunity.

Here is the future that I see. In the coming decades, the laws of supply and demand will almost certainly force oil and gas prices to rise. At the same time, the consequences of climate change will become so starkly apparent that continuing to emit carbon pollution at today's levels will be unacceptable. As a result, clean-energy technologies will be in high demand. Tens of thousands of windmills and solar panels will be manufactured and installed around the world. Consumers will demand more efficient vehicles, appliances, and buildings. There will be a race to produce the most advanced batteries and biofuels.

We must ask ourselves: How does the United States want to position itself in this future world? When the great hockey player Wayne Gretzky was asked how he positions himself on the ice, he replied: "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it's been." America should do the same.

President Obama is committed to signing comprehensive energy and climate legislation that will position America where the puck is going to be. The government can't solve this problem alone, but it can provide the right incentives for America's entrepreneurs, industries, and innovators to transform how we produce and use energy.

With the right incentives, the private sector will first seek out the lowest-hanging fruit. The quickest and easiest way to reduce our carbon emissions is to make our appliances, cars, homes and other buildings more efficient. In fact, energy efficiency is not just low-hanging fruit; it is fruit that is lying on the ground. And energy efficiency means money back in your pocket because you pay less on your energy bills.

A new energy bill will also make clean energy profitable. That will drive investments in wind and solar power and next generation biofuels from grasses and agricultural waste. It will spark American innovation in fuel efficient automobiles and the development of advanced batteries for electric vehicles. It will offer incentives to re-start our nuclear power industry and encourage utilities to invest in carbon capture and storage from coal-fired power plants.

Finally, the right clean energy incentives will start the great American research and innovation machine, which will lead to better and cheaper energy and climate solutions.

We can do all of this for a very affordable cost for America's families. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office found that the goals of the energy bill passed recently by the House of Representatives can be achieved for between 22 to 48 cents per day per household in 2020. That's about the price of a postage stamp per day. At the same time, the legislation would not increase the deficit.

We have talked for decades about the energy problem; it is time to solve it. By passing a comprehensive energy bill that spurs a revolution in clean technologies, the United States can position itself to lead this new industrial revolution. This is our opportunity to shape our energy destiny, and we must seize it.

Steven Chu is the Secretary of Energy.

 

Source: energy.gov

Comments
Only registered users can write comments!
NucEngineer  - The Science Is Not Settled (or being used) |Registered |2009-07-22 13:52:43
There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global
annual temperatures in the last 11 years. None of the computer models replicate
this fact. Anthropogenic (or man caused) global warming is not proved.



The global warming adherents base their argument of proof on more than 20
different computer models called general circulation models (also known as
global climate models or GCMs). Each computer model is composed of dozens of
mathematical equations representing known scientific laws, theories, and
hypotheses. Each equation has one or more constants. The constants associated
with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known
theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor
of 2 or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing
hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong. Then each of
these equations has to be weighted against each other for use in the computer
models, so that adds an additional variable (basically an educated guess) for
each law, theory, and hypothesis. This is where the models are tweaked to mimic
past climate measurements.



The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Following years of academic study of the known
physical laws and accepted theories, and after reviewing some data, come up with
a hypothesis to explain the data. (2) Develop a plan to obtain and analyze new
data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology
not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs
refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other
researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and
publication.



The output of the computer models run out nearly 90 years forward is considered
to be data, but it is not a measurement of a physical phenomenon. Also, there
is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the
hypotheses in the models are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this
method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated and
incorporated into the models. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.



The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated
outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if
temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in
such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says,
well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and
deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on
hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are
not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC
METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their
news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven
incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three
iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not
automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.

 
Cartika Hosting
ADVERTISEMENT
Governors State University, 1 University Parkway University Park, IL 60484
Mike Jordan State Farm Insurance, Park Forest, IL
DonnerHollen Construction, 307 Oswego, Park Forest, IL 60466
Blog directory
ADVERTISEMENT
Tower Cleaners
Bree Breedlove State Farm Insurance
Superior Cabinet & Window, 27 North Street, Park Forest, IL, 60466
wish-photography-wendy-heise