Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist As Energy Secretary

Posted by samzenpus on from the the-man-for-the-job dept.

bledri writes "Officials close to the Obama transition team say that Physics Nobel Laureate Steven Chu is the likely candidate for Energy Secretary. Some are worried that Chu is not politically savvy enough, but I'm hopeful that a scientist will base policy on evidence. Discuss among yourselves."

21 of 498 comments (clear)

  1. Terrible Idea by capt.Hij · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just because someone is a great scientist does not mean the person is a good administrator or a good politician. The sad truth is that politicians will not care if he has a Nobel Prize and will think nothing of tearing him down for no reason other than they can. Everybody has limitations, and it would be better to get someone who can listen to scientists and engineers and also be a great administrator.

    1. Re:Terrible Idea by sam0vi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      it is far easier to appoint a technocrat to the cabinet position and surround him with brilliant academics

      And that's exactly what they are doing. It's just that the technocrat in this case would be the President, and the academics would be his staff, whose primary goal is to advise him. How far along the chain of command do you want to place the smart guys? Down on the basement? Don't forget they are just coming with the ideas; every single decision is the President's.

      --
      When my Karma level reaches 0 I feel in piece with the Universe
    2. Re:Terrible Idea by gravesb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is too much for the president to handle for him to be in that role. That's why they created cabinet positions, OPM, and the like. The executive branch is too large for the president to be the main political player. Besides, you need someone playing the political games when the President is doing figure head stuff. Someone with some savvy needs to be down in the weeds why the president is glad-handing.

      --
      http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
    3. Re:Terrible Idea by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Much as I hate Margret Thatcher nobody could say that she was not an able politician. (I hesitate to use the word good). Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry. Her one redeeming feature was that she did take global warming seriously and could see through the petrochemical industries FUD.

    4. Re:Terrible Idea by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Interesting


      Just because someone is a Administrator or politician does not mean they are a GOOD administrator or GOOD politician.

      That's true of any job. I guess I don't really understand your point. That we shouldn't assume someone we don't know will be good at a job they've never done?

      I don't know if he'll be any good at being Energy secretary. I did see him speak a couple years ago at the Nobel Conference on Energy, and he was a great speaker with very good ideas. From what I recall one of his main messages was "Fail fast", in other words try a lot of ideas and see which ones work and which don't quickly. IMO that's really _exactly_ what we need to do. I will say this though. The past Energy secretaries certainly haven't done jack-squat for energy policy in this country, and the vast majority of them were politicians. So it's not like the politicians have some great track record that Chu has to live up to.

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:Terrible Idea by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Your mistake is assuming that a great scientist isn't a great administrator. Chu has been leading LBL with incredible success for four years, and under his leadership LBL has become the most focused national lab, and that focus is on alternative energy generation and storage. I've never met anyone who had a better understanding of both the science and practicality of alternative energy than Steven Chu. Picking Chu is Obama's best choice to date.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    6. Re:Terrible Idea by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1, Interesting

      But he's accomplished something significant in one particular field. How does that make him qualified to do anything outside of that field? And let's leave aside the potential that the Nobel prizes themselves are awarded based on a political basis.

      Just because he's a smart guy and an accomplished scientist doesn't make him a good candidate any more than me, who am also a smart guy and an accomplished software developer (albeit significantly less accomplished than a Nobel laureate). I do like the idea of having someone presumably objective and informed in the post, don't get me wrong, but politics is a game where success (i.e., accomplishing something truly constructive, not just 'political success' which means acquiring power, money and/or fame) seldom depends primarily on being objective and well-informed.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    7. Re:Terrible Idea by tehcyder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's dangerous to tear down someone who is vastly smarter than you, especially when they're right about something

      I've always found it much more dangerous tearing down stupid people, they're less likely to worry about the rights and wrongs of an argument and much more likely to take it personally.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re:Terrible Idea by nacturation · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How far along the chain of command do you want to place the smart guys?

      Ideally, you want smart guys throughout the entire chain of command, from way down in the basement all the way up to the ebony tower. Ah, but one can dream...

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    9. Re:Terrible Idea by fugue · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All to often, academics is too far removed from the real reality of things that they can at times be detrimental to sound policy.

      Almost by definition, academics are the people who look at evidence before coming to decisions, and revise their decisions when they receive new information. Sorry if that's removed from your reality--it's certainly alien to Bush's. And what do manuals have to do with academics?

      Carter's failure is a good point--if you ask people to act intelligently, they will resent it (I assume that's what you're referring to?). I have no doubt that Obama is quite aware of the parallels; I think that he is a more careful politician, but time will tell whether this country is worthy of him.

      Apparently what this country needs is a gangsta president.

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    10. Re:Terrible Idea by jcr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you tried reading the constitution? It grants certain enumerated powers. It's not carte blanch for the federal government to do anything and everything the politicians want to do.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  2. Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis by jamie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Salon has a story today on Obama's pick to solve the energy crisis:

    "You should interview Steven Chu," the scientist at the Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, Calif., told me. "He already has one Nobel Prize. He wants to get a second one for solving the energy crisis."

    That was two years ago, and I sorely regret not following through and landing an interview with Chu, a physicist who has dedicated his post-Nobel Prize career to the development of alternative sources of energy. Because as Barack Obama's nominee for secretary of energy, Steven Chu is going to get a chance to make his dreams come true, with the full backing of the U.S. government.

    Since 2004, Chu has served as the director of the University of California-managed Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, spearheading, among other things, a massive research effort in solar power. To get a sense of the man's interests, here's the second sentence of his bio...:

    Chu, an early advocate for finding scientific solutions to climate change, has guided Berkeley Lab on a new mission to become the world leader in alternative and renewable energy research, particularly the development of carbon-neutral sources of energy.

    Environmentalists and climate change activists are understandably delighted. Consider this: For eight years the United States has boasted an Energy Department that for all intents and purposes was a subsidiary of the U.S. oil industry. Now, should he be confirmed, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who specializes in climate change and renewable energy and already knows how to run a decent-size bureaucracy is going to be in charge of realizing Obama's bold promises to lead the United States toward an energy-sustainable future. Symbolically speaking, one would be hard put to draw a sharper contrast between the Bush and Obama eras than what is achieved by this single appointment.

    1. Re:Chu's goal: solve the energy crisis by jamie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And hey, here's more. I'm just 8 minutes into this talk and I'm already on his side.

      Steve Chu: A New Energy Program

  3. Re:Great! by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think it's the physical improbability of fulfilling his request that does it. And the username.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  4. Entitlement by unlametheweak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Some are worried that Chu is not politically savvy enough

    Politically savvy people don't make good politicians or bureaucrats, but unfortunately that's what they usually become.

    Let's hope this is an appointment and not a popularity contest. If he's smart and he has the entitlement to succeed then things may go well.

  5. Sounds good to me by friedpo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's about time a real scientist with real ideas is put into the position where his opinion is respected. It seems most people are too worried about the politics of everything and not about results. In history we have elected generals as our presidents who have made far better choices for this country in my opinion although we've created a secretary of defense position to avoid having a military leader with the ability to make war moving decisions. We think that just because a man has been out of the service for 10 years he won't make bias decisions based on his past military history. The fact of the matter is we need people in those Government positions that actually do the work, so the outcome isn't twisted. Politics are so overrated.

  6. The real question? by cashman73 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What's his Slashdot handle? How many digits are in his UID?

  7. Re:Great news by Notquitecajun · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Change" I thought wasn't going to be the old-style politics of the left during the Clinton era. Real, complete change would have been bringing in people with little to no experience in Washington politics. All I see are the same old Democrats.

  8. no, i'm pissed off by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the american model is broken. you compare our lifestyles and what we worry about with say, the danish. now the danish are taxed at ridiculous rates. but they also gets weeks off every year from work. they never have to worry about their healthcare. you ever fought with an hmo over what is covered or not?

    to pay for healthcare on your own, you are putting yourself in effectively the same tax bracket as the danish anyways. so the only difference then is the danish get worry free peace of mind, and we get to fight with hmos. its fucking stupid

    and surveys show the danish are happier than americans. universal healthcare is such a no brainer. i can't fathom the stupidity of those in the usa that oppose it

    socialism is superior to the american model. it really, really is. ok, we get lower taxes. but that just means we have to go buy on our own what is covered anyways in socialist societies. america has better healthcare? partially: better CRISIS healthcare. but the socialist model has better PREVENTATIVE healthcare. in other words, if i have a heart attack, i'd rather be in an american hosptial than a european one. but in the european hospital, i wouldn't get the heart attack in the first place!

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  9. Re:we need a scientist by neomunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's not Socialism, that's Communism. You can tell the difference by the level of authoritarianism.

    Socialism is about the carrot (tax breaks or even funding for truly socially beneficial policies) while Communism tends to focus on the stick (criminal laws and industry seizures). One is meant to encourage and stimulate, the other is meant to control and force compliance. There is a difference, I promise.

    As soon as people stop pretending that Socialism is Communism and Capitalism is Fascism (though either CAN become their compliment) the sooner we can get to actual (sane) policy debate instead of just figuring out how to undercut the 'evil other guy'.

  10. Re:we need a scientist by speroni · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ironically many of the European cars which are more fuel efficient, don't meet the American Emissions Standards, so we can't just switch it over. (Need to review the regulation at least)

    Nuclear waste isn't as large of a problem as people imagine. If you were to take all the nuclear waste from the entire history of all nuclear plants in the US and stacked them on a football field, you wouldn't even have a stack 10m high. Moving forward with reprocessing plants and such, the amount of waste is very low.

    As for the price of a nuclear plant. It is a bit pricy to build a plant, but once its up and running it practially prints money. A fuel cycle lasts almost 2 years. You put in your uranium and fire it up and all you do for the next two years is make electricity and keep a couple guys around to regulate the plant. No need for tons of coal or oil.

    A new plant has a "fixed" life of 60 years, but often after an inspection the NRC will issue a an extension for 20 or more years. Whats the life time of a coal or oil plant?

    --
    Eschew Obfuscation