The apparent selection of Steven Chu, the Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to be the new Secretary of Energy looks like a good choice. Since he is already employed by the Department of Energy, he understands the organization he would lead. The lab he currently heads does important work on renewable energy and efficiency, which President-Elect Obama emphasized throughout his campaign. Bringing in a Nobel Prize winner in Physics to run DOE exemplifies the principle of hiring outstanding individuals with deep, relevant experience to manage complex problems. Let us hope that the outgoing and incoming administrations can agree on someone equally qualified to oversee the restructuring of the US auto industry, should Congress ultimately pass a version of the emergency assistance legislation on which the US Senate could not agree last night.
Dr. Chu, who is also a professor at UC Berkeley and the former chair of the Physics Department at Cal's cross-bay rival, Stanford, seems well-qualified to manage an organization that must balance the application of chemistry, physics and biology to a wide variety of existing and emerging energy sources with the legacy of the Big Physics project of a previous generation: the nation's aging nuclear weapons complex. A quick review of the Lawrence Berkeley website turned up some fascinating work, including the Helios Project, which aims to produce new carbon-neutral fuels through accelerated artificial photosynthesis. Although there were some other fine people in the running, and only time will tell how well this pick will turn out, Dr. Chu certainly brings an appropriate mix of technical knowledge and administrative experience to running this large and complex agency. Overseeing a federal bailout and restructuring of the "Big Three" US carmakers--an eventuality that looks less likely today than it did yesterday--would require an equally apt selection.
If a Detroit bailout does come to pass, one of the most critical decisions will be the choice of a federal trustee to guide the restructuring of the industry. Rumors that the former head of the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund was the front-runner have given way to a more familiar name, that of former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. His experience, including with the Chrysler bailout in the 1970s, certainly qualifies him for the post of federal "car czar." But as much as I admire him for his role in extinguishing the US price inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s, and for his handling of the investigation into the UN Iraq "Oil for Food" scandal, I wonder if an even more experienced car hand might be called for. The person I have in mind would be a long-shot, not least for being a Frenchman and a current competitor of the Big Three. Yet I can't think of anyone who better epitomizes the global auto industry with which Detroit has failed to keep pace than Carlos Ghosn, with his proven track record of turning around two car companies, Renault and Nissan, both of which he now heads. If we really want to make Detroit competitive again, I see no one better qualified to direct that initiative.
The drawbacks are obvious: cultural, political, and practical. All of those could be turned into advantages, particularly since Mr. Ghosn has become a keen advocate of electric cars, which would play well in the new DC atmosphere. In any case, I doubt that he would find the presumably-obligatory compensation limit of $1 a year an impediment, weighed against the historic challenge of restoring GM, Ford and Chrysler to global leadership, or at least global parity. I admit it's highly unlikely to happen, but perhaps we could just get him on loan, as a favor from President Sarkozy, with whom both President Bush and President-Elect Obama seem to have an excellent relationship.
Showing posts with label berkeley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label berkeley. Show all posts
Friday, December 12, 2008
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Joining Forces on Biofuels
Last month BP made headlines with its announcement of a major biofuels research alliance with the Universities of California and Illinois, and the DOE's Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. They will endow the new Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) with $500 million dollars of funding, which is serious money even in the oil business. A video link (high bandwidth) I received via the U.C. Berkeley alumni association provided some fascinating insights into this agreement, and I think it makes worthwhile viewing for anyone interested in biofuels and public-private partnerships on alternative energy. While pointing out some of the challenges this initiative still faces, it highlights the potential of fusing the broad, interdisciplinary approach of a couple of large public universities with the product-and-profit orientation of a big energy company. Although corporate/industry alliances are routine in many areas, the scale and focus of this one are unique within the energy industry.
As with any announcement of this kind, this video of the UC chancellor and the top researchers involved in setting up the alliance includes a sizable helping of campus pride and rah rah. When you look at the Nobel Prize roster and other vital statistics of the Berkeley campus, however, this seems entirely relevant to BP's selection of the university for this alliance. UC and its partners bring impressive capabilities to the party. (End of PR plug.)
On the webcast I heard two items that caught my attention. The first was Berkeley's intention to approach this alliance from a much wider perspective than the biological and engineering aspects of biofuels. They will involve a broad swath of disciplines, including social sciences that may be crucial in evaluating the systemic impact of expanding and re-orienting global agriculture to produce much greater volumes of fuel, while still providing the food required by a population that is expected to grow to at least 9 billion by mid-century. BP appears equally interested in that kind of inter-disciplinary breadth, as well, recognizing the importance of sustainability in determining the long-term viability of any fuel technology that might come out of this endeavor. Having spent two years on the Berkeley campus during graduate school, I can easily imagine that this was not only an attractive feature for BP, but a strict precondition for Berkeley's participation. Nor was I surprised by the reaction against the tie-up from the persistent radical fringes of the campus. Berkeley is still Berkeley, 40 years after the Free Speech Movement.
I'm also intrigued by the idea that this approach might do more than just ensure wider vetting and validation of new technology before it is implemented; it might actually stimulate entirely new ideas, through cross-fertilization that simply wouldn't be possible within a large energy concern. Oil companies employ lots of engineers, chemists, and geoscientists, but relatively few soil biologists, ecologists, or geneticists, to name just a few of the fields this effort could touch. In a way, this represents a microcosm of the original promise of the Internet, before it was deluged with spam, chatter, and misinformation. Berkeley was one of the nodes of the Arpanet, a forerunner of the Internet, and you can bet that the new EBI will have some clever networking approaches to stimulate creativity and expanded thinking on biofuels.
Finally, I liked Professor Kammen's perspective on how far $500 million goes, today. I believe he put it exactly right, that while this is now about the cost of entry for a new drug or a new car model, it's probably just enough to make a real difference on biofuels, provided that the new Energy Biosciences Institute team is smart about how they employ it. A lot of people will be watching the results.
As with any announcement of this kind, this video of the UC chancellor and the top researchers involved in setting up the alliance includes a sizable helping of campus pride and rah rah. When you look at the Nobel Prize roster and other vital statistics of the Berkeley campus, however, this seems entirely relevant to BP's selection of the university for this alliance. UC and its partners bring impressive capabilities to the party. (End of PR plug.)
On the webcast I heard two items that caught my attention. The first was Berkeley's intention to approach this alliance from a much wider perspective than the biological and engineering aspects of biofuels. They will involve a broad swath of disciplines, including social sciences that may be crucial in evaluating the systemic impact of expanding and re-orienting global agriculture to produce much greater volumes of fuel, while still providing the food required by a population that is expected to grow to at least 9 billion by mid-century. BP appears equally interested in that kind of inter-disciplinary breadth, as well, recognizing the importance of sustainability in determining the long-term viability of any fuel technology that might come out of this endeavor. Having spent two years on the Berkeley campus during graduate school, I can easily imagine that this was not only an attractive feature for BP, but a strict precondition for Berkeley's participation. Nor was I surprised by the reaction against the tie-up from the persistent radical fringes of the campus. Berkeley is still Berkeley, 40 years after the Free Speech Movement.
I'm also intrigued by the idea that this approach might do more than just ensure wider vetting and validation of new technology before it is implemented; it might actually stimulate entirely new ideas, through cross-fertilization that simply wouldn't be possible within a large energy concern. Oil companies employ lots of engineers, chemists, and geoscientists, but relatively few soil biologists, ecologists, or geneticists, to name just a few of the fields this effort could touch. In a way, this represents a microcosm of the original promise of the Internet, before it was deluged with spam, chatter, and misinformation. Berkeley was one of the nodes of the Arpanet, a forerunner of the Internet, and you can bet that the new EBI will have some clever networking approaches to stimulate creativity and expanded thinking on biofuels.
Finally, I liked Professor Kammen's perspective on how far $500 million goes, today. I believe he put it exactly right, that while this is now about the cost of entry for a new drug or a new car model, it's probably just enough to make a real difference on biofuels, provided that the new Energy Biosciences Institute team is smart about how they employ it. A lot of people will be watching the results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)