The Long View of Energy

    You know Bill Gates, the multibillionaire of Microsoft fame. Less well-known is Steven Chu, US Sec. of energy. I have never commented on Bill Gates's operations, but I have called for the resignation of Sec. Chu on the basis that he has done more damage to the US energy program than any other single person.
    With that background, I now review a report by Jeff Johnson in the March 19 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News concerning a meeting between Gates and Chu, at which they discussed the long-term aspects of the energy market.
    In the meeting, there was no discussion concerning fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and gas. All discussion was on so-called replaceable energy, such as solar, nuclear, and biofuels. While I consider this a strong deficiency, because it is unknown just how long fossil fuels will last us, it at least removes from present consideration my major objection to Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy.
    Both Gates and Chu agree that taxpayers should be supporting government research, which will hopefully lead to cheaper and more replaceable energy sources. When Chu took over the DOE he provided the first funds to nurture some 180 research projects over the past three years. The context of the meeting was that this is admirable. My comment is how much did it cost, and what did we get out of it? If any of the 180 projects brought something important to light, I have not heard of it. We have private companies in the energy business, with substantial assets. Most of their business is based upon existing cheap energy sources, of which they are trying to further improve the economics. They additionally recognize that perhaps fossil fuels will be depleted, and they also spend money on research with respect to replaceable energy. These private companies have done a good job in helping bring the US citizen to a high standard of living, and I have confidence that they will continue to do so without a separate program by the federal government.
    The Gates Foundation has a program to end world poverty. This is an impossibility, because of our inability to define poverty. Let's better say that the Gates Foundation has an objective of improving the standard of living on a worldwide basis. Bill Gates believes this can be best accomplished through cheap energy. I agree completely and I am working separately on an essay showing that a high standard of living is consistent with high energy use.
    Bill Gates finds that the delivery of electrical energy to many peoples of the world is limited by lack of transmission facilities. He feels that in-house production is a better way to proceed and the best candidate is electricity generated by a solar device, coupled with batteries to equalize energy availability on a time basis. I agree with this completely. However I do not agree with any application that uses something that the US government should be spending money on. The US already has good transmission facilities and a relatively high population density, so that energy supply to remote areas is not a significant problem. The problem is primarily applicable to unpopulated areas, or those populated but significantly underdeveloped with respect to transmission facilities. Black Africa would be a prime candidate, but I am primarily interested in the US. As US citizens have economic capabilities, they can contribute to private organizations to conduct necessary research or help directly those in need through installation of workable equipment. The US government has no business in improving the global standard of living by mandating that US citizens pay for it.
    Gates is particularly intrigued with the possibilities of nuclear energy. There's no doubt that nuclear energy can be generated in very small plants, wherein many plants could be used to obviate the need for transmission facilities. Nuclear power generation for submarines is now an old technology showing the possibility of small nuclear operations. Gates could put some money into a research organization which might be able to improve on this further. Again they are would be absolutely no need or justification for US government involvement.
    Gates also touched on the need for large electricity generation plants, which he said should be looked at from the financial viewpoint of a 40 to 50 year cycle. I was pleased to see that he considered "government regulations, as well as state and utility commission oversight and policies that litter the energy sector" as hindrances, with the implication they should be eliminated.
    But again, both Gates and Chu agree that the US government should be involved in a major research program on alternate energy development. They agree the best way to fund this is with a tax on carbon dioxide emissions from present fossil fuel use, although Chu hesitates to call this a tax. I absolutely disagree with the need of the federal government to be involved in this program. I have said before that it can be done by private industry, which will be charging some reasonable amounts to present energy users for the required research and development. This would put the greatest charges on the largest users of energy, which is as it should be. Alternatively, a federal program would equally charge every citizen in the usual socialistic concept of unreasonableness.