The rediscovery of optimism. Interview with Steven Chu
By Stephan Sigrist
There is no law in physics that says we can’t have a large fraction of the world population leading a middle class life and can’t nurture the Earth’s resources so that we can have a prosperous world for many thousands of years. The foundations are better technology and a massive change in our lifestyle.
Climate change is one of the biggest challenges to humanity’s longevity. Are new technologies the solution to a more sustainable future?
I believe that climate change is perhaps the most important technical challenge humanity is facing today. Of course there are many factors influencing how we solve complex problems, but technology is definitely a key element. For example, if we look at electric cars in urban environments, my guess is that within ten years electric vehicles will go mainstream as their price and performance become competitive with internal combustion engine cars. We need a better battery than we have today. The Tesla S-1 has a range of about 250 miles, and with a fast charger, can be charged in 20 minutes for a distance of 140 miles. When the range is over 300 miles and it takes 5 minutes to charge for 200 miles in a car that costs $25,000, electric vehicles become more attractive. Other factors such as concerns about air, local and global pollution will also favour electric vehicles.
Let´s imagine the world in 20 years: will there be revolutionary new technologies or will the technologies we already have just become more efficient?
A lot of innovation is evolutionary, but after half a century of progress, the steady evolution appears as a revolution. The improvement in solar and wind energy as well as batteries and fuel cells are good examples. A technology that might be revolutionary in the future is fusion power – the generation of energy by nuclear fusion. Today, it is a science experiment and we have no idea if we can really get this source of energy to be commercially viable. In the meantime, we also have to focus on improving existing technologies such as conventional nuclear energy in this century. While this is not a radically new set of technologies, we need to develop more of the transmission and distribution infrastructure and smarter power electronics to manage the two-way energy flows and energy storage that will be needed with increased use of intermittent renewable energy.
And what does the future of nuclear energy look like?
Perhaps towards the end of this century we will no longer need nuclear energy, but for now, nuclear energy should provide a fraction of our base-load electrical power. Nuclear energy is not as bad as burning coal the way we burn coal today. China is desperately trying to shift its energy production away from mostly coal-generated electricity to a mix of renewables, natural gas, and nuclear power as well as coal. How much nuclear energy we will need in the near future will depend on three main issues: first, we have to make nuclear energy much safer so that even a major earthquake and tsunami (such as happened in Fukushima) will not lead to a melt-down and significant release of radiation. Second, we have to handle the issue of spent fuel. Both of these challenges are technically solvable, but the second is laced with political sensitivities. Sweden has been able to make good progress in designing and planning a final spent fuel repository, and most importantly, in building public confidence that the waste issue can be safely dealt with. The third issue is terrorism. Nuclear power plants have to be sufficiently well protected for terrorists not to consider them as potential targets.
What other innovations or solutions do we need besides technology? If we look at the health sector, the smoking problem, for example: it was changing human behaviour that made people smoke less, leading to fewer deaths from cancer, not cigarettes that became healthier through improved technology.
I agree that technology does not provide solutions to all of our problems. With regard to climate change, the public should be made aware of the considerable risks. Schools, from grade school to universities, have an important role, and education can help people save money by saving energy. Also, it can influence life-style choices. In my generation young people lusted after a car that went from 0 to 60 mph in 5 seconds.
That still works with the Tesla...
That is correct. The latest high-powered Model S takes only 3.2 seconds. Even the more subdued Nissan Leaf has a 0 to 60 time of 7 seconds. Beyond fast cars, members of the younger generation are developing different tastes compared to when I was young. I see a growing cadre of people who want to live in cities and who don’t own cars. They use public transportation and Uber or Zipcar as needed. They are happy to live in a relatively small city apartment rather than commuting two hours each day to live in a 2,500 square foot home. They are more aware of healthier eating habits and no longer want to eat a 14-ounce steak once or twice a week. This younger generation has started to understand the links between the environment and the food system, and how those demands are shaped by our lifestyle choices and values. But technology can make a more sustainable lifestyle easier. If we can develop “synthetic” meat made directly from agricultural crops that tastes just like real meat, it would greatly reduce the strains on our planet. Educational campaigns about sustainability are important to help people link large, complex and long-term challenges to our daily lives. Many people say: “What can I do about climate change? This is such a big problem, and I am powerless.” But actually they can: by the way they live and whom they vote for.
Your fellow Nobel laureate and physics professor Richard Ernst said that true sustainability has a span of 1000 years. Do you believe different?
For the first time in the history of humankind, we are confronted with the realisation that what we are doing today will dramatically affect the world in the coming decades and centuries. Our science is presenting society with a profound dilemma that should force us to think beyond the wellbeing of our immediate family, friends and local communities. On our present course where economic development and consumption are paramount, what appears to be a race “to the top” is actually a race to the bottom.
In my opinion, however, there might be a light at the end of the tunnel. 50 years ago, when I was at high school, everyone was expecting that the Malthusian disaster of overpopulation would catch up in the end. Every new technological advance such as the invention of artificial fertiliser or the Green Revolution would just buy us a little more time, but in the end, we would use up the resources of our planet.
Today, optimism is growing because a higher standard of living leads to a lower fertility rate. There is no law in physics that says we can’t have a large fraction of the world population leading a middle class life and can’t nurture the Earth’s resources so that we can have a prosperous world for many thousands of years. The foundations are better technology and a change in our lifestyle. I think this is the biggest challenge that we face this century. While immediate threats such as fighting terrorism are important, I believe the risks of climate change trump that challenge. If we fail to mitigate and adapt to climate change, there will be more terrorism than we can possibly imagine.
Where do you see the responsibility to promote the necessary education as lying?
I think this is primarily a role of the schools. In the U.S., there was a massive and successful campaign in our schools to discourage children from smoking. Today in most of the U.S. and many parts of Europe, it is socially unacceptable to smoke. Beyond elementary and grade school, universities are the institutions best equipped to establish the foundation of knowledge that we need to deal with the complex issues we face today. Universities should also be more pro-active in communicating that knowledge to the public in an unbiased way.
What would you say is the responsibility of the governments and of supra-national collaborations?
The leaders of countries should not just reflect the current views of incumbent industries or the general population. They too have to be educators. The same applies to corporate leadership. The highest ethical business standards come from the heads of companies, not from people in the middle of the organisation. People will follow the vision of an outstanding leader. As long there is no real pressure to change something, people will always choose the easier path, which is to do what they are accustomed to doing. Returning to your question about the role of governments, they have an essential role in making sure their people understand the challenges, and in providing a roadmap with policy guidance on how to get from where we are today to where we need to be. Supra-national collaborations are a natural outcome since it will take international cooperation to tackle these problems.
Due to increasing complexity it is ever more difficult to predict the future. Should governments nevertheless envision long-term strategies for society, or do they have to find short-term, flexible solutions in an iterative way?
I think that an essential role of governments is to provide a knowledge-based, long-term perspective and goals for their people – goals that go beyond the next election and even beyond the next decade. Envisioning long-term goals is also important for constructive change. It is hard to remain on course and navigate without a guiding star.
Should companies be braver and drive their business beyond today’s markets?
That would be desirable. However, most of the time, if a new technology is at odds with the current business model, companies won’t embrace it. For example, in many rural areas of the world not connected to an electric grid, electricity is produced by burning diesel fuel. Recently, solar energy and some modest energy storage have become far less costly. Some of the first uses of electricity are for cell phones and LED lighting, and those devices contain their own energy storage. Pumping and purifying water would be another use of electricity, but it is easy to pump and store months’ worth of clean water while the sun shines. Even a well-insulated refrigerator that uses frozen water as a thermal “battery” can be kept cool for over a day. The combination of solar power, battery storage, and diesel backup for longer periods may be the best solution. That would mean the people who sell diesel generators would have to expand their horizons. If that same diesel generator sales person also sold the fuel, solar energy would be seen as a threat, and they may stress that solar energy is unreliable.
Also, extractive industries can be profitable and there are no overriding incentives to save something for future generations. We have abundant fossil fuels and the existing energy industries want to remain the low cost solution. Take the coal industry as an example. On the one hand, this industry knows that coal is polluting the air with sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, particulate matter and CO2. For the next 50+ years we will still be using coal, and in this transition period, we need to be able to greatly reduce the emission of all of these pollutants. The coal industry is against increased pollution controls because it will make their fuel less competitive. Oil and gas is also plentiful, but most undiscovered reserves are anticipated to lie in deep waters, remote arctic lands, oil sands and other unconventional sources. Easily recoverable conventional sources are dwindling.
Nevertheless you are optimistic. Is it because you believe in science or because you believe in humans?
I believe in science and in humanity. I am optimistic because it is not acceptable to give up on solving the climate challenge and on seeking solutions to save the planet for future generations. In my opinion, it is deeply immoral to deny there is a problem.
If you had three wishes with which to make the world a more sustainable and better place: what would they be?
First, I would wish for worldwide, massive deployment of inexpensive energy from renewable sources. When you have cheap, clean energy, you can solve the fresh water problem by desalinating seawater.
Second, I would like to see our problem with land and mineral resource use addressed. The combination of energy, agriculture and water use lie at the heart of sustainability.
Third, I wish that our aspirations for developed economies would change. Because of the industrial revolution, lifestyles in developed countries have changed in ways that no one ever could dream of 200 years ago. The aspiration of ever-increasing wealth has been the driving force of these societies in the past century, but when will it end? If I can afford a fancy car or a second home, should I have these things? Gandhi said, “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but not every man’s wants.” We now have the technology to satisfy more of those “wants”, but in the process, we are sucking everything out of the Earth for ourselves and are changing the climate in a very dangerous direction. 100 years from today, grandchildren yet to be born may well ask, “What were our grandparents thinking? Didn’t they care what would happen to us?”
Steven Chu is a Nobel laureate in physics and was the U.S. Secretary for Energy under President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013, in which role he championed the cause of a sustainable energy policy. As a professor at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, his basic research interests range from physics and quantum physics to biotechnology. His focus is on research and development in the field of high-performance energy storage
