Chu brings up some good points, and there might be some limited areas where the GOP and Obama can work together...but I think the America has major spending fatigue right now - especially given the botched results of the trillion dollar stimulus future generations will be paying for: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (where is the recovery?). Everything Chu suggests would require massive new government spending...I'm sorry but we can't compete with China in of the areas he mentions.

"There are differences between the original Sputnik event of 1957 and the current Sputnik Moment, Chu said:"

No kidding. And few parallels.

On the way back from Vegas, broke, we say "lets install solar cells on the roof".

Like ejj sais. .

The Internet, The Laser, The microchip, GPS, Nuclear Power, the Jet plane all came from Government funded research. Trillions of dollars of our current economy and tens of millions of jobs were made possible by preliminary research paid for by the National Science Foundation, DOE, DOD, NASA, etc. Private investment doesn't have the patience to do very much basic science or building blocks that have very long time horizons and high risk. How many start ups ran out of money and failed before they could complete their big cool idea? However, you do have to spread your bets widely to get enough of them to pay off.

Google was made possible by a relatively small NSF grant on how to do a better online library. $16 Billion is miniscule compared to the value of being leaders in new industries. I'd be thrilled with a 0.25% corporate income tax that pays for a fund that places tens of thousands of bets in promising fundamental science areas. Think of it as a jobs program that has the potential to pay back many fold.

Just because grants were involved somewhere in the process does not make it Government funded research.

The Manhatten project was indeed government funded

Certainly government funding has a place, particularly including where there is the need but little will to restrict or heavily tax some things (like gas usage) for the national interest.

The Prius, Leaf and Volt are privately funded even though the ROI is (so far) poor.

But just because grants were involved somewhere in the process does not make it Government only funded research.

The Manhattan project was indeed government (only) funded as are most defense programs like the GPS, nuclear fission and fusion, tanks and the Hummer plus pure science like the moon landing and space shuttle.

But everything we use, the internet, laser, microchips, the civilian airliners all come from trillions of dollars of private development.

Trillions of dollars of our current economy are wasted and tens of millions of overpaid jobs are made possible by the government because ROI is either of no concern or estimated by politicians.

Russia and Cuba are good examples of how Government control does not work. China is and will for some time develop rapid rapidly on the backs of it’s people.

A high level of government control, like a dictatorship may be the most efficient form of government if nationalism is paramount and individual freedom is not.

I think China benefits from it’s starting point – poverty.
The people will be content for some time as the rapid increase in state wealth improves their standard of living, but as that standard starts to level off, lack of personal freedom will be a problem, it may start to get worse and their society may blow up, or become the Forth Reich.

Anne,

Any energy technology that produces at most 10-12% efficiency, works only intermittently, works only 50% of the time,(daylight), and reduces the planetary albedo, in a way that GHGs never could, is a self limiting technology.

Solar thermal pollution, in which the other wasted 90% of the energy absorbed, just heats the planet at a rate of 230+ watts/sq meter or more, versus .005-.05 w/m2, is not a truly non-polluting alternative.

Just because some "Eco" politicians have not YET recognized the pollution, does not mean its not there.

These ill-informed people at one time, thought MBTE was the solution and much more preferable to tetra-ethyl lead additives, (and it is!), did not mean it did not have problems of its own, that led to its banning.

Now it appears the Montreal Protocol was an ersatz, too hasty, and foolish move, just like MBTE. It is now pretty well established that the original halogens are not the source of a "natural" ozone hole, and the replacements are more inefficient, and waste lots of energy that the original halogens did not.

Please be careful what you wish for, you just may get it.

"But everything we use, the internet, laser, microchips, the civilian airliners all come from trillions of dollars of private development." enabled by government basic science R&D, financed by initial/ongoing government contracts, and subsided by government tax regulations sounds more like a partnership.

Why do we assume the Government has to pay for it? With proper regulation (tax incentives, benefit shifting) the Government can encourage private investment in one or more types of technology while penalizing others. We do it all the time, but no one wants to acknowledge it.

Just as we put to bed one fear-based program Dr. Chu suggests yet another. This one centered around fear of China. No. China has huge problems with massive growth and a bullet train will not solve them.

Mr. Chu still hasn't quite grasped energy positioning. The discussion here is not about greenness, or a technology race, it is about energy independence. THAT is what will drive the economic boom in alternative, sustainable energy. With the latest climate collapse in Cancun (why world's most congested tourist destination?) - it is high time to redirect the dialog to issues that matter: ECONOMY, JOBS, SECURITY.

There is now the urgent need for industrial nations to free themselves from oil/fossil energy monopoly. To generate energy from smaller, local sources and back them up with smaller, de-centralized grids.

It is the application of the green slogan: "Think global, act local." Solar in sunbelts, CHP in cooler climates, new nuclear, wind where feasible and sustainable fuels from domestic resources. The goal from all this is economic prosperity and ecologic benefit.

For the U.S., the dollars alone not spent on defending fossil wealth - could finance a huge international fund for green energy development - administered by a citizen corps.

Yesterday's WSJ article by Shelenberger and Nordhaus suggests a NEW direction:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704312504575618972157288244.html

Today, we already have fantastic green energy technological base. We need to deploy in massive scale what technologies we already know, instead of waiting and waiting for a silver bullet or for the day that renewable energy will be cheaper than fossil fuel. That day may not come soon enough, because the prices of fossil fuel is not engraved in stone, but a moving target subjecting to market demand and supply principle. As more renewable energy collectors will be deployed, the prices of fossil energy will come down to be competitve...oil, gas, and coal suppliers will stop mining expensive sites and concentrating on low-cost reserves to remain competitive...and the price of oil, gas and coal will perhaps come down to 1/2 or even 1/3 of the current prices. Today's cost of oil at $70-$90 per barrel does not reflect the cost of mining that oil, just the price that the market will bear. The cost of supplying a barrel of oil is but a small fraction of current market price. On the other hand, the price of solar and wind energy is mostly the cost of material and labor, with little profits.

The more labor-intensive way of obtaining renewable energy in comparison to fossil energy means that more JOBS will be created and retained years after years. For this higher cost, we will have a much cleaner environment and a secure energy future, and more people will have jobs to pay for this energy. With the continued use of fossil energy, fewer people will have jobs, and even if energy cost is cheaper, when people don't have jobs, they won't be able to afford it!

Jobs will continued to be eliminated due to increase in manufacturing and service improvement in productivity. The best way to address this continual job loss is to go more environmental...cleaning up, recycling, more renewable energy deployment...

The different between China and USA is not in technological know-how, but in the rate of deployment of existing green energy technologies. China is rushing ahead with green energy as a big government mandate, while the USA is still waiting for the next break-thru, the next silver bullet, waiting for renewable energy to be cheaper than fossil energy...that day may not come soon enough! That day may come sooner the more experience we will obtain from massive deployment of existing green energy know-how.

"long-range energy policies that have bipartisan support to guide the private sector"

This is where we can leverage to get progress without spending a lot of tax payer dollars. If you can get policies and legislation that does not change every few years, then we can move forward.

There are two or three ways to reach energy independence, i.e :

1. - Produce more local energy.

2- - Consume less energy.

3- - Do both.

USA is capable of doing both, if the collective will is there. If not, the problem will be around for a few more decades, or until such time as we can no longer afford to buy energy. The latter case may apply.

Many good points globi. Installed solar panels + associated controls and essential storage units still cost $5+/W. Production for the next 20+ years is almost free unless you have to change the 10-15 KWh storage batteries.

The initial very high cost for a small 5.0 KW system producing an average of 25 Kwh/day = $5 x 5000 = $25+K.

Financing the initial installed system at 5% to 6% would cost you about $1250 to $1500 a year.

Your system would produce a maximum of 25 Kwh x 365 = 9125 Kwh/year or about 8000 Kwh/year usable at an average cost of about $0.16875/Kwh.

To the above cost you have to add system maintenance cost (especially changing expensive batteries).

Your total cost will probably be between $0.20 and $0.25. That's about 3 times what we pay for Hydro electricity.

Thirdly, since governments would lose $0.03/Kwh revenues or $240/year in revenue in taxes and dividend, your others taxes would have to be increased by $140/year to compensate.

Your total energy cost would now be between $0.23 and $0.28/Kwh.

I'll stay with clean centralized Hydro for a few more years.