Energy from Heaven and Earth - Book

I am behind in book reviews here. I have finished this book a few months ago but never got the chance to write my thoughts about it. 

The book is actually a collection of Edward Teller's 1975 lectures. He gave a series of lectures as a part of his Harvey Prize requirement.

The dedication on the first page actually was a big surprise to me. Teller dedicated the book to N. A. Rockfeller saying that "..whose vision and initiative, had they only been followed, would have made this book unnecessary." 

There are 5 "parts" in the book each of which consists of several chapters. I really like the way the chapters are arranged. They follow a nice logic: from simple to difficult; from past to future. 

In these chapters, especially in the beginning, you can get a nice summary of how the universe started and the origin of energy. I don't think it's too technical. I believe anyone can easily understand the nuclear reactions and how they yield energy with Teller's excellent explanations. 

If you follow the news and read a little bit of science, people constantly talk about global warming, record CO2 levels etc. I believe this book will help you to ask more scientific questions and evaluate the data and plans in a more scientific way. Should we focus on environment first or on improving our living standards? Can we get enough energy from sun, wind, waves? Ethics vs. science? You can find some clues to these dilemmas. I have to say I am with Teller on many issues.

I strongly suggest people read this book. Even though it was written in 1980, it is still much more relevant to 2015 than many more "popular" scientists' thoughts. 

It is also interesting to read his thoughts on bacteria that converts biomass into fuel, solar cells and devices like photoelectric cells. 

Some quotes:

In a peculiar way I am indebted to the antinuclear forces that staged the great nuclear debate of 1976 in California. Confucius said that if you walk between a wise man and a foolish one, you should learn from both.

I do not advocate a nuclear option. I believe that nuclear energy is an important component of the solution.

The next ice age may well arrive in five thousand years, unless technology finds a way to prevent it.

In the beginning there was matter and heat but no usable energy.

Geothermal energy....this source is no more abundant than coal. We may exhaust it in a few centuries.

Gloomy stories we may hear about out dying planet are most likely wrong.

How do living plants turn into fossil fuels? I have gone to the best geologists and the best petroleum researchers, and I can give you the authoritative answer: no one knows.

Environmentalists may take notice that small is not necessarily beautiful or clean.

Arabs reputedly cannot agree with anybody, least of all with other Arabs.

If one wastes energy, one should pay for it.

California is the most ultra-American of all American states. California's waste is prodigious. 

Electricity ...the most expensive form of energy.

Minimizing energy input is not the main purpose of industry.

It has been remarked that Moses managed to find the only spot in the Middle East where there is no oil.

In today's climate opinion, to be big is to be unpopular.

King Coal has lost his throne to the Sheikhs of Araby.

..a coal-burning electric generating station is apt to emit more radioactivity than a corresponding nuclear plant.

[about CO2] there is possibly not enough oil in the world to make a real difference.

Szilard told me "I found the neutrons"

The alchemists proved that secret science is no science. In the long run we cannot keep secrets, and we should not try.

If scientists consider themselves an elite with responsibility for the world resting on their shoulders, they will no longer be scientists.

The scientist's prime responsibility is scientific knowledge. The scientist's second responsibility is to turn knowledge into practical applications. Finally, the scientist should explain his findings so that everyone can understand. The nonscientific world then can choose to use or misuse the new knowledge.

Best earthquake experts in the US. are found among the members of Jesuit order.

To prophets of the apocalypse, reactors are precursors of the end of the world.

It seems that even in California the nuts are in a minority.

We have not yet gotten to the point where we are willing to sacrifice a tourist attraction to our economic needs.

The very word "patent" means the opposite of secret. But our present patent law is archaic.

At Least 60 Years of Ferrocene: The Discovery and Rediscovery of the Sandwich Complexes #chempaperaday 207

This is probably one of the most interesting and surprising articles I have read. 

I guess all inorganic/organometallic chemists know (I hope) the story of the discovery of ferrocene and other sandwich complexes. It all starts with Pauson and Kealy's Nature papers on the discovery of an unusually stable compound ("What was this remarkable substance we had made?") and goes on. I will not go into the story. If you want to learn, you should read this paper and many other historical papers on these compounds. Later, it turns out that in fact they were not the first people to discover this compound. Many other people had already seen this complex but they simply did not report it. The compound gets attention from several chemists including Woodward, Fischer and Wilkinson. In fact, the name ferrocene was given by Woodward. Soon, the competition between Fischer and Wilkinson started. They literally divided "the periodic table between them".

This is an incredibly well written story. The most interesting two things for me are the comments of a reviewer and Woodward's comments on the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

First, the referee writes to Woodward "We have dispatched your communication to the printer but I cannot help feeling that you have been at the hashish again."

Secondly, Woodwards writes to the committee on the Nobel prize saying "...I am sure-committed a grave injustice...Both of these concepts were simply, completely, and entirely mine, and mine alone." wow!

The metathesis reactions: from a historical perspective to recent developments #chempaperaday 201

A nice historical perspective of olefin metathesis and metathesis catalysts. The article was published in 2005. So, don't expect to see exciting new stuff like enantioselective ones.

I remember writing on metathesis before. So, let's add some new things that I learned.

"..the first observation of the metathesis of propene at high temperature was reported in 1931.

Schrock, then at Du Pont, tried to synthesize [Ta(CH2CMe3)5], which would not contain b-hydrogens and thus, according to this principle, should have been stable. Good luck smiles only on good scientists, and the expected compound did not form...led to the isolation of the first stable metal-alkylidene complex, [Ta(CH2CMe3)3(=CHCMe3)]."

A Salute to My Colleague Yves Chauvin, 1930–2015 #chempaperaday 196

Olefin metathesis is one of the most important and useful chemical transformations. The earliest versions of this reaction involved using not well defined catalysts and the reaction mechanism was not understood. In 1971, Chauvin proposed a mechanism that is accepted as the actual mechanism of the reaction today.

metathesis mechanism (source:wikipedia)

Chauvin died on January 27. I have read about him before. But, I think this is the best article.
Here are a few quotes from him proving how good a scientist he was:

“If you want to find something new, look for something new!”

“Some people say that there is too much chemistry in our society. It is in fact the opposite: there is not enough chemistry, not enough understanding, not enough control of chemical reactions. Catalysis is the key for a better chemistry.”

"Do difficult research"

This month's issue of The Scientist has a great quote. It is now one of my favorite quotes. I might even print and hang it on my wall. 

Do difficult research—it’s where the true answers lie. When doing research, don’t look where everyone else is. You’ll just confirm their findings. Look along the untrodden path going the wrong way—that’s where the unimaginable, disruptive, game-changing discoveries are.

—Neurosurgeon and former NASA researcher Mark Wilson, speaking about the future of emergency medicine on the Imagine the Future of Medicine blog (March 28)

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39758/title/Speaking-of-Science/

I think it is really important to take the risk and go for challenging projects instead of repeating other people's work over and over again or doing derivatives of other people's projects. Of course it is important to contribute other people's findings.  Your results might support them or maybe you will prove them to be wrong. But, I still believe that the greatest joy in science is to be the one doing something unique, to be a leader in your field/project. Of course it is very risky to be one of the first in that specific research area, but I think the rewards are worth taking the risk.

http://bgcpoco.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/mad_science_flask_girl_yq8e.jpg