 Good morning. This one is not live, so I will use my booming voice. Good morning and Welcome to the Ford school. I am Sarah Mills I am a research here at the Ford school in our Center for local state and urban policy our acronym is close-up Close-up does applied policy research on a range of state and local issues But one of our specific initiatives looks at renewable energy The work that we do in close-up on renewable energy is largely funded by the Ford school renewable energy support fund and It really takes a view that there are a range of state local and federal policies that either facilitate or hinder renewable energy deployment The from the media or even some policy makers often focus on some of the big-name climate policies So there's a lot of attention on carbon tax or renewable portfolio standards or cap-and-trade or the Green New Deal And those are all important, but in order to have an energy transition We're going to need to deploy a whole bunch of clean energy infrastructure and so it's equally important to look at policies like citing because That controls the rules of where you're allowed to build infrastructure. It's important to look at tax policy both to make sure that clean energy developers have a Financial incentive they can actually afford to deploy this technology But also to make sure that there's something some economic interest in it for the communities that you that would host that infrastructure the the work that we do at close-up considers workforce development policy and making sure that there are people that are trained to be able to Have that clean energy transition come to fruition and I can go on and on but importantly a lot of these policies that we talk about here are on renewable energy and we know that a Transition and achieving carbon neutrality is going to take more than just building more renewable energy That's why I'm really thrilled that we were able to partner with UM's Global CO2 initiative to bring Carl housegird a campus to better understand What getting to net zero will entail? I want to acknowledge the other co-sponsors of today's event The school for environment and sustainability the Graham Sustainability Institute and the Center for Sustainable Systems and I also want to say thanks Susan fancy From the global CO2 initiative and Bonnie Roberts who's probably still running around in the back From the Ford School for making this event happen today And now I want to turn it over to professor Volker sick from the director of the global CO2 initiative to introduce our speaker But thank you again for being here Sarah, thank you for being the local host and good morning everyone I'm thrilled for any opportunity that I personally and I think us as a global CO2 initiative can have to Engage with all the schools and colleges on central campus We're sort of in the periphery of the city on North campus But but of course today we're looking at at climate challenges and solutions Which is is perfectly aligned with what we do at the global CO2 initiative and We will hear today from dr. Carl housegird who is Our guest today coming to us from the word resources Institute where he leads the climate program and Putting things in a broader perspective to see what the challenges are and how we arrive at sensible solutions At first glance things might make sense and upon closer inspection They don't we will certainly hear from a leading expert in this field One might say actually the expert in this field. He has been engaged in climate related programs for more than three decades and at WRI leads analysis and modeling of climate mitigation electricity market design and social cost of carbon He has done so many things that I could easily use up his speaking time here. No, I don't know I mean having spoken with you yesterday. I know that I need to spare any second. I can so Acknowledging your work for the Clinton administration in the EPA and towards Interagency climate policy development in COP one Also saying that you support it as chief economist the US Senate committee on energy and natural resources You certainly have put your degrees from Berkeley and Cornell to phenomenal use and I'm so pleased that you're here today Carl That's it. The floor is yours Thanks everyone. Thanks to all the sponsors of this really appreciate the chance to speak here at the University of Michigan I think it's important that we set the stage first by going back 66 million years To a lecture hall very much like this with a climate change expert speaking to the dinosaurs assembled The picture is pretty bleak gentlemen. The world's climates are changing The mammals are taking over and we all have a brain about the size of a walnut The dinosaurs went extinct They didn't mitigate the asteroid that hit the earth. They didn't adapt very well Fortunately, we have brains larger than a walnut and we are going to solve this problem We are going to mitigate Global warming we are going to adapt to the warming that is in the pipeline That job has begun and it's going to be carried on for decades to come by the students in this room Let's roll up our sleeves and figure out how to do it Here's an outline of what I'm going to cover today The net zero challenge how to take emissions down to net zero by 2050 consistent with the IPCC 1.5 degree report that came out over a year ago. I'm going to focus on three takeaways From that report the needed transformation of the entire economy particular attention to pathways to decarbonize the electricity sector and Finally the an emphasis on the need by mid-century for carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere I'm going to focus some special time on the renewables revolution We all know that the cost of solar and wind has come down How far can wind and solar take us on this journey? And I'm also going to sound a theme of the need to spread our chips beyond solar and wind And talk about the roles for nuclear and carbon capture utilization and storage or CCS CC us and Finally winding up with what I really consider the carbon capture imperative. I'm going to go pretty fast But you all are going to have access to a to my PowerPoint There's lots of links at the bottom of each slide if you want to dive into some of the sources I I quote and we'll have some Q&A at the end So many of you are probably familiar with the 1.5 degrees report it not only talked about the impacts of various levels of warming 1.5 degrees 2 degrees It urged us to start focusing on trying to limit the warming to 1.5 degrees rather than the kind of vague Widely accepted target of two degree two degrees that it helps way for many years It also laid out the kind of pathways We need to get on to limit warming to either 1.5 or two degrees This is the rather daunting rather scary chart again Many of you are probably familiar with it that tells us where we are now as a globe emitting roughly 40 gigatons of CO2 per year and How we need to get on a very steep slope of decreases. So we're emitting Roughly net zero emissions Maybe some positive emissions may be taking some out of the atmosphere by mid century Beyond that we're going to have to even do do more the the IPCC looked at dozens and dozens of computer simulations of how The world's economies could get there and I want to Emphasize three major takeaways from all that analysis of mitigation pathways First of all, yes, we need transformations across all sectors the power sector our buildings our transportation systems and our industry I'm Focusing on CO2 here from the energy sector as I'm sure many of you know, there are five other greenhouse gases There's also black carbon. There are many different Contributors, but the battle is going to be one or lost on what we do on CO2 It's about 80% of the problem, but we also need to work on the other five greenhouse gases, too Renewable electricity meaning largely solar solar and wind in the IPCC modeling They believe that with the cost decreases we have seen over the last 10 years We could have globally a system that's 60 to 80 percent powered by wind and solar by 2050 that's great news and Comes in at a cost far less than we thought 10 10 years ago But we're going to explore why that's not a hundred percent Why not 100% renewables in the electricity sector? Finally the big takeaway as as as you can see past 2050 Global CO2 emissions should actually turn negative We need to find ways to actually take CO2 out of the atmosphere Because we are likely to overshoot the levels that would hold warming to 1.5 degrees or to 2 degrees That is also a daunting challenge But doable and everything I say today about the pathways we can get on Can be done with technology that is currently commercial currently commercial or Is near commercial? we're testing it in laboratories or we're doing demonstrations and You know, we'll also have more technology innovation over the next 30 years that we can barely imagine now and Those tech that technology innovation always almost always brings pleasant surprises. So this this is doable Let's talk about the transformations There are four basic strategies that appear in all of the deep decarbonization literature on how we get there And I want to focus first on energy energy efficiency Just across all end uses in the economy. We need to be as efficient as possible We have been trying since Amory Loven's writing in the 1970s to make our economy more efficient We know we can squeeze more use out of every BTU or every kilowatt hour. We use we make You know gradual progress toward that goal. There's still a long way to go We know that with currently come technology or near commercial we can take the dollars of the BTUs per dollar of GDP from about three million BTU per thousand dollars of GDP and cut it by two-thirds Over the next 30 years if we're smart if we apply the technologies. We know work Once we make every every end use as efficient as possible The next step is to electrify as many end uses as possible to substitute Electricity the direct use of electricity for the combustion of fossil fuels and We we're already starting to do that with electric hybrids plug-in hybrids all electric cars in the transportation sector We know we could switch from gas water heating to heat pumps gas hot water to electric Water heating and so this and across industry. There is a number of applications we could use more direct electricity or Use electricity to create a zero carbon fuel like hydrogen or synthetic methane And so in this particular study done by Jim Williams and the consulting group EER That came out last year They charted pathways for the US where we go from about 20 percent direct use of electricity Across our end uses to triple that to 60 percent of all end-use energy. We know how to do that Finally known actually number three not finally if we're going to generate if we're going to electrify the economy Are we're going to demand a lot more electricity? We have to decarbonize that electricity and We can do that through a variety of technologies solar PV solar thermal wind geothermal hydro nuclear and Carbon capture used with fossil fuels or biomass all of those are either zero electricity zero carbon generation or Very low carbon generation and applying those we can take our tons per gigawatt hour In the electricity sector from over 300 down to below 50 or even lower depending on the generation mix Those three things combined can take us Way down this pathway the fourth strategy as I as I mentioned the beginning is carbon capture We can apply it in power generation we can apply it in industry and Ultimately we can apply it to actually removing carbon dioxide From the atmosphere these are the four big strategies that can get us down that road to net zero What is this cost? The good news is the cost of getting on these pathways has come way down Also from the Jim Williams study. This is a really fascinating chart of how the how much What percentage of GDP have we spent on supplying energy to the US going way back to 1970 and you see the giant spike With the two OPEC oil embargoes of of the 70s and then decreasing This is driven a lot by oil costs and then a fluctuating kind of in the six to eight to nine percent range over the last 20 years So the baseline projection of what we will spend on energy if we don't solve the climate problem It's kind of a steady decrease from six declining more as the economy grows, but you know Energy remains relatively abundant and cheap if we get on any one of this studies Seven pathways consistent with a three ultimately getting to 350 ppm by the end of the century Essentially taking the US to net zero by 2050 We are spending, you know, two to three percent Additional on GD of our GDP on clean energy Instead of the baseline case What that means is just staying in the same kind of range that historically We've been at and this is true globally as well as for the US so Solving climate does not mean the end of Western civilization. It does not mean that we tank the economy We could we can afford this It's far more costly not to do this This is a complex chart that gives you a feel for those transformations across Buildings transportation industry and what happens to various energy sources So on the top you have demand for liquids meeting larger, you know petroleum natural gas and electricity And then on the bottom of supply. Let's see what happens. How would we transform our use of petroleum liquids? What where we are here with? 30 quads mostly of oil fueling our transportation sector. We can take that way down and Instead we can substitute electricity in our vehicles Natural gas a bunch of it is used in our commercial and residential buildings We can squeeze that down with the technologies I described and and electrify it On the supply side our liquids our fossil fuels Decrease dramatically we supplement them with some renewable fuels We probably don't want to keep making ethanol, but we can make biofuels biodiesel things like that and lower content with with carbon capture On the supply side natural gas remains an element of Of the economy in this in this kind of pathway It decreases overall use but as we ramp up the electricity supply and again like I said when you electrify everything You've got to produce a lot more power Natural gas still plays a role. We get to about 67 percent renewables largely wind and solar with with our Sort of our existing hydro too We in this scenario we keep nuclear flat for about 20 years But then with a new generation of reactors that the nuclear component could increase The wonderful thing about this study that again was actually done for the our children's trust lawsuit back and released in 2019 is that the modelers have sort of a base case with nuclear and CCS in along with renewables along with Land use changes that that remove CO2 from the atmosphere and they kind of play what's that game Jango where you pull the blocks out Okay, they show a scenario. So if we don't if we don't expand nuclear what happens What do we have to do if we don't have good land use? What do we do if we don't succeed in like electrifying the economy is as much So you would if you read that study you'll see how this is how there's kind of a push me pull me thing When you pull options out one thing that they did not pull out because they couldn't Was some development of carbon capture technology? They could not get to net zero without some applications of carbon capture So we saw in the IPCC studies that we got to 60 to 80 percent solar and wind by By by 2050 we saw that same result in the US modeling that I just showed Which is also consistent across say the Obama long-term strategy report that came out in 2016 and other Modeling that I would call sort of mainstream Modeling of how do we decarbonize the power sector? Just want to give you two other examples. Here's The European Union's clean planet for all report from 2018 Where they showed how they can grow their renewables? To 80 to 80 what 85 percent by 2050 in their decarbonization pathways 65 to 72 percent of that is wind and solar the rest is some hydro and biomass as they phase out fossil fuels in the power sector the black diamonds and keep nuclear Relatively constant although it shrinks as a percentage of of total generation again This is kind of mainstream modeling of how to get there and the final example I'll give you is from Irina the international renewable energy authority Which is a collaboration of about 20 governments worldwide designed to promote renewable energy? across across the globe They put out a roadmap last year on how to get to near to net zero by 2050 and They too it come up with a very similar Model for the power sector where globally we could get 86 percent of our power from renewables a chunk of that is hydro a chunk of that is bioenergy About 62 percent is your solar and wind chunk mostly solar PV and wind small Chunk of concentrated solar thermal power. So this is all kind of a very consistent picture But how do we reconcile that with the headlines that often scream out of the trade press or the newspapers renewables are winning the battle Against coal and gas on economic terms Solar costs and wind costs are so low. They're cheaper than existing coal and nuclear according to Lazard Wood Mackenzie solar plants are cheaper than natural gas just about everywhere by 2023 Why would we not just build electricity sector entirely of cheap solar and wind One key to this is that these this cost comparison this this assertion that Solar and wind are cheaper than anything else relies on a metric called The levelized cost of energy meaning elect electrical energy and to understand that puzzle We we need to do a little a little dive on that As I said at the outset there has been a revolution in renewables The levelized cost of energy from a wind and solar plant has declined dramatically over the last 10 years economies of scale plus Plus innovation the cost of wind in the US has decreased about 70 percent on an lcoe basis Cost of PV solar has declined about 90 percent over the last 10 years on an lcoe basis So wind 28 to 54 dollars a megawatt hour depending on location utility scale solar Big plants not rooftop solar 36 to 44 dollars a megawatt hour, but what does this mean? What is what is the lcoe mean? That means just looking at that plant by itself in isolation cranking out power According to whatever pattern it is capable of You can do this for a coal plant or gas plant or nuclear plant wind solar. It looks at it in isolation So a nuclear plant might run 24 7 most of the year except for refueling a Wind plant is going to have sort of a stochastic pattern Across seasons across days. Let's just look at the average cost of what that what that plant puts out That's the important thing to keep in mind When we take that metric of lcoe and stack it up against other types of generation we find this this is the the Outfits that that that pump out these lcoe numbers are places like Lazard consulting Bloomberg new energy finance BNEF wood McKenzie So they rack up sort of similar numbers that we just saw to say here's onshore wind, you know Cheaper than 60 dollars a megawatt hour Tracking solar bulb will take non tracking solar will take not sure why they have large hydro in here because we're not really building any More large hydro in the US. We've taken up all the sites and here's combined cycle natural gas turbine and Look at these numbers. It looks like the solar and wind have now sunk below the total cost of Building a new gas plant and I also note that if you run numbers for nuclear coal coal with carbon capture Gas peaking plants gas with CCS. They would all they all they would all be tire here then then these numbers in the kind of 20 30 40 dollars megawatt hour but as You can probably guess we need to keep in mind that power systems are not built of one plant Like let's just build. Let's just find the cheapest plant and build lots of that power plant power systems Are built of different kinds of plants playing different roles based on their capabilities and and relative costs So I like to describe this as the riddle of cheap renewables and high system costs This is just a thought experiment from some authors at Google from a couple years ago They asked themselves What if what if I had a power system of just kind of dispatchable nice gas plants that cost me 4 cents a kilowatt hour And what if I started to try to decarbonize that with just one type of power plant add nothing but solar to that power system The system costs stay steady for a while, but eventually they start escalating Why because if you just keep throwing solar on nothing but solar Then you're throwing in a production pattern that just peaks in the middle of the day Drops to nothing for for 12 hours the 12 hours of nighttime. What if we did that with just wind? Just tried to decarbonize going from Zero percent Zero carbon facilities up to a hundred percent Zero carbon generation just keep throwing wind on over and over The system costs stay stable for a while, but eventually you get that nonlinear effect And finally even if you tried to back out all of your natural gas with nothing but nuclear System costs stay stable for a while, but eventually Turn up why why is that why does this phenomenon happen in All the studies I've looked at that that asked that question This is a this is another illustrate from from that illustration from that same Google study Or they asked sort of the same question, but this time let's let's do sort of a mixture of solar and wind Let's throw in some batteries Let's start with zero renewables and zero batteries and see what happens as we build out and add more and more Solar and wind and batteries and start backing out the gas You get a steady system cost for a while, but then you have this nonlinear phenomenon What happens why does that happen in these projections of very high renewable systems? It's related to something called integration costs and Do we have any electrical engineers in the room? No, okay Because of the intermittent nature the variable nature of solar and wind We have to take certain steps to keep the lights on to keep it reliable when it when it fluctuates as opposed to power plants that are Very highly reliable. They still break down sometimes, but you you control them When they operate and sometimes you can ramp them up you can ramp them down to follow load But it's different in a high solar and wind situation. The first thing we try to do to address that variability is build transmission lines to Aggregate solar and wind over a bigger geographic area the bigger geographic area you can aggregate over You have sort of the law of large numbers and the output smooths out to some extent Transmission is not free. That's an integration cost Second thing we can do and we're starting to do is load shifting Demand response try to move your demand for power to when the sun is shining to when the wind is blowing We can do this somewhat with the pricing mechanism charging different prices different times a day We can do with programs that use all sorts of cool cool software to cycle your air conditioner or turn on your Electric clothes dryer here and there we can ask industry to shut down certain hours and Give them some economic benefit for that We can shift Percentages of demand here and there some people think we could shift 20 percent or more move load around But it's not costless There are prices to pay for shifting load around that's an integration cost The third one that we've heard a lot about and again, there's lots of good news is storage As you've probably heard the cost of lithium battery storage has dropped dramatically also recently Uh, we are now often we're doing utilities are often installing four to six hours of storage On on their systems sometimes plants are are co-located with storage That's letting us push abundant solar in the daytime into four to six hours into the evening And avoiding those dramatic ramp-ups of other power sources When when the sun sets Batteries are still not free We're we're doing some You know steps to deal with sort of the daily fluctuation of Of wind and solar But there are also seasonal differences In wind and solar production in the winter Solar production is lowest for obvious reasons distance from the sun angle of the sun wind patterns vary by season And again depending on on weather and climactic patterns and varies by country to country We tend to have lower wind production Uh, I think in the summer is actually lower than uh, spring or fall. I'll have to double check I'll have to double check that but again depends on the country Um, there's also just weather fluctuation Sometimes you have weather patterns that just shut down solar and wind for days Uh, what do you what do you do in those situations? What's your integration cost to deal with that? What a number of modelers do when they project heavy renewable systems is actually deliberately create over generation in some months in other words if Uh solar and wind production bottom out in the fall and december just build the system Uh Really large to produce as much power as you need That system is then overbuilt in spring and summer and you have lots of surplus power If you do nothing with it that derives your system costs up We need to start thinking about if we have overbuilt systems We want to use that spare electricity say to create hydrogen if we're not using it in our buildings or industry or or our transportation systems Uh, so the layman sort of explanation for why does this happen at some point? Is that those integration costs? Are real and they get spread over Narrow or more infrequent periods large capital costs. They think of batteries That might be amortized over only a couple of days per year That's what drives us the exact shape of that curve depends on the system How much transmission have you built? How much load shifting area capable of doing so there's it's not necessarily always 80 or always 60 Maybe it can be 90 and so but It's kind of like a law of diminishing returns for the economists in the room You can't just keep throwing the same input into a production process over and over Without getting diminishing returns I love the german language They have a word a long word for everything just as an illustration dunke flaute The dark doldrums. This is not a computer simulation. This is a real record of what happens Pretty at least once a year in the winter in germany the dark doldrums where For 10 days give or take a couple of days The weather patterns it's really cloudy And the wind dries up and they have a dramatic drop in wind and solar production What do they do now? They turn on their coal and gas plants their sort of legacy fossil fuel system and their emissions shoot up for those for those days But this is the kind of thing That power system planners need to Compensate for and it's what all of us thinking about what kind of electricity system We're going to build. How do we deal with this? There's also simulated dunke flaute is That that happened in polar vortex periods during during the in the us So I want to go back and illustrate those integration costs in a little more concrete way here We've already seen this slide looks like solar and wind are looking pretty good as standalone plants But I want to show you the full graph from b and e f where you just saw this part, right? Here's the rest of what they show where they start illustrating the costs of integration So you look at what happens when we start throwing just four hours of storage onto a wind plant Well, we make it up Close to 100 over a hundred dollars a megawatt hour What happens when we throw four dollars of batteries on a solar pv plant? Well, we're up to 176 a megawatt hour What is the cost of demand response? I haven't dug into the origin of these numbers So I can't tell you what's behind them, but it's their representation of a range Of what that load shifting and demand response would cost on a dollars per megawatt hour This is a peaker plant, which we just run as few hours as we can open cycle generate and gas turbine Just a pure four hours of utility scale batteries is way up In the 170s 180s and new pumped hydro systems. That's a form of storage It's the largest form of storage we have right now. They've often decades and decades old If we try to build more pumped storage systems, it's pretty expensive So these are the integration costs that drive up the average system cost That we have to be concerned about Counterpoint And by the way, I'm not here to bash renewables. I'm not anti renewables I want renewables to carry as much of the load as possible There are uh experts largely a couple of academic groups in, uh, australia Finland and this is mark jacobson out of stanford that do run Models that say I can get you 100% renewables not only just for the electricity sector. I can supply energy across all economy They are not in the mainstream of models. This is a group. I personally I believe that they make rather heroic assumptions to get there heroic on the The amount of load shifting that is possible on how far battery costs will drop and how they When they model the entire world they model Integrated transmission systems across entire continents entire continent of latin america entire continent of africa The entire middle east is one kumbaya transmission system Why are you laughing? The um And uh, there are plenty of groups that um, there's ngos devoted to 100% renewables There's mayors that want to buy 100 clean which really in this case means kind of 100 renewables We have corporations that have said we want to buy 100 renewables Now those organizations are increasing use of renewables, which is good and The big integration costs are not going to happen the next couple years They're going to happen out in the 2030s 2040s if we stay on this trajectory Uh, so some people say don't don't worry about it now Budweiser even wants you to know that they're going to brew their beer with 100% wind And again, this might be a successful marketing campaign But I want to urge you all to think about solving the climate problem as Uh a question of what are you what solutions are you going to bet on? To solve this Are you going to put all your chips on a couple technologies? Or are you going to spread your chips across multiple technologies? There are VM and arguments to leave it all in the ground Stop fossil fuel use as quickly as possible Do not use fossil fuel and power plants or an industry even with carbon capture that takes the the emissions and Stores them safely underground There are our people who say shut down the existing reactors as quickly as possible Or maybe run them but Don't build any new ones these are value judgments about relative risks And I respect the people Their their opinions to say the the cost of the risk of nuclear are completely unacceptable The the risks of Fossil fuel use are are just unacceptable Because there's environmental risks of you know production of them and transportation, etc But there are also risks with almost any form of energy There are risks of all the aluminum mining and steel mining you need to do to build windmills And uh, there's land use impacts of Of any energy source So I encourage you to think about Trading off risks against each other And if you put, you know, if you take nuclear off the table What's left and how will you supply the world's energy needs if you pull ccs off? What do you do if you pull both off? You're effectively putting all your chips on a hand on a handful of technologies that may or may not solve this problem Spread your chips my personal philosophy The union of concerned scientists Uh, a watchdog NGO for the nuclear industry for many years has looked at this risk risk trade-off And they've concluded We should keep our existing reactors operating if they have a good safety record and the costs are reasonable We also have some promising designs for small modular reactors that are at the pilot stage Uh, that that development is is worth watching. We may want to as a society as a globe Put a few chips on that one Uh, carbon capture and storage Uh, the oil and gas industry has been doing it successfully for years to enhance oil recovery on existing reservoirs We know we can keep it underground once we pump it pump it down There's also a great innovation going on in this sector too. I'd encourage you to become familiar with Uh, a company called net power Demonstrating a 50 megawatt gas plant in texas right now that achieves 100 capture of co2 emissions I know i'm getting short on time, but boy, there's one really important thing industry Emissions we're going to need carbon capture Um, I want to spend just a couple minutes on this big task Removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere How do we do that? We can think of several ways on the right hand side here. You see what's called the natural solutions Enhanced uh, no-till farming and other agricultural processes practices that store more soil excuse me that uh, Store carbon in the in the soil We can plant trees. We can restore degraded degraded lands and we can enhance we can literally remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by growing more trees And then there's the technical means bioenergy with carbon capture and storage growing dedicated energy plants to then burn and biomass plants capture the co2 it has a net negative impact And we're even piloting piloting something called direct air capture A very energy intensive process that literally removes those 400 Parts per million of co2 out of the air Concentrates it is ready to use or store underground So those are those are some options There's other there's other things at the at the research stage enhance weathering rocks minerals seawater capture But let's go back to the ipcc pathways There they they showed us four illustrative pathways Among the many dozens of modeling exercises they reviewed. So you'll see that You know the familiar toboggan slide that I showed you earlier in in the four pathways What they illustrated was Depending on on how fast we can get our emissions down. We're either going to do a little bit of carbon dioxide removal or more or even more or even a lot And the color coding here Shows the limits of what we can do With afaloo agriculture forestry and land use practice. These are the natural means of soils and forests It can be an important slab of removing co2 from the atmosphere, but there's a limit To how much we can do with that And the ipc has scored those out the yellow part They coded in their original report as becks As bioenergy with carbon capture But this too could it could involve some Some constraints you start planning that many dedicated energy crops. What happens you start competing with food production and affecting biodiversity So many in the environmental community Don't like the idea of direct air capture. Don't like the idea of bioenergy with ccs. They want to use the natural means They want to restrict us to afaloo agriculture forestry And so p1 and p2 look a lot a lot more attractive But if you dig deeper Into the ipcc report You look at what what underlies p1 p2 p3 p4? What are the global energy demand projections? And this takes a little bit of digging and and uh And fixing the legends of the original report But what this chart shows is exajoules of primary energy consumption globally And we in 20 in 2015. We are about at 600 exajoules p1 and p2 Assume a dramatic drop by 2030 Of almost a third of global energy consumption. It makes assumptions like we dramatic movement to plant-based diets slower population growth other lifestyle changes to a less energy intensive lifestyle world worldwide All of which Personally I would welcome in many ways, but is it realistic to think that that's going to happen drops from 600 to 400 exajoules By 2030 and then leveling off or even further decreases I think we have to be prepared instead for growth in energy consumption and the p3 p4 Shows steady or increasing growth in energy demand If p3 and p4 is a more realistic view of the world or at least we need to be ready for that then We have to be ready to do this We need some form of technological CDR so This is what I call the carbon capture imperative We need to start moving now to innovate on carbon capture Start to deploy and scale up And put all the regulatory systems in place for safety and the public acceptance Not because we're going to deploy it today But we're going to have to start deploying it 2030 2040 and the lead times For that technology are not measured in months. They're measured in years and years I think we're going to definitely need it for carbon dioxide removal We're definitely going to need it for certain industrial sources. It is likely to play a role in electricity generation and And I I don't put Personally I don't put a lot of Uh Belief behind the idea that developing carbon capture creates a moral hazard that oh well You know, we're not going to worry so much about climate because we can take uh, we can capture carbon dioxide But again, that's something we might we may want to deal with in q&a So my key message is how do we solve this be efficient electrify everything produce mountains of zero carbon electricity Use a broad portfolio of technologies Make sure we innovate and bring lots of options to the to the table because we're going to need many beyond solar and wind spread our chips And also in the discussion i've a lot been talking about a u.s perspective But we also need to think globally The u.s is a technology leader if we don't innovate in some of these areas I'm not sure other countries are going to bring these technologies to fruit So even if we don't think we're going to need a technology We may want to do the rdnd anyway Because developing countries may need it eastern europe may need it countries that are not blessed with the kind of hydro And land and wind and sun uh that we have So thanks very much. I look forward to your questions