 So, this is a good time for us to hear from Jeffrey Chamberlain, who is one of the country's leading authorities on the quest to make better, longer-lasting, more efficient batteries. He is the Energy Storage Initiative leader at Argonne National Laboratory. As you might have seen when you walked in, we have a bit of an investment game gimmick, which is for those of you who have a million dollars lying around, maybe in between your cushions and your sofa or anywhere else, if you have to invest in one technology and we do not allow for any kind of diversified portfolios here in New America, which one of these would you pick? And so, throughout the day, you can text your answer. I think the idea is what will be the best return between now and 2030, although it's reminded by Paul Roberts that the average length of a holding of an investment these days is four months. So, you can sort of pick your timeline, but the idea is look forward to 2030. So, Jeffrey, the floor is yours. Thank you. Thanks for the introduction and thanks for inviting me here today. It's really been a joy to watch the first couple of panels, particularly some of the more provocative. I found some of the statements in the first talk provocative and began asking myself the question, is my existence being questioned? And I think it is, and that's appropriate, actually. And I was thinking like any good scientist, I have about 10 minutes and I have about 25 points to make in those 10 minutes, but I'll narrow it down to one point with a sub point. And the point I'd like to make in the next 10 minutes, I'm going to tell some stories in the next 10 minutes, but the point I'm trying to make through those stories, I want to make sure I get across at the beginning, is electrification of the light duty vehicle fleet in the world and in the U.S. is happening. That's the main point I want to make. The second point that's underneath that point is that the U.S. is behind the rest of the world in the race to electrification. And the reason that's important, the way we're behind is in manufacturing, not technology development. The reason that's important is wealth generation. And we could argue all we want about environmental security and economic security and energy security, those are all important things. But wealth generation, from my perspective, is what we risk losing by not winning the race to electrification. So that said, I want to start with an anecdote. British Petroleum came through the lab this summer, a large group of executives, marketing specialists and technologists, to try to understand, and they pulled battery scientists from around the world, the leading battery scientists from around the world convened in Chicago and we met at Argonne, and BP was trying to understand battery technology and what it means. And when I was privately meeting with the top executive in the meeting, I asked him, okay, why are you really here? You gave us all these reasons in the presentation, but what's the real reason you're here? I'm curious. Is BP going to make batteries or are they wanting to make sure that the batteries never win this competition? His answer was, at British Petroleum, they understand that their business model is not infinitely sustainable. The question of 2030, I'd predict 2030 internal combustion engines will still by far dominate. But even BP was saying sometime in this century, they recognize as a company that their business model is not sustainable. So they were there to try to get an answer to the question, what will supplant oil? Not in the next 10 to 20 years, but in the next 50 to 80 years. And then another point I'd like to make is, when you think about this question of electrification, to over generalize, I like to ask the following question or put it this way. In terms of investing in the infrastructure for electrification, both in terms of research and manufacturing and the grid infrastructure or cordless while you're driving charging, as we just heard in the previous panel, either we are too late in making that investment or we're too early or we're on time. And I admit I'm over generalizing, but that's the question you need to ask yourself. And I would argue that we're on time or possibly a little bit late. And what I mean by electrification is happening. I just wrote down a list this morning of companies that I know that are that are developing and in the process of rolling out hybrid electric vehicles or plug-in hybrid electric wheels based on the lithium-ion battery, not the nickel metal hydride that's in the Toyota Prius. And here's a short list that I'm sure I'm missing some companies. GM, Ford, Chrysler, BMW, Audi, Mercedes, VW, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai. Not to mention smaller companies like Tesla, Fisker, BYD and China. That is an impressive list. And that's different from, remember, I'm a scientist. I'm a technologist. I'm not an economist. I'm not a policy guy. But when I see the investment that these auto companies are making and the battery companies in Asia are making, not having an MBA, I have to make an assumption there's a reason they're making that investment. That's a very powerful list and it's very different from 15 or 16 years ago when the EV1 was being rolled up by GM. Now, I noticed the Chevy Volt was not in your list and I know Bruce had to go through just a few cars, but I want to talk a little bit about the Chevy Volt and it reminded me, Tony Tether made a comment at dinner last night about changing architectures in the way we think. And the Chevy Volt does that. And there are multiple cars that are series hybrids like the Volt. But in case you don't know and I hope you do, the Chevy Volt is an electric car and it has onboard a generator. That generator is an internal combustion engine that relies on gasoline, but it spits out electrons. And it either charges the battery or it sends electricity straight to the electric drive. So it's a so-called series hybrid. It's an electric car. After you charge the battery, when you deplete that battery, the generator kicks in and supplies electricity to the drive train of the battery. Now, that may seem like a fairly bland technological innovation, but it accomplishes two major things. And I'll tell you, Chevy loaned me one for a week to drive. And I have to say, it's screwed with my mind a little bit, driving this car. And especially when I loaned it to my wife, she was constantly concerned about, when am I going to run out of the electricity? How far can I drive this car? Which is the common feeling when you're driving an electric car, range anxiety. So Chevy has solved that range anxiety question by allowing you to carry around liquid fuel and about 10 gallons of it. So you can always drive 350 miles whenever you feel like it. But between 70 and 80% of commuters, sorry, drivers in this country spend, drive less than 40 miles per day. But the real important technological innovation that harkens back to Tony's comments at dinner last night is that it's a change in the architecture. That what we have been trying to do is to plant or replace the internal combustion engine. And I should have started by saying, that's never going to happen. Not in my lifetime, not in my children's lifetime, not in my children's children's lifetime. So all the attempts to replace the internal combustion engine have been an attempt at a one way swap out. But this idea of decoupling the electrification from the internal combustion engine is clever because now you have a platform where when you improve the battery technology, you can decrease the size or cost or increase the range by having a better battery. Or you can improve the efficiency of the internal combustion engine or move to biofuels as a whole wide range of options that are going to be enabled by this change in a platform technology. Not to mention if you talk to artists or designers, and we heard this from the previous panel, you could design a whole different type of vehicle when you're getting away from the gas drive powertrain. Next point I wanted to make is, what are we doing at Oregon? And I wanted to say, I think we heard this in both panels this morning. It is all about economics. It's all about home economics, and when it comes to businesses, it's all about the economics of that business. And you hear a lot of material science, so we do a lot of materials research at Oregon. They do a lot at Berkeley, our sister national laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, MIT, University of Texas. Do a lot of materials research to try to make better performing materials so you can carry around more energy efficiently. And safety is always a primary concern as well. But in my opinion, I would argue it's all economics, even safety is economics. So I think I resonate with what I was hearing in the panels earlier today. But here's how a materials innovation can change the economic question when it comes to batteries. One of the materials that we've already developed and GM licensed in January, and the target is to roll out these materials in the next two to five years, depending on a whole variety of commercial questions, is that one thing we saw in the slide by Bruce that Shoe talked about, and we heard this from a couple different panel members today, is energy density is king. And that's true, but you also have to consider efficiency of conversion of that energy that you're carrying around to use. And the efficiency in internal, if you factor in, efficiency of conversion of energy in internal combustion engines from the petroleum distillate and factor in the efficiency of batteries, you're looking at the graph that Bruce showed is accurate. It's about a 20-fold difference in energy density. But when you factor in that efficiency of conversions, you get down more into the range of 5 to 10x, which is still large, but this detail is important because the materials that we're spinning out now in the Chevy Volt, I'm going to go back and I promise I'm not a commercial for GM, but I know that technology better than most. The battery in the Chevy Volt only lets the consumer tap into about 60 to 65% of the energy capacity of that battery because they're factoring in the fade of the materials over time so the consumer doesn't feel that fade like you do with your laptop or your cell phone. So when we've developed a material that you can pack almost twice as much energy into, but it's also significantly more stable so that fade doesn't exist in the material. So all of a sudden you can pack in twice the density and not have to over-engineer the battery at 40 to 50% over-engineering. So suddenly the cost becomes, the overall cost, gets reduced by 3 to 4x as opposed to just a 50% improvement. So that's the kind of work we do at Argonne and I just wanted to point out that that is where we're headed. And what I wanted to leave you with was, and we heard this in a couple of the panels here today, in terms of innovation and I hope we'll talk about it on our panel. I'm old enough to remember my parents buying the first Texas Instruments LED calculator and that was a fortune. We kept it practically in a safe. And what it did was it multiplied, divided, added and subtracted. I also remember the first microwave oven we bought which was also extremely expensive. But the one that really hits home to me lately and cell phones we talk a lot about, but our flat screen televisions. I remember the first time I saw a Panasonic commercial for a flat screen television about 10 years ago. I thought that looks pretty slick. It would work really well in my family room. Dug into how much it cost. It was $9,000 if you guys remember that. And I happened to spend a lot of time in Korea touring the plants at Samsung and LG where they were ramping up flat screen televisions back when they cost $5,000 to $9,000 and I couldn't understand it because again, I'm a scientist, I'm not an economist, I'm not a businessman. But here, a decade later, we can go to Walmart and buy that same television, actually much better technology for $4,500. So my point is, remember that technological innovation takes time to adopt and as you scale, the cost will come down. And if you connect that to innovations where the aim is reduction in cost, that's what you'll have a winning scenario. With that, thank you very much.