 Well, hello and welcome to our first ever combined Naval address on climate, energy and environment. My name is Commander Andrea Cameron, and I'm a permanent military professor at the Naval War College and director of the Climate and Human Security Group. Over the last two years, we at the Naval academic institutions have been building a network of faculty and students interested in climate and energy topics. This event was the idea of Professor Kristen Fletcher at the Naval Postgraduate School, and our amazing speaker today was recommended by Dr. Karen Flack at the US Naval Academy. The event is generously funded by the Naval War College Chair of Economic Geography and National Security. And joining us are also the Barrows Fellows from Marine Corps University who will be spending the entire year focused on climate change. Based on our collective interests, we decided to take advantage of our new recent technology expertise that connects us all and bring us together for this unprecedented combined Naval address. While most of us are logged on individually, I would like to take a moment to recognize the over 80 faculty and students from the Naval Academy who are participating collectively today. Professor Flack, can we see the audience from the Naval Academy today? There we go. All right, we're all over the place. We've got a big lecture hall. Thank you to the Naval Academy and for all of us joining this talk on energy innovation for national security with Dr. Saul Griffith. He's on the leading edge of understanding the global changes, the technological solutions, and actively working with Congress on climate and energy policy. The presentation is being recorded and we will stop the recording before the question and answer period. Welcome us today and introduce our featured speaker. I would like to introduce our own president of the Naval War College, Rear Admiral Shoshana Chatfield to join us. She is a leader, naval aviator, and scholar who's also a champion of the subject. Rear Admiral Chatfield, thank you so much for joining us today. Good morning. And welcome to the first combined naval address on climate, energy, and environment with Dr. Saul Griffith. I'm really honored and excited to kick off this event on a very important topic. First, though, I'd like to make some special welcomes. So, to Ms. Deborah Lumis, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Navy for climate change, we think you're out there and if you are, hello and welcome. We may have some others who actually will see this recording later so thank you and welcome to all of our active and retired flag officers are gracious. The Naval War College Foundation who do so much to assist us with our daily operations here at the Naval War College to alumni who connect with us and view our content, our partners in academia, our faculty and our students. I'd also like to give a special thank you to our Jerome e levy chair of economic geography and national security Professor Chris, just borrow for your continued support to the research and your contribution to make this discussion possible so thank you very much. And then to all of our events personnel we've learned a lot this year to be able to connect and use the technology that enables the event today. Across these many institutions. Thank you for all you did to prepare and invest in advance and to make this conference a success. And then to Commander Andrea Cameron for your committed work in this important naval war college study and your success in continuing to coordinate events such as this. So welcome to all. I think I got everybody. Thank you for logging in participating in this energy innovation for national security with Dr. Saul Griffith. And it is an unprecedented event in the spirit of our new construct of Naval University system. We're doing more and more to bring together our four naval academic institutions the Naval War College Naval Postgraduate School, the US Naval Academy and Marine Corps you. We are honored to be the host and to coordinate this event highlighting innovative thinking in climate and energy. And as you'll see Dr. Saul Griffith is thought provoking engaging, and I hope and inspiration to you. My challenge to all of you today is to think outside of your own area of specialty. Right because innovation and integration occur at an intersection which means not necessarily dead center of your particular area of emphasis or previous experience. Listen up, think critically about this important topic and these important areas that will be raised to provide points of discussion and feedback to one another to make future discussions and this one as meaningful as possible. As we drive toward a better understanding of our Navy our Department of Defense and our national implications and opportunities stemming from climate change and energy transition. And now I'd like to introduce Saul Griffith an inventor and entrepreneur and an engineer. He is founder and chief scientist of rewiring America, a nonprofit dedicated to decarbonizing America by, and these are not my words but I think yours or at least your publishers electrifying everything. He is also founder and chief scientist at other lab and independent R&D lab that has incubated numerous technology companies in sustainable energy and robotics. He was a recipient of the MacArthur genius grant in 2007. He completed his PhD at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2004. He's the author of numerous scholarly papers and a new book that's coming out we think in October from MIT Press called electrify an optimists playbook for our clean energy future. We are honored to have Saul Griffith join us today to talk about the importance of a climate and energy of climate and energy on our national security. Please join me in welcoming Dr. Saul Griffith. Thank you enormously, everyone. I actually feel very privileged to be your inaugural speaker in this event. I probably should contextualize I'm at a friend's farm in rural Virginia. So I'm actually not that far away from some of you, I suspect. And that's why I am indeed in the cabin in the woods. So that's where I'm coming from. I'm going to switch to the presentation. If someone can give me a verbal cue that we're successfully looking at the right thing, that will be great. And I'm just going to launch straight in and I've actually prepared far more than enough material for not only the talk but also the presentation, the question time. So I look forward to all of your questions. And then just to give you a little bit of context. The majority of the slides that I prepared for this talk actually came from a presentation I gave to the Senate caucus only a month or so ago to help them understand the context and the interrelationships of the policies. They're currently writing to address climate change in the US. And so it's a little bit more the public talk in the sense that I often talk directly to engineers, which many of you I understand are in training to be or already are. This is how you talk about engineering and climate for policymakers. So with that, I'm going to launch. So I've just finished writing. That works. Thank you. I just finished writing book called electrify and really have spent the last two years completely immersed in thinking about how to fix climate change how to make the actions to get them more concrete and how to reduce the confusion and electrify the the word and electrify everything the slogan is really an attempt at the public communication to cut through a lot of the confusion surrounding the solutions to climate change and to give us a clearer view. These really just do the slides to introduce me so I'm not a complete stranger to everyone. These are my day jobs, so to speak, so I run other lab it's 50 ish people, we do research and development. The majority of our work is in fact for the government. My clients or responses depending upon how you view it are most commonly the DoD and the DOE. So I've worked with all of the three letter acronym agencies in in both of those organizations. And then we develop technologies and those technologies have found their way into the market in the list of websites and companies that we've founded from building technologies in utility scale wind power utility scale solar power. Hydrogen energy storage natural gas energy storage, thermally adaptive materials, robotics, etc. So that's my day job. This will probably make you all squeamish or at least think I or for those of you who need to know that I'm a qualified nerd my my hobby is in fact energy data. I'm very interested in the question of why we think we know what we know about energy in terms of its role in climate solutions and so I'm actually flashing up here. This is called a Sankey flow diagram we'll talk a lot about it in the rest of the talk. This tracks all of the energy flows from one side of the US energy economy that's the side where it's tons of coal and barrels of oil and cubic feet of natural gas and kilowatt hours of nuclear solar and wind energy, all the way through every aspect of the economy. It actually tracks how efficiently that is used that hobby became a project with the Department of Energy in 2017 2018 and this is the result of that I'll be quizzing everyone in the audience on the details here, the details here, which obviously you can't read. We actually successfully traced energy flow through the economy to the tune of about 0.1% of all energy flows so I can now express the contribution to America's energy use of driving children to school in buses. The contribution of powering slaughterhouses that make our hamburgers, how much energy is used in crushing rocks and building roadways. And it's through this elucidation of the details of how we use energy, which was really the dominant source of our carbon that I think demystifies the reality ahead of us in addressing climate change. To contextualize me and my knowledge of you. In one sense it's this academic, this is actually the 1.3 quads that's quadrillion British thermal units which is an obscure unit that we still use to drive to describe the energy economy. I think the US government uses about or the US economy as a whole uses about 100 quads. So stop thinking about the units just think about it as percent it's 100% of the US energy economy, and the US government's utility bills, petrol and gas bill or gasoline bills and energy bills and diesel is 1.3 quads or 1.3% of the US energy economy. You can see how the government sector there breaks down in all into all of the departments. So 0.9% is the government sector of that the Department of Defense is the main consumer 0.7% of that the overwhelming majority is jet fuel. Yes, it's distillate diesel so what you know it is the thing that you put in your airplanes and your Humvees. And so I think this is interesting to contextualize the importance of the DoD and of the government in its roles in both the solution and the solutions of climate change. And then just perhaps to give you more context of my knowledge of the organization that you work for my PhD at MIT was funded through a combination of DARPA and Office of Naval Research contracts. I continue to work with those agencies we have we in fact are currently on contract with O and R doing underwater deep sea robotics. We are under contract with the Air Force and DARPA building electric drone technologies. And I have done a lot of work with SOCOM in building exoskeletons that we are now deploying both in the Navy. In the Marines and in the Army to enable the people in the field to have superhuman capacity so we are building components of Iron Man in the Marvel Universe version of my biography. The last component of my life is Rewiring America. We founded this. I founded this with Alex Laski, another energy entrepreneur last year. We really founded it to try and help America untie the ideological debates that are preventing massive rapid climate action as is needed. And we are trying to build the policy muscle, the regulatory unburdening muscle, the industrial coalitions required and even the popular support necessary for comprehensive US action on climate. I truly believe my theory for change is the world will not address this problem unless America leads because it's one of the very few economies that are large enough and complex enough to touch all aspects of the problem. And I believe American leadership on this is both critical for the world but also critical for America to renew in some respects the American dream and the American economic miracle of the 20th century. So now I'm going to build you the case for trying everything as would be seen by a senator. In fact, I'm even going to do a sub sector of that. I'm going to contextualize the transformation required in the US economy in terms of the household. And I do this because a lot of the conversation about climate has its history and talking about abstract sectors, the commercial sector, industrial sector, transportation sector. And I think the communications challenge of climate action now is making it concrete so we redraw that map in terms of the household and the transformation that's going to happen in the household in the US, which I actually think is even core to national security reasons for reasons we'll understand as I go on. So you're all aware of a carbon crisis. It really concretely is an energy crisis. These are the US reporting of its greenhouse gas emissions to the United Nations. 87% of our emissions are from coal natural gas and oil. The remaining 13% are from what they call enteric fermentation that's mostly cow burps to be honest also occasionally mistaken for cow parts although they are also contributor. It's the chemicals typically used as the refrigerants in our refrigeration systems, and it's nitrous oxides and other emissions from the way we do industrial agriculture in this country. But this talk is going to squarely focus on the huge slice of the pie which is our energy economy. Of that energy economy 42% of our emissions actually emanate from decisions that real human beings make around the kitchen table so there's 121 or 128 million households in the US on average they have 2.6 people 1.88 cars. And it's what those 2.6 people choose to put in their cars as their fuel. It's what they choose to use to heat their home. It's where they choose to purchase their electricity from. And it's how we make all of the fuels that go there that in total add up to be 42% of our emissions so contrary to the idea that we can only solve climate change by tackling a couple of large coal companies and a couple of fossil fuel interests. We actually really need to untie the fact that we are all complicit may not be the right word but we are all central to the decisions that actually will impact whether we succeed or not in eliminating emissions. And this is a little bit of context so the first real true understanding of the US energy economy occurred in the 1970s precipitated by the national security and economic crisis which was the Arab World embargoes of 1973 that landed on Richard Nixon's desk. He turned to his advisors this is a disaster there are people lined up for miles at gas stations that was the public manifestation of the problem some people were not even have enough heating oil to heat their homes. And he turned there was no Department of Energy at that time. And so he turned to the closest thing that existed at that moment with the joint committee for atomic energy. Quickly studied and expressed the US energy economy in a Senki diagram this is one of the manifestations of that this is the first Senki diagram actually drawn by Lawrence live more national laboratory who fell upon. And you can see over on the left. We trace the nuclear and the fossil fuel contributions into the sectors that at that moment, they needed to define the sectors and they chose arbitrary buckets, not completely arbitrary but arbitrary perhaps in how we have to solve the problem now. The electricity sector, the residential sector the industrial sector the transportation and then a few years later they created the commercial sector. This was indeed such a crisis of national security that the results of these studies and the think tanking that was being done to fix that energy crisis in 1973. We created the Department of Energy in some respects contributed the creation of the EPA. These things took a number of years. The first study was in fact called energy the national dilemma. It led to something called project independence project independence was a partnership between the nascent Department of Energy and the Fed. In terms of how can America afford to solve this problem so this was critical in every way to a thriving US economy and was understood that way. This is the same flow diagram also drawn by Lawrence live more laboratory in 2020. We really has changed in terms of the proportions or the fuel mix in any enormously substantive way and our proportion of waste energy and useful energy on the far right as you see it there. Actually, we, we are marginally more wasteful in 2020 than we were in 1973, which is, in fact, in some respects a definitional problem that's where we are. The actual right hand side of that graph is actually the conclusion that they reached in the 70s, which was waste is bad efficiency is good, and the thinking behind this very directly became efficiency as public policy. We know these as the cafe fuel standards corporate average fuel economy standards and energy star standards, which is appliance efficiency standards. Because the 1970s energy crisis was a supply side crisis 15% of us energy supply had been cut off. They looked around what can we do and they said well if we use 15% less energy on the demand side problem solved. And so the energy, the appliance standards and the fuel economy standards were their goals from the get go were to become 15% more efficient to solve this problem. That efficiency narrative has been very strong through 50 years of environmentalism because all of this happened just after Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring kicked off the environmental movement which became Earth Day in 1970. The environmentalists were trying to figure out what to do. These results came out and they latched upon to efficiency as the narrative in the solution for environmental crisis is crisis. That's not quite true anymore the climate crisis is a very different kind of crisis, you have to get to zero emissions and you cannot make a diesel powered or gasoline powered car efficient enough to have zero emissions. That's transformative solutions, and we even need to transform the way we think about energy as we have historically. You reach that conclusion if you do studies like I again show you this confusing diagram, where you try to think through how do you decannot carbonize every single one of these little pieces of spaghetti. And do you realize that you can't get there by the efficient use of fuels, we simply won't be able to sequester enough carbon to do it that way. And you realize that you need to electrify everything over on the right as the majority of the solution it solves 90 or 95% of the problems, and then you need to generate that electricity cleanly on the left. I think the new message to simplify things somewhat is electrification is the real efficiency. So, you can take your F 150 on the left that runs on gasoline. It's the status quo, mildly more efficiency standards gives you that middle bar you release your through aerodynamics and more efficient engines you get a little efficiency when, and you get the middle bar. But if you electrify that truck completely that the electric motor is about 90 to 95% efficient, whereas the motor burning gasoline on the left is only around 30% efficient, and that gives you an enormous efficiency when the same is true for the way we heat buildings that's furnace on the left. That's the dominant mode for heating our building stock in the US driven by natural gas. Our efficiency standards give you that middle bar again they make it burn, get more heat out of every unit of gas. But if you move to the heat pump on the left the heat pump is an extremely interesting machine you feed it electricity and it can create as much as three or four times the amount of heat energy for the from the electrical energy you put in by actually concentrating heat from the surrounding environment and filtering out the cold and pushes the cold outdoors puts the heat indoors it's opposite to an air conditioner. But once again, if we electrify the heating component of the economy which is the second largest consumer after our transportation. We have this enormous discount in the total amount of energy required if we electrify that cleanly. This is your water heater on the left again natural gas on the right, it is a heat pump water heater. Once again, one third the primary energy needs to be produced to power these things if that primary energy comes from nuclear solar wind hydro or even geothermal. The last major source of inefficiency in the US economy is the way we generate electricity. So on the left, that's actually a sketch of a natural gas power plant, you can make those marginally more efficient. Our coal typical coal plants are around 25% efficient to people natural gas 40 to 50 cent the net efficiency of the of the US generation fleet is about 38% efficient. They're getting a little more efficient every year that's that middle bar. Once again, if you go to clean electrification windmills solar cells, you do not lose as waste heat a prodigious amount of primary energy as we do with the way we generate energy today. The upshot of all of this is another confusing thank you diagram. Again, I'm going to, I'm going to describe it in broad brush brushstrokes. This took the previous diagram, and we talk out, we went through the thought experiment of what happens when you electrify everything that can be electrified, and any energy that we don't need goes away and goes up into those bars that you see up at the top. The first interesting thing is that 8% of the energy use in the US that we think is energy use is actually just an accounting era that was initially made around the way to account for hydro electricity in the 1960s. Curiously, that means I just told you that solving climate change in the US is going to be 98 or 9% easier than you thought this morning. There's some optimism. Those next big three bars are what happens when you electrify transportation, you eliminate all of that waste. The purple bars are what happens when you electrify heating. The upshot of all of these things or one other critical or very interesting piece of information. Close to 10%, it's, it's arguably between 7% and 10% of all US energy flow is actually using fossil fuels to find mine, refine and transport fossil fuels in the energy supply chain. So about 2% of our energy supply is used in exploration and drilling. About 1% of US energy flow is used is natural gas being used to pump natural gas through many millions of miles natural gas pipeline. About one quarter of 1% of US energy flow is using diesel on trains that pull coal from the site where it is mined to the site where it is burned. And 3% to 4% of US energy flow is you is using oil to turn oil into gasoline and distillate in the refinery in the refinery process. And curiously that use of oil, which really ultimately is for transportation and use comes under a goes under in is filed under industrial. So it really means that those cafe fuel standards are optimistic because 10 to 20% of the energy in your oil in the gas in your car was the energy used to refine it. The upshot of this is the bottom right hand corner, you need only about 40% of the primary energy we do today to run the entire energy economy. None of this is what you would think of as traditional efficiency measures so it's not smaller cars, it's not smaller colder homes. It's the same size of everything that we use these inherent efficiencies in electric technologies and generating clean electricity. So, you know in some respects it's all of the America at half the energy price. All of that detail has been hugely useful for me in elucidating the machines underneath this is from the small number of machines in the supply chain for energy on the left to the billions of machines on the right. Those small number of machines are the 1 million oil and gas wells, the hundred coal loading facilities a few liquid natural gas loading facilities, a few hundred refineries. It's a small number of very large machines that last about 50 years. That's the supply side of energy. The demand side is an enormous number of small machines that last 25 years these the cars in your driveway. These are the furnaces in your basement. These are the water heaters in your garage. These are all of the machines in our 120 million households. Historically climate policy lived nearly entirely on the supply side with large corporations large machines and their lobby groups that Americans who live on the demand side that's where we experienced the energy economy. And the decisions that determine the quality of our lives is is actually like I said before where a huge amount of our emissions occur and we need to actually now solve climate change thinking about supply and demand together, and how you retire and and replace the big machines on the left but also how you retire and replace those small machines on the right. And that's what happens if you remap the American economy in terms of the household so that little yellow house in the middle. I'll circle it. That's traditionally what we think of as the residential sector, but an enormous amount of the electricity sector and the waste from the electricity sector feeds into that. Some of the transportation sector feeds into the household via our cars and then some of the industrial sector bottom and the commercial sector feeding the household because they make our cars. They make the oil. They are the supply chains and the things that that become household energy uses. Let's talk in specifics about the very concrete task for the American economy. We have 98 million fossil fuel space heaters today whether they be oil heaters on the left or natural gas furnaces on the right we have 170 million water heaters mostly natural gas if you were propane. We have 220 million household vehicles the in 1998 or 99% of them are diesel or gasoline they need to be replaced out. We have 95 million stoves ranges ovens grills cook tops they need to be switched out for clean electric alternatives to remove those fossil emissions. There's 19 million gas dryers natural gas dryers in the US they need to be switched out for electric heat pump gas dryers to enable all of that to actually happen within the household. We need new household infrastructure and I'm very specifically intoning the word infrastructure. Traditional environmentalism might give you the the view that you can solve climate change if only you buy enough stainless steel water bottles and you sweat the decision over which kind of tune it to buy. But actually, it's those six decisions that I just previewed for you that are the infrastructure of your household they're the infrastructure of your life. You make those five decisions wisely what car you drive and how you power it what's heating your house what's and what's hitting your showers. Then those infrastructure decisions that you make once every 10 or 20 years decarbonize your life in the actual substantive ways that will decarbonize the economy. The infrastructure that we need on the household to make this the biggest economic when for the household is we also need to put as much solar on as many of those routes as possible. Those nearly all of our house houses will need to have household batteries to help balance the grid to help balance that solar to increase the energy security of the grid. And we also need to upgrade that third diagram there is not another thank you diagram that's called the main panel or the load center or the breaker box. This is where the grid meets your house and then farms out all the electricity, the things in your house. America chose 110 volts which makes this problem harder because you it's hard to put a lot of power over 110 volts when you're limited by current. And in fact we need to increase the electricity that's limited to that house by two or three fold so we also need to upgrade those breakboxes and we probably need at least one car charger in every one of those households for each one of those cars which is as many as a few hundred million car charges. All of those machines if you add them up just for the households of the US, it's about a billion machines. I'll be very clear about the task at hand to hit a climate target that beats two degrees Celsius or under four degrees of Fahrenheit of warming. You need to electrify cleanly 500,000 homes a month every month for the next 25 years or to express it another way. There's about one billion seconds between us and the time we need to be completely decarbonized. We need to manufacture and install one of these machines every second for the next 25 years to hit our climate target. I happen to think one of the great strengths of the US military is its logistics and I'd like you all to contemplate just how much this is a logistical problem and just how much we're going to need all of you in the national program to electrify and decarbonize. As is implied by the fact that that's so many machines at such an enormous clip. If you use traditional economic analysis, the existing energy economy employs about two million people in the US and there's indirectly about 10 million more jobs supporting those two million people. If you count up literally the amount of labor to go and install all those things, manufacture all those cars. It actually looks like to do this on the timeframe required it will create as many as 30 to 35 million more new energy jobs in the short term and a sustained five or 10 million more jobs than in the existing energy economy in the long term. So this is going to be an enormous creator of jobs for the US economy if we choose to take this on on the timeframe required. It also will have an enormous economic benefit to the American household. Just on the economics today, if the American households could afford the upfront capital costs of buying these electric machines, they would be saving 103 million of those 120 million households, the great majority already with technology exists today would be saving $37 billion a year at today's prices. And that is that is today and then obviously technology is progressing and that will get much much better. And so we will save more money and I'll cover that in a second. The urgency is driven by these climate realities. So this is the emissions reduction curve required to hit a two degree Celsius target on the right and a one and a half degree Celsius target on the left. And as you can see, it is a precipitous cliff that we have to traverse to stay on target for one and a half, which is where the world's climate scientists think we need to be I certainly think we need to be there. And this is in some respects where you hear the statement that the Biden administration would like to reduce American missions by 50% by 2030, it's driven by this in urgency. The reason they have 50% by 2030, not even more that I have here is because in the global climate community, not the climate scientists but the economists who come in after them. They assume enormous amounts of negative emission technology that's carbon sequestration to happen later in this century. I think we're banking on that to soften these curves. I think we're banking too much on that. I think these curves are more realistic. And so it is even more urgent than what you're hearing federally right now in my mind. And we need to do even better than 50% reductions by 2030 just kind of played that that's this decade that is your working careers is the urgency around the household. I'm super imposing on those same timelines. The lifetimes that all of the existing fossil fuel machines that are in your household will exist and you can see in the bottom right there, the machine and the average lifetime that those machines exist. This is a very important concept in not climate science but in the sort of policy and engineering that follows climate science about the pace at which we need to be carbonized. This is called committed emissions. This is the reality that a fossil fuel fire powered machine that exists today will emit carbon emissions for its lifetime. So if you bought a new Ford F 150 that's gasoline powered last year, it is likely to commit. Emissions until 20 and until 2030 or 2040 same if you bought a natural gas power plant last year, it will also probably keep emitting through to 2050 or 2060. This is to say, the machine the machines that exist on the planet today, if they're all allowed to live out their natural lifetime will consume the carbon budget all the way through to 1.8 degrees. So we need now the schedule in your head I want you to contemplate this and contextualize it in terms of your own household and then perhaps in terms of your, your careers. We need every single time a fossil fuel machine reaches the end of life the next time your car needs to be replaced it needs to be replaced by an a cleanly powered electric machine. If we had to stay on target to be two degrees. That is the fundamental reality. So this is what perfect execution looks like this is if we, if we ramp up production so we can provide all those electric vehicles and those electric water heaters as soon as possible. And then at every purchase for the next 30 years we make the perfect decision. Quickly, that's the, the imperative imperative in terms of climate I actually think there's an economic imperative for the American people on the right. I'll provide the slides that everyone can go and look at later so you can look at the details the details are interesting what that picture actually says is the average American household has after tactics expenditures of $60,000. They spend more than four and a half thousand dollars of that on energy close to $2,000 on gasoline or diesel. That's more than the average American household spends on education they spend more on electricity than they spend on all of their fresh vegetables and meat, and they spend more on natural gas and heating oils than they do on dentistry, and then on the left you can see the percentage of the expenditure household income for each of the 10 deciles of households so the highest income 10% of households about 10% of spending, it's actually not significant. If you're in the lowest 10% of households economically you're spending as much as one third of your paychecks, or your income on energy and in fact there's an enormous amount of energy insecurity at the household level for fully 50% of households. I think we fix that if we adopt and attack this problem at scale. This is the question of why the household and why now. I'm going to sort of tell you a romance novel version if you could create a perfect country that had Australian rooftop solar policy. The original California electric vehicle policy and South Korean Japanese or German building heating and heat pump policy. If that country existed in one place and you made that place the America. So we get the Australian $1 of what rooftop solar we get delivered heat at three cents a kilowatt hour. We run down the industrialization we get batteries installed at $100 a kilowatt hour where today they're $1,000. Clean grid solar and wind make producing it three or four cents and we replace all the electric vehicles. This is the annual household savings in about 2028 of every US household and you see that saving on average is about $2,500 per year. I think this is enormously consequential in terms of the way we are currently framing the energy and climate challenge. And where I think there are ideological and culture wars being fought and it's made to sound like all of this is going to cost us this is really concretely to say with technology that exists today if we attack at speed. And with grace this problem. We, it's not going to cost us money it's going to save us an almost amount of money and the investment will be returned to us in economic prosperity which I think is, as you all understand very tightly coupled to national security. This is the, I think the next thought you need to have after that is you can't make this miracle occur only for the wealthiest 50% of households we need to figure out how to make it work for all households. We need to fix the regulatory environment we need to be able to provide finance, so that at every point of purchase for every household in the next 30 years whether they're buying a car or water heater or furnace or an air conditioner they need access to these electrified products. And so that we can achieve that economic and climate miracle. This slide really just contextualize the set of headlines that you're now hearing in terms of climate policy being written. I've sort of color coded it to that 2020 thank you diagram. There is the twin 2035 clean electricity act, its goal is to decarbonize that giant green section there that's the energy supply into the electricity sector. The clean cars for America act is all about getting to 50% electric vehicle sales by 2030 I want you to again consider that in terms of our climate goals from what I've just said we need to be closer to 100% of electric cars in 2022. So, these are, you know, these are the policy goals, but they're still not commensurate necessarily with our climate goals. The yellow section there is the zero emissions home act. This is about electrifying cleanly all of those appliances in the house that we've talked about. There is not policy in a substantive way for the commercial sector and all for the industrial sector, they're dressed in small ways in the legislation, but there, we are not even fully in the most ambitious climate legislation we've had ever in this country. We're really only addressing about three fifths of the carbon in the economy, and so we need even more and even better and very soon to stay on target. This then hikes back to the efficiency and electrification argument I gave you at the beginning I'd like to say this is, you know, we can have all of the American dream at half the energy, and none of the emissions if we act boldly and quickly through electrification. I'm actually concerned that I'm through my time I'm going to finish maybe if someone can nod or give me a time check on how we're doing. If you could wrap up in a couple minutes we have some questions for you so. Yeah, here's the here's the one minute wrap up. Roosevelt God handle handed the Great Depression that was his crisis. Nixon crisis was the 70s energy crisis. Every president gets a crisis it seems. The policy response to the great recession was to inject money back into the US economy through housing household finance they invented in 1936. They had nothing to prove to enable the average American household to afford to mortgage and purchase a house a piece of in effect this was declaration that the American suburbs would be critical American infrastructure entitled to special low interest finance and that was to stimulate the creation of jobs in the construction industry and other aspects of the economy that took unemployment from about 20% down to 15 or 16%. Then another crisis was handed to Roosevelt that was World War two. You know, in summary Churchill called Roosevelt in a panic after. After Dunkirk said where approximately we are ruined. If you don't come to our rescue, it's going to be an enormous amount of trouble. This is, we've just seen the enemy stated in the face. It's going to be a fight that's fought in the air and on the ground with tanks, we don't have any. And, in fact, Roosevelt didn't have any the US had to sort of toy tanks and there were 1000 aircraft in the whole US economy in 1939 when this phone call occurred. And something called the arsenal of democracy actually occurred this was Roosevelt employed an industrial Titan called Henry Knudsen to lead the wartime production board they declared the critical materials to win that war. Were tanks, armored vehicles, Liberty ships to ship everything to Europe bombers to win the fight in the air and guns and musicians and so any American business that could produce those critical emissions was given underwriting and subsidy to produce those that was it was a cost plus 7% profit on everything it became known as patriotism plus 7%. Within two years of fully ramping up that the unemployment went from 17 or 15 17% to 1% unprecedentedly low that it was actually an economic boom also happened domestically in strange ways during the war. We need that to be the story of this decade in the US except this time it's not airplanes it's wind turbines it's not tanks it's electric vehicles, it's not bullets it's batteries. If we do that right this decade, you can imagine the deployment decade through middle of the next decade will be a boom equivalent to the post war boom where all of that manufacturing capacity not only built out the American dream but also created all of the exports under things like the Marshall plan to rebuild Europe, America could play that same role today. Figure out how to do some domestic economy and then have an enormous export economy focused around decarbonization, and then we'll play clean up on those last 13% emissions which many of them still don't have solutions yet ready to go. That's where our long term research and development will pay dividends in the industries that really help us solve climate change and bring us through the end of the century. So, that's, that is the optimistic view of what is possible our window for making this happen is years, not decades. And so I'm happy to present you that and then take questions and and hear what you have to say.