 Welcome to everyone. Sally and I would like to welcome you to the first Stanford Global Energy Dialogue. We are living in extraordinary times. Since the beginning of this year, the world has changed dramatically. To understand this unique moment in history through the lens of energy, we at Stanford are starting a series of conversations about the future of energy. To set the stage for today's dialogue, the global pandemic has thrown the world not only into a global health crisis, but also major economic crisis. As of May 28th, 40.8 million Americans had filed for unemployment claims. Although last week saw some improvements, we have a long way to go. Unemployment rates have exceeded that of the Great Recession, and in some states it has approached those found during the Great Depression. This economic challenge must be addressed immediately. Since energy use is the foundation of all modern economies, can the energy sector play a role in short-term recovery process? And if so, how? We will explore this issue in our conversation. Now, there are mid to long-term issues that cannot be ignored. With the growth of global population and economy, there will be an increasing demand for affordable and secure energy. At the same time, rising concentrations of carbon dioxide and pollution in the atmosphere pose a threat of another kind. Unabated emissions are driving the world to a point where decadal to century scale climate disruption could place the world in economic and health crises even more challenging than the current pandemic. We must address this dual challenge of energy access and climate change in the immortal words of Reverend Martin Luther King with the fierce urgency of now. Does the current pandemic offer a rare opportunity to re-evaluate our approach and define a new normal? So just to get the audience going, we're going to launch a poll in a quiz. In a pre-pandemic business as usual scenario. Please note, pre-pandemic business as usual scenario. How many years do we have left before the world exceeds the CO2 emissions budget to keep the global average temperature rise below 2°C with a 50% probability? Is it less than 10 years? 10 to 20 years? 20 to 30 years? Or more than 30 years? So we're going to give 30 seconds before we close this poll for all of you to respond and then we will reveal the answers at the end of the opening remarks. Right. So let me continue. Putting people back to work by rebuilding a new clean energy infrastructure can go a long way towards these goals. What does the energy system of the future look like? What kind of jobs are needed? How fast can we move? And how can we help the world accelerate the transition to a cleaner, modern energy infrastructure that supports both economic development and a healthier world? This is the new normal we want to explore in the series. So joining us today for this conversation is the Honorable Ernest Moniz, the 13th U.S. Secretary of Energy from 2013 to 2017. He was the founding director of the MIT Energy Initiative and is currently the CEO of the Nuclear Threat Initiative. He's also currently the CEO of a nonprofit called Energy Futures Initiatives, where he leads a team of experts providing policymakers, industry leaders, NGOs and other leaders with analytically based unbiased policy options to advance a cleaner, safer, more affordable and more secure energy. We really cannot think of no one better to kick off our global energy dialogues. He has recently argued in an op-ed and in Congress that rebuilding a new and clean energy infrastructure could and should play a role to preserve existing jobs and create new ones, ones that are better than the previous jobs, and ones that would help us prepare for the future. After Sally and I finish our conversation, we will have a student from the Stanford Energy Club continue the dialogue. They are representing the thoughts, ideas and questions of other energy clubs around the country. And finally, Sally and I will hold an open Q&A session. So let me hand over to Sally now. Well, good morning or good afternoon or good evening, no matter where you are in the world, we're delighted to have you here with us. What I'd like to do is reveal the first poll so if we could pull that up so that we can all take a look. So the question was in a pre-pandemic business as usual scenario, how many years do we have left before the world exceeds the CO2 emissions budget to keep the global average temperature below two degrees C with a 50% probability? Okay, so we've got answers less than 10 years, okay, that was the majority, 10 to 20 next, 20 to 30 next, and then finally one degree C. So the answer is 20 to 30 years. So clearly, you're all very concerned about the urgency of this issue and rightly so. But yeah, so a little bit longer than the average there. So as I'd like to just jump right into our discussion with Secretary Moniz, so thank you again for being here. I'd like to start off with that COVID-19 has shown us just how vulnerable we are to global economic disruptions. And as Arun mentioned earlier, many have made parallels to climate change, making the case that we need to accelerate getting to net zero emissions. You have thought about this a lot. So what will it take to accelerate the pace to net zero, and what is the right pace of change, and what does this new clean energy system look like? Thanks Arun and Sally. First of all, let me thank you for giving me a virtual visit back to my alma mater for this for this discussion. And also let me say that in terms of the COVID and climate parallel, I think I would also emphasize that both present a tremendous need for what you would call risk management. And frankly, we have shown that we're not doing very well in that in either case. You know, in terms of the COVID, this is the sixth epidemic pandemic in this century. And we have not actually moved to respond very well. So on the climate side, I think one of the things we need to conclude and draw as a lesson is that first of all, we better listen to the science. And second of all, we better take much more seriously our approach to risk management. Now, in terms of the pathway, I think it's and the time for change, you asked about what's the right pace of change, the right pace of change is fast and now, and we are not exactly doing that. So we need to pick up the pace dramatically. Now, the pathway to net zero saved by mid century and I believe that that is certainly for the industrialized countries at least the kind of goal that we need to succeed at in terms of the pathways. The pathway starts with efficiency energy efficiency, and then with decarbonizing electricity, where we have in fact made a lot of progress in terms of efficiency. I would just note that the, if you take only the appliance standards equipment standards that were put in place in the Obama administration to get a scale. We're talking about nearly three gigatons of CO2 by 2030, and we're talking about over half a trillion dollars of energy savings. So in other words, that's the and that's not even counting. Let's say in the transportation sector cafe standards and the like. So this is a very, very big deal and something to which of course we all can can contribute quite quite directly on electricity. So worth noting that in the United States, the electricity sector, which we've always thought is the lead horse in getting to to a low carbon economy. We are beyond 25%. So we're making some good progress. And many of our largest utilities are beyond 40% in terms of CO2 emissions reductions. So this is a critical sector. We are seeing leadership in this sector. We are seeing the opportunities for electrifying other sectors as a pathway for the for the economy as a whole. However, let's talk even about electricity, and I'm going to be very blunt. We see lots of statements about electricity decarbonization by 2030 based upon wind solar and batteries. I'm sorry. This is what I term magical thinking. It cannot happen in that way and in that time scale. For example, in terms of the wind and solar approach, we did as you're sitting there at Stanford, we did a deep dive in terms of California's approach to deep decarbonization. And one needs to look at the data. One finds that wind. It's terrific when it blows, but what about the nine and 10 days in a row when there was no wind solar. It's not surprising. It shouldn't be surprising that the solar resource is twice as much in the summer as in the winter. So all we're saying is that there are large variabilities. These will be critical components of getting electricity to zero carbon. But we need, frankly, an assault across the board on all approaches. So renewables and batteries, yes, but we need storage for longer time periods in a few hours. We need to really push on carbon capture and sequestration. It's not universally popular, but we need it. Frankly, we found in California that nearly 20% of their goal in 2030 probably has to come from CCS in the electricity and the industrial sectors. We need to start getting hydrogen really deployed. We need to have negative carbon technologies deployed. What we need, in my view, is this decade to be the decade of all out innovation and deployment. With that, we can, I think, decarbonize electricity, certainly by 2040 maybe maybe a bit earlier, which would be great. But then to remember that we also have all those other sectors, transportation, industry, buildings, agriculture. And I'll just make two points there without going into the specifics to say that as I already noted with the CCS in electricity, the number of those technology directions, CCS, carbon dioxide removal, hydrogen, those will also be critical tools for the economy. Why decarbonization that we are going to need. So really pushing on that is important. And finally, I may have gone on too long and it's a respond to your question. But finally, to say that net zero. Is the right goal, let's say from mid century deserves having an emphasis on the word net. The word net means that it's practically a tautology that we will need significant negative carbon technologies. This is a place where we have barely scratched the surface, certainly in terms of getting scalable solutions. And I don't mean by this only direct air capture, I mean other approaches, biological approaches, for example, mineralization, accelerated mineralization, etc, etc. That this is a now feeding back. This is a good example where if we don't make the all out innovation push in this decade to get a whole portfolio of negative carbon technologies available. I don't see how we make net zero in 2050. And certainly by definition, we cannot get to the negative net emissions economy that we want to have later later in this century. So I think that's kind of the, it's the right goal. We got a lot of work to do. Let's roll up our sleeves. Let's get on the innovation and the deployment. Get that train moving right now so that by the 30s we have a lot more tools at our disposal to manage to manage to meet our goals. Okay, well, thank you. Thank you very much for that very comprehensive answer. What I'd like to do now is quickly launch another poll, which will tee up to be the next, the next topic. So how many Americans are employed by the energy sector and energy efficiency sectors. And if you could answer quickly, you've got, let's say less than like 25 seconds from now, and then we'll quickly reveal the answer that will pave the way to a deeper discussion on that topic. All right, so a wide range of answers again, two and a half million 4.2 million 5.7 million and 7.1 million. Actually, those are terrific answers. So if we look at the energy and energy efficiency industry, that's about 5.7 million. And if we include the auto industry that will add another two and a half million. So depending upon how you were thinking of that question, I'd say you well did really well. Okay, let's let's close the poll and turn this over to everyone. Thank you, Sally. And thank you, Ernie. I mean, this is a university so we have to use polls and quizzes. That's what we do. Let's only just following up on your on the numbers that you gave and the idea that the next decade is going to be critical for energy innovation, as well as for deployment. Let's take stock of that in the context of the economic recovery that we have to introduce now. So let's take stock of that. The 5.7 million people in employed in the energy and energy efficiency sector, 37% of which are in construction, 13% are manufacturing. And these sectors did not regain the job losses in the 1999 Great Recession, and they are at high risk right now. And you have argued, as you just did that, you know, energy innovations and energy recovery are are pretty are intricately, you know, involved in this so you have formed something called an energy jobs coalition with the AFL CIO, and have proposed six priority areas. So let me take the first three you said number one, energy efficiency and climate resilience. Number two, energy infrastructure, and number three, incentives so clean energy technology investments. So I was wondering if you could connect the dots between this energy innovation the next decade thing on one hand, and our economic recovery that we need to go through right now. One question Arun. One of the activities that we have carried out at the energy futures initiative, in fact, has been an annual US energy and employment report. I might I might say that some of those numbers that are out there the 5.7 million for example, you cannot derive from the conventional Bureau of Labor statistics numbers it's worth, it's worth indicating that because for example, an energy efficiency job does not exist in the in the official way of organizing the workforce, because for example, while there are 2.4 million energy efficiency jobs, about half of those are scored as construction jobs for for as as as one as one example. So so it's big, but I think for the purpose of your question. It's even more interesting to note that over the last five years. The job growth in the energy in these energy sectors that you described has been over 12%. Of course, that's during what I would call and I think you would agree is the very early stages of the energy transition that we are going going through to to low carbon. That 12 plus percent is is is an interesting number when compared to the economy wide number of 6% job creation. So one of our arguments is that, frankly, the energy transition is a high leverage situation for job creation. And boy, do we need job creation over these next this next year or two. You mentioned the larger unemployment claims. We all understand that those jobs are not just all going to snap back. The stock market might snap back, but the jobs will not so easily snap back. So, so our argument is let's combine. Let's put these threads together and start that big push we need in this decade in this energy transition, heading towards where we want to go anyway, you know, Wayne Gretzky go with a pucks going to be but doing it in a way that will have tremendous job implications right now. So we think that's that's extremely important now. You mentioned the our partnership with labor well, it's a natural development in a certain sense, given our focus on jobs. In fact, I want I'd like to say that we can discuss this more later if you wish, but one of the things at the energy futures initiative that we have put forward is our framework for thinking about these issues is what we call the green real deal. The green real deal starts by the adopting the fundamental principle of the Green New Deal. And that is that we must pursue our low carbon future and social equity together. I think that that's the case, a because it's the right thing to do, but be also because if we don't address the social equity issues that includes this jobs these jobs issues. We're going to have headwinds for that for that transition. We're going to make tailwinds and tailwinds come from getting broad coalitions together, labor and industry, finance groups and environmental groups, the Democrat and Republican, we could go on and on, in terms of the kind of coalition we need. But that that social equity dimension must always be in the foreground. So that's why we have emphasized very strongly the question around jobs and good jobs and why we've gone into partnership with the AFL CIO to both support the low carbon transition and make sure that that jobs are part of this. Now, in that energy jobs coalition as you mentioned, we kind of have six pillars, the first one around energy efficiency and and climate resilience. And there, just to take an example, one example of what we think we should push on right now to satisfy those multiple objectives. Modernization and efficiency upgrades of the enormous number of public buildings we have across the country in both urban and rural settings. One reason why that is a very interesting direction is not only for the energy issues, but also because to the extent to which we remain concerned about the virus. About rebounds in the virus. About returning to situations where isolation is even more important. Well, think about it. Public buildings typically don't have people in them for large parts of the day. Perfect time, perfect opportunity to do these major modernization and efficiency upgrades. So that's just an example of how both the long term and the short term issues can come together. I'll give another example of long term and short term. I mentioned earlier that developing carbon capture and sequestration is is very important. And it is and we need to move on it quickly. And by the way, one reason for moving on it quickly is because today there are with strong bipartisan support major tax incentives, as long as the project start, no later than 2023. Not very far away. In other words, again, there's a short term impetus for something that will have long term implications. But think of it in terms of the jobs. Well, as everyone knows, it's it's it's very volatile. But we are in a situation where the oil sector, for example, has been heavily impacted by the demand reduction that results from the COVID virus. Now the reality is that sector was under substantial pressure before the virus. In the United States, we all know that the entire shale production based upon debt accumulation, as opposed to cash flow was being looked upon poorly by the financial financial sector. The oil sector we understand will be having a secular change throughout this energy transition. So what's the connection to carbon capture and sequestration. The skill set is largely the same. The geographies will be largely the same. So in other words, as we have transitions in the oil sector will also have transitions in the CCS sector, which can solve our carbon and our jobs issues if managed properly. Here's the couple of examples in terms of how these longer term and short term issues fit in. Now we also mentioned energy infrastructure. That was our second pillar that that you referred to. And clearly there are major issues like grid modernization where we could have a tremendous focus on getting real, certainly on the pilot scale and larger projects are going, we can address the, the national need for a charging infrastructure for electric vehicles for hydrogen, etc. But let me give you another example, and in the same spirit of this short term and long term. I think the very interesting development of community solar projects. Especially living in dense urban environments, you don't have a lot of rooftops, for example, but community solar where you find patches of ground of land that can support megawatt or five megawatts of solar and be bought into by citizens in different living environments is a very interesting developing direction. Let's again talk about the issues of the virus. Well, you know, while entries into homes for putting up rooftop systems may be still uncertain in many people's minds, building a nice community solar project, perhaps close to a disadvantaged neighborhood. And we've seen that I've seen that personally in Detroit, for example, employing local labor is a way again where we we check so many boxes at once, we need to think creatively along along these lines, and coven may may may focus our minds on that. The third pillar, I think we've already touched upon is that about innovation. And it just that there, I think we could do more for example, I think we could have a real focus on rapid prototyping of new energy technologies. And that could be done with new arrangements with our DOE national laboratories. You know, it can be also technology transfer inwards in the sense of providing the capacity for entrepreneurs to move much more quickly into the prototyping stage that can that can lead to further capital accumulation for those projects. In fact, one very specific one and I, I mentioned it since a room we know your special fondness for RPE. Well, maybe there really should be some follow on RPE grants that go to this prototyping stage. For example, there's so much that we can do and unleash in what I think, again, needs to be this decade of really juiced up innovation. I think this has started something called a scale up program, which is precisely what you're talking about. But let me hand over to Sally, and I know you have some follow up on this. You know, I've had one more actually I wrote sorry before handing it over just, I would say in that that thing as well. I think so many of these projects along their development scale could really use some help in the front end engineering design period. So those gaps in the feed studies in the prototypes. Again, I think are something that we could see some frankly stimulus like support for. Yeah, I mean, you're right that, you know, we always think of R&D as upfront and then later on the industry R&D is all throughout it's not just right up front. I mean, that's the research part but the the D part continues. And I think you need the R&D support all throughout the process of scale up as well. Yes. Sally. Yeah, so so actually you had a six part six part plan with your energy jobs coalition. And the way I think of these are a little bit more that not the what so much but the how. So these included laying the groundwork for clean energy industries of the future clean energy tax incentives, and very importantly, workforce development, which gets to the equity issues you talked about. And then also how does the whole package fit together. Well, I'm laying the groundwork. The point is that in some of those areas we've already discussed, like CCS, like hydrogen like technology enhanced. Carbon removal, multiple pathways that we should be thinking about these not just as kind of, you know, new products, new processes, etc. These are new industries. I kind of alluded to that in this idea of how the CCS and the oil industries share many of the same techniques. And it's literally like building another industry, which would have enormous job job creation implications. So I think it's more thinking in that way. And I think when one thinks that way. There might be going about things in a different way than we are now. Again, I think I would say a good example is, is hydrogen. I can't say for sure and I think you cannot either that hydrogen plus carbon free electricity will be the backbones of the very low carbon or net zero economy in 2050 but I think it's a, it's an interesting candidate, certainly to do that because hydrogen will then replace in many some of the fuels requirements that we have in industry and in, and in, in, in transportation. But I think what we should be thinking about right now is, what can we be doing through policy and through support to build the hydrogen market across the economy. Not just the question of any in California I'm, I'm in no way suggesting that it isn't a good thing but you know putting up a few hydrogen filling stations for the very few fuel fuel cell vehicles that are there is not what I would call having a an integrative view of building a hydrogen economy. And this for example one of the things that we've recommended for example, is starting out by, by focusing on a set geographically distributed set of hydrogen hubs, where you start and you incentivize the supply and the use of hydrogen in so many different ways across the economy. You know, in a certain sense, hydrogen could play the role of natural gas today of an extremely flexible fuel. In fact, one might jokingly I suppose call hydrogen as carbon free methane, but, but, but again the idea of focusing on building the market structures is what I would call building an industry of the future. So I think that's very important on the on the tax incentives on the on the incentives. We've already mentioned the CCS incentives, etc. But I would say the incentives incentives take many forms, one that I would strongly advocate for and have advocated for, and we think could be part of a future stimulus package. And I think one of the advantages of building an industry out of the COVID hole COVID economic hole would be take advantage of the $40 billion left of DOE loan authorities. We worry about building energy infrastructure a lot of the things we've already talked about. There's $40 billion that can be deployed at very, very low interest rates of course now interest rates are low anyway, but, but there are. There is value. Nevertheless, even now with having the certification if you like, from a program like that. And also I think I'm at least not confident that that interest rates will stay across the economy, the place, the place where they are now. So that's there, however, there's a problem. The credit support for those loans through appropriations was very narrowly defined in terms of some renewables technologies. Let's open that up. In fact, let's open it up and do another of my favorites that we made a little progress on in 2016, when I was still secretary. We really need to get a major push on clean energy on Indian land. Where we still have in this country. A lot of people without significant electricity availability. Let's use that kind of a program, but with credit support to do that. So again, we can pursue this low carbon and the social equity agendas in parallel. And, and I think that's the winner. That's what that's what's going to get us home in a time scale that we that that we need. Last pillar was workforce development. And there, I want to say that the number one issue of workforce development and I believe my, my partners in, in, in labor and the FLC IO, etc would strongly support this. The number one workforce development issue is create jobs create the jobs will have the workforce development. For example, when we made the announcement of the partnership the FLC IO, President Trump of the FLC IO emphasized that the labor unions in the United States, despite we all know that they their their footprint has has shrunk in the last decades, really since the 80s. But still, after the military, they do more job training than anybody else. They have well established apprenticeship apprenticeship programs. Why invent new wheels. Support those programs to go forward, the way they have proved themselves to be very, very effective. So that's just one example of workforce development as I say, it really all goes back. Get those good jobs out there. And, and, and the workforce development will happen. Sure, it could use a little more push from the from the from the government. But first priority get the jobs and the workforce will follow. Okay, well, terrific. You know, clearly we need a comprehensive strategy if we're going to achieve our goals to accelerate decarbonization and getting to net zero in time. I want to switch directions now and let's let's go beyond the US and talk about global issues and the US role and leadership. In particular, you were instrumental in launching mission innovation at the Paris agreement. And how is that going? And are we on track to double R&D funding for clean energy. And, you know, just briefly what what would you consider some of the highest priority R&D means that perhaps you haven't mentioned so far. Well, I probably have mentioned the highest priority ones so far. But, but first let me let me just maybe give a brief statement about mission innovation what it is since I'm sure not all of the those who are tuned in are aware. In 2015 at the Paris COP meeting that of course produced the Paris agreement. By definition, on the last day of the COP meeting. Another event occurred, and I will say only partly tongue and cheek, which may prove in the long term to be more important. The, and that is that on the first day of the Paris meeting, when the national leaders were in fact present that included President Obama, that 20 countries at that time announced a commitment to at least to try to double their clean energy R&D efforts within the United States. A big lift, obviously, but, but recognizing that we needed this big innovation push that I said, well, now we need to start it now. Clearly, we're not on track for that doubling in five years. However, it's interesting that in the United States in the pre COVID world. And now I don't know what's going to happen obviously, particularly as we have trillions of dollars, necessarily added to the to the deficit. But it's been interesting in the last several years. If you look at the data in just the right way. You might say that we were on a doubling pace in 10 years. And what's very encouraging to me is that, while the administration consistently proposed reducing those R&D budgets, very substantially, the Congress in a bipartisan way would have nothing to do with it. And in fact, increased the budget substantially. RPE would be one example of, I think in the last several years a room correct me but it's probably been about a 60% increase perhaps in the budget that at ballpark. Roughly, but right. Yeah. So, so I think the, I think it's important to emphasize, certainly in the US context that there is a very strong bipartisan foundation for this innovation push, going back to the international arena. It's been spotty in terms of different countries, making progress towards the goal, and some, some, some really not. But I would say that there are other elements of a very, very positive outcomes. One of the ones that I really liked was a very early on in mission innovation, Canada and Mexico are both members of mission innovation, as was as the United States of course. And so very early on, already starting in 2016. There was the movement to have some trilateral some North American initiatives. And it was interesting that that Mexico took the lead. There was a support from in particular the Berkeley laboratory, but took the lead in holding a initial workshop on looking at accelerating the pace of introducing new materials for energy through high throughput means combined with machine learning. And that really kind of took off and Canada got got very, very much involved in it. So I think the idea is and there are others. Certainly the US is involved with Saudi Arabia in leading a CCS initiative, for example. And it's been certainly in that sense, positive, positive outcomes, in addition to at least some increase in the, in the, in the innovation budgets, in terms of other areas that are ripe for that. I would add what I've already mentioned, the negative carbon technologies. This is clearly something that everybody has to have a strong interest in. Only because as I said it's the only way to get to a net negative economy later in the century. But I think it is going to be essential, starting much earlier than that. It provides tremendous additional optionality and flexibility for what will still be the lead requirement of mitigating mitigating emissions, but that is a ripe area for mission innovation to to take up and I at least will keep proselytizing for that. But I want to emphasize that mission innovation, when it was announced in beginning of the Paris meeting in 2015 did have a second feature. And that was a explicit. It's funny it's not it's not an alliance maybe called an association with venture capital. And in fact, when the national leaders took the stage in Paris, after they did their leaders thing. Bill Gates was called to the stage to represent a number of individuals wealthy very wealthy individuals for many continents who were who were there to say, look, when you countries. Open up the innovation pipeline with those increased investments and those coordinated investments, we're going to be ready to pick up the products and invest in them and take risk and get them out there. And I believe you know it took a little while to get going, but I believe it's going. Certainly Gates himself has headed up the starting the breakthrough, the breakthrough coalition. But I sense more generally, and I'm not saying it's all causal to mission innovation, but I am but I am sensing a return to clean tech 2.0 in the in the innovation world. What is happening at the early stage the venture stage, but it's also going now through new groups. Frankly, I'm part of one looking at the growth capital stage. What happens when these when these technologies they go through the prototyping. They established themselves in an early with an early commercial foothold. We need another zero or two at the end of the at the end of the string of dollars in the growth capital stage. I'm seeing all of that now I think coming forward. And if we make this big innovation push in this decade. I think it's going to unleash tremendous amounts of capital all across all across the innovation chain and come 2030 we're going to be seeing the fruits of that. We're building to start scaling in serious ways. Some of these new technologies. Yeah, yeah, that's terrific. I couldn't agree with you more. I think it's never been so exciting, you know, the innovation ecosystem. You know, we are immersed in it at Stanford and I know at MIT there's a very active entrepreneurship culture. So I'm going to turn it over to a room now, and he will take it from here. And this is kind of the last question before we hand off to the students so just to kind of step back from the moment historical moment we are living through. I mean, this is the global pandemic of 1918 and 19, plus potentially a very large economic crisis, all coming at the same time and of course interconnected. And my question to you is, looking back in history on similar kind of crises, whether it was the pandemic, the Great Depression, World War two post World War one. I would ask the question, are the lessons learned in terms of new organizations that were created new ways of doing things. For example, as you pointed out, after the Great Depression, there was the Civilian Conservation Corps, rural electricity electrification and the Tennessee Valley Authority, Montevill Power, that happened at that time that has led to a huge amount of growth. Post the Great Recession, there was ARPA-E that was created. But if you look back at World War two where, you know, people realize that this is a pretty crummy world that we're living in. Millions of people have died, lots of the global economies and shambles, but we are all in this together. I mean, it is a global issue and various global organizations got created like WHO, as well as World Bank, IMF, and many other United Nations, etc. So if you were to suggest something now, given this and taking a pause, what would be the new organizations that we need globally or domestically? What kind of governance should we be introducing? Can you give us your thoughts on that? That's a tough one. First of all, let me go back to the Great Depression. You said it, but I would just add the word hydro explicitly. And we are still, of course, major parts of our country are still benefiting from the very, very large carbon-free, quotes source. In fact, hydro has remained our biggest renewable until just recently when wind just kind of nosed in front. And also on the Great Recession, and of course you were part of the 2009 DOE team, you mentioned ARPA-E, you know, I think that's, you could have mentioned a few other things as well, you know, Arun, besides your organization. For example, but I actually, I want to say that there was, again, a very, very serious, of course, push on clean energy there. ARPA-E was part of it, but another very important thing I thought was kickstarting the energy frontier research centers, six of them, mostly at universities, looking at the hard problems for, hard science problems for energy technology, but also the loan program I referred to earlier really got kickstarted at that time as well. And it's had a number of, I mean, many successes in my view, but probably the most prominent one being at a time when debt was very hard to come by to really kicking off the utility-scale solar business in this country, which is now, I don't know how many, it must be 75 or 80 now, utility-scale solar installations in the country. So the Great Depression, the Great Recession have had tremendous impact on what effectively is the clean energy transition that we need today. And so for the reasons we said earlier, including the jobs, etc., this is the time to really push forward. Now, on terms of, and also I would add the mentioned in the Great Depression, electrification of essentially every home in the country, more or less, a bit less actually, as we said earlier, but tremendous increase in rural electrification. I would just add again, and I would put it partly in that social equity basket, as we move out now, addressing rural needs is really important. We all know about the issues of broadband access needed there. Again, COVID showed the inequities that can come with the kind of arrangements we've had to make during COVID. Some people just don't have the access to, and that's both urban and rural, to the necessary equipment and internet, etc., to take advantage of. So we have a lot to do there. On institutions, well, one institution, and I have to give credit to my colleague, Melanie Kendredine, who has proposed that maybe we need either a department of rural development. We have HUD for urban development, maybe we need right now rural development, either separately or as a newly enhanced part of agriculture. That would be an example of an institutional change that, for the United States, that would be very, very important. Now, globally, clearly after World War II, United States took the lead in establishing all kinds of unique institutions, financial institutions, also in the security space, NATO. I think, unfortunately, people today, even today, forget how unique NATO is in terms of an alliance of countries that would move pretty much in the same way together for collective security. Unfortunately, I think today we would all probably think that we've seen some weakening of those of those institutions. And I think probably the first answer to your question is to reestablish the strength of those institutions as a foundation for what we do going forward. Certainly, to get the clean energy transition to happen globally. And you said it, it's right. COVID and climate are two issues that if you don't solve them everywhere, you don't really solve them anywhere. And for that to happen, boy, we are going to need some real change in the financial structures. And if these organizations are weakened, that will impact very, very directly our ability to move Africa, Southeast Asia, other parts of the world into the robust clean energy economy that we need. As far as new institutions, globally, I'm not sure that we need to go there. But certainly, we need to increase our collaboration to go there. Again, if we take, if we take Africa, another of these linkages that's not thought about. I might say that I'm truth and advertising. I'm a co-chair of something called the Global Commission to End Energy Poverty, which together with the CEO of the Rockefeller Foundation who was supporting the initiative, Raj Shah, and the CEO of the African Development Bank. One of these connections that has become very clear to this working group. Not that it's not that it shouldn't have been understood before but with the COVID situation. When you have a serious public health system, absolutely needed if you're going to be able to control pandemics earlier, early, without reliable electricity. So, Ernie, I think we have, we have only limited time left and so maybe if you could just answer and then we'll move because we do want to give students some time. I don't want to interrupt. I was just saying that in Africa, that's a situation that needs to be corrected on the energy side and on the health side. Thank you, Ernie. And we have now we'll let's hand over to the student. Juliana is going to come on board and we have actually quite a few questions lined up for you from the from the audience. So, sorry, I go once alone. No, no, no, this is great. This is absolutely terrific and you get us on the set us on the right tone. Juliana. Yes, thank you very much for the introduction Professor Majumdar and thank you Secretary Moniz for being here to kick off the entire dialogue series today. So as Professor Majumdar mentioned, this portion of the dialogue will be a chance for Secretary Moniz and also our future guests of honor to answer some pre submitted student questions. And in the spirit of the session being part of the global energy dialogues, these questions are coming not only from students from all 50 states and US territories, but also energy clubs all across the globe. That in the interest of time we'll keep it to just one maybe two questions. And so our first question are probably most highly asked question was, in the context of advancing a more sustainable national and global economy. What are some of the underrated and underdressed problems that you'd like to see more young people consider incorporating into their future career paths. Well, I think the first thing to emphasize and and hopefully your set of students who are plugged in right now reflect this. Often we think about, you know, innovation in technology as being kind of the answer and it is absolutely central to the answer. And what I want to emphasize is that innovation in just about every discipline is going to be needed to to address the issues we're talking about. We're going to need innovation in business models. We're seeing that already in many ways and transportation for example, but only scratching the surface. We need innovation in in policy and regulation. We need innovation and understanding and understanding social structures. So, I think, I think this is a problem to be addressed that we need to have students in a completely multidisciplinary way, understanding that they all have important parts of the solution. So, in terms of the question, I just almost repeat what I just said that for example, I don't think we have nearly enough research right now in the social sciences to address the kind of transition that we need an energy so that's one very very broad arena. Within within the technology space, something I've already alluded to several times I would repeat. And I think that this is to phrase it most broadly. How do we not just stop them at least the vast majority of emissions mitigate. How do we fix the atmosphere. How do we fix the ocean that we have in both cases managed to to use a technical term screw up. Because I think that that, you know, thinking big about these kinds of problems is is is really important. And carbon technologies are just one, one of one of that set of set of activities. That's definitely helpful reminder, especially as students a lot of time it's very easy to get stuck in the release focus very much on the day to day of every little brick that we're working on but certainly zooming out every once And you're a chemical engineer right so you're actually you know I'd like to make a plug here, I may to all the students and frankly all the others as well all the non students. I recommend that you go to YouTube and look at the 12 and a half minute commencement speech given virtually by Admiral Bill McRaven at MIT couple weeks ago. You know, Adam McRaven. He is the former head of he was a Navy SEAL former head of Special Operations, including during the during the period when some have been modern was brought to justice, shall we say. But he gives a very impassioned speech about the graduating students he was talking to MIT students but more broadly, as the heroes from your ranks will come the heroes that we need. He emphasizes that there's no Captain America or Wonder Woman, you have to be your own heroes. And besides being smart, he emphasizes moral courage, humility, perseverance, integrity, compassion. And I think you you'd be well served to look at it and it kind of that's what we need from this group of of of students because you're the ones that got you're the ones are going to have to do this. actionable device. Thank you for that. And zooming out for one final student question. Very generally, what is the best piece of advice you've ever received or what is one piece of advice you'd give to your younger self at the very start of your career. Um, I think I was lucky in the sense that the advice I would give myself beginning of my career was advice I followed, not knowing that it was good advice, maybe but I followed it instinctively. And that was that I really have a passion for what you want to do to solve an important problem. And you, and you got to have fun doing it. And when you have those the prospect of those two things coming together. Don't be cautious. Go after it. And, and I, I won't go into it but I very respectfully, I chose not to follow the advice of my PhD advisor in terms of where I went. In my career, I've probably changed careers in a certain sense four times. And I think, you know, it's just a question of following your, your instinct, your nose, and don't let, don't stay in a silo. You have, you'll have plenty of help staying in a silo. If that's your choice. Take your own initiative to get out of the silo and look more broadly and have fun. That's my advice. Excellent. So those are unfortunately all the questions that we have time for today, but on behalf of all the students in the global energy community, we're certainly glad that your own career path has led you to where you are today, and to this dialogue with us as well. And your and your colleagues. Thank you very much. Thank you, Juliana. So let's go on to the questions from the audience and they have been filtered and compressed and, you know, assembled in categories. So I think Sally, you want to go ahead. Sure. So you haven't mentioned nuclear power yet. So, so it's probably not a surprise we have a question about that. So the question is what is the probability and timing for new nuclear technology to become a big part of the energy future. Thank you for that. Actually, that was just an oversight. In fact, I should have included advanced nuclear in those industries of the future that we have to that we have to build, build and invent. So I think that the, the trend towards the smaller modular reactors is in fact very, very promising. Clearly, we don't know yet if, if, if they will succeed and in meeting economic tests, but there are various reasons to believe that they have first of all excellent safety and these are, by the way, I'm thinking about, you know, molten salt, high temperature gas, so called generation for reactors, although there is also, there are also interesting developments in light water reactors for small modular reactors. And I might add also micro reactors in the megawatts region, one to five megawatts, which can have very interesting applications. For example, in Canada, there's a very strong move towards certifying and deploying some of these so called micro reactors at things like remote mining sites, which could have a enormous impact in removing and removing greenhouse gas emissions. So I think the, I think we're on a path where I believe we will probably see some deployment maybe of light water reactors before the end of this decade, small, smaller ones and the gen four 2030 and maybe a little bit beyond. However, here, this also couples back to the earlier statement about some of the new approaches we need. We really need a major public-private partnership here for these technologies to get over the hump, or over the valley if you prefer, either way, that we have never seen so much innovation in nuclear fission in my view. But we've got to have some of those get across the finish line to at least being able to build one or two reactors to know what the techno economic performance is. And I say that in particular because one of the economic advantages of the small modular reactors or the micro reactors is that they could be they could be built on a manufacturing line in a plant and have much better kind of quality control and dedicated workforce than you have for these on site on site constructions. I want to add one more thing in word nuclear. We shouldn't forget and I truth and advertising I'm involved with one of these companies on the board, but I think there's also interesting promise in the fusion domain with novel, novel concepts. And we may not be so far from having the ability to at least have a significant scale prototype test of a of a of a fusion device. So nuclear has got a lot of promise still, I believe, for a low carbon future. I think just a really quick follow up. Does the US lead or or or where else. The US has got a lot of activity there I think we are, we are certainly up at the front of the pack, if not ahead but there is also work in in Europe UK there's working a lot of work in China. And, frankly, China does have the ability. It seems to fast track things a bit more than than than we do. So I think we need to pursue that. And in fact, since you raise that the global issue. The reality is, we also have national security issues to confront with our unfortunately kind of vanishing nuclear supply chain. We have, without being a major player in the international nuclear commerce. We will lose our ability to enforce non proliferation norms through our bilateral cooperative agreements. And domestically. It is a fact that today, other than living off of our do we stockpiles of enriched uranium. We do not have the capability to meet national security needs. We do not have the long term for naval propulsion submarines and aircraft carriers, or for elements of the nuclear weapons program. So, we really have to have to pay attention to our nuclear technology supply chain. Thank you. There's a question from the audience and this is about your comment on hydrogen. I think, I mean, we all agree that, you know, to get to carbon free fuel. Hydrogen would be, you know, a huge opportunity. There's a lot of R&D going on in hydrogen, reducing the cost of hydrogen production carbon free hydrogen production, whether it is electrolysis whether it is methane pyrolysis or steam methane reforming with carbon capture. What about hydrogen infrastructure to move it around. What about hydrogen storage, because we know that pipelines, you know there's a hydrogen embrittlement. There's a lot of problems with nimby issues with pipelines and permitting, etc. So, give us an idea of how do we address the infrastructure issues and hydrogen, both storage and transport, and long distance as well. In a cost effective way that to really bring this hydrogen economy together. That's really, really very, very, very important. The first in terms of the cost reduction of hydrogen production. I certainly agree with you and electrolyzer cost for example I've got a long way to go and they'll get there probably in a decade or so, although I think as you well know, both of you. And for splitting water for hydrogen, it will require, most of all, extremely inexpensive zero carbon electricity as as really an enormous cost driver for the electrolysis route at least. And I would say that is actually a less expensive way of producing low carbon hydrogen. And that's the kind of thing that we should be using as a bridge to build the hydrogen markets, especially in some parts of the country. It's not overtaken completely by, by, by other other other methods but, but we need to move now and we need to, as I said earlier establish those markets. Now in terms of the infrastructure. There is both R&D you mentioned the storage challenges, but also, I think on the, the transportation of hydrogen. So the central questions open. And this, these are the kinds of things we want to go on. For example, I think a lot of people automatically think about hydrogen in a pipe, but it could be that hydrogen is transported in a liquid. And then, you know, and then freed from the liquid at the more or less the point of use, for example. There's all kinds of molecules being discussed as the transport mechanism for for hydrogen. So I think that this is the case where there's lots of individual technologies and an enormous amount of systems analysis and systems technology that remains to be developed and settled on. And the thing is, in the end, what we can't afford is to have, you know, a cacophony of, we're going to need some standards for how this is done in order for it to be economy wide and economical. And that's the kind of thing that we need to pursue, in addition to things like the materials research for, for, for storage. So Sally has the last question, Sally, go ahead. Okay, so we've heard a lot of discussion that, you know, our new normal, you know, people are not commuting, people are staying at home, people aren't flying. So again, this is a question from the audience. You know, have you seen any signals that the pandemic and our economic response to it will accelerate a shift towards sustainability and our energy system. I think there's, there's, as, as the question says, I mean, as big open questions as to the extent to which remote working, for example, will become more of a norm, I think there's no doubt that there will be some element of that. I think today, I think I've seen estimates that today, approximately 50% of the workforce in the United States is working remotely using zoom, I guess, or whatever, whatever technology they choose. And I doubt we'll end up there. And that's a long, it's a long, it's a big distance between zero and 50%. And I think we will see a substantial shift there. I think that that will be associated, obviously, with likely with some fundamental impact on the airline, airline industry. I mean, good, frankly, good estimates of, of the, of the carbon impact of various scenarios that might emerge in terms of revised social structures. But I also note that there may be some other things that I've seen less talked about. I did say the COVID, while it while it has obviously had the contagion to be truly classified as a pandemic. It is the sixth major event of this century, starting with SARS in 2002. And then SARS and mayors and H1N1 and then you know, you go Ebola, Ebola twice or three times now, I don't know, etc. The point being that I think many of us have always viewed public transportation as part of the sustainability solution. Now, I don't know to what extent the public is going to be shy of traveling in kind of compressed environments, shall we say, I don't know, maybe that maybe there is a even greater shift towards some of the micro mobility devices etc. So I think there are some very fundamental questions here about a social organization that we don't know the answer to yet, but, but I think we should be open arms to see what what makes the most sense. And then just to make sure that it goes in the direction of reinforcing the sustainability that we that we want to reinforcing the urban design that we need to see changed in my in in my view in the in the future. So these are these are big questions and I think it would be foolish. I think it would be foolish to make a prediction as to how it will look, but very important to explore the options and the flexibilities and the way in which low carbon will be part of the solution no matter what it is. I'm just going to ask a really quick follow up on peak emissions, you know, I think a lot of people have the dream that, you know, 2020 could represent the year for peak emissions in the context that, you know, we've already had this big disruption we've learned that we can live somewhat differently. I don't what do you think when do we reach peak emissions and could it be now. I assume you by the way you mean peak before the virus. Exactly. Yes, yes, the pre pre virus peak. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think that the, the industrialized countries. I think may have reached that point, especially that the comeback from from the economic hole we're in right now may not be to the same place that we were before I don't mean in terms of. I mean the economy will recover but I mean, maybe it may recover, for example, with some of these things we just mentioned, lowering overall overall emissions, and that we can sustain a downward downward trend. And to do that for the United States, I'll just say again industrialized United States. We clearly have to see the utility sector continue to be the lead and to be very, very aggressive on that. Many of the major utilities have adopted their own net zero goals but that's 2050. I think it's very important to see what's going to happen now to 2030 etc. And now it is, it is true that the virus has probably accelerated the closure of some additional coal plants. And so, you know the utility sector may may may be there. I think one of the issues is the still unresolved. This is a stream of consciousness but the unresolved issue of. What was I going to say the. Okay, I'll forget that statement. The he was the of the the some some unresolved issue. Oh, I'm sorry I know of cafe standards. That is, as I mentioned earlier for California but more generally, going back to the more stringent cafe standards. And as well for heavy vehicles. That's another important issue for the 2030 timeframe in term in terms of peak. Now in terms of other parts of the world. If I just flip all the way. The emerging economies are complicated by flip to the least developed countries. There is no doubt that that they will have increased emissions. And we'll need to have increased emissions, realistically, for a while. But of course they don't contribute a large amount to the overall and in this far as I'm concerned the industrialized country should work a little harder. We have some economic development, but at the same time, I think we're being penny wise and pound foolish in not doing a lot more to support the developing economies in employing a lot more renewables and and and other other low carbon have other low carbon opportunities. We've got to solve the, we can do that for electricity. But the heating and especially the cooking problems remain. So I think we have solutions out there. I think frankly, it's, we need to really get on with it and understand that it is a good investment to help that economic development in the least emissions trajectory as as possible. Certainly, I'll be to be straightforward. We know that China, for example, in as part of its belt and road is prepared to support the building of a lot of new coal plants southeast Asia. Why aren't we in there? Why don't we at least have gas plants gas plus renewables. It makes a huge difference as opposed to locking in now new coal plants in those in those countries, but we have not just not shown frankly the collective ability to to raise that in our, in our in our in our policy thinking. Anyway, I think that's certainly we have only two minutes left and so I know this conversation can go on for a very, very long time and they've been very good questions that have been posed by the audience and I don't think we'll be able to get to all of them and we apologize to the audience for not being able to get to it. But maybe we could just run I think you should have your students answer all of them. Yeah, there are actually the set of questions have been amazing and I've been following it in the Q&A and only a few of them have made it to the kind of the filtered stage. But let us first of all, thank you so much for taking the time and joining us today. It is your alma mater, a great kickoff to the Stanford Global Energy Dialogue, and we are so thankful to you to get a start here on this, and we are going to do this every two weeks, and then two weeks from now we'll have the 12th secretary of Stephen Chu, who is at Stanford to talk with us to have this dialogue with us, and we will continue with chat holiday and collect honorable and so and so forth we'll have it every two weeks in the Tuesday morning. So again, thank you all for joining us. Going back to your earlier question alone, you should ask Steve Chu how we spent all that money in 2009. I certainly will. And frankly, this is a very important issue. What were the lessons learned from that, right, the things that we should be doubling down on that went well. And what are the things that we should not be doing, based on the lessons learned in 2009 2010 on the Recovery Act. So, thank you again, and thanks to you and Sally for doing this here. Thank you all to all the audience for joining us and come join us again on June 23, 830 the morning California time.