 Let's move on to our keynote presentation by Professor Arun Majangda. Arun probably only needs a very short introduction, only very, very short. He's a professor of mechanical engineering and material science here at Stanford University. He was the co-director of prequel Institute for Energy. He is also well known as a founding director of RPE and Department of Energy. He carried something multi-years of energy research as well as planning and where we big-scale, holistic scale. With that, Arun, I'd like to take you from here. Well, thank you, E, and thank you, Elizabeth, for your opening remarks and we appreciate organizing this meeting. We have about 100 odd people or slightly more joining and we appreciate the opportunity. Hopefully next time we will have things in person and a hybrid meeting because I think the hybrid is probably here to stay. Okay, let me see if I can, can you see the slides? So industrial decarbonization at a gigaton scale and I want to emphasize gigaton scale because that is relevant. A few things. One is, it is unbelievable how big this challenge is. This is the global greenhouse gas emissions, gigatons per year. And as you can see, we are at about 50 gigatons of CO2 equivalents per year. And if you want to keep it below two degrees, you know, we need a massive turn in our economy. There is not only the mitigation of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as well as negative emissions at the gigaton scale. Where do these emissions come from and where can be reduced emissions? This is the global greenhouse gas emissions by sector. As you all know, today we are going to talk about industry, 21%. But it is also electricity and people forget agriculture where there is a lot of emissions from methane and other land use, etc. So this is a massive endeavor. And I call this the defining challenge of the 21st century because its effects are whole economy. And the reason I say that I am going to put a statement out there that whatever 8 billion people consume in the world will produce gigaton scale CO2 impact today. And that is electricity, heating, cooling, transportation, food, textile, water, steel, cement, information, etc. We all consume this. And impact is at the gigaton scale and CO2 equivalence. So and the world population is increasing to about 10 billion by mid century and about 11 billion by the end of the century. So we need a turn of how we consume things and what the impact, lifecycle impact is. Just as a quiz, what is the total weight? Just to get an idea what a gigaton is. What is the total weight of all 8 billion human beings on earth? It's 0.6 gigatons, just as a reference. If you are to solve a gigaton scale problem, we will need gigastone scale technology and gigaton scale industries. So you ask the question, how many gigaton scale industries are there today? Here they are. Oil and gas, cement, steel, electricity, agriculture, water, and maybe a handful more. That's about it. So if you are to address this challenge, we might as well leverage the know how and the people and the technology that is there and get the right policies. What matters at that scale? The number of things that matter. One is the scale itself. We have to think gigaton and see whether something can scale to the gigaton. Megatons are not going to cut it. The rate is important because we are emitting at a rate and the increase in CO2 emissions has, the earth has never seen this kind of rate increase. The cost of carbon management and the price of carbon management matters. If the price is not greater than the cost, we are not going to get a gigaton scale effort globally. The carbon-free energy matters and we are in the world of renewables and we need to preserve our nuclear. But this is carbon-free energy. We need at the exitual scale to manage the CO2 impact. Financing, we're talking about trillions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars and we need to make sure there's a return of investment. If you are to do this at the gigaton scale, those things matter. Infrastructure, pipelines, electric grid to supply feedstock and manage CO2, absolutely critical. Regulatory approvals, if you take 10 years to get a project approved, we are not going at the urgency that this challenge requires. Land and natural resources, measurement and verification. We need to look at co-benefits that there will be unintended consequences. So we need to be vigilant about that. And at the end of the day, at this scale, people will be affected. So people acceptance is going to be critical in many of these technologies that we're going to discuss. So the first thing we want to do because of the consumption that has just skyrocketed over the last century, we have to look at life cycle impact and we have to look at ways to reduce the net demand of natural resources. Otherwise, it's unsustainable. I'll give you a few examples. We've got to look at repurposing, reusing, recycling things so that the net use of raw materials is lower. And I hope we get to discuss this later on. We need to look at alternatives. This is a great example of a building, a 12-story building made of completely wood. And this is, and there's a treated wood which allows you to do construction of multi-storied buildings, not just two or three with wood. And as a result, this is carbon, fixed carbon that is going into construction and avoiding the use of steel and cement, etc. But not everything, you know, this is what they desire, but here's the reality. Let me give you one example of where things are not going in the right direction. This is textiles. Textiles are projected to be 10% of the global emissions by 2050. Textiles are going the wrong way. Most of the growth in textile is polymer-based, polyester, polyamide, etc. And the reason, part of the reason it's going up is not just the population is going up, but it's also because the average number of times a new garment is worn is going down. And this is, you know, the United States is way bottom out here. We are going down gradually, which is obviously not a good sign. In the EU, people use garments more, at least 100 times. And in China, it used to be used 200 times and it's going down and they're approaching the US way, which is the wrong direction. So this is an example of how, you know, if you're not careful about reusing and then we're going to use more net resources. And in this case, this is polymer-based resources. So industrial decarbonization, which is really the topic of today. The big three. What are the big three? This is a wonderful paper by one of the authors who is here in this audience today, Ritzman. And this is the global greenhouse gas emissions by industry in 2014. Things have not changed dramatically. So iron, the big three are iron and steel, chemical and plastics, cement, and to some extent, aluminum. And if you look at the other big three, you got China, you got Europe, and you got the United States. And India is growing quickly in that realm as well. So these are big threes in regions of the world and big three in terms of the sectors of the industry. And I think it's very clear that we're not going to be able to address this without China, Europe and Asia, China, Europe, and the United States taking a very strong look. Now, they, to really change the ballgame, you need technologies for that. And you need innovations and technologies. And that is a, it goes across the world. I mean, whether we have innovations and technology in the United States or Europe, it will be used in China and vice versa. So what are the technologies that are needed? So let me just take steel. I'm going to, I'm not going to go through all of them. I'm going to take steel to make a point. We produce about 2,000 million tons or two gigatons of steel. And all of them have this reaction of taking the oxygen out of iron oxide to make iron. That's really all that is. But of course, there's a lot to it and how you take out the oxygen. And the way you, the way it has been done mostly is using blast furnace. And you need, you know, some reducing agent in the, mostly has been used as carbon. And carbon likes to grab oxygen and takes it out of iron oxide, which is the iron ore. And then you get iron out of it. I won't go into the details of this, but there are now direct reduction techniques with electric arc furnaces. And there's hydrogen direct reduction techniques as well. These are the new things that are coming. And finally, you get the molten oxide, which is very exciting, of course. This is direct electrochemical reduction. The common feature in all of them are the following. One is you need a reductant, you need a reducing agent. In the blast furnace, it is carbon or carbon monoxide. In the case of direct reduction, it's methane, which is then, you know, broken down into sin gas, which is carbon monoxide and hydrogen. In the case of hydrogen, it is hydrogen directly. And in the case of molten oxide electrolysis, it is electricity, which is the reducing agents, electrons. They also need heat because they, you're not, you cannot get these reactions at a certain rate without the heat. So how is the heat produced? It is in the case of blast furnace, it is burning coal, burning carbon. In the case of the DR, the direct reduction, it is either methane or hydrogen and electricity. And in the case of electricity or the molten oxide electrolysis, it is electricity. So those are the options that we have today. And of course, they have emissions. You have direct emissions in the blast furnace approaches. You have CO2 emissions in the direct reduction using methane. And you can, you get, you know, electrons, if you use electrons, they have indirect emissions, these scope two emissions. And in the case of hydrogen, you have indirect emissions and from the electrons, you've got indirect emissions, et cetera. So these are either scope one or scope two emissions that are built into this. Now you want to take this two million tons of iron and steel that we make today. And the question is, how do we decarbonize it? Well, there are some basic energetics which is important to understand through which I'll try to make a point. The basics of an energetics is the following. If you try to extract oxygen out of iron, you need energy. And that minimum energy, this is the thermodynamic minimum, you can't go lower than this. You can throw as much money at this, but that's not going to change the laws of thermodynamics. So what is the minimum energy needed? It's about 824 kilojoules per mole. But at the ton scale, it's about seven and a half giga joules per ton of iron. This is the limit, physical limit. Typically you would need about four times that. And that is indeed the energy that is needed to make steel. It's about 20 giga joules per ton. So for 2,000 or 2 giga tons per year, the minimum energy needed is about 4,000 kilowatt hours. Most likely in reality, it will be about four times that. It's about 16,000 kilowatt hours of energy that is needed. What does that mean comparatively? This is the amount of electricity that is produced in 10-hour hours. This was 2020 in China. It's about 8,000. United States about 4,000 kilowatt hours or so. This is all of electricity. So if you were to try to make two giga tons of iron by pure electricity, just for iron itself, you would need a separate grid. In fact, more than the national grid just to do this. So using only electricity perhaps is not the option. And this is by the way bare minimum energy that I'm talking about. So let's say hydrogen. So if you were to use hydrogen, then for two moles of iron, you would need one mole of hydrogen. And if you do the math out of this, then for 2 giga tons per year of iron, you need about 36 million tons of hydrogen. This is at the very limit, the physical limit. Typically, you would need about double of that, let's say 70 giga tons of hydrogen, but let us say 50 megatons of hydrogen by electrolysis. Let's say you want to produce by electricity only. This is again thermodynamics. You cannot change the laws of thermodynamics. And to split water, you would need at the very minimum 40 kilowatt hours of kilogram of hydrogen. And the best catalyst today are about 50. You can't get better than this. 50 kilowatt hours per kilogram of hydrogen. This is the energy that you would need to split water. So for 50 megatons of hydrogen, you would need 2,500 terawatt hours of electricity per year. The whole carbon free electricity that the United States has produced, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal biomass two years ago, was 1,500 terawatt hours. So you would need an entirely new grid just to produce the hydrogen for making steel. So the point I'm making out here is that there is no single technology and single source of energy that's going to get us there. So one needs to look holistically and one needs to look at it regionally, what makes sense. So talking about hydrogen, of course, as you know, the Secretary of Energy has put forward this energy, the hydrogen earth shot of making greenhouse gas free hydrogen at a dollar a kilogram by the end of the decade. So what are the options to make hydrogen? And hydrogen, of course, is a very important vector in our industrial decarbonization. So today, if you take electrolysis, which is called green hydrogen, that has a cost of anywhere from $3 to $5 a kilogram. And the electricity costs are coming down. And the capex of the electrolyzers is also coming down. And we have the potential to get to $1 to $2 a kilogram of hydrogen. But you've got to think about the scale. We will need an entire grid to be able to satisfy just the steel industry. The other way to make hydrogen is natural gas. And today, most of the hydrogen is made by steam methane reforming or autothermal reforming. It's about a dollar a kilogram. But for every kilogram of hydrogen, we produce 10 kilograms of CO2. So if you really want to make this carbon free, we've got to be able to manage the CO2, capture the CO2, and put it underground and sequester it. But that increases the cost to about $1, $60, $70 a kilogram. And very importantly, you need the infrastructure to manage the CO2 and take pipelines, etc. Just so we know, this not a single federal agency that has the authority to permit CO2 pipelines in the United States today. So that policy changes had to be made to create interstate pipelines of CO2. But we do have the electricity grid. The infrastructure exists. We have the natural gas infrastructure to bring the feedstock. Finally, an emerging approach that is coming on is to use the natural gas infrastructure to bring the feedstock of hydrogen, but then pyrolyze it to make solid carbon and that and produce greenhouse gas free hydrogen. And that is potentially at a cost of a dollar a kilogram as long as you can sell the carbon. So this is something that is emerging right now. And it is very important to look at this other, the third option, because there was some recent work done by folks at Berkeley, as well as Shell, to show that if you take that solid carbon in various forms, and put this inside cement, then the question is, does it degrade or enhance the quality of the cement? And what they found, this is a very recent study from last year, is that if you put 10% cement replacement by the solid carbon that you get out of pyrolysis, then not only is it not degraded, in some cases you see a bit of enhancement as well. These are early days, but these are good signs. And one should look at this as an opportunity not only to use, to create value out of the carbon that you produce, but also to perhaps replace cement and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, as a life cycle impact, it is important to understand, even if you go down a certain path, what is the life cycle impact and the GIG footprint of hydrogen in this case. And this is a study on the y-axis out here, is a total emissions of kilograms of CO2 per kilograms of hydrogen. And this is on the x-axis is the grid carbon footprint, kilograms of CO2 per kilowatt hours of electricity. So if you look at SMR, this is steam methane reforming, it doesn't depend on electricity, there's a marginal dependence for pumping, etc. And it produces about 10 kilograms of CO2 per kilogram of hydrogen. And we need to capture that. But if you put a use electrolysis, which is important because the grid is decarbonizing, and we should be using electrolysis, but you have to really watch out for the grid carbon footprint, because if you are the US grid on an average, you are producing about two to three times more CO2 for making for electrolysis, unless you're France, where you have most of the electricity produced by nuclear, thereby you would have lower carbon footprint. But you have to look at the carbon footprint, and the region matters because the grid in the Northwestern United States, which is mostly hydro, has a much lower carbon footprint. And you might as well make the hydrogen over there as opposed to somewhere where it is red in color out here. On the other hand, pyrolysis doesn't really need as much electricity and generally would have a lower carbon footprint. But this is purely on the hydrogen side. But if you were to use the natural gas infrastructure and the feedstock, you got to be careful. The greenhouse gas footprint of hydrogen from natural gas has its own issues. This is a recent paper that came out using satellite measurements along the natural gas infrastructure on leakage and the emission, the fugitive emissions. And what you find is, of course, in many parts of the world, it is pretty bad, Turkmenistan, Russia. Unfortunately, we can't tell Russia what to do now. But we can look at the United States. And this is the United States emissions, excluding the Permian basin. And this is using, again, satellite measurement of some folks at NASA and other places in the publish this paper in science and was revealing. Well, this is excluding the Permian basin. Well, our own Adam Brand, who is in this meeting, went ahead and made measurements, aerial measurements of CO2 in the New Mexico part of the Permian basin, not the Texas part, but the New Mexico part and found roughly about 9% of the production volume is leaking. So while you have the natural gas infrastructure can produce with carbon capture at a lower cost, if you don't worry about the fugitive emissions of the natural gas infrastructure, we are at a much higher carbon greenhouse gas footprint than we would imagine. So in all of these cases, you got to look at what the full lifecycle impact of the greenhouse gas is. Let me just say a little bit about industrial heat. This is a very nice report by Julio Friedman and some of his colleagues at Columbia University. Another y-axis is the temperature that is needed for various industrial processes all the way from paper and pulp to cement that is needed at very high temperature to get the CO2 out of calcium carbonate. And what we find is that heat, as we know, goes down from higher temperatures to lower temperature. So if you create very high-grade heat at very high temperatures, then you have the option with high exergy as thermodynamic terms. You can let it flow down and get a lot of things out of it as long as you get a high-grade heat. What is missing in this whole picture is that we do not have the technology today to upgrade the heat, at least in the medium to high temperature. We do have heat pumps and the low temperature that we can use residential, but we really do not have the heat pump technology where you use electrical power to go from about 100 to 150 degrees Celsius, which is a lot of waste heat to about 400 to 600 degrees Celsius, where majority of the industrial heat is actually used. Because today we are thinking of doing I squared R joule heating with electrical power. If he can get about double the heat by a heat pump, then you save, that's an energy efficiency measure. And frankly, we really do not have the technology at this scale. And that should be an R&D focus if you're really trying to address the options of industrial heat, which is critical along with the reducing agent that I talked about earlier. The final thought is the impact of carbon management and the price on carbon will be different in different sectors. So for example, this black dash line is double the cost if you are to put a carbon management measure. Now, if you're looking at steel versus cement, a price on carbon as we'll have a very, very different impact on steel industry versus cement industry, based on the measures we take, whether it's electrical heating or biomass heating or using hydrogen with CCS or renewable hydrogen, or we do full CCS treatment. For the steel case, you have a little bit of breathing room because if you take these measures, you may increase the price by about 25%, maybe sometimes 15%, but in the case of cement, you would definitely increase it more than 100%. And there you have a huge issue with an industry. So putting a price on carbon or making sure that the cost is reduced is very significant in terms of sector dependency, and it will have different impact on different sectors. So let me just wrap up my talk as a kind of catalyst for discussion, perhaps later on in the meeting. What are the options for industrial decarbonization? I think it is very important, number one, to incentivize demand reduction or consumption reduction and lower the lifecycle impact, recycling, reuse, repurposing reduction in net use of natural resources and looking at alternatives. I think we don't pay enough attention to this, and I think it's very, very important to do that. Secondly, you need a chemical reducing agent, and there is not a single approach that will address the gigaton scale. So we should be absolutely looking, taking a balanced view on looking not only at electricity and electrons from renewables from nuclear for fossil plus CCS and hydrogen from all of these resources. We need to look at natural gas because electricity by itself is not going to solve it. And if you are to use natural gas, we got to look at the fusion of emissions and also look at reforming plus CCS and methane pyrolysis so that the infrastructure that is needed to manage solid carbon is much easier than to put CO2 pipelines. And finally the biomass and of BEX, etc., which I did not get a chance to talk about. So this is chemical reducing agent, and whether we use steel or cement, we will need this or we use chemical refinery approaches. We will need hydrogen for that. So we need reducing agents. The second is greenhouse gas-free industrial heat to address the gigaton scale. It is very important to look at nuclear, not only a source of electricity, but probably the largest source of carbon-free heat because heat is important for industrial processes. Natural gas, the combustion plus CCS, greenhouse gas-free electricity, and again this is not just from renewables but from natural gas reforming plus CCS and methane pyrolysis plus solid carbon. Electrical heating of greenhouse gas-free electricity is important, especially when you want to go to very high temperature heat. But for the moderate temperatures, heat pumps with a coefficient of performance, about 80% of Carnot is critical and we really don't have that technology today. Finally, if you are to get the gigaton scale, you got to have a price on carbon. Whether it's a direct price on carbon like a carbon tax or a indirect price of carbon which is like a cap or a clean energy standard and that price has to be greater than the cost of carbon management otherwise people will pay the penalty of the cost and not do anything about it. So it's very important to have this price direct or indirect and finally we cannot forget infrastructure and a common infrastructure planning and deployment and this is electricity grid. CO2 pipelines, if you are to do carbon management, we have to look intersectionally whether it is steel, cement, chemical all together because it needs to be the common highway for CO2 management and we need to have the federal authorities in whether it's FERC or some other agency to be able to permit these pipelines of CO2. Hydrogen distribution at the federal level today is only managed by regulated by FIMSA for safety. There's no other federal agency that actually authorizes hydrogen pipelines and of course CO2 sequestration sites, biomass collection distribution. But let me pause here and happy to answer any questions but hopefully some food for thought. Yeah, Alan, this is amazing. Every time I listen to your presentation, I learn so much out of it. I'm sure the audience feel the same way. I don't do to the time consideration. I know we'll have next three days, three half a days to continue to brainstorm and you said have a really good framework right here for us to probe deeper. Why don't we do this? I'll return back to Richard.