 What I'm going to talk about is what do we do about it? And he mentioned briefly about some of the things going on, but I'm going to go deeper into that. We'll see what options do we have, how do we innovate, and can we do something about substantial that will change the trends of the past. So to really understand what those trends are, I'm going to take you back in history a little later on to start on how we got into this problem of climate change. And it all goes back to this period of how we used to live. And, you know, you go back to the Revolution of War, the book of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, writing all these very famous documents about our nation. And at that time, this is how people used to live. Of course, you didn't have color photography at that time, but you have paintings of people who used to travel in horse carriages, in this case, with two horses. They used to light their homes with whale oil, and that's how life was. And I think our founding fathers probably would have never imagined how we lived today. And today, instead of two horse carriages, we do this. We have 300 horses taking us to the grocery store. And, you know, we have 100,000 horses taking us across the country in about five or six hours, which would have otherwise taken months. That's the transformation we have seen over the last 240 years, the life of the United States. But it happened not just in the United States, everywhere in the world. So we know Steve Chu and I wrote an article a few years ago where we call this, this industrial revolution, horse power to horse power. And this is a transformation which is, in 240, in 250 years, is a very small blip in the history of humans. So the last 250 years has been just the most remarkable period of our existence in terms of the human ingenuity and innovation that has transformed our lives and really improved our prosperity and quality of life. But it has to come to this. So this is what we do today. And instead of whale oil, we do this. This is the greatest engineering achievement of the 20th century electricity grid. This was the internet in the 1920s, early 1900s, where people suddenly could light their walls and they could make dishwashers and telephones and all of electricity. So if you look at what has happened over the last 240, 250 years, this is what has happened. The global per capita GDP has gone up exponentially. This is the United States in war. And look at this per capita GDP, not just the total GDP, per capita GDP, which is a measure of our prosperity. This has not been uniform. But on average, it's gone really well. The global population has gone up from 700 million people that we had in the world in 1750, 1760s to about 7 billion today. And the projection is going to be about 10 billion with the Ereborro 10 billion. And it really depends on the fertility of women in Africa. That's really where most of the population group is going to be. And because of the... And this has been enabled, right? Because this has been enabled by the energy use. And this is the energy use in biomass, used in biomass, coal, oil, gas, a little bit of newbies and renewables. And you can see that without this energy, this would have never happened. With the whole ability, the whole internet use, you guys are all used to it, the internet would come to stand still if there was no electricity. And of course, you've heard the consequences of that. And if this is going up, if this is going up linearly, this goes up exponentially. Because CO2, the lifetime of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, it's a few hundred years. So it's just like a big capacitor. You put it out there and it stays there. And I'll show you a little diagram of what the carbon flow is like. So good thing, bad thing. Very simple. So these are, I call, global exponentials. But the world is not flat. This is not your piece of the average. I'll tell you what the non-uniformity is, which is one of the imperatives that we have out here as well. This is the global carbon balance. If you look at the fossil fuel emissions, we have made about 10 giga tons of carbon per year, about 36 giga tons of CO2. But in terms of carbon, carbon budget, we have made from the fossil fuel about 10 giga tons. If you look at photosynthesis around the world, we have 120 giga tons of carbon coming in and about 120 going out with a net of three coming in. So the actual fluxes of carbon are an order of magnitude higher than what we emit from our fossil fuel. And if you look at the oceans, we absorb about 90 giga tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and about 90 plus two and 90 goes out, two remains, which is the remaining, which is what is the cause of acidification. And so if you look at this number compared to 120, so 120 plus three and 120 going up, it's a small fraction. But it is the balance in all these active carbon flow that we're disrupting right now. And the question that we have to answer is, okay, so can we reduce our emissions from here? But as you heard from Chris Fields, that is fine, that is necessary, but not sufficient. We have to introduce some negative emissions as well. Otherwise, we're not going to reach zero emissions total or stabilize the atmospheric carbon dioxide. Now if you try to increase this CO2 absorption in the ocean, as we know, these, when carbon dioxide goes and mixes with water by carbon and carbonic acid, you get a proton out, which is an acid. And then that is what is messing up our ecosystem in the oceans. So that's one source and could we fix that carbon in some way, in calcium carbon into some other things? That's one possibility. The other possibility is could we enhance photosynthesis without having the adverse effect on water, on land use, etc. We don't know quite how to do that. But that's where the science engineering innovations have to go. None of us talk a little bit about that. And of course we have to reduce it. So what are the prospects of this? And Chris talked about some good news and I'm going to go deeper as to how good that good news really is and what are the challenges that we fix. So here we go. We're going to talk about this, but I'll talk about this very briefly as well. This is a map. These are two maps all the way on each other. The red is the population density. This is where the people live. And the light is where the electricity is or it's a proxy for energy. And you can see the United States very bright. You can see that we are somewhere out here. And you can see that this is bright and of course we need to keep it bright without turning on the lights. But there are many parts of the world that have not turned on the lights yet. And we really want to enable them to turn on the lights and turn on the light-canned lights. And I'll talk a little bit about that as well. So if you look around the world and ask what are the big, big challenges that we have that you all will have to figure out how to solve, here are three of them. Number one is how do we decarbonize our energy system? There's no question we have to do that. But also continue the economic growth. So good thing, economic growth and exponential growth, which is great, but carbon is bad. So how do we get the benefit of economic growth and prosperity but not have to decarbonize the system? Chris mentioned a little bit of that. Secondly, climate change is not just happening. It is accelerating. If you look at the sea change, there's sea level rise to remember that when you present it. It's not a linear thing. It is exponentially increasing. And so how do we adapt climate change because climate change is already happening? And finally, how can we enable access to affordable energy to the one and a half to three billion people who either have no access of very marginal access to it? That's the way to go. So these are the three big challenges that you, we, we all will have to address. And we are trying to do that here at Stanford. When you make choices of energy, you have to think about security, access to energy. I mentioned about Mexico, Canada and the United States. We are energy independent collectively. Of course, a lot of that is carbon-based, but there is some of it is zero carbon-based. The cost really matters. It's a commodity. If something is really expensive, it doesn't matter because we'll never get it. It has to compete. There's a capital cost that won't go into that. Clean environment, sustainable and infrastructure. One has to always think about isn't a centralized infrastructure that decentralized? Because how that develops is very different. And to address all of this, it is not just a technology issue. It is an issue about technology, about markets, about policy, about finance or business models, and the innovations have to happen across all of them and they have to be aligned. They have to reinforce each other as opposed to fighting against each other. Which sometimes happens. If the policy is looking backwards and the technology has moved ahead, then you suddenly find, oh my God, it's really bad for the technology given. I won't go into that details, but I'll just keep it up at that level and we can have a Q&A on that. So I'm going to focus on the technology part as what could be, you know, this is a time not to be incremental. Given the challenge that we have, given those three things, we've got to be bold and audacious about our goals. So this is a fundamental technology shift in our energy system and the way we live. It's big. So we need to look at game changing technologies to really change the market. This is not for incremental improvement and let's make the wheel a little bit better. No, you've got to go from horse garage to a car now. That's the fundamental shift we're talking about. It is not one technology. It is not 100. So I think you all should have your top 10 ideas of technologies that can really change the market. And I'm going to present my top 10 and in the form of a great American philosopher that I'll talk about completely later on. I don't know who it will be, but you guys may be too young. Every 90s would come and say, this is the top 10 things. So this is my top 10 David Letterman top, you know, game changing energy in no particular order. So don't take this as that's the most important. No, this is all important. So here we go. $30 a ton. And from directly from air, possible, at less than $150 a ton. It's about $60, $70 a ton. You've got to cut that in half, at least. Otherwise, it is non-mobile economically, because this is a price in carbon. We don't have a price in carbon. If we do get a price in carbon, it will be about $40, $50. So you've got to have the cost lower than the price. Make the business value. So that's one. Number nine, photovoltaic systems that are lighter and more efficient and enabling fully installed capital cost of a 50 cents per watt with a levelized cost of 2.5 cents per watt. So when we were in the Department of Energy, Mark Hartley and I were there in the Department of Energy. It was called SunShot. Kennedy had MoonShot, Obama had SunShot. No. It was not to go to the sun and return safely in a decade. It is to reduce the cost, unsubsidence cost of electricity from solar by the end of the decade to five cents a kilowatt hour, or $50 a megawatt hour. To be cost-competitive. This is going to be on. This is going to 2.5 cents, and I'll tell you why. Number eight, battery storage at a capital cost of 1.5 kilowatt hour. And with more than half the cycle today, you will see on the streets of David, it's about $300 a kilowatt hour. But if you could do that, it changes the ball game, not only for transportation, but for the grid. Number seven, modular nuclear plants. Nuclear is the biggest source of carbon-free energy, but it's expensive. So reducing the cost with $3 a watt and a levelized cost of 7 cents a kilowatt hour. Number six, deep borehole carbon-free geothermal energy with a levelized cost of 7 to 8 cents a kilowatt hour. We don't know how to do that. It's too expensive to drill. New drilling technology for geothermal would be terrific. Ultra high voltage transmission line and low cost of integration may have been renewables. If you have more than 50% of renewables in a grid, which you would like to, the grid was never designed for, and I'll come to that in a minute. Building performance standards combined with energy efficient buildings. And you'll be living in some of your graduate student housing out here. We want to start to make Stanford buildings and Stanford living as a role model for the rest of the world, and I really hope you take that out as part of your effort out here. Number three, in terms of combustion engines, this is not just your reciprocating engine, but your rotary engine as well in your jet engine. These are all internal combustion engines. The fuel makes use. Storing carbon-free energy in fuels as opposed to batteries at $2 a gallon of gasoline equivalent. If you could do that, this is disruptive. $2 a gallon making oil from carbon-free energy. And finally, reliant photosynthesis to reduce negative emissions and slightly increase food productivity without affecting water use and without affecting land use, et cetera. So these are my top 10. You guys should figure out your top 10. If you could do a few of them, really well. I think this is game-changing. And this is some of the things that we will be talking about out here while you're here. And all of this, some of this is all going on. And so as you can see, I'm not putting in the form of here's mechanical engineering problem, here's a biology problem. Who you want to team with? Who you want to team with in material science and engineering and someone in medical school to figure out how you want to address it together. This will lead all the minds. I'm not going to talk about 10 of these in detail. I'll talk about two. Two things that are kind of dear to me. The first is the grid. Why is this important? This is, Chris mentioned a little bit of this, and this is the exciting part. This is the contract price. This is a business contract, not the cost, but business contracts that have been signed, long-term contracts, in selling wind. Here's the wind, electricity, the cost, or the price, not the cost, at about $25 or $30 a megawatt hour. Okay, so three and a half is a megawatt hour. And this is solar out here, and this blurriness is the error bar in the data. I just made it a nice preview. But that's what it is. And you can see that this has come down to the point that in the United States it has a little bit of subsidy of $23 a megawatt hour in wind, and so if you remove that, it will go to about $43 or so, $45 a megawatt hour. It's pretty good. And this is solar, as you can see, and the capacity, because it's cheap, the cost is coming down, the price is coming down, the price is coming down, the capacity is going up exponentially. What is this, you know, how do these numbers really matter? It matters when you compare. So this is where, so by the way, this is the record, unsubsidized price for wind in Morocco, $0.03 a megawatt hour, $30 a megawatt hour, and this is for solar in Mexico, $36 a megawatt hour, $26 a megawatt hour, amazing. What is it in relation to? This is where US natural gas in China call this, today. So what you're finding is the renewable energy is not only cheap, it's going to get cheaper. And in a solar, and both solar and wind, and there's plenty of headroom in solar. This is where US call it nuclear. What you hear is that nuclear is expensive. But that is the largest carbon-free source of energy. And that's what this is. So we obviously have to figure out how to reduce this cost, but the other things are getting cheaper. So now people say, okay, California has a mandate. We're going to be 50% renewable by 2030. 50% renewable. Today it's about 25%. So how do we get there? And I'll talk a little bit about this. This is a good news. In terms of capital investment, financial capital investment, we find that the green is the investments in clean energy, in decarbonized energy. Red is an oil and gas. Is that the wrong map? We have to invest in that because we still need our fuel for our transportation, etc. But for the first time, you find that the investment global, it's something million dollars, is hired in renewable energy as opposed to oil and gas. First time in history. This is only one year. We'll see what happens this year and the next year. If it keeps going like that, that's a trend. But this has happened for the first time. Now, this is another chart which I think is very important. Here's the history of how economies have changed energy mix. We used to be all wood, then it turned to coal, oil, gas, then a little bit of nuclear, so renewables are still a very small fraction. But it used to take 40 or 50 years for the change to happen. We don't have the luxury of that now. Because if it's 40 or 50 years and trying to decarbonize the system, gain may be over. We know it. So do developing economies have to go through wood, which is where they are today, through coal, through oil and gas? Or is there an opportunity for them to leapfrog from here to there? And that's an opportunity that should not be ignored. And that's one of the things because frankly it is cheaper to develop it in a different way than trying to go through this whole spectrum of energy mixes. I'm going to talk about the grid. The grid is very important as a system because if you're trying to introduce 50, 60% renewables, it is non-trivial to do that. Why? Because our current grid paradigm is what I call the Tesla Edison paradigm. Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison. They competed against each other. They made 1800s, 30-1900s to develop a grid paradigm. And this paradigm and the architecture of the grid has not changed. The devices may have changed, but the architecture has not changed. And what is that paradigm? Well, they have centralized power stations, very large thermal power stations or hydroelectric power stations. Why large? Because it was cheaper per unit kilowatt hour. That's why they made it large. They had long-distance high-voltage transmission. The first one was from Niagara Falls to New York City. High-voltage long-distance transmission, high-voltage because your current is lower, your losses are lower. The higher you go, the longer you can go. Then you have then you reduce your voltage to your distribution networks in your neighborhoods, which is typically at 13 kilovolts. Don't touch those wires. 13 kilovolts is a jolt. And then you, from your neighborhood wires, you step down and you get actually 240 and you get from the neutral, you get 120. That's how you operate. And the whole grid runs today at 60 volts. And the paradigm is that the power is generated from here. It goes to thousands of billions of loads at the edge of the grid. These are passive loads and the power only flowed in one direction. And when you turn on your switch out here and you turn on the lights, somehow they generate a head to ramp up. Remember this is Nikola Tesla's and Thomas Edison's time. There was no internet. It was barely telephone. How did the generator know that the light has gone up? Light has been turned on, the supporter has been turned on, load has been turned on. How did they know? Anyone knows? Frequency. Because when you turn on your load your machines will run a little slower because it's just a drag on them. So you have 60 hertz becomes 59 hertz, 59 for 9 hertz, 59 hertz, etc. And then suddenly if the generator operates, you know, the machine is slowing down and so they will ramp it up a little bit to bring it back to 60 hertz. That's a feedback control. That's how the grid started running. That's how it runs today. It's a very simple control mechanism. That was the only way, I mean that was the only way to communicate, frankly. And in those days. Today we have a few other ways of communicating. And that's one of the things that we're going to talk about briefly. Finally, this is not, this is continuous generation, centralized continuous generation. So if you ramp up, if you turn on your load they could ramp up and they can, the generation always track the load. But as we know now in wind and solar the generation doesn't track the load. The generation tracks the wind or tracks the sun. So somehow our whole paradigm is changed now. Should the load be tracked in the generation? Maybe. How would the load know when to turn off or when to dip? Well maybe there are other ways of communicating. This is the whole paradigm of what I call bits of what and I'll talk very briefly about. So when you try to integrate renewables, this is today the question of stability of cost, of reliability, efficiency, mission goals, security, market structures and price mechanism, business models, regulation, regulatory agreements, people acceptance. All of this has to take a took on. All of this will change because the whole paradigm was shifted. And the test values and grid was never designed for these changes. So the fundamental infrastructure that are internet and everything else that we do in our life depends on the fact that you can hear me with a mic that depends on electricity, the fact that I can project everything we do depends on electricity. That fundamental infrastructure will have to change at the times that we're living in right now. And a lot of people in the utility world, in the electricity world are really worried about what will happen to their businesses because once this thing changes, that changes the business model, the regulatory structure will also have to change. So what enabling technologies that we can leverage today? Well, we have power systems that we can manage electronically. Silicon transistors are not just used for your information processing. They are also used to controlling power. And they use that for your power supplies for your computers. That's really teeny, teeny ones. They also use for controlling megawatts of power. Communications and control. I mean, you can buy this Texas instrument DSP chip for $1.50 and it runs at like 80 megahertz and you can do all kinds of very nice digital control with this. It's dirt cheap. You have sensing mechanism, not just smart meters in your home, but various other more sophisticated devices put you on a transmission line and figure out voltage, current, phase angle, GPS unit and timestamp every 30 milliseconds. The tons of data we produce we don't know what to do with the data. That's where we are today. Computing. Computing is separating into two parts. One is centralized cloud-based computing, network distributed computing, and the other is distributed intelligence, what we now call Internet of Things. That's a very nice word. Internet of Things. In this case Internet of Things have to satisfy the laws of physics. You fit with the stock. But your Internet of Things in the grid will have to look at Kirchhoff's laws and things like that. This is not true. And of course a lot of data science. As I said, there's a lot of data we produce and we have to use the data. We don't know how to really analyze the data for this particular application and these are all getting cheaper and better. So this is the what I call the bits and wants. It's a Stanford and Slack innovations for the 21st century grid. We said, we're not going to throw this infrastructure that we already have. But could we overlay another infrastructure of computing and distributed connection so that the coordinator, so that when the wind goes down can we reduce the load a little bit? Or when the wind goes up can we generate and we store that energy somewhere? We use it. So this is the kind of thing that we're going to go in bits and wants. This is a three big thrust integrated approach to grid modeling, transmission distribution as one big system, connected customers. These people have to be involved. We know how to control the triple stats remotely. Now, if you don't have that in your home you will probably have that soon. And finally, a lot of data. And I won't go into the details of this. Let me move to transportation. There's a big vector that is pointing right now and it's a very strong vector on electrification of transportation. And the reason being, the only reason it's not prevalent everywhere is the cost. I wish all of us could buy a Tesla. We cannot. It's expensive. And the reason it's expensive, the majority of the cost is in the battery. The battery costs have come down about $1,000 a kilowatt hour in 2008 or so to roughly about $300 or maybe $200 something dollars per kilowatt hour in a matter of several years. This is absolutely fabulous. And the reason it has come down is all kinds of innovations in materials. You can store more energy in the same material. And packaging, how you package it. So this is, and once it reaches about $150 a kilowatt hour today it's about $300, it reaches $150 which is likely to happen in the next 10 years or so. The cost and the range of electric vehicles will be comparable to the ones in gasoline cars. This is amazing. This is the tectonic shift in transportation. And then give it another 10 or 15 years, you'll find deep penetration of electric vehicles and people out here think big cars these are somehow big. The rest of the world, which is where most of the growth of transportation they travel like this. And that can be electrified much faster because the ranges are lower the speeds are lower and when the speeds are lower your range increases. So this is very, very important. The other part is that not everything can be electrified. You still need fuels. I would love to see which people are trying a single capacity once. But you're going 747 it's not going to go on a battery any time soon. She still needs the fuels. Liquid because that's high density. So how do we produce this? And this is the other part that I was going to talk about. A grand challenge. We think CO2 is a problem could we turn CO2 into fuels? So you have water or CO2. You can slick water and produce hydrogen. You can perhaps combine hydrogen with CO2 to make all these kinds of hydrocarbons of ethanol and ethanol etc. This needs a lot of energy because CO2 is what is called the lowest free energy level. Well those of you who are not engineers or scientists, there's nothing free energy. There's no free energy. What we call is free energy. So how do you take from the lowest energy level of CO2 to storing energy? If that energy comes from carbon based coal based sources, we're not solving anything. So how do we take these kinds of energies and that's why it's very important that they achieve inexpensive which is the world we're entering now and get into this. And there's a lot of research that is going on at Stanford and this is a whole team looking at electrochemical pathway. So you can see our electrochemical, photochemical, biochemical, chromochemical. This is the electrochemical team in Jens Norskov, Haramea, Tom Harameo, this is chemical engineering chemistry and material science. We're looking at trying to figure out how to reduce the cost of hydrogen production to be less than $2 a kilogram of hydrogen. $2 a kilogram of hydrogen is roughly $2 of gasoline equipment. Once you produce hydrogen you can do other things. So this is one big, big challenge. We don't know how to do that. It's about $5 or $6 a kilogram of hydrogen, which is that means the hydrogen or the gasoline that you produce is $5 or $6 a gallon of gasoline. It won't compete at least not in the United States. So how do we get to this? And this requires science and engineering to be able to do that. The one that I am along with my colleague Milt Shui is focused on is not the electrochemical route because the whole chemical industry is thermochemical today. We can do that, but it requires a high temperature, 1500 degrees Celsius. We're trying to get to 800 degrees Celsius. Half a temperature. And if you can do that, it is infrastructure compatible. And we have some very nice results. Now, new class of materials that we've found that we can do that. It is material science and engineering is all bigger. So, again, a lot of people think that this is too difficult, hard. A lot of people, a lot of naysayers, by the way. And I go to Washington. In fact, I'm going there today. There's an office guitar. There, there, there. It's all negative. Let me give you some I would say infamous predictions from the past if someone says no. As long as it doesn't violate the laws of physics it is, it may be possible. It may not be cost-effective, but you got to think about it. These are the infamous predictions of the past. This is Lord Kelvin in 1890s. Rainy has no future. X-rays will prove to be in hopes. Heavy-than-air flying machines are impossible. He was very opinionated. But quite wrong. But he was not the only one. I mean, he was so convincing that he convinced Wilbur Wright that man will not fly in years. And it was 90 to 1. Fortunately, he had a brother. He convinced him otherwise in four years they were able to fly. He didn't violate the laws of physics. There were existence proofs out there. And the best way, and this is for you to invent the future, the best way to predict the future is invented. And I like the quote by Arthur C. Clarke. Any sufficiently advanced technology cannot be distinguished from magic. And it is for you guys to do some magic now. Thank you. Questions? I can take one question. And if I answer quickly, it's up to me. I can take another one. Questions? Yes. When you look at energy surge in hydrocarbons, are you also working on a pathway to get the energy out? Or otherwise, do you burn and visit their car? So the question is, is there a sort of a carbon balance when you're making hydrocarbons? What would be to somehow figure out how to get carbon from the atmosphere, or some source would have gone out, and then make liquid fuels? Even if it's emitted from a source like coal-fired power plants, it would have gone out. Use the carbon dioxide to make fuel. And thereby displace more fossil fuels dug out of the ground. That's the activity. Good question. One more. Every day lifestyle, like finding all the water or using those bags and stuff, have an impact on the energy of the source. Great question. Do a lifestyle in a carbon balance. Absolutely matters. Most important things you can do and see whether it's energy efficient. How many kilowatt hours do you really use? And your home is one of the biggest uses of energy. And if you can somehow reduce the energy consumption by design, by making it you know less leaky both heat to come in or heat to go out using a lot of energy. In this area, we don't need air conditioning. And I've been fighting with my wife my wife won't say air conditioning. And I say you don't need one. You can bear 80 degrees for a few days. I think we can do that. So that's the kind of thing that you've got to be able to do to reduce the energy consumption. If you're traveling nothing like public transportation to reduce your energy footprint. And that's the kind of thing lifestyle really matters. We want to make Stanford one of the models of excellence in terms of the carbon emissions. This is the living laboratory. And so we want to that's one of the goals that Sally Benson, my co-director is to see if how to make Stanford campus and Slack some of the zero carbon emissions. Okay, net. But you've got to do it very cost effectively. So we call it double net zero. Net zero emissions at net zero cost. If you can do it cost effectively it becomes a role model for everyone else. Because cost really matters. We are privileged out here in terms of we have some wealth to do it and we may not mind a little bit of extra cost to be able to save the planet. But we can't ask the rest of the world to do the same. So if being sustainable reducing emissions, reducing energy consumption becomes a cheaper way of doing living. That is the right way to do it. And let me stop here. Thank you very much.