 1909. Mae'r amser wedi'i gweithio'r amser byddai'r amser. Mae'r amser wedi'i gweithio'r amser, Lluy Blurio, oedd ydych chi'n gweithio'r Ddover, oedd ydych chi'n gweithio 22 ymgyrch y chyfnodol yn 36 ymgyrch. Yn 60 ymgyrch, 60 ymgyrch, sydd ydych chi'n gweithio'r amser yw'r cyflwyno'n gweld yna'r ysgolol yn y cyflwyno'r cyflwyno'n gweld ymgyrch, os ydych chi'n gweld y môl ymgyrch. 60 yr assenant. Mae'r cyflwyno a'r cyflwyno'n gweld ymgyrch, dweud y fwylo dros datblygu sydd gyda'r cyflwyno'n gweld ymgyrch sy'n gweithio'r cyflwyno'n gweld ymgyrch. Mae'r bwysig yn gallu ei wneud i'w ffordd. Yn ymlaen o'r progresau fyddwn i'r ffordd, mae'n ddweud yn ymdweud yw'n ddweud i'w ddweud i'r ysgol ac yn ddweud i'r ysgol yma'r ffordd. Rwy'n meddwl i'r problemau, dwi'n meddwl gael y gallu bod nhw. A mae, mae'n meddwl i'r eich pwysig i'r pwysig i'r pwysig i'r pwysig. Mae'n meddwl i'r 15, rydyn ni'n meddwl i'r pwysig, 2,000. It was this sentence that stood out, and it's talking about the B15 iceberg that breaks off in the Antarctic off the Ross Ice Shelf. It was all part of a normal process, and a little bit further on in the article, it said this loss would normally take 50 to 100 years to replace, and it was that same word normal used in two different places now had two utterly different meanings. If we bump into the Ross Ice Shelf when we leave here today, we're going to the B15 iceberg. We're going to bump into something that is 1,000 feet tall on this front edge. It's 76 miles long. It's 17 miles wide, and it weighs two gigatons. I'm sorry. I don't think there's anything normal about that. And I think it's this tendency that we have to see everything from whatever our perspective is initially as normal, especially the negative things, is one of the forces that stops us developing real solutions, which begs the question, why don't we recognize what actually is happening in front of us? And I believe it's our innate tendency to rationalize away the negative and accept our altered perception as reality. It shows up sort of in these veins. Someone else will fix the problem. Another way of saying is somebody is going to have the solution, but I actually don't have to do anything to contribute to the solution. Well, the problems aren't as bad as we're being told. Well, they're so far in the future that I don't actually have to worry about it today, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary. And because our past experiences determine our response to things in the future, every time we hear that the world is ending and then it doesn't, we assume the information must be faulty and we rationalize away whatever evidence is presented right then and there. We also express a desire to be able to perform information-seeking behaviours to go and look at why things are happening. And the moment we get minimal acceptable information, we stop our process right then and there, permitting us to continue living in another state of denial when everything should be screaming in areas that this is not right. But what if we did things differently? What if we embraced the problems that are in front of us and instead of rationalizing them away, we actually start to deal with them head-on? Could we find solutions? Very soon after the B15 iceberg broke up, arguably the greatest discovery of the last century occurred, which is the sequencing of the human genome, here we're talking about the source code that is in every one of our cells. If we take one cell's worth and unwind it, it's about a meter long. It's about two nanometers wide. Two nanometers, we're talking about a few atoms in width. And I wondered, what if we could find the solution to some of our biggest problems in the smallest of places where the difference between what is needed and what is not is merely the addition or subtraction of a few atoms? And what if we could control the essence of energy, the electron? So I started at that point to build a company to go around the world to find some of the best and brightest scientists who are on the edge of this science. And the question I really was asking them is, how could you go and change what you see? Could you think big? Could you go beyond? Such that we might be able to, with their collective discoveries, find solutions to some of the problems? Now, we were going to go and fund some of their amazing ideas so that we can stop burning up our planet. And instead, we would be able to accept that we could generate and store all the energy we need right where we are, cheaply, safely, and cleanly. For example, where we all are. If you think about a building I spent a lot of time in the Middle East and India, in the buildings that I'm in, they have a massive amount of energy coming in through the window. They have a massive amount of light and they bring it into a space that they then spend a massive amount of energy trying to keep cool when it's 125 degrees Fahrenheit outside and they want it at 68 degrees inside. What if there was a way whereby instead of taking all this heat in, you could just sort of flick it away before it gets in, but let all the light in which we need. That would be pretty good. Of course, in winter, in the northeast, what we want to do is let the light in, but all the heat that we're now generating inside that's now trying to get out, what if there was a way we could turn that back in? One of the materials at the nanoscale that gives you the possibility of being able to do this is one of the magic materials. As you can see, it's chicken wire rolled up with a twist, and depending on how the twist works, determines whether this is a conductor of electricity. In some cases, it might be a thousand times more conductive than copper. If you twist it another way, it doesn't conduct at all. The secret is in the twist. This particular twisty version is made in this reaction. You can see this down in Florida. We take carbon, we vaporize it with lasers, and when it coalesces back into that green thing, what you're actually making is the type of tube with the twist that you want. This is 17 years' work of a scientist who's focused on this problem and this problem alone for that period of time, how to make a twisty form of carbon that I could be able to do something with. Well, in this case, the do something with is this. With a polymer, in its transparent state, it lets all light and heat through a window, and in its coloured state, it reflects it, and any combination in between. Now think of the control you would have in a building, again, think of a Middle East building, where the whole surface was as active as this. In fact, I have one of those pieces here, which I will show those once again. As you can see, it's carbon. Carbon you think of as black. Carbon at the nanoscale is totally transparent and flexible, and I can have extreme control over it. So we go round thinking about these problems. We also go around thinking of scientists and we go to them saying, here's a problem, just down the corridor, somebody who was thinking about this. If I took a picture of any part of the world at night, it would look like this. Think of the amount of energy that we're burning to get round at night. Why are we doing this? We're doing this because as humans, we don't see at night. Here's the military's answer to seeing at night. This device is about $10,000. It's a 50% gross margin business. I'm told, if you've worn one of these a whole night, you have a fairly nice headache going that starts about here, and you've got about 20 pounds of batteries on your hip. These devices all work roughly the same way. They take infrared radiation and they convert it into the visible. We thought that you could probably do this slightly more efficiently, and the beauty of nanotechnology means that you're able to do it on a thin piece of glass. I'll show you how it works. There's two plates. It takes the infrared light. This is light you can't see at night, but it's there, and it converts it into visible light. The whole device size, as you can see, very, very small. What if you actually combined this with this? What you'd be able to do is take infrared radiation coming in, translated into plate, to be able to create an electron, which I could now, if I chose to, present as light into room in the middle of the night, or stop it at the electron and use this device to be generating energy. This is just the night version. You could even tell the car this fits. This is all off a plate, half a micron thick. We don't think of this surface in the middle of the night as a light, but if I did think of my window as a light, why do I need this? It changes the way you think about things. We are probably too old to think about wearing glasses at night and not having to have lights, but our kids may think nothing of it. Our kids may have to do it that way. If I was being able to generate energy on a surface, I'd want to be able to store it. I'd want to be able to store it where I am. The single best storage device we have in the world is a 150-year-old technology that was invented in France. We have nothing better than this in terms of the one thing most people care about, which is dollars per watt of electricity stored. We have better batteries, but nowhere near as cheap. So we went to another professor down in Texas and said, let's change this proposition. What that has turned into, this is prototype number one, this is called E-Box, this is a device that is meant to sit at the end point of a node. So I'm thinking in terms of computer geeks here, I'm talking about I'm the laptop at the end of the network and I'm doing all my processing out at the end points. Here what we're talking about is instead of generating all our power centrally, I have a device out in everybody's home in a basement that stores electrons, either generated by the utility companies centrally and passed out to this device at night when you don't need it, or generated locally off my window and fed to this device in the basement. Prototype number one costs us $85,000. Prototype number two costs $15,000. Prototype number three on the drawing board will be priced less than a refrigerator, either owned by the utility company or purchased by the consumer. On the left-hand side, it feeds the house. It takes any form of input power, either off the grid or any renewable. We don't care. It's modularized, just go plug it in. What's interesting, firstly, it needs a little bit of power to run. This is like your laptop. You have to have some power to get it going for you to be able to start typing. In this case, it's a very low load. We are assuming about a 72% efficiency of this e-box at the moment. We already know it's in the 90s. If you just arbitrage the grid, so this doesn't work in countries where they don't let you buy power cheaply in the middle of night, but it does work in California. I have a computerized device then. It is searching wherever the utilities are providing electricity, whether it's from Niagara Falls, whether it's from a nuclear power plant in the middle of the night. It buys the cheapest source of power and it stores it. If I just arbitrage the grid, I get a nice differential pricing that I am now making profit. If I plug a single green device into it, a dirt cheap solar cell that we're buying from China, I have a 30% savings at only two and a half kilowatt hours. I have a 50% saving for five kilowatt hours. This single-handedly can change how everything we think about power when power is distributed out to the endpoint. Heresy for a lot of people, but so it was heresy that we didn't think that computers would have all the power out at the endpoint when we needed. So the challenge I give to the utility companies what's your business plan when the marginal unit cost of the electron on the line is zero? Because that's the very same question I asked Bell Canada many, many years ago. The response from the VP of strategic planning was, it'll never happen. Bell Canada is out of business because we all know it did. It therefore opens up the possibility, and this is the challenge I give to our scientists, that if I've got my power right here, half the world's population lives in urban environments, which means my house does not move in relation to your house, my neighbor. If I'm away for two weeks travelling and I've got all this power being generated and it's in my e-box, I'll bring that power back up to the window which looks at your window and I will move those electrons either by light or by microwave. We do that all the time, point to point, and I've just got to get it 20 feet. I'm not trying to move this electron to the other side of the world. I'm just trying to move it 20 feet. In that case, I look awfully like a wifi and I can repeat that sequence house to house to house. The prospect that that opens up is that energy, one day, at the margin, will be free. I truly believe it is within arm shot of it and when I go around to universities funding scientists, this is what I'm having them work on. Work for the day that the marginal unit cost of a single electron passed from A to B 20 feet is zero. Because that's what's happened in the media, it's happened in computers and it's happened in telephony. And I believe it's going to happen in energy. I can hear you say some of you in the deep recesses of your mind that's never going to happen. Well, I just want to remind you that our parents and grandparents couldn't imagine in 1927 when the first telephone call happened from New York to London, it cost $75 for that first call for a period of three minutes on a network that could handle one call. To the day that all our kids will get on their computer, call anybody they want in the world over Skype for free. It means a lot of the problems that we have, we've already got the keys to solve them. And our greatest challenge that I think we're facing now is one of time, we're simply running out of it as our problems are compounding on us. To show you how quickly time moves four years ago, I gave a talk in Texas about this. This is a Hoover Dam, Lake Mead, which sits behind it. It cost $165 million to build in 1936. That's about $200 billion in today's money. It generates 4 billion kilowatt hours a year. It's 120 and 1,244 feet across down at the bottom. It's 660 feet thick of concrete. The generators, which sit here, process enough water through them to fill 15 swimming pools in one second. Now, why do I tell you this other that didn't give you some meaningless statistics for your next dinner party? The same year I gave this talk, the Scripps Institute in San Diego reported that the reservoir levels in Lake Mead behind the dam had a 50% chance of falling low enough, 50% chance that the Hoover Dam as a generator would be turned off in 2017. To quote the institute, we were stunned at the magnitude of the problem and how fast it was coming at us. Make no mistake, this water problem is not a scientific abstraction, but rather one that will impact every one that lives in the Southwest of the United States. This problem is happening all over the world. In just 13 years from here, two-thirds of the world will be living under some form of water stress. Water is going to be the next very big problem because without water we have to move and we're going to move across other people's borders and people get shirty when you walk across their front yards. Thanks to a satellite system called GRACE, we're able to see what happens to the groundwater below countries. This is in the Northern States of Rajasthan and Punjab where 114 million people live. What this is imaging is what's happening to the aquifers under which where all these people are living. In the period 2002 to 2008, 26 cubic miles of groundwater disappeared. It disappeared in a period where the rainfall was greater than average. What disappeared was twice the capacity of India's largest reservoir plus triple that of what was behind Lake Mead. We actually don't know how deep those aquifers are but those aquifers are the lifeblood of the world. Suck them out. They don't go to be replaced very quickly. We just need, you see, a relatively simple thing. As a human, we need eight glasses of this a day. I said, not much of a problem, right? Eight glasses of this a day. When we destroy that, means we're going to have to get it from the sea. To get it from the sea means we have to desalinate. This is brute force engineering. We take salt water, we drive it with pumps through membranes to get what's out the other side, fresh water, eight glasses of this a day. To give that to the whole world, it's $19 trillion. We don't have that, which means for some lucky few of us, we'll get it, the vast majority will not. Out of IIT in India is a way to think of the problem differently. Instead of driving salt water to make it into water, why don't we take 100% of what we use in a house and just recycle it through the use of nanotechnology? And I mean 100% of the house. So my P I can recycle because what I can do is put it in the top and what it does because it's nano bonding, it will strip out everything that you don't want out of the bottom. I'll just show you, we took a puddle in India, stuck it in the top. This is concentrations in the initial sample of all this stuff on the left, none of which you want to drink. This is a single flow through, one pass through. This is the WHO recommendations. A single pass through of a puddle in India that none of us would ever drink through this filter would give you pure drinking water. So one of the ways that you solve the problem for the well recycle everything in your house. Top up with the bit that you don't get and that you lose by evaporation. We'll give you another example as to how you need to think differently about problems. This is out of another university in Florida. Let's take a picture I took on one of my trips. What's interesting about India is I didn't get the shot of the cows coming this way and the other cars coming this way because it seems like nobody follows a single traffic sign. But all these cars have one thing in common that's a problem. They're all run by combustion engines. And combustion engines are only about 30% efficient. And yet the world knows, the world knows that fuel cells are 80% to 90% efficient. And I bet nobody in this room has a car driven by a fuel cell and nobody has a power plant in their house that's running with a fuel cell. Because you see one of the problems with a fuel cell is the cathode has two things. Two electrodes, a cathode and a nanode. And on the cathode is a material called platinum. Platinum is the catalyst that makes this thing go. About a third of the cost of a fuel cell is the platinum. As you use the fuel cell, the platinum gets polluted over time. If this was my cathode, the platinum looks like salt spread out on it. And as I run this thing, that salt migrates to the center and it's polluted. And what we're meant to do if we have a fuel cell is take that cathode out, put another one in and off we go. And I know that's why none of us are going to go and take our cars and do all this messing around because it's a lot easier to just stick gasoline in. Remember we started off with this discussion about a carbon, commonal garden carbon that happens to be very energetic at the nanoscale due to a discovery. One of the kids in the labs where he was watching this go on and realized that this carbon was energetic said, can I borrow this? He goes and builds a fuel cell, a plastic one, and he sticks exactly this to where the platinum was, okay? Carbon into where platinum goes. And he saw this. Don't worry about the axis, just look at the colors. The red color is platinum. The other colors are different thicknesses of carbon and plastic, pennies by the ton versus platinum. More importantly, carbon does not degrade with time. All from the simple words, can I try this? This should not be a surprise. I don't know why it is a surprise for most of the people in the world that nanotechnology should be a possibility to solve all our problems. It shouldn't. I look at this not as a scientist, I look at it as a money guy. And the money guy, when he looks at this, sees this. The world knows all our scientists know what the combinations are. They know what two of the combinations make in 82% of permutations. Surprisingly, why not 100? But anyway, it's this that I care about. Three, four, and five combinations of periodic table elements are largely unknown. That tells me that our age of discovery, because we are now at the place that we can do molecular manipulation. I talk about it as looking under God's skirt because I'm convinced God is not a man. God is a woman. Nobody could have done it as nicely as this. But it tells me this number of combinations are waiting to be found. The only question is who's going to go find them. I've talked about this change coming at us at length and our desperation to think of our current circumstances as normal. So I want to close on some thoughts and I want to probably the best place to head is back out of space largely when I started. While it took us 60 years for my grandfather to witness that flight across the channel, there was very short step thereafter that only an additional eight years from the first man on the moon to NASA launching this, Voyager 1 and then Voyager 2. Since their launch in 1977, these probes have visited the largest planets in our solar system and provided a spectacular set of photographs about our local neighborhood. They're projected to last till 2020. They've actually left our planetary system and they're heading out deep space where one day, hopefully tentatively, somebody is going to be able to find them in our galaxy. And in case they're found, interesting enough on the side of this is a gramophone and when you play it, a gramophone record, some of us are old enough to remember what that vinyl felt like, but the record when you play it probably says top of the morning to you. A maps also supplied to say when we are and where we are. One of the interesting things about these is their speed. This is going at about 35,500 miles per hour. The fastest a human has ever gone was when we went to the moon, which took three days to get there. If Voyager covered that distance, it would do it in seven hours. If we go back to the turn of the previous century and I've been talking to a group like this and I said, you know what, we're going to go build something that looks like this and it's going to be able to go to the moon in seven hours. It's then going to the end of our solar system. It's going to go out there and it's doing it all, hopefully to say hello to somebody that's out there. I think you would have thought I would be crazy. But I also want to remind you, back then, the argument against the automobile back then was the belief that if the human body went over 25 miles an hour, it would literally shake apart. Change is a powerful thing. It defys everything that we think is acceptable and it also opens up the possibility for anything. It also leads to unbelievable innovation when we think of whole new worlds and anything becomes possible. But it's not for the timid. He did not say, I have a plan. He did not say, because we know what he said, what if we all chose to believe in the impossible was possible? And that is what I believe is happening today in universities around the world, using nanotechnology to change our belief system of the problems that we face in energy and water. Thank you.