so it’s a great joy to be back at Yale I just taught a class for the first time in six months which I haven’t forgotten how to do but it is a special pleasure to be here today and to welcome a friend and an inspiration Amory Lovins to Yale and to our community Amerie as many of you know is the co-founder and currently chairman and chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute which is a leading independent market oriented I think gamer he likes to call they think and do tank so not just producing ideas about how the world might work better from an energy and environmental point of view but really trying to step out and lead the way on some of those new technologies he’s been an inspiration to me for a very long time some of you will know that nearly 40 years ago Amerie launched a concept called the soft energy path in which he helped focus the world and really for the first time in a systematic and thoughtful way on the opportunity for energy efficiency as a way of addressing rising energy demands in a rising set of prices around energy and I think that focus on the demand side of the equation prior to that everyone had thought the answer to energy problems was more supply was it breakthrough in thinking and Amery has over the intervening time been an adviser to companies and governments across the world more than 50 different countries and within our country many companies and other entities including the department’s of energy and defense he’s won more prizes than I could even name in an introduction but including the Blue Planet prize the Volvo Prize the Onassis Prize the Nissan Prize a MacArthur and Ashoka fellowships the Heinz prize the Lindberg prize I won’t go on he really has had an extraordinary career in breaking new ground in terms of thinking and he has done so in a way that brings analytic rigor and fresh ideas to many topics he’s written or co-authored or co-edited 31 books in over 400 papers his latest book well he has two that have been of recently of interest in 2004 he wrote winning the oil endgame some of you I know have read that and more recently and really uh just released is reinventing fire bold business solutions for the new energy era and it’s really that topic how we reimagine our energy future that is here today to talk about and to address it’s a great pleasure to have him hosted by the Yale Center for environmental law and policy as well as the business and environment Club at the Yale School of Management and the Center for business and the environment at Yale Amory’s visit is supported by the General Electric Foundation and the GE sustainability leaders program Emrys going to talk for a minutes and then take questions if you do want to ask a question please wave and we will try to get you a microphone let us know who you are and all of you have signed in and if you haven’t we’re gonna by implication have you signed in meaning you have agreed to be taped because we are videotaping this and running it live on the Internet so if anyone does not consent to having their voice or vision on that internet please go out and I guess watch from the outside so thank you all very much again and it really is a pleasure to be able to welcome Amory special thanks again to the GE sustainability leaders program that helps us bring practitioners and thought leaders here to Yale and to really make this institution a forum for debate over the challenges and opportunities that we face in implementing sustainability across environment energy and economic dimensions so with that let me say thank you again Emery and the podium is yours well thank you Dan for your wonderful work at Yale and for now the people of Connecticut after that gracious introduction I can’t wait to hear what I’m going to say the energy debate that keeps coming at us in the media and politics if clearly framed would ask something like would you rather die of oil Wars or climate change or nuclear holocaust or perhaps all of the above but what if we could choose none of the above what if we could make energy do our work without working our undoing

could we have fuel without fear could we reinvent fire fire you see made us human fossil fuels made us modern and now we need a new fire that makes us safe secure healthy and durable this has now become possible in fact it works better and cost less than what we’ve been doing so far so let’s explore how to make that change four-fifths of the world’s energy still comes from burning every year about four cubic miles of fossil fuels the rotted remains of primeval swamp goo those fossil fuels have built our civilization created our wealth enriched the lives of billions yet their rising cost to our security economy health and environment are eroding if not out weighing their benefits that’s why we need a new fire switching from the old fire to the new fire means shifting two big stories oil and electricity each of which releases now two-fifths of fossil carbon yet they’re distinct our electricity comes less than one and from oil but nearly half from cold three-fourths of our oil fuels transportation 3/4 of our electricity powers buildings the rest of both runs factories so very efficient vehicles buildings and factories save oil and coal and also natural gas that can displace them both but today’s energy system is not just inefficient it’s also disconnected aging dirty and insecure it needs refurbishment by 2050 it could become efficient connected and distributed with elegantly frugal autos buildings and factories all relying on a secure modern and resilient electricity system we can eliminate our addiction to oil and coal by 2050 and use one-third less natural gas while switching to efficient use and renewable supplies by 2050 this could cost five trillion dollars less in net present value than business as usual assuming that carbon emissions and all other externalities are worth zero a conservatively low estimate yet this cheaper energy system could support a hundred fifty eight percent bigger US economy all without oil or coal or nuclear energy moreover this transition needs no new inventions and no new federal taxes mandate subsidies or laws and running Washington gridlock well you say that again I’m going to tell you how the United States can get completely off oil five trillion dollars cheaper with no act of Congress led by business for profit this energy solution is going to be designed and driven from the c-suite not from K Street it’s going to use our most effective institutions private enterprise Co evolving with civil society sped by military innovation to go around our least effective institutions and whether you most care about profits and jobs and competitive advantage or national security or environmental stewardship and climate protection and Public Health reinventing fire makes sense and makes money General Eisenhower reputedly said that expanding the boundaries of a tough problem makes it soluble by encompassing more options and more synergies reinventing fire therefore integrates all four energy using sectors transportation buildings industry and electricity and it integrates four kinds of innovation technology design policy and business strategy those combinations are a lot more than the sum of their parts especially in creating deeply disruptive business opportunities in truth we would save a lot more than five trillion dollars for example America burns oil costing two billion dollars a day but our analysis which I will describe left out its hidden costs paid not at the pump but through our taxes or incomes those extra costs are at least four billion dollars a day or one and a half trillion dollars a year in three roughly equal parts the first half trillion dollars a year is sucked out of our economy mainly by OPEX monopoly

pricing which our oil dependence makes possible the second half trillion dollars a year is the market price the market or the market value of oils price volatility that whipsaws our whole economy for 40 years now every recession has been preceded by an oil price spike but just the daily yo-yo of prices imposes cost and risk on every user of oil the third half trillion dollars a year we pay to keep military forces ready for Persian Gulf interventions that is about 10 times what we pay for oil from the Persian Gulf and it rivals our total defence spending at the height of the coal war oil is also finite the Pentagon is preparing to need no oil and the rest of us should too so we ought to get off oil just to enhance national security and save money at the fuel pump even if it’s hidden costs were not twice its pump price bringing its total economic cost above a sixth of GDP plus we haven’t counted this yet any damage to health environments global stability and development or our nation’s independence and reputation where to start well our mobility fuel goes three fifths to automobiles so let’s start by making autos oil free two-thirds of the energy needed to move a typical car is caused by its weight and every unit of energy we save at the wheels by reducing weight or drag saves seven units of fuel at the tank for the past quarter century though epidemic obesity has made our two-ton steel autos gain weight twice as fast as we have but today ultra light ultra strong materials like carbon fiber composites can make dramatic weight savings snowball and can make autos simpler and cheaper to build lighter and more slippery autos need less force to move them so their engines get smaller such vehicle Fitness then makes electric autos affordable because their batteries or fuel cells get smaller lighter and cheaper so their sticker price will fall to about today’s level with far lower driving costs these innovations can transform automakers from wringing tiny savings out of Victorian steel stamping at engine technologies to the steeply falling costs of three mutually reinforcing technologies advanced lightweight materials manufacturing and electric propulsion sales can grow and prices drop faster with a temporary Phebe 8 that is rebates for efficient new cars paid for by fees on inefficient ones in its first two years the biggest of five European fee bait programs tripled the speed of improving auto efficiency the resulting shift to electric autos will be as game-changing as shifting from small improvements in typewriters to the dramatic Moore’s law driven gains in computers computers and electronics of course are now America’s biggest industry typewriter makers have vanished so vehicle fitness opens a new automotive competitive strategy to double oil savings in 40 years and that in turn makes affordable the electrification that can save the rest of the oil leaders will be laggards just like hybrid cars only faster because hybrids represent only one learning curve not three synergistic ones America could be leading this next automotive revolution currently the leader is Germany last year Volkswagen announced 2013 production of this 230-mile a gallon carbon fiber plug-in hybrid and BMW announced 2013 production of this carbon fiber electric car they confirmed that its carbon fiber is paid for by needing fewer batteries and their CEO said we do not intend to be a typewriter maker because he can look across Munich to where Olympia used to be making excellent typewriters howdy claims it’s going to beat them both by a year now even faster and cheaper manufacturing technologies than those German firms are currently using made this carbon fiber carbon cap in one minute seven years ago and you can tell from the sound how extremely stiff and strong it is

I’m gonna pass it around don’t worry about dropping it Tom Friedman who acted as hard as he could with a sledgehammer without even scuffing it it’s tougher than titanium now these techniques can scale to automotive speed and cost with aerospace performance and when we do that with all our auto making it’ll save four-fifths of the capital needed for auto making and it will save oil equivalent to discovering one and a half Saudi Arabia’s or half an OPEC by drilling in the Detroit formation a very perspective play those mega barrels under Detroit cost about 18 bucks a barrel they are all American carbon free and inexhaustible the same physics in the same business logic also apply to big vehicles in the five years through 2010 Walmart has saved 60% of the fuel per ton-mile and it’s big fleet of heavy trucks through smarter designs and logistics just the technological fuel saving in heavy trucks can rise to two-thirds and when combined with tripled to quintupled efficiency aircraft we can end up saving about point nine trillion dollars net present value and today’s military revolution in energy efficiency will speed all of these civilian advances much as military Rd in the past created the internet GPS the jet engine and microchip industries now as we design and build vehicles better we can also use them smarter this is a graph of traffic congestion with the morning and evening rush hours and if if that were an electricity load shaped how much IT enabled demand response and pricing and Smart Grid would we throw at it to flatten it out but by not yet doing that for road traffic we are wasting many billions of dollars a year in idle people idle vehicles and I don’t roads but now for powerful techniques can cut needless driving we can charge real time driving costs per mile not per gallon use smart IT to enhance transit and empower car sharing and ride-sharing allow lucrative Smart Growth real estate models so while more people are already where they want to be and don’t need to go somewhere else and use IT to make traffic free-flowing together those four proven methods can give us the same or better access with 46 to 84 percent less driving saving another point four trillion dollars plus another point three trillion dollars from smarter use of trucks you know you start adding these things up pretty soon you’re talking real money so forty years hence a for more mobile US economy can use no oil saving or displacing each barrel for just twenty five dollars rather than buying it for upwards of a hundred saves four trillion dollars in present value counting all its hidden costs at zero so to get mobility without oil we can first get efficient then switch fuels those 125 to 240 miles a gallon equivalent autos can use any mixture now unknowable because we don’t know how the competition will play out of electricity hydrogen fuel cells and advanced biofuels anyone will do we have three trucks and airplanes can realistically use advanced biofuels or hydrogen where trucks could even burn natural gas but no vehicles will need oil any biofuels the US might need just 0.3 million barrels a day made 2/3 from waste could be produced without displacing cropland or harming climate or soil our team speeds up these kinds of oil savings by institutional acupuncture and is where the business logic is congested not flowing properly we stick little needles in it to get it flowing with partners ranging from Ford to Walmart to the Pentagon I think most of the six sectors we need to transform are already at or past their tipping point in fact three years ago mainstream analysts started to see peak oil not in supply but in demand and deutsche bank even forecast that world oil use will peak around 2016 in short oil is becoming uncompetitive even at low prices before it becomes unavailable even at high prices but electrified autos don’t need to add new burdens to the electricity system rather when smart autos exchange electrons and information through smart buildings with smart grids they add flexibility and storage to the

grid that help integrate variable solar and wind power so electrified autos make the auto and electricity problems easier to solve together than separately and they converge the oil story with our second big story saving electricity and then making it differently those twin revolutions in electricity promise more numerous diverse and profound disruptions than in any other sector as 21st century technology and speed collide head-on with 20th and 19th century institutions rules and cultures changing how we make electricity though gets easier if we need less of it today it’s mostly wasted and efficiency technologies keep improving faster than we apply them so the potential savings keep getting even bigger and cheaper but as efficiency gains in buildings and industry start to add pace economic growth America’s electricity use could start shrinking despite the electrified autos which really don’t add that much because they’re very efficient we can do this by reasonably accelerating existing trends over the next 40 years buildings can triple or quadruple their energy productivity saving 1.4 trillion net dollars with a 33 percent internal rate of return the savings are worth four times their cost and industry can accelerate to doubling its energy productivity for the 21 percent internal rate of return but there’s even more to of innovation we call integrative design that can boost these savings further and often make very big energy savings cost less than small or no savings turning diminishing returns into expanding returns that’s how our 2010 retrofit is saving over two-fifths of the Empire State building’s energy remanufacturing it’s six and a half thousand windows on-site into super windows that pass light but block heat plus better lights and office equipment reduce the maximum cooling load by a third and then renovating smaller chillers instead of installing bigger ones saved seventeen million dollars a capital cost that helped pay for the other improvements and cut the payback to three years my own house high in the rocky mountains at seventy one hundred feet where it used to go down to minus forty seven F minus forty four C and you can get thirty three days of continuous midwinter cloud is another interesting example of integrative design it helped inspire 32,000 European buildings that need no heating but have roughly normal construction cost they don’t have to look like this to work like this they can look like whatever you want inside we have grown thirty-nine banana crops this was just photographed last week you can see crop number 37 here 38 and 39 are elsewhere and that’s with no furnace there’s no heating system this house in 1984 was saving 99 percent of its space and water heating energy ninety percent of its electricity all with about of ten month payback today’s technologies which we’ve just retrofitted or even better how much better well we’re figuring out by commissioning some software that’s measuring 300 data points every 20 seconds the trouble is the monitoring equipped seems to be using more energy than the lights and appliances were measuring but this design approach works well in any climate including eliminating air conditioning up to at least 115 Fahrenheit or 46 Celsius with lower construction cost and better comfort or a house model on mine was built in Bangkok and produced superior comfort at normal construction cost with 90% less air-conditioning energy I think probably about everybody in the world lives somewhere between the climate of Bangkok and old Snowmass now the key is integrative design that gives multiple benefits from single expenditures for example this arch in the top has 12 functions but only one cost integrative design can also increase the half trillion dollars of conventional energy savings in industry for example three fifths of the world’s electricity runs motors half of that runs pumps and fans and those devices can all be improved but the motor systems that drive them

can also save about half their energy with a one-year payback by integrating 35 improvements first though we ought to capture the bigger cheaper savings that are normally ignored for example pumps the biggest use of motors move liquid through pipes a typical industrial pumping loop was redesigned to use at least 86 percent less pumping energy not by getting better pumps but just by replacing long thin crooked pipes with fat short straight pipes this also shrinks the pumping equipment at its capital cost now this isn’t new technologies about rearranging our metal furniture so what are such savings mean for the electricity that’s 3/5 used in motors well from the coal burned in the power plant to the flow out the pipe there are so many compounding losses that only a tenth of the energy actually gets through as delivered flow but now that turn those compounding losses around backwards into compounding savings and every unit of flow or friction we save in the pipe saves 10 units of fuel costs pollution and global weirding back at the power plant and also as you go back upstream the components get smaller and cheaper our team has lately found such snowballing energy savings in more than 30 billion dollars worth of industrial redesigns from data centers and ship fabs to mines and refineries typically our retrofit designs save about thirty to sixty percent of the energy with a two or three year payback our new facility designs save more like 40 to 90 odd percent with a lower capital cost now needing less electricity would of course ease and speed the shift to new sources of electricity chiefly renewables China leads their explosive growth and their plummeting costs in fact the photovoltaic module cost shown here have just fallen off the bottom of the chart solar and wind power our marketplace winners today Europe has now over a million new renewable energy jobs the big winner Germany has more solar workers that America has steel workers already in about 20 states private installers will be happy to put those competitive solar cells on your home’s roof with no money down and beat your utility bill those kinds of unregulated products could ultimately build into a virtual utility that bypasses power companies much as cell phones bypassed wireline phone companies that sort of thing gives utility executives the heebie-jeebies and venture capitalists sweet dreams half the world’s new generating capacity since 2008 has been renewable the majority lately in developing countries in 2010 renewables except big hydro got a hundred to fifty 1 billion dollars of private investment and for the first time they surpassed the total global installed capacity of nuclear power by adding sixty billion watts in a year that happens to be the same capacity as the solar cells that the world can now make every year last year 68 percent of Europe’s new capacity was solar or wind in fact solar was the number one capacity dish and quarter of the total gas was next wind who was just edged into third place in contrast global orders for : nuclear plants are fading because they cost too much they have too much financial risk to attract investors indeed in the United States no none of the 34 proposed new nuclear plants has been able to raise any private capital despite 7 years of being offered hundred plus percent subsidies so how else could we replace our coal-fired power plants that produce about 45 percent of our electricity well efficiency and gas can displace all those coal plants at below just their operating cost and combined with renewables can displace all the coal plants over 23 times at less than their replacement cost but once is enough and actually in the past five years 2005 through 10 we don’t have the 2011 data firm yet but in those five years coal lost already a quarter of its share of the u.s. electricity market to cheaper gas efficiency and renewables and that transition is now well underway we’re often told though that only : nuclear plants can keep the lights on because they’re 24/7 while wind power and photovoltaics are variable in hence unreliable but you know actually no

generator is 24/7 they all break and when a giant coal or nuclear plant fails you just lost a billion watts in milliseconds often before weeks or months and without warning grids though routinely handle that kind of intermittence by backing up failed plants with working plants and grids can handle the four castable variations of solar and wind power in exactly the same way our hourly simulations show how largely or wholly renewable grids can deliver highly reliable power when forecasted integrated and diversified by type and location this is true both for continental areas like the US or Europe and for smaller areas embedded within them for example the isolated Texas grid summer electric loads can get a lot smaller and cheaper with efficiency or smaller and less peaky I should say with efficiency and then we can install wind power and solar power these are actual data so you can see how variable they are but even at times when they produce in total too much or too little electricity they can still be matched to the load via ice storage air conditioning smart charging and discharging of electrified autos and unobtrusively flexible demand even within this case at least 86% solar and wind variable renewables the other 14% or less can come from dispatchable renewables like geothermal small hydro solar thermal electric or feedlot biogas burned in existing gas turbines so we can make all the moving parts fit together by arranging this choreography properly and some utilities are already integrating variable renewables in exactly this way for German States in 2010 were 43 to 52 percent wind powered Portugal was 45 percent renewable power Denmark 36 so and now European experience is supporting a transition over decades to largely or wholly renewable electricity for the entire European Union variable and flexible resources then can reliably serve steady loads not in the traditional way giant fossil fuel to nuclear plants but with newer resources that meet even better the classical definition of so-called base load plants that is they’re the ones with the lowest operating cost so you dispatch them they’re available America’s aging dirty insecure electricity system has to be replaced by 2050 and whatever we replace it with is going to cost about six trillion dollars a net present value whether we buy more of what we’ve got now or new nuclear build and so-called clean coal or centralized renewables or distributed renewables but these four futures even though they cost about the same differ profoundly in their risks around national security fuel water finance technology climate and health for example are over centralized grid is vulnerable to cascading and potentially nation shattering blackouts not just the sort of thing you saw in Connecticut but on a very much larger scale in duration caused by solar storms by other natural disasters by terrorist attacks physical or cyber but that risk disappears and all the other risks are best managed with distributed renewables reorganized into local micro grids that normally interconnect but can stand alone at need this would cost about the same as business as usual but would maximize national security customer choice entrepreneurial opportunity and innovation together efficient use and diverse dispersed renewable supply are starting to flip the whole electricity sector on its head traditionally of course utilities build giant : nuclear plants than big gas plants then maybe a little efficiency or renewables and those utilities were rewarded as they still are in 36 states we’re selling you more electricity but now especially where regulators are instead reward cutting your bills the market is shifting massively towards efficiency renewables cogeneration and ways to blend them all together reliably using less transmission and little or no bulk electricity storage so our energy future

is not fate but choice and that choice is very flexible in 1976 for example government and industry all insisted that the energy needed to make a dollar of GDP could never go down I her ethically suggested it could drop several fold that’s what happened by twofold so far and yet today’s far more powerful technologies integrative design and maturing delivery channels can save even more even faster and cheaper so to solve the energy problem we just needed to enlarge it the results may at first seem incredible but as Marshall McLuhan said only puny secrets need protection big discoveries are protected by public incredulity these Best Buy’s also happen to be the most effective solutions to some bigger problems climate change nuclear proliferation energy and security and energy poverty so now combine the electricity and oil revolutions and the strong and efficiency underlying them and you have the really big story reinventing fire we’re business enabled and sped by smart policies in mindful markets can lead the United States completely off oil and coal these wedges down here by 2050 saving 5 trillion dollars growing the economy 2.6 fold strengthening our national security and by eliminating the oil and coal reducing fossil carbon emissions by 82 to 86 percent now if you like any of those outcomes any you can support reinventing fire without needing to agree about which outcome is more important that is focusing on outcomes not motives can turn gridlock and conflict into a unifying solution to America’s energy challenge our team that helps smart companies to get unstuck and to speed this journey of course there are still a lot of old thinking around – as a woman very strong once said not all the fossils are in the fuel but as DuPont former chairman Edgar Willard reminded us firms hampered by old thinking won’t be a problem because they simply won’t be around long term what I’ve described is not just a once in a civilization business opportunity it’s one of the greatest transformations in the history of our species we humans are inventing a new fire not dug from below but flowing from above not scarce but bountiful not local but everywhere not transient but permanent not costly but free and not for a little biofuel grown in ways that sustain and endure this new fire is flameless efficiently used it really can make energy do our work without working our undoing each of you owns a piece of that five trillion dollar prize and our book reinventing fire details how each of you can capture that opportunity so with the conversation just begun at reinventing fire calm let me now invite you to engage with us at Rocky Mountain Institute and with each other to help make the world richer fairer cooler and safer by reinventing fire thank you so I think a Murray’s prepared to take some questions please raise your hand we’ve got mics here to run to you let us know who you are and sharp-pointed focus questions please sir hi Chris help and Celtic energy thank you for everything you do what an inspiration okay what do you think we need to do in our federal level to make this happen because it’s it’s a huge issue and there’s a lot of disbelievers and naysayers ignorant as they may be in certain respects what can we do now notice I didn’t say no policy innovation was required we do actually need some to either unlock or enable or to speed the transition I described we just didn’t find any that required an act of Congress they can be done federally

added an administrative level or they can be done at a state level which is where we regulate almost all our utility activity anyway so everything I described could be done federally or by the states where they have the jurisdiction like utility Commission’s you could do for example auto fee Bates federally or you could do them at a state or regional level for example this is one of the states one of the 16 that cooperates with California under the Clean Air Act California is seriously considering fee Bates they actually passed them by a 7 to 1 margin 30 odd years ago and got pocket vetoed because people hadn’t quite done their homework with the automaker’s first but now that we have worked with the automakers on how to design fee Bates properly and now that California still has over 3 to 1 support for the concept that could well happen and Connecticut could actually lead that and by the way if we had fee Bates in California plus 16 that’s two fifths of the national auto market that’s enough to swing the whole thing decoupling in shared savings that is rewarding utilities for cutting your bill not selling more energy is really a state prerogative however we do need federal action preferably and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has been moving very consistently in this direction to get pricing transparency to have to form bigger and faster markets that that clear maybe every five or ten minutes instead of hourly or daily and to make sure that there is full and fair competition for example there’s only 13 states now in which efficiency and demand response are allowed to compete against the supply side this is stupid everything ought to compete so we can choose the best buys there is fortunately a lot of wonderful military leadership on both resilient electric supplies and efficiency and that is a federal activity and I think you’ll find such a strong consensus around it that it isn’t much interfered with by present politics because it’s it’s really about operational readiness and effectiveness and saving money and lives we’ve had over a thousand service members now killed in convoy attacks mostly hauling fuel that’s mostly wasted and the combatant commanders take that very seriously but I don’t think it’s necessary to have federal consensus the few things that need to be done by federal regulation are all administrative we have found only one trivial exception you would forego I think it’s point three million barrels a day of heavy truck savings by 2050 if you were not able to get an act of Congress author or harmonizing highway heavy truck rules on size and weight between federal and state highways but that’s only a tenth of the maximum biofuels you might need anyway so it’s not really important whether we do that or not it would just be good for trucking industry for reducing road wear and improving safety so I think Washington will do whatever it does and there’s no need to wait again let this be enabled by policy at an appropriate and accountable level but led by business for profit that’s the most dynamic force in our society that’s where big change can go to scale yes hi my name is Lisa I was wondering how you arrived at the deadline of 2050 it’s a nice round number but why not you know 30 40 60 and how realistic is that considering past progress you know maybe you could explain 2050 turned out to be about how long it would take to complete this change if the rates of adoption already achieved in the leading states were achieved nationwide over the next 20 odd to 30 years which we thought was a reasonable ramp up rate and we have taken full account of the lags for retooling retraining and so on I think we could do it a bit faster than that but it is a round number actually the federal forecast which were our base case and in 2035 so we had to extrapolate those to get a base case to 2050 to compare with and get our prices from but since it’s just to turn the crank model anyway that’s a pretty

accurate method but there’s nothing magic about the number and of course we need to get started now I think we already have whether we realize it or not someone once asked Dana Meadows do we have enough time to get out of this mess and she correct the answer we have exactly enough time starting now whereas bill McDonough says negligence begins tomorrow Cynthia Parker regarding buildings what can you say about geothermal interior climate control in terms of helping toward your goal well in good sites with good technique and you have to do it right and watch out for corrosion and sediment and all that other stuff geothermal heat pumps are a legitimate technique in general it may be an even better deal to super insulate the buildings so they don’t need heating or cooling and this is now a pretty common practice in Europe I mentioned the 32,000 passive buildings there that don’t need heat and have about normal construction cost but there are also many passive buildings now that are retrofitted hundred-year-old Viennese apartment houses half-timbered Elizabethan houses you know a lot of historic buildings are super insulated or if they’re not listed if they’re these drab stucco things you can super outs elate them and build a tea cosy around them and that is being done cost-effectively in climates similar to or worse than yours southern Sweden for example so I think this is a the next revolution in in building technique and it takes a lot of skill especially in air tightening but those skills have been rapidly built up in Europe led by Germany and you know when we led the greening of the White House that was about as historic a building as we have and the some of the windows were so old they were not just rolled glass instead of float glass they were blown glass but those made the outer lights of the new super windows plus some other things the Secret Service wanted and so on and those super windows work just fine you can’t tell the difference from the outside so I think this is a lot of good skilled work to be done over decades and I would generally prioritize it over the mechanical solutions it’s usually cheaper even in retrofit to try to get rid of mechanicals rather than make them more complicated so geothermal works that you’d have to analyze whether it’s the best buy Jake Jake Seligmann FES I was just curious about the your electricity projections and the you know you said we need to in order to make that dispatch dispatch mount model work it needs to be orchestrated intelligently and I’m just curious about what specifically can you envision happening at maybe the ISO level or even at the utility level to actually make that happen well there’s nothing magic about this when the when the West Danish grid first tried this contemplated the idea actually it took them about seven years to get comfortable with it they they thought originally you could only do maybe three to five percent variable renewables without lights going off and then 10 15 20 and 25 you know now in a normal wind year Denmark well as of 2010 it had the capacity to be 36 percent renewable 26 of which is wind and they don’t see a limit and Denmark has under its conservative government a national policy of getting completely off fossil fuel in all primary energy by 2050 to improve their economy and security they’ve figured out how to make it almost entirely self-financing it’s quite a good deal it’s already helping their economy not only in in having powerful export industries but in reducing their exposure to volatile fuel prices the so the changes are actually some technological but much more cultural and institutional and we’re actually embarking on some exercises within the electricity industry to speed up that learning we had for example an interesting case a couple of years

ago we were working with a very large and renowned utility that’s mainly nuclear and coal and they thought you could only do 2 or 3% variable renewables without the lights going out and we surmise that this might perhaps be an organizational learning problem yes indeed it turns out they did their dispatch models on stuff that runs on a mainframe overnight and gives you reams of numbers you can’t understand so we introduced them to our Mac model that produced this it runs in 15 seconds and produces color graphics so you can actually see how the moving parts fit together and after a few weeks of guided play with this the utilities head of strategy formerly head of operations respected nuclear engineer stood up in front of the executive group and said you know you’re not gonna believe this but this is what we found I’m perfectly comfortable now we can do 30 to 50 percent variable renewables that’s not an upper valve that’s just as far as we analyzed it just means operating our existing assets in a different way that is much closer to classical economic dispatch it respects all of our ramp rates and maintenance schedules and so on we will have better reliability out of it and we may well make more money on it that’s the kind of shift in thinking that happens when you have the right tools to understand how this new choreography can work and of course we have to do a lot of fixing up of the grid because we have obsolete you know distribution controls we have to make it secure we have to ought to make it we have to make it bi-directional that stuff’s happening anyway real-time pricing is really helpful bigger and faster clearing markets would be essential but this is not difficult it’s just different and it’s a lot easier than not doing it and continuing to cope with the cascading blackout and other kinds of really scary problems that we have right now that we have to grow our way out of sir thanks Amy I had the pleasure of also hearing you at Greenbuild and then read your most of your book I was just curious agriculture which is a huge user of fossil fuel how do you where do you put them in the mix we actually did quite a lot of research on that which my colleagues persuaded me to largely take out of the book it was about one thing too many but that’s a much longer conversation at a very important one partly because quite a lot of agricultural trace gas is important to climate partly because we’re ruining a lot of our swamp fertility or losing a lot of our soil partly because of water partly because of food of the narrowness of the crop base genetics and so on my generally I think where the analysis points is the natural systems agriculture that looks and acts more like ecosystems is much more likely to succeed ecologically and economically than a very input intensive and essentially fragile or unreserve climate changes the more that becomes the case also there are some important structural changes we need to make for other reasons for example there’s now an important Public Health coalition emerging to ban the prophylactic use of feedlot antibiotics and that would I think put conventional feedlots and other intensive rearing methods out of business and require more humane and ecologically sensible methods which do not actually have to cost more I live for example in western Colorado whose traditional ranching economy was organic cow calf operations as they ate grass that’s what they’re designed for and the only reason that that isn’t flourishing now especially with all the concerns about prions and stuff is that USDA has refused to put inspectors on the western slope that would make it legal to run an abattoir there and by the time you shipped your critter over the continental dividing back it cost too much but that’s not a necessary problem that’s a fairly simple regulatory obstacle and I think probably reform of the beef system is the biggest lever in the world for improving the healthfulness of our food and the economy of a lot of our rural areas it’s a longer story than that but perhaps that’s a start sir J Bruns the Hartford

in Hartford Connecticut it sounds to me that the description that you make is that we’re probably already on this glide path to get to the desired state in 2050 because once and all the pieces are already there private sector just has to take into account those economic indicators and and do what it does I guess my question is what do you see as potential things that would intervene to inhibit that and to to block getting to that end state in 2050 well I suppose if we have an attack of the stupids we could keep increasing runaway subsidies we’re in a subsidy arms race on stuff that cannot compete in the market I think given the fiscal climate that’s not very likely that we are more likely to come to our senses and start running the subsidy arms rates backwards towards zero and instead of adding subsidies take them away in a reasonably balanced fashion I could actually enjoy a televised hearing in which a number of sworn energy executives are in front of a legislative committee that pulls out a new unbiased GAO CBO we need advise by say jug cop low at EarthLink dotnet who really understand subsidies and they’d say mmm mr. jones it looks like your industry got eleven billion dollars from this subsidy last year and mr. Smith you seem to have gotten about eight billion from oh but senator those aren’t subsidies oh so you wouldn’t mind if we took him away would you that’s how you tell if their subsidies and I think people who really do care about competition in free markets could have a lot of fun smoking out the corporate socialists and free marketeers clothing I think whatever political belief system you have that would be a good thing and if we want to get our taxes down that’s a pretty good start there are you know there are likely to be some bad things happening in the world which could cause us to respond stupidly again the more people understand what’s actually happening in the energy transition I’ve described the less likely we are to go off on bizarre adventures pursuing somebody’s favorite technology that they say is essential and I I wrote a piece some years ago called drilling in all the wrong places which is on our my dot org describing in two very terse pages maybe it’s just one why conservatives should be particularly offended by this nutty idea of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because the oil there is insecure uncompetitive on economic and unnecessary and for a conservative those are particularly dirty words rightly so that though that thesis is not yet widely known but you might ask yourself why are none of the oil majors in the least interested in oil from that source because it’s grotesquely uh neck anomic and risky and it’s about the last thing they’d ever be interested in they’ve made that very clear way in the back quickly could you just comment on global hydrofracking technology and how that will impact on the marketplace and maybe the hidden costs involved yeah well a lot of parts of the world do have tight and shale gas that could be fracked although not perhaps as easily as some here the fracking generically of course is not a new technique the way it’s being applied mixed with horizontal drilling in those shales has many fundamental uncertainties some of them are about the long-term produce ability profile some about the underlying gassy economics if you take away the oil light sweet crude oil by-product that’s driving a lot of the early plays and they use it or lose it leases that are driving rather frenetic drilling of the lake some are around induced seismicity earthquake issues some are around water use water contamination local site impacts there there’s a lot of stuff that we need to sort out it’ll take probably a decade to resolve those uncertainties if they resolved favorably we’ll be glad we have that additional resource if we don’t we won’t be too disappointed because we won’t need most of that gas anyway the main effect

internationally will be to decouple guests from oil prices quite a lot of the gas price maybe a third of it and the world has already we’re still contractually tied to oil price which is nutty and that that’s going to strain and break and I think it’s probably not very good news for gas problem which might change Russian behavior about gas as a political tool so yeah that’s good we’re in for interesting times and of course the gas markets already roiled by events in Japan but I think the it’s an interesting example of many of how the hydrocarbon industries have extraordinary skills and their assets and capabilities will be very useful in the new world in a number of perhaps unexpected ways and the hydrocarbon they have in the ground will hydrogen in it we’ll be worth more without the carbon than with the carbon even without carbon pricing they’ll make more money taking hydrogen out in reformers than putting more in in refineries there will be a number of interesting surprises but those industries could have a bright future gas could be a useful transitional fuel and ultimately in a few decades after 2050 I expect we’ll get largely off gas as a fuel and it will remain a very useful feedstock our analysis was only about fuels not feedstocks you know not not the molecular use only the combustion use and fossil fuels are really good feedstocks and they’ll have to compete with the bio feedstocks Amery thank you very much I think we should continue the conversation outside the door in a more informal way but there’s really a great pleasure to have you here thank you thank you