Fuels for the Future

Good afternoon welcome every body. We are going to get started. I'm t winded Executive Director of the Energy and Environmental program for the Aspen Institute and it's my pleasure to welcome to this afternoon session on our energy future sponsored by Chevron and we are having a luxurious apartment here and I'm going to give you the reason I was joining back and forth is we didn't have our bios prepared for this session, so I am going to read the bios for our guests here today. Andy Karsner is the Assistant Secretary of energy and efficiency and renewable energy. He is the assistant secretary, he manages the department of energies $1.47 billion applied science research and development and deployment portfolio. He promotes market place integration of a new born environmentally sound energy technologies and he was previously assistant secretary, he served thus in international infrastructure development and energy entrepreneur. I'm sorry I'm a little rattled from running around. You will just bare with me. It will be alright. Marvin Odum is the Executive Vice president of the Americas for shell exploration and production, he is a affiliate of the Shell Group, that is his exploration and production group. Previously he served as CEO of InterGen a global power generation company active in 13 countries and an affiliate of BeckTel Enterprises. Ken Salazar probably needs no introduction here was elected to US senate in 2004 he is a fit generation Coloradan not an easy thing these days and is a member of five senate committees, the agriculture, energy and natural resources, veteran's affairs, ethics and ageing. And whom am I missing here - Amory Lovins needs no introduction, but Amory of course is the chief scientist founder and chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute. He is also a Macarthur fellow and he is currently he is the author of a important writing relevant to today's discussion and that's the winning the oil in game and then it's is my pleasure to introduce Mr. James Woolsey, he is the former or served as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He is also the vice president of Booz Allen Hamilton one of our other sponsors for ideas festival and what you might not no is that Jim his visage - his name has become synonymous with energy security. Jim -. Thanks thank you very much we are going to have brief opening statements up here our our subject is fuels for the future and we have talked about it briefly and that includes not only fuels to produce electricity but fuels to drive on and of course there is some overlap because one thing somebody will talk about a bit I am sure is things like bugging hybrids and electric vehicles and the only thing I want to say about any one of our panelists, Andy and I work together for the last couple of years with with great pleasure. I have the just just met Marvin - Amory I have known each other for nearly 30 years. I work to forward to his book published in '82 Brutal Power but I specially wanted to mention Senator Ken Salazar who has played a leading role in the energy bill that's gone through the senate and especially Allies several others here especially interested in the plug-in hybrid provisions, there are a lot of other parts of the bill that are are worthy but some of us who are kind of getting electricity in to our blood stream with respect to propelling vehicles around we are especially thankful and delightful about that. So let's start. Senator Salazar over to you. Thank you very much Jim, First let me say as US senator from Colorado welcome to our wonderful state here Aspen and we look forward having the ideas festival here time and time again and that to a former senator Gary Hart who is here in the audience, thank you teaching me about the importance of security as I sought to be the United States under here for for the state of the - Colorado. If anybody has a black berry on, turn it completely off and if you are near microphone because that's kind of what intended - Let me just start up by saying a there you go Andy Karsner. Never on the senate floor. Never oh yeah well you - are not supposed to on the centre floor. Let me just say that when I you know when I serve as a as a senator I am I am reminded what Gary Hart told me a long time ago when I was making the decision around that before the word senator representing the five million people of the state of Colorado, comes the two words, United States United States Senator and so in that context when I get up in the morning and I think about the world that I live in I tried to figure out which are the greatest issues that are facing our nation and from my point of view the issues in the way that I would rank them and they are somehow inter connected are first on foreign relations in how we restore the greatness of America, what happens in Iraq and the Middle East and how move forward putting the world back together again as legacy of World War two and and my parents and the parents of many people who created us as the great beacon of hope in in in the world. Secondly and of course we tie to that as the issue of energy because the the clean energy economy from my point of view for the 21st century is mildly important, third the issue of health care and that we try to deal with issue health care with bankrupts of so many Americans families and businesses and and there are other tough issues like immigration or other sorts of things what they can tie in very much to the issue of security and national security and how you deal with that. But today dealing with the issue of energy security as I often said during for debates in 2005 energy policy act last year on 2006 act and then this year as we move forward with bio-fuels and efficiencies and carbon seek restoration, I told people that I thought the three inescapable forces for us who are very different in 2007 then what they were back in the days of Richard Nixon, queuing the energy independence or Jimmy Carter talking about energy independence being the moral imperative award is that the drivers have changed back in the 70's, the drivers were primarily economic and that's still one of the inescapable drivers in a fact opportunities that we have but there are two additional drivers that really make the clean energy future for the 21st century I think in absolute and that is first of all national security and our absolute reduction on the foreign oil in March of this year we imported 60 percent of our oil from foreign countries much of that oil was coming from grounds that underlie host that regimes regimes the United States of America So that issue of national security is one which will drive us to look it different alternatives on how we we loose our dependence on foreign oil and then thirdly environmental security you know I think the debate is now over, I think the fact is that we are frying ourselves here in this planet, we are frying civilization and so how we deal with the issue of global warming is inextricably tight to how we deal with how we power our economy, how we power our world, how we deal with with transportation fuels. So those are you know somebody over writing objectives that I bring to the debate now I know Jim said we should be close so let me usually I will be too long so I am trying to cut this down just a little bit. As I looked at the issue of energy and how we deal with it, and I talk to people as I have done in all 64 counties of this state several times over last two years of the senate I say so we are going to built the house of energy independence there are four - corner stones to that house of energy independence, one of them is conservation you know when you talk to Andy's - in our national renewable energy lab in Golden Colorado, they say that's little hanging fruit we have waste 60 percent of the oil that we consume here in America. So conservation has to be one of those corner stones. A second corner stone from my point of view is renewable energy. Now how can we take the power of the sun, the power of the wind, how can we take the power of our bio-fuel economy and really create a whole renewable energy economy for a country that will bring in billions of jobs that will help revive leisure of America that is now doing in my state of Colorado for the first time really in the last years in major ways across that forgotten eastern plains. Thirdly the new technologies - the new technologies that deal with hybrid plug-ins which when you do the calculations that Jim can do, we can get up to 500 miles to a gallon of gas if you if you do it in the right way and and you calculate it with the right kind of batteries and we have the vast materials in our in our vehicles and we create the infrastructure, we can actually have hybrid plug in vehicles which are right around the corner you know this is not technology that is science fiction technology that's that's ten years away, so new new technology is the third corner stone and the fourth corner stone is the balanced development of our natural resources. You know today I had the opportunity to spend about four and a half, five hours on a helicopter ride with governor Bill Ritter flying over the Roan Plateau up into north west Colorado on the Piceance Basin at the Rio Blanco county over to the Vermillion Basin. We live in one of the most spectacular places - one of most spectacular places in God's world. And I look at the western slope and I tell the people of my state that I don't want to see the sustainability of the western slope sacrifice as we march forward without a thoughtful, deliberate way and how to - we are developing the vast natural resources that we have here in the state of Colorado. And so I have opposed and I will oppose the drilling on the top of the Roan Plateau because there are other places where we can drill. You know, on the other hand I am not opposed to the appropriate development of our natural resources. I had been one of the people in the senate that has advocated for IGCC the internal gasification of of coal resources and other resources because we in this United States have enough coal to basically power our economy for another 200 years. The problem is that when we burn coal, we create a bunch of problems with with green house gases and we have to burn it right and we have to figure out a way of of sequestering the carbon and that ties in very much to what we can do with plug-in hybrids. I am going to cut this down really fast Jim. Let me just take one last second here to talk about the bill that we just passed in the senate. Which is now over in the house, we will conference it together. And there are three major pieces that this legislation does with respect to fuels. The first is that it drives for the first time a major sense of a policy at the national level that says "We will grow our way to energy independence". The vision that we wrote in the bill senator Grassley and I co-sponsored the legislation that says "We will provide 25 percent of our fuels by the year 2025 from renewable energy resources". So that's the overall vision as about a 100 organizations that have endorsed that vision, it was accepted unanimous in the US senate. You know how else what are some of the drivers that will get us or well, the first of those is with respect to bio-fuels, we removed the renewable fuel standard which is which just dropped up in 2005 from 7.5 billion gallons now up to 36 billion gallons by the year 2022. So by the year 2022, we will be we will be producing 32 billion gallons of bio-fuels and advanced bio-fuels. Now we all know there is a limit in terms of how much ethanol we ultimately produce. And so we know from from corn so corn we know have some limitations. We, you know, the environmental energy and others are too less you reach out limitation when you get to about 15 billion gallons. So the future really with respect to bio fuels is not with corn ethanol. The future with respect to the bio-fuels, so we do with Cellulosic ethanol. And I will tell you that some of the awardees that Andy has given some grants from the department of energy have told me that we are within a year or two from being able to crack the door open technologically to be able to commercially deploy cellulosic ethanol. What is cellulosic ethanol? It is fuel that we basically create from materials that we currently waste. Animal waste, out of field blocks and on farms, woodchips that we see on the forests of Georgia and in places here in Colorado. It is anything that is a bio mass. And we are probably a year two, three years away for being able to develop the technology that allows us to start commercially deploying cellulosic ethanol. And well how we do that that sort of allow us to move from 15 billion gallons up to the 36 billion gallons that we have included in this in this legislation. And many of the experts that we have talked to say that that is just a beginning of the equation. So this legislation is big on bio-fuels, we are going to do that from switch grass, wood waste, ag waste landfill materials. Secondly this legislation is also major legislation with respect to efficiency on CAFE standards. We will move up from the current CAFÉ standards which have been in place from now over 30 years to requiring our national vehicle fleets manufactured or sold in the US to get 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020. Might be we face with the new technologies that set America free that energy in future's collision ever have advanced, that we will be able to meet that and exceed that significantly. And third we take some steps in this legislations to start dealing with issue of global warming by dealing with the issue of carbon sequestration - trying to map carbon sequestration opportunities around the world today. Let me just conclude by saying there is lot more work to be done by the committees that I set on finance, passed a major $28 billion tax incentive package to make these efficiencies in bio fuels, alternative fuels a reality and we hope that by the time it gets to the president's desk that that finance package is also included in there. Our agriculture committee title mind of the agriculture bill which is being written, which expires down September 2007 is titled "The Energy Future for Rural America". It's a great opportunity to revitalize all the rural America, we are going to be spending a a significant amount of energy on that. And thirdly, the energy committee that I set on obviously it's going to be dealing with all these issues that are interrelated and then when the key authors we are the key authors of polarization it was just approved by the Senate. We have long ways to go. But I think we have gotten the great start over the last couple of years. Let me just say that Senator Salazar by his committee membership, his inherent ability in representing this fine state, the heart of a lot of energy issues has he gave just a very straight forward in one of the presentation in what had happened. But from the outside looking in, let me just say he is been extraordinarily instrumental in the senate moving in some very positive ways with this - just very recently and we are all deeply grateful, let me say to by other panelists that it's important that everything important to be said but it's not important that everybody say it and since Senator Salazar covered a number of issues, I would ask the other panelists to be as brief as they possibly can. So Odum Marvin over to you. Sounds like sounds like good guts, so I like it the so one of the things I will avoid is the security topic. That angle of the energy challenge is out there and I will focus more on the environment in addition to what the senator had to say. Sometimes I think it's helpful to stay with some of your assumptions are going into a certain conversation. So there is four assumptions, very basic probably well understood by everybody, but they do - have a lot to do with what I think about this topic. So I thought, I would stay with those quickly. The first one is population growth. You know, so I am thinking on a global basis, you know, thinking of dramatic population growth. So between now and 2050, which is really the time frame, all of my comments refer to talking about population growth on from a current six billion people up to around nine billion people. So alone, you know that leads to the second assumption. And that is we are going to have dramatic increase a dramatic increase in the demand for energy. All types of energy and its going to take virtually everything we can do to fill that demand. When I say dramatic increase in energy, I am talking about the doubling of what you know, what we produced to meet that demand today in doubling by 2050, which has an air bar around and of course but I think it's a reasonable assumption. The third assumption is that, there is a huge promise around alternative and sustainable energies. And as I mean that in a very positive way, I just will promise these are real things that we can put them to work and they can make a big difference for us. But we also know that 80 to 85 percent of the current energy makes us hydrocarbons and we have to deal with with that part of the component as well. So I will make a couple of comments on that front. Now I have have quickly we may make that shift from hydrocarbons to alternative and sustainable energy is I think the one of the biggest challenges we face and of course there is a lot of people on this panel that I actually driving the speed in which we will be able to do that. Fourth assumption is we have to address climate change and the linkage that it has to fossil fuels because I do think there will be a big part of a mix for quieter while into the future. If I can just make a couple of brief comments not to do because what was said on some of those fuels of the future, then what are they? From a fossil fuel stand point you know, being the oil company guy bureau probably makes sense for me to make a couple of comments on that. One is that I grew with the statements that you tend here a lot, that we are not running out of oil. I don't think that's the issue. But I do think what the issue is is that it's getting to be very it's getting to be where you can only find it very difficult places it's expensive to get to and it takes a long time. So I think we may actually in this transition period run into some supply limitations as that matches up with with demand. And the example I would use there is when you know, when we go out looking for big sources of hydrocarbons, for - it's one of the things we do. When we find one now, it's anywhere from five to 15 years before we actually get the first production of energy out of that source. So you can see the time lag and you can see the potential limitations on delivering consistent with demand increases. Coals are really been discussed, but I just wanted to broaden it to to a global picture because I think we have to assume again linking to the environmental side, the coal will be used. So we know that you know, it's over 50 percent of our electric power generation today. It's over 70 percent in China, and China is growing having once been on the power business its number just amazes me, China is growing a 50 Giga watts plus or minus a year with most of that being coal. So that's the equivalent of all the energy produced all the electrical energy produced in Great Britain Great Britain being duplicated in China every year. So the linkage with green house gas there and the need for to address that issue is pretty clear. That's why I think the clean coal technologies that were mentioned, they are you know coal gasification, coal to liquids, may be we can talk about that more in a Q&A will play a very important role going forward. On the renewable side I may leave my comments very brief here just you know, wind, solar, hydrogen and bio-fuels all big opportunities I think on the on the wind side you know, we are running into this this kind of the issue as we try to expand our wind business of some places that works in south eastern Colorado as a matter of fact we got a joint project where we supply the power to something greater than 50,000 homes. At the same time we are trying to put a project of the the Thames estuary called the one deanery which is at great support by NGOs and a lot of different people, politicians as well. But we can't get the substation built on sort of bring the power on shore. That project by itself pure wind would supply about one percent of the UK's power. So wind is great, we are having some difficulty giving it impact and I think that would come back in a policy discussion may be later. Solar, we are moving to the next generation of solar which is the thin film solar. It's - and I think I just wanted to point that out because I think it's significant and that as we get to mass production of solar power. The thin film technology uses about a 100 times less raw materials to develop and see in a mass production sense that's going to be a critical factor. Hydrogen lets do it in the Q&A it's important but I think it's pretty far out there in terms of having a big impact and I would just second the comments on bio-fuels. From a policy perspective, I think you know, it's I have heard Andy make this point several times and I completely agree with it that the pace of change, the urgency around change in this transition is going to be driven by governments in policies. They are going to driven by companies like mine or others. So but sitting in my chair there are some things it's simplistic, but I think it's good to be specific some things that you know, I would look forward to hope to see from government sot of those things that are actually happening now and Andy has pushed them very hard. One is around the green house gas topic CO2 is a cap-and-trade system that at least addresses this country and broadens itself to as many countries around the globe as quickly as possible. Absolute targets for renewable energy, you know Andy's 20 and 10 I think is a good example of that. Addressing transport policy so cleaner fuels, better efficiency for automobiles and absolute mast and then carbon capture and sequestration. Being in the you know, largely in the fossil fuel's business we have to have the support for the capture of carbon and the sequestration to keep it out of the air and there is a certain amount of policy work that's required to get that done. I will stop there. Well, Marvin thank you very much and I just add that I am familiar with Shell's work solar and wind and they are dedicated in in moving fast in making a real contribution and for those of you who have the cynical attitude with respect to what oil companies might do to compete with oil. Let me just say, that up there in Ontario at a facility is the first cellulosic ethanol plant in the world a little company called Iogen the principle investor of the show so we have I think in Marvin and in the company a lot of very positive work going forward in the renewable area Andy Karsner. Thanks, - thanks yeah. First let me say, it's not my 20-10s it's president's 20-10s. But since senator Salazar is up, Salazar is up here and was instrumental in passing it through the senate. Let me say it's the senate Senator Salazar's 20 10. Hopefully it will become the houses 20 and 10 also. And let me just begin that way to by complimenting you as senator because I made the point this morning you weren't here that the old lines don't really matter in what they are this isn't discussion between republicans and democrats anymore. This is the informed, the uninformed and those who refuse to be informed. And and in fact I would add the fourth category with you here, it includes the variant form and your leadership has been instrumental and that's why we have raised the funding here in Colorado by 50 percent and made in in real the hub of global activity and the prime minister of Sweden come here a couple of weeks ago. The prime minister of Denmark, big delegations from China and Brazil and India focusing on Colorado because it is the epicenter of thinking this is only place in the world where you will find an operational cellulosic bio refinery operation. And so I appreciate your leadership very much. I won't I won't be repetitive except for to say that the characteristics of the 20 and 10 and the legislation that passed are very important into the general discussion about fuel diversification and and I am going to focus only on transportation fuels. If anybody wants to talk about solar and wind, I am happy to do in Q&A but the - that we need anything we can throw at our current oil addiction. And anything that is that has to correct attributes for the nation. That is to say, "Will it be clean, will it be affordable, will it be abandoned, will it be available, will it be domestic and secure and reliable? So we are more about the attributes than in choosing technology winners or in choosing the particular fuel sources because as you heard up here, we will need them all. And there won't be a silver bullet, it really will look more like silver bowshot and our goal at the department of energy is to perfect these multiple different technology pathways. Let me say something uniquely about our shop is the sense that I can give that perspective. It it is a not exclusively renewable so we come to this question. Because we have the Nation's Vehicle Technology Program. And the Vehicle Technology Program in its history has unfortunately leaned one way or excessively during periods of times towards a a given portion of its mission. That is to say, through the 70's when and 80's when I was here pursuing the EV1 technology and exclusively on a plug in without a combustion source, a a power train with some success arguably we went to that, you know. And we went often there. And through the 90's we got at something called the Projects for the Next Generation Vehicle where it was all about vehicles that could be 70 miles per gallon 80 miles per gallon, and we went into that we went off for that. We we had the presence of five year hydrogen fuel initiative with $1.2 billion invested. We went to that, we were offered that. All of these programs have yield its results have yield it technology synopses and have driven process down the cross-curve. But all of them also failed to get to the big pictures. Because they imagined the role of Government being limited exclusively to long term pre-market R&D, and and to some extend that is where Government plays best because it is worth easiest to cooperate with industry and get everybody around the table. But the truth is, that if you look at the time value that we discussed this morning. The urgency of the exercise, government also has role not just in science and technology, but in the connectivity to the policy like those that are been debated and put forth from the Senate, President then can enable Capital Formation. Because if the technology is not a constrain, and I I would assert that it it is not. And the Capital markets have the availability. It is really about what must we do to allow that Capital to aggregate and form at a rate that is unprecedented and in a continuous manner to deploy these various technologies through our vehicles and and enable them for multiple fuel sources. So, what I focus now is flexibility; that is to say multiple fuel sources the car that can choose between a any blend of bio-fuel and and have electric hybridization with it preferably hybridization that you could plug in to your homes so that you might be like the average American having a 15 mile compute daily and not have to see a gas station for months if we can make the lithium-iron battery charge last for 30 or or 40 miles per day and between charges. So a flexible platform with highly efficient vehicles. And I want to step on Henry's Thunder here. But if you read his book, you will see the importance of light weighting and carbon composites and compression ratios and all of those things that we work into. And I don't want to live off the hydrocarbons. Because we also do substantial work and have made substantial achievements on clean diesel; both on the technology side and on the development of the fuels. And of course there is up to a 48 percent efficiency gained by moving our our national fleet towards greater diesel utilization like you have in most of the industrial work. So all of these things will be a big pictures of the pie, but time matters. And so, mange too that the Government gets its perspective correct and not exclusively focus on shopping things into the front into the pipeline and then pretending that they go through the magic mirror of transformation and say, now the market will take it from here because we know that there are sufficient market imperfections that have to be bridged by government involvement. And so what you are really talking about is the difference between market driven policies or policy driven markets. And it's a careful new ones but devising that policy today that can be sufficiently disruptive to meet with the extra analysis that the market can't account for particularly when you talk about the environmental criteria's and climate change and national security etc. is really the imperative that we have in in Washington and we are blessed with good fortune on both sides of the island and and Senators like Senator Salazar who were saying that we can make these changes happen Andy, thank you very much. And let me; - let me add that that Andy has made a big mark just in a year and a half two year year and a half? About that. Good. He is been in Addiction to oil Had made a big mark just in the year and a half do you, that he is been in, at this job in Washington, a huge mark a big mark that is probably known and I think there is a good chance that in no small measure because of him, we are going to se some important progress over the course of the remainder of this administration as well as planned a next administration what ever party on on on these issues. So and finally Amory you are on. The biggest energy resource we were using right now which is being mentioned in passing is more efficient use of what ever fuels and power we are consuming. The United States is now saving each year compared with how inefficient we were in 75 more energy than Europe uses, compared with 75 last year we used 48 percent less total energy to make a dollar real GDP 54 percent less oil, 64 percent less directly used natural gas, also by the way two thirds less water and 17 percent less electricity it's the most costly form of energy in most lucrative to save, but its efficiency is lagging behind for a number of straight forward reasons. The most important of which is that 48 states still including this one reward utilities for selling immoral electricity and penalized them for cutting your bill, as just as time is passing we should stop doing it. In fact we are we do have a rabidly spreading way of reform in that direction and that's the biggest leaver for saving both electricity and natural gas. If we fully apply the best efficiency techniques now on the market we can go in forward save half of our oil had a fifth of its prize half of our gases at an eighth of its prize and at least three quarters of our electricity at an eight of its prize. So that is both a huge business opportunity and a huge business risk for anybody who invests and costly supply on the assumption that that over hanging efficiency will not get bought or you are tying to pay off your debt. And there are many in the energy industries with six cart issues from the last time they made that mistake in the mid '80s. The United States last year used three percent less electricity and four percent less total energy to make a dollar a GDP that we did the year before nobody noticed. This is even now a light vehicle efficiency has been essentially standing for 20 years and we still have that perverse incentive penalizing electric efficiency and gas efficiency in 48 states. So if you look at how quickly we would need to save energy world wide in order to stabilize climate its only about three percent a year, we are already there in this country, California has a percentage of going faster than US at large. China is a percentage point faster than that for 24 years through 2001 and they are getting that back other real this year because energy efficiency is now Chinas top strategic priority for national development, And I know they cant afford to develop other wise because the supply side reach the budget. And companies that pay attention are increasing their energy productivity by about six or eight percent a year at huge profits often measured in the billions. So if it only takes about a three percent increase in energy productivity per year world wide to stabilize climate and if every body who has done a lot faster than that makes money on it why should this be so hard and why should it cost money? The whole climate debate has been miss framed as who will pay the cost rather than who will get the profits because the sign wrong, efficiency is cheaper than fuel as soon as we realized that the remaining political obstacles to climate protection will melt faster than glaciers. Now in our work co sponsored by the Pentagon winning the oil end game which you can get free at oilendgame.com rely out of roadmap for getting the US completely off oil by the 2040s led by business for profits because it cost only a quarter as much to get off oil as to keep on buying it assuming that always hidden cost are worth zero and conservatively low estimate. So we should had redouble the efficiency of using oil at an average cost of 12 bugs a barrel that includes tripling the efficiency of cars trucks and planes with respect to pay back that US fuel prizes of two years one year and four or five years just making cars ultra light and giving them hybrid electric drive ands low drag triples their efficiency, that's like finding a Saudi Arabia under destroyed make them out of carbon composites and process for doing that cost effectively is now being commercialized less than an hour, it's drive from here and language springs. Now the half of the oil that we don't save can be displaced by a combination of cellulosic ethanol and save natural gas at an average cost of 18 bucks a barrel. So the average cost of getting oil is half 12 and half 18 as 15 bucks a barrel. That's about a quarter of what we are paying right now. You can see why it's profitable and we are making very good progress in implementing this potential through the private sector through out we call institutional acupuncture, which means figuring out where the business logic is congesting - not flowing properly and sticking needles end it to get it flowing. We have among other things two transformational projects going on in the auto industry right now either which could flip that industry. Very exciting developments in aviation, military, heavy trucks led by war mart and I am very excited by how this is going. I think in another year or two we will be able to say that all six sectors it need to change have passed their tipping point irreversibly. I want to end by mentioning a revolution going on in an electric supply. Just say you will realize the revolution already happened, sorry if you missed it, micro power is the economist magazine's term for either co generation that is combined production of electricity and useful heat together in factories or buildings. Or decentralized renewables, all renewable source of electricity except big hydro. Together those two kinds of micro power now provide us sixth of the world's electricity, a third of the world's new electricity anywhere from a six to over half of all electricity in 13 industrial countries. This is no longer a fringe activity. It was a $56 billion market last year just for the renewable part well over a 100 billion for all micro power. When you add to that mega watts efficient use of electricity and demand response together micro power and demand side savings of electricity now provide over half the world's new electrical services. Central stations, nuclear, coal, gas fired, big hydro have less than half the world market. Why? Because they cost you much and I have excess in financial risk. Nuclear isn't even financeable in the private capital market. So I would end with the radical suggestion that we don't actually need everything, we can't afford everything if climate and security are a problem, we need the most solution for dollar and the most solution for a year. If for example, you buy a new nuclear kilo watt hour for some where around eight to 11 cents plus delivery and three cents for delivery. You could use that to displace a kilo watt hour coal power which sounds good for the climate protection. On the other hand if you took the same time more or less and bought efficiency co generation and distribute the renewables with it, you would get two to ten times more coal savings for the same money. If you don't do that, you are making things worse. So we need to invest judiciously, not indiscriminately to solve problems like climate change, spread of nuclear weapons, other security issues, oil security - top of my list. I think if we do that we will find, we have way more cost effective and indeed highly profitable technologies already available that we can check and stick it. We just need to stop insisting that the market by the Turkeys and allow the market to do what it is good at which is best by it's first. So if we let all ways to save or produce energy compete fairly regardless of which kind they are, what technology they use, where they are, how big they are, or who owns them, these problems will fade away as an artifact of not having used energy in a way that saves money. Thank you. You say that I I first met Amory nearly 30 years ago, not too long after he wrote a seminar work on renewable energy, soft power, forgot the title of it it's -- Energies strategies written and take in 1976. 76. And in 2000, we were within about three percent of that soft path energy use. And I wrote a forward to book he wrote in 1982, a book of power. I would just say that I have recently submitted a chapter for collection on global warming and national security and it involves joint planning sessions for an energy policy for the US between the a what I call a Tree-Hugger and a Hawk. And the Hawk is mainly interested in protecting the country not in attacking somebody else. But that's his focus, the Tree-Hugger is that ghost to John Muir and Hawk is that ghost to George S. Patton and they agree on remarkably on a great deal since I am writing both its not too hard to make that happen but they both if you listen very closely if you read this someday, they both sound like I cant and the reason is that that he has done such a wonderful job over years and pulling together for a lot of us, the notion of a sound approach toward the environment and a deep concern about national security and things like electricity good warm ability and all the risk, going back a long time and for all very much instead. I I am going to turn to the audience after I just a word to hear I was going to have a dialogue pure we got shape a little beginning on time so we would have cost a half an hour for Qs and As, let me just make a couple of points first. This overall subject of fuels up until very recently one would have said well okay if we are going to talk about vehicle fuels that's oil products and alternative bio-fuels like cellulosic ethanol. I forgot about that fuels from electricity generation and power plants and homes and so for that's completely a separate subject. That's called nuclear and wind and such because today it cost only about but two percent of United States is electricity comes from oil and one about seven percent I think world wide electricity comes from oil. So one thing you know by the way if anybody tells you they are going to solve the oil import problem by building nuclear power plants so for that matter well for no they are not. They are going to solve may be two percent of you know, because we don't use oil the way we did in the '20s I mean in the '70s to produce electricity. Those vehicle and electricity issues happened to very - very recently quite separate issues. Today the very interesting thing that I think is beginning to happen is that the real possibility of being able to see by a couple of years from now plug in hybrids and dealer showrooms and Bob Lutz the Vice Chairman of General Motors, Mr. 12 Mr. Escalade was on AMPR about three weeks ago saying we are going into production in 2010 with the plug in hybrid and he is sound of like the president area club and in this is very interesting development. I think the what is happening here is that the sky rocketing capabilities particularly with mine but some other types of batteries and it continue reduction in cost over the course of last few years, its not quite what was happening in computer chips a few decades ago but its isn't that open. Those changes are making feasible, the ability to integrate the transportation and electricity market to the benefit of both, because not only can one plug in over night and for in much of the countries equal to what hours that five sensible work hours of peak at night, drive 25 miles resolve for 25, 30, 40cents the next day that you paid last night that is up close to up any miles gasoline is going for 10, 12, 14 cents a mile today so you are talking something in the Ball park of in order of magnitude reduction in driving cost for average American car driver coming up afford too long. The other piece of this is vehicle to grid, if you charge your plug in hybrid at night at home by the way everybody knows if you drive 30 40 miles and your plug in hybrid you get to the end of the charge you don't have to stop and plug it again and again it becomes a regular hybrid so its like driving a regular and take it and plug in it again and then its go all electric. Well if you have a vehicle to grid arrange which requires very, very little change in the existing grid. It plug your car and at night you garage when you get home and lets say it charges and its now at mid night is been their six hours itself it is ready to be driven and has nothing to do when it is full of electricity what can you do? Well you can leave the plugged in, have a deal with utility but the utility can use it for stabilization along with other vehicles for stabilization of the grid for what's called auxiliary services for standing by in order to deal with with power outages, spending reserves like, those two relatively small undertakings of the electricity grid that five percent of that use alone. A cost about $12 billion a year mainly in natural gas. So now you have among the plug in hybrid owners and utilities $12 billion that you saved just by not that many plug in hybrids being available to serve that grid that those machines for the utility. What does that mean? For commissioner a million half recent breathing and some more get by professor Kempton at the University of Deliver hope suggest you talking in the range of a $1000 or $2000 a year per car will be paid for you to making it available for those services. So now you go into the dealer showroom and he says you know I'm not a very good salesman but there are two things you might be interested in about this car. One is that you can drive for 30 40 miles at the tenth cost of driving on gasoline and by the way it's a flexible fuel vehicle so when you get beyond that you could drive on cellulosic ethanol and whatever you got in the tank. That's the first thing ten percent of previous cost might not be bad, the other thing you should know is if you plug it in and leave that plugged in overnight and have to deal with your utility you can pick up an extra $1000-2000 and lets see that pays may be a third of your car payments. No I'm not a very good car salesman but I don't think but I think even I can sell cars with those facts.