How to decarbonize the grid and electrify everything

- Hello, Hal!

- John, nice to see you.
- How are you?

Nice to see you too.

So John, we've got a big challenge.

We need to get carbon
out of the atmosphere.

We need to stop emitting carbon,

drive it to zero by 2050.

We need to be halfway there by 2030.

Where are we now?

- As you know, we're
dumping 55 billion tons of

carbon pollution in our
precious atmosphere every year,

as if it's some kind
of free and open sewer.

To get halfway to zero by 2030,

we're gonna have to
reduce annual emissions

by about 10% a year.

And we've never reduced
annual emissions in any year,

in the history of the planet.

So lets break this down.

75% of the emissions
come from the 20 largest

emitting countries.

And from four sectors of their economy.

The first is grid.

The second, transportation.

The third from the buildings,

and the fourth from industrial activities.

We've got to fix all of
those, at speed and at scale.

- It is now cheaper to
generate electricity

from clean energy sources than
from dirty energy sources,

to create electricity.

And what that does is,

I mean it's possible to
decarbonize the grid,

and then use that clean electricity

to run everything else in the economy.

So, an electric vehicle,

charged off a clean
grid, is a clean vehicle.

An electric house, run off a clean grid,

is a clean house, and so forth.

So the shorthand I like to use is,

decarbonize the grid and
electrify everything.

This can happen at a much more rapid pace

because of the dramatic
declines in clean energy.

Solar energy has dropped 80% in price

in the last decade, and
wind has dropped by half.

The point is,

we have the technologies for
a big step to get this going.

The concurrent demand means

we have to stop building polluting cars.

We have to stop creating more
internal combustion engines,

and more leaky houses,
and more dirty factories.

Because those are a drag on our ability

to decarbonize the entire economy.

- Well, I think a key question, Hal,

is do we have the technology, if we need,

to replace fossil fuels
to get this job done?

And my answer is no.

I think we're about 70,

maybe 80% of the way there.

For example, we urgently need
a breakthrough in batteries.

Our batteries need to be
higher energy density.

They need to have enhanced
safety, faster charging.

They need to take less
space and less weight,

and above all else, they
need to cost a lot less.

In fact, we need new chemistries

that don't rely on scarce cobalt.

And we're gonna need
lots of these batteries.

We desperately need much more research

in clean energy technology.

The US invests about $2.5 billion a year.

Do you know how much Americans
spend on potato chips?

- No.

- The answer is $4 billion.

And what do you think of that?

- Upside down.

But this all comes together in my opinion,

in the realm of policy.

We need dramatic accelerence
is what you're saying.

Accelerance in R&D,

but also accelerance in deployment.

Deployment is innovation,

because deployment drives prices down.

The right policy can turn things around,

and we've seen it happen already
in the electricity sector.

So, electricity regulators
have asked forever,

cleaner sources of electricity.

More renewables, less
coal, less natural gas.

And it's working.

It's working pretty brilliantly, actually.

But it's not enough.

So the German government
recognized the possibility

of driving down the price of clean energy.

And so they put in orders on the books.

They agreed to pay an extra price

for early phases of solar energy,

presuming the price would drop.

They created the Demand Signal.

- Uh-huh.

- Using policy.

The Chinese created a supply signal,

also using policy.

They decided that solar
was a strategic part

of their future economy.

So you have this unwritten agreement

between the two countries.

One buying a lot, the
other producing a lot,

that helped drive the price down 80%.

We should be doing that with
10 technologies, or a dozen,

around the world.

We need policy as the magic sauce

to go through those four sectors
in the biggest countries,

in all countries.

And one of the things
that animates me, is that,

this requires people who are
concerned about climate change,

which should be everybody.

Those folks have to apply their energies

on the policies that matter

with the decision-makers who matter.

If you don't know

who the decision-markers
to decarbonize the grid,

or to produce electric
vehicles in the policy world,

you're really not in the game.

- I want to tell you another
story that involves policy,

but importantly, plans.

Now Shenzhen is a city
of 15 million people.

An innovative city in China.

And they decided

that they were going to
move to electric buses.

And so they required
all buses be electric.

In fact, they required parking spots

have chargers associated with them.

So today, Shenzhen is
18,000 electric buses.

It has 21,000 electric taxis.

And this goodness didn't just happen.

It was a result of a thoughtful,
written, five year plan,

that isn't just a kind
of campaign promise.

Executing against these plans

is how mayors get promoted, or fired.

So it's really deadly serious.

It has to do with carbon,

and it has to do with health, with jobs,

and with overall economic strength.

The bottom line is that China,

today, has 420,000 electric buses.

America has less than 1,000.

So I think the question is,

does the world have a five year plan?

Or a 10 year plan?

And I would say to you we have goals,

but we don't really have a plan.

What we need

are a couple dozen precision
policies campaigns,

and amazing entrepreneurs
with awesome teams,

that are well funded and focused,

with measurable objectives
and key results,

to solve this problem in the
20 largest emitting countries.

We might be able to get there.

What's your view?

Do you think we're going to make it?

- I'm an optimist, John.

I've seen this possible.

I've seen when nations
decide to do great things,

they can do great things.

Think of America's rural electrification

or the interstate highway system we built.

Those are huge projects that
transformed the country.

What we did, prepping for World War II,

we built 300,000 airplanes in four years.

So if we decide to do something,

or when the German, or the
Chinese, or the Indians

decide to do something, other countries,

they can get it done.

But if this is sort of,
piffling around the edges,

we won't get there.

What do you think?

Are you optimistic?

- My take on this is, I
may not be optimistic,

but I'm hopeful.

I really think the crucial question is,

can we do what we must?

At speed, and at scale.

The good news is, it's
now clearly cheaper,

to save the planet than to ruin it.

The bad news is, we are
fast running out of time.