How to decarbonize the grid and electrify everything

"The good news is it's now clearly cheaper to save the planet than to ruin it," says engineer and investor John Doerr. "The bad news is: we are fast running out of time." In this conversation with climate policy expert Hal Harvey, the two sustainability leaders discuss why humanity has to act globally, at speed and at scale, to meet the staggering challenge of decarbonizing the global economy (which has only ever increased emissions throughout history) -- and share helpful examples of promising energy solutions from around the world.

John Doerr: Hello, Hal!

Hal Harvey: John, nice to see you.

JD: Nice to see you too.

HH: 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?

JD: 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 going to have to reduce
annual emissions

by about 10 percent a year.

And we've never reduced
annual emissions in any year

in the history of the planet.

So let's break this down.

Seventy-five percent of the emissions

come from the 20 largest
emitting countries.

And from four sectors of their economy.

The first is grid.

Second, transportation.

The third from the buildings.

And the fourth from industrial activities.

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

HH: It is now cheaper
to generate electricity

from clean energy sources
than from dirty energy sources

to create electricity.

And what that does is

it means 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 of 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 percent
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.

JD: Well, I think a key question, Hal,
is do we have the technology that we need

to replace fossil fuels
to get this job done?

And my answer is no.

I think we're about 70,
maybe 80 percent 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 going to need
lots of these batteries.

We desperately need much more research
in clean energy technology.

The US invests about
2.5 billion dollars a year.

Do you know how much Americans
spend on potato chips?

HH: No.

JD: The answer is 4 billion dollars.

Now what do you think of that?

HH: Upside down.

But this all comes together,
in my opinion, in the realm of policy.

We need dramatic accelerants,
is what you're saying.

Accelerants in R and D,
but also accelerants 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
for ever 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 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 had this unwritten agreement
between the two countries,

one buying a lot,
the other producing a lot,

that helped drive the price
down 80 percent.

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-maker is

to decarbonize the grid,

or to produce electric
vehicles in the policy world,

you're really not in the game.

JD: 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
has 18,000 electric buses.

It has 21,000 electric taxis.

And this goodness didn't just happen.

It was the 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 policy 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?

HH: 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 Germans 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?

JD: 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.