0:00

Wood. Mackenzie is online future facing commodities

0:02

from his back for it's third year.

0:05

Join. Us on line on March the twenty

0:07

Seventh thrown open discussion with our experts

0:09

on renewables eve ease and advanced battery

0:11

technology. Novick. To events on that

0:13

date one during the day in the Asia Pacific Region

0:15

and one during the day and Europe and the Americas.

0:17

So you should be able to find time to suit

0:20

you wherever you are in the world. And.

0:22

Either one, you'll be able to get

0:24

insights from an unparalleled integrated coverage of

0:26

the renewables, battery electric vehicles, value chains.

0:29

You'll. Be able to hear our industry

0:31

leading analysts on Pacman forecasts for

0:33

key future facing communities including Lithium,

0:35

Nicole Capa alum and human Rare

0:37

Earths. Learn. How technology, geopolitics

0:40

and regulation A Transforming the metals

0:42

markets as we build an electrified

0:44

future. To. Register Go to

0:46

Go.would mack.com/fcf Twenty Twenty Four You

0:49

can find the details in Today

0:51

show Nights. Hello

1:00

and welcome to the Energy Gang! A discussion

1:02

job at the fast changing World of energy.

1:05

I'm it Crux joined today by Miller some

1:07

all to the research director at Columbia University's

1:09

Center on Global Energy Policy and she's also

1:11

professor at Columbia Climates. Go Hi Melissa, how

1:13

you will come back. Had done well.

1:16

I just got back from Colorado which

1:18

is gorgeous that average I mean back

1:20

in the city of Tommy Small knife.

1:22

And eight and a New York just starting to

1:25

get to be pleasant. His native by read this

1:27

time of year and is also have legit a

1:29

welcome A new guess to the energy gang we

1:31

have. Jessica tragic is a professor at the Institute

1:33

for Data Systems in Society at the Massachusetts Institute

1:36

of Technology Mit. I just got. Thanks so much

1:38

for joining us today. Yeah, thanks for having me.

1:40

Something we always like to do when we have

1:42

new guests on the and you gangly itself is

1:44

to get to talk a little bit about their

1:46

careers, how they got involved in energy and the

1:48

path that led them to what they're doing today.

1:51

So just go. What was it? Few: How did

1:53

you get interested in energy and had to get

1:55

where you are now. Yeah, so I did

1:57

my Phd and engineering. Bad. I had a

1:59

lot. Standing interest in international

2:01

development and sustainable development. And

2:03

so after finishing my phd,

2:06

I worked for the Un

2:08

forbid in Geneva and and

2:10

that's where I really formulated

2:12

my interests and energy systems

2:14

and working on energy and

2:16

climate teams and really was

2:19

driven by just the recognition

2:21

that technology was very central

2:23

to addressing the climate challenge,

2:25

but that we could do

2:27

more in evaluating technologies anticipating.

2:30

Which ones could be most beneficial in

2:32

order to you know, direct our development

2:34

efforts and a more targeted and successful

2:36

way. So that's why I working on.

2:38

I mean, of course you're always uncertain

2:41

about the future when dealing with technology

2:43

development, but I just felt like there

2:45

was room see. Can.

2:47

Have drawn my engineering background and

2:49

then also some of my interests

2:51

and background in policy in order

2:54

to address that question. So that's

2:56

when I started working in the

2:58

fields and then now answer developing

3:00

the research area.i work in today.

3:02

On evaluating technologies and technological

3:05

change using data and for

3:07

models and have been working

3:09

in this area since then

3:11

for over twenty years. And

3:13

as a in that twenty years and desk

3:15

and I have been in the same ecosystem

3:17

and has friends and know I followed your

3:19

work for a long time but had the

3:21

opportunity at me are working together on the

3:23

United Nations Council of Engineers who the energy

3:25

transition together and we gonna two years on

3:27

that. Not just yeah I'm us yeah I

3:29

know which has been a lot of fun

3:31

and it's wonderful when have so many people

3:33

working on different parts of this challenge from

3:35

the engine and the technical perspective in this

3:37

case coming altogether for that work. So glad

3:39

to be able to have conversations. They jessica

3:41

yeah me too and it's been really. Wonderful

3:43

to. Interact. with melissa through

3:46

that group and then also have

3:48

this opportunity to speak with her and

3:50

with you add today when just click

3:52

thing i'll say about that group is

3:55

it's great because it brings and

3:57

perspectives from all around the world from

3:59

engineers from very countries, really covering most

4:01

regions of the world. And you know,

4:04

I think that's really important for where

4:06

we are. I mean, it's generally always

4:08

important and I think it's really impactful

4:11

for where we are right now in the

4:13

clean energy transition. Absolutely. Well, thanks

4:15

very much for taking some time to talk to

4:17

us today and to share some of your thoughts

4:19

and insights in that area, which is really what

4:21

I want to start off talking about. So what

4:24

I want to ask you is the thing which

4:26

I guess is the most annoying thing for any

4:28

academic which is explain to me

4:30

everything you've learned and that you think is

4:32

important about your field in 30 seconds. You

4:36

know, as you say, so what you're studying is innovation

4:39

and technology and particularly as that

4:41

applies to the energy transition and

4:44

the development and deployment of clean

4:46

energy technologies and how that's going to

4:48

help address the threat of climate change.

4:50

And in this first section of the show what I want to do

4:52

is talk a bit about policy and

4:55

to think about different types

4:57

of approach to energy policy and climate

4:59

policy and to think about the inflation

5:01

reduction acts and so on. But just

5:04

before we get into any of those

5:06

practical details, if you were to summarise

5:08

your views on what the evidence shows

5:11

about how best to support innovation, how

5:13

you can drive innovation and get

5:15

deployment of new technologies, particularly I guess

5:17

in an era like energy where it

5:19

is so important to accelerate the deployment

5:21

of a whole raft of new technologies,

5:23

what does the evidence tell you? Yeah,

5:26

so I mean, I think this

5:28

is really the key question, right?

5:30

We have limited time, there's always

5:33

constraints on our financial resources for

5:35

addressing the challenge of climate change.

5:37

And so it's really important to

5:39

put our time and our efforts

5:42

and our financial resources into promising

5:44

solutions. But then you're always dealing

5:46

with uncertainty, you know, which technologies are going

5:48

to take off, which ones are going

5:50

to be beneficial. There's always downsides to

5:53

any technology, can we anticipate those, can

5:55

we limit those? So those are all

5:57

the kinds of questions that we try

5:59

to work on in

6:01

this research area and that I'm

6:04

particularly interested in. I mean, I

6:06

guess one relevant insight if we

6:08

think about the role of policy,

6:10

let's say, in encouraging innovation and

6:13

clean energy technologies, you know, what

6:15

is that role and what's worked

6:17

in the past? How did we

6:19

get to where we are today

6:21

with cheaper, high-performing solar energy, wind

6:24

energy, batteries, you know, how did

6:26

energy efficiency improve and so forth?

6:28

So what have we learned about

6:30

what worked there? We know that

6:32

policies around the world were rather

6:34

piecemeal. There wasn't as much global

6:36

coordination as we might have liked,

6:38

but nonetheless, there's been substantial technology

6:41

innovation. So we looked at this

6:43

and kind of developed a methodology.

6:45

I won't go into too many details, but for

6:47

looking at, you know, what really worked and

6:49

what can we learn for the future? And

6:52

so we started with looking at the

6:54

level of the devices, the physics, how

6:56

did they improve and then from there

6:59

we can actually learn about what

7:01

we call higher level mechanisms

7:03

that drove these improvements. Now

7:06

we know that a lot of this started

7:08

with policy because there was no incentive for

7:10

the private sector to invest on its own.

7:13

Aside from some companies that

7:15

felt this was important decades

7:17

ago to start developing these

7:20

clean energy solutions, but on the whole

7:22

there wasn't enough incentive for this market

7:24

to really get going. So policy

7:26

was critical there and one of the

7:29

important things we have learned from this

7:31

research is that both government

7:33

funding for research and development

7:36

and government policies that stimulated market

7:38

growth were very important because

7:40

they drove different kinds of innovation.

7:43

So they were complementary to

7:45

one another, you know, and this

7:47

goes back to a long-standing

7:49

debate about whether government should

7:52

be stimulating markets or should it

7:54

focus entirely on research and development funding. But when

7:56

you start with that engineering level, you're going to

7:58

be able to do that. So you see

8:00

that both kinds of policies really play

8:03

an important role in that market

8:05

expansion policies tick started a lot of

8:07

private sector competition and innovation. So it

8:09

wasn't really policy or the private sector.

8:12

There was actually this really interesting

8:14

effect of policies jump starting a lot

8:16

of innovation that led to improvement.

8:18

Can I say one thing that I've

8:20

learned about innovation here in the last

8:23

couple of decades of doing this? Putting

8:25

it out there, she all disagree with me if you

8:27

see it differently. The tech is cool. You have to

8:30

get the ecosystem right. The

8:32

ecosystem talking about policy, regulations, education, like there's so

8:34

many components. I'm an engineer, first love right there.

8:36

I do policy as well and I have degrees

8:38

in that, but the tech is cool. You got

8:41

to get that ecosystem. Agree,

8:43

disagree, shades of color on

8:45

that statement. What do you guys think?

8:47

I definitely agree Melissa. I think we

8:49

can spend all of our time working

8:51

in the lab developing cool technologies, but

8:53

what do people want? What do consumers

8:56

value? What is going to

8:58

take off and be adopted and so forth?

9:00

I think that's really important and that's really

9:02

where that bridge to the private sector is

9:04

key. Government funded

9:06

research can also support those kinds

9:08

of analyses to really anticipate what

9:10

technologies are going to be desirable

9:12

to people, but bringing in the

9:14

private sector is critical. What

9:17

we've seen from what's worked is

9:19

really that policies that stimulated that

9:22

interest in the private sector were very

9:24

important. This is the case

9:26

also that different types of policy are appropriate

9:28

for different stages in the life cycle of

9:30

a technology. If I think about photovoltaic solar,

9:33

for example, that starts in the

9:36

50s I guess when they're putting solar panels

9:38

on satellites and then it's whatever it is,

9:40

$10,000 per watt and it

9:43

comes down and down and down and it gets to $100 a watt

9:45

or $10 a watt, whatever it was.

9:49

I mean obviously where are we now? 20 cents a watt

9:51

or something like that if you get a low cost Chinese

9:53

panel. But the

9:55

subsidies and support for

9:57

innovation and R&D and so

9:59

on. are a good idea for getting from $10,000 a

10:01

watt down to $1,000 a watt. If

10:05

you want to go from $1,000

10:07

to 20 cents, that's when, and

10:09

it certainly was the case with

10:11

solar, things that made a huge

10:13

difference were Europe putting in place

10:16

all of these, feeding tariffs, creating

10:18

this very generous subsidy regime for

10:20

solar power, and then also having

10:22

basically open markets and the Chinese

10:25

industry responding massively, having a huge

10:27

increase in capacity and just working

10:29

really aggressively to drive costs down to take

10:31

advantage of that market, which was opening up first in

10:33

Europe in the 2010s and then increasingly

10:35

around the world as well. Have

10:38

I just described the story of kind of solar

10:40

development and solar innovation accurately? It was the more

10:42

to it than that. Yeah, I mean,

10:44

I think it's a good overview. We

10:46

see that market growth was pretty steady

10:48

from the early days, you know, the

10:50

70s, 80s. So you actually

10:53

saw at the global level, roughly

10:55

exponential growth going way back. So

10:57

that early market growth was really

10:59

important too. And you had Japan

11:01

with important policies that started these

11:03

markets. And then you had Germany

11:05

taking over, as you said, with

11:07

the feed in tariffs, China,

11:09

the US also played a really

11:12

important role in funding research and

11:14

development throughout this period. So I

11:16

agree with you that these different

11:18

policies are important at different points

11:21

along the development trajectory of these

11:23

technologies. We do, though, see that

11:25

it's beneficial to have continued investment

11:27

in research and development along the

11:29

way, some from government. I mean,

11:32

that depends on the different technologies

11:34

and the mechanisms that are important,

11:37

which by the way, we can analyze and try

11:39

to anticipate. But you do

11:41

see generally that R&D, both from

11:43

government funding and private sector investment

11:45

is important along the way. But

11:48

economies of scale really started

11:50

to dominate the cost decline

11:53

in solar in the last

11:55

couple of decades. Overall, though,

11:58

research and development was really important. and

12:01

you know that continued investment in

12:03

research and development was important. So

12:05

I think the traditional picture of innovation

12:07

and what's driving it has all of

12:09

the important components. The interesting thing we

12:12

see when we look at the details

12:14

of these technologies is that you

12:16

know you see some more research

12:18

and development driven changes really being

12:21

important all the way along the

12:23

trajectory. We see that with lithium-ion

12:25

batteries as well which is another

12:27

technology that we've looked at in

12:29

detail. And what is that history of

12:31

lithium-ion battery show? Well you know

12:33

it's interesting it's not all that

12:35

different from solar modules. The role

12:37

of policy is a bit more

12:39

complicated because of course lithium-ion batteries

12:41

are used in many different

12:43

devices and there were market forces

12:46

driving their development you know

12:48

with the development of information technology

12:50

and so forth but policy was

12:52

also important for lithium-ion batteries for

12:54

electric vehicles but you know

12:56

we really see and this is work I

12:59

did with Micah Ziegler who a former postdoc

13:01

in my group that I just

13:03

started on the faculty at Georgia Tech and

13:05

is doing great work in storage. What

13:07

we see when we look at

13:09

that trajectory is just how important

13:12

research and development was all along

13:14

the way in developing these technologies.

13:16

Now I say these

13:18

technologies because we have different kinds

13:20

of lithium-ion batteries that came online.

13:22

Now we do see again as we

13:25

saw with solar modules that economies of

13:27

scale had a very substantial impact in

13:29

driving costs down in the last couple

13:31

of decades. So it's something somewhat similar

13:34

but not exactly the same as solar

13:36

and then the other thing is of

13:38

course energy densities were important to develop

13:40

in the case of lithium-ion batteries. So

13:43

in the context of that then let's

13:45

think about what the US government is

13:47

doing today and the inflation reduction act

13:49

in particular. Given what we know, given

13:51

what your research has found about history

13:53

of innovation, what it takes for energy

13:55

innovation to be successful, to

13:58

drive down costs, to accelerate deployment. When

14:00

I think about the Inflation Reduction Act, I think about

14:02

it as having two key salient features.

14:06

One is that it's all about carrots,

14:08

rolls and sticks. It's about trying

14:11

to incentivise low carbon energy rather

14:13

than increase the burden on high

14:15

carbon energy. The other factor

14:17

is that it's got a lot

14:19

of detailed provisions for different types

14:22

of technology. There'll be production tax

14:24

credits and investment tax credits for

14:26

wind and solar and storage. There's

14:28

a different set of tax credits

14:31

for low carbon hydrogen and different

14:33

credits for carbon capture and storage

14:35

and different credits again for nuclear,

14:37

different credits and other regulatory incentives

14:39

for EVs, which again are

14:42

all changed by domestic content requirements and how

14:44

much of the manufacturing is done within the

14:46

US and so on. Does that make sense

14:48

as an approach, do you think? If

14:51

you were designing an optimal

14:53

policy for the energy transition in the US, would you

14:55

do it this way? Yeah. Well,

14:57

of course, one has to be pragmatic

15:00

in terms of what policies are

15:02

people willing to accept. We have limited

15:04

time. Let's go with that works.

15:06

I think that makes sense to

15:09

a certain extent. With technology

15:11

specific policies, people may

15:13

have an easier time seeing what's coming

15:15

down the pike, so to speak. That

15:17

may be one reason why they're more

15:20

acceptable in some context. The

15:22

policies that you described are targeting

15:24

specific technologies. It could be that

15:27

that's something that's more acceptable, more

15:29

popular because we can see what's

15:31

coming. Of course, a carbon price

15:34

does have some advantages in that

15:36

it's more flexible. It allows for more

15:39

competition. I guess what I mean by

15:41

flexible is it allows for the market

15:43

per select across demand

15:46

side changes like energy efficiency

15:48

and supply side changes like

15:50

different types of power plants.

15:52

However, even when selecting a carbon

15:55

price, we know to some extent,

15:57

at least in the near term,

15:59

what technologies will be favored. And

16:01

that's because we know their costs

16:03

in different markets. We know their

16:05

carbon intensities. So it's actually

16:07

pretty clear. So you can't

16:10

actually get away from selecting

16:12

technologies. Now, the argument is

16:14

that you select a carbon

16:16

price that's equal to the

16:18

societal costs of those emissions,

16:20

but that also requires making

16:22

some forecasts about technology-specific evolution

16:25

pathways. And then we come

16:27

back to essentially what's required

16:30

in designing technology-specific policies. You

16:33

have to make these forecasts about

16:35

what technologies are going to do,

16:37

how they're going to perform, and

16:40

deem which ones are more favorable. So there

16:43

is still that challenge about

16:45

evaluating and forecasting technology, even

16:47

with a carbon price. Right.

16:49

That's a really interesting point. You mean,

16:51

effectively, there's no such thing as a

16:54

genuinely technology-neutral policy, even if

16:56

you're kind of trying to be technology-neutral and

16:58

just saying, well, this is the carbon price,

17:00

and then let 1,000 flowers bloom and let

17:02

everyone do what they want to do to

17:04

adjust to that price. In practice, you're actually

17:07

taking some views on which technology

17:09

is favored and which aren't. Yeah, that's

17:11

right. I mean, when you're estimating those societal

17:13

costs of carbon emissions, that's going to be,

17:15

at least in part, determined

17:17

by technology innovation. If you're selecting a carbon price

17:19

at a given point in time, if it's $10

17:21

or $100 a ton, you know pretty well what

17:26

effects that's going to have in terms

17:28

of which techs the market will select.

17:30

I'd love to hear Melissa's thoughts on

17:33

this. And just to say that I

17:35

really appreciate the work that you're doing

17:37

at Columbia, which really bridges engineering

17:40

and policy. And you bring your

17:42

knowledge of technology to that work

17:44

on policy evaluation. And I love

17:47

how you guys are getting these messages

17:49

out and these insights out to the

17:51

public pretty quickly and very relevant ones

17:53

as well. I'd love to hear your

17:55

thoughts on this. Yeah, so a

17:57

couple of different things. And I Appreciate the kind words. Air

18:00

around The work. That team here is

18:02

so lucky to work with them to

18:04

the fullest. So many incredible folks to

18:06

come at us. A different lenses and

18:09

I think with a different lenses allow

18:11

us to see is is how complex

18:13

things are. We are not working from

18:15

a blank slate mail. know that there's

18:17

so many different policies and regulations and

18:19

incentive structures across all the different levels

18:21

that affect how why were we adopt

18:23

things, how different technologies may work or

18:25

not a different set of circumstances. It's

18:28

really complex. So can a policy ever.

18:30

Be truly technology neutral I actually push

18:32

back on the question or other which

18:34

is interesting were a policy is not

18:36

in a vacuum sauna bank these papers

18:38

so that policy interact with so many

18:40

other policies he didn't of creating things

18:42

you can for see and then other

18:44

impact that you may not have foreseen

18:46

even if you study that policy really

18:49

really well the knock on effects are

18:51

interesting and it's a reflection of how

18:53

complex our societies are but also how

18:55

complex or energy system as I think

18:57

back to our is a question about

18:59

like stuff. You know that you didn't know

19:01

when he started. Now you know. I remember

19:03

when I started studying carbon capture and storage

19:06

and it was presented to me as a

19:08

way to get emissions out. Has the power

19:10

sector specifically touching into coal and beverages how

19:12

was presented to me in the first be

19:14

no such as technical talks I got, that

19:16

was application they were studying for the when

19:18

you expanded to the broader ecosystem you think

19:21

about. Okay I put a carbon tax or

19:23

price somehow effectively on carbon. Do whatever mechanism

19:25

is your favorite of that you society chooses

19:27

in your part of the world. But does

19:29

that Carbon Capture Se to play in power

19:31

Now in his of deploying over an industry

19:33

first and many many many cases and then

19:36

power may or may not benefit is again.

19:38

we have a commitment to go to Net

19:40

Zero so there's other condemning had to be

19:42

there. When I started in this work it

19:44

was talking about fifty percent reduction in emissions.

19:46

Eighty three percent was was number. We played

19:48

them for a long time right? and now

19:51

it's Net Zero and that has shifted the

19:53

playing field and so all of these things

19:55

as hasn't knock on effects said you. I

19:57

think that any policy we do is. New

19:59

to. No, I mean policies are

20:01

designed to have impacts and to achieve

20:03

societal goals, so they do. Are they

20:05

technology neutral? In isolation, in

20:08

theory, you could design one that

20:10

is. But Ed, how many times have I said there's

20:12

theory and then there's practical pathways forward and the practical

20:14

reality in which we live and we have to build

20:16

this stuff? It's just a lot messier. It's just a

20:18

lot messier. It's got politics. It's

20:20

got preferences. It's got the

20:23

things that aren't captured in the data, that just

20:25

we don't have in the data, the insights we

20:27

don't have across a whole host of things. Just

20:30

discussing that with some of our data science

20:32

colleagues, what we don't see in consumption data

20:34

is one example. But overall, what I feel

20:36

confident in saying, and I'm putting it out

20:38

there actually with a little wobble in my

20:40

voice because I'm curious what y'all are going

20:42

to say to this, is compared to 20

20:44

years ago, rough numbers when I started this

20:47

work. When it came to technology,

20:49

I couldn't say confidently we have the text we

20:51

need to get mostly down the road, if not

20:53

all the way down the road, we need to

20:55

improve other things. Now, will innovation help? Absolutely. Do

20:57

we want it and need it? Let's do that. Are there

21:00

going to be consequences we might not like if

21:02

we deploy just the set we have today and

21:04

don't have other options? Sure, all those things. I'm

21:06

not making this as a blanket black and white

21:08

statement, but the pathway to net zero is something

21:10

we know a ton about, way more than we

21:12

knew 20 years ago. And the innovations that have

21:14

happened in the last 20 years has helped us

21:17

to make some progress already, whether it's the US

21:19

power sector or something else you're looking at. We've

21:21

made a lot more progress than I thought we

21:23

were going to based on where technologies were 20,

21:25

even 15 years ago. Well,

21:27

Jessica, what do you think? Yeah, I mean, I

21:29

agree that we're in a very different place from

21:31

where we were 20 years ago,

21:34

even just 10 years ago. And momentum

21:36

is really built up in the marketplace.

21:39

The transition is happening. The question is,

21:41

how quickly will it happen? How

21:44

will it affect people? How

21:47

equitably distributed will the

21:49

benefits be? And

21:52

all of those things are really important.

21:54

And I think we should be

21:56

focusing on those objectives When

21:59

we think about technology. the innovation, we

22:01

have a lot of the technologies we

22:03

need. You. Know you do

22:05

An engineering assessment of the

22:08

costs of transitioning to ah

22:10

Carbon Free Energy System Carbon

22:12

Free economy. We can get

22:15

pretty far down that path.

22:17

Meat eater eighty percent emissions

22:19

reduction, ninety percent with the

22:22

technologies we have with very

22:24

little additional cost. West you

22:26

know largely benefits rather than

22:29

cause. However, The transitions

22:31

not happening fast enough. There are

22:33

probably costs that are not included

22:35

in those assessment. So as he

22:37

said melissa that the real world

22:39

is a bit more complicated, but

22:42

we can get a lot of

22:44

the way there. There's still some

22:46

you know what we call difficult

22:48

to decarbonise and uses and energy

22:50

services that I like to call

22:52

currently more difficult to decarbonise that

22:54

a fistful of. It's a lot.

22:57

By. Just because I feel confident that

22:59

we can find solutions to those energy

23:01

services as well. That. Certainly.

23:04

Innovations needed there, but we also need

23:06

that innovation on the technology is we

23:08

have to make that more widely available,

23:10

more attractive to the temple. Adopted more

23:13

quickly, And also to anticipate some

23:15

of the downsize as you are saying,

23:17

melissa, try to address those. In

23:19

this process of Kansas. And because no

23:22

Technologies perfect. So yes, I agree fully.

23:24

I think we have really come a

23:26

long way. And. They're still. You

23:28

know So much to do if you

23:30

look at those technology improvement purves. We've.

23:33

Come so far: in some of

23:35

these technologies like solar, more than

23:37

ninety nine percent cost reduction. Lithium

23:39

ion battery is more than ninety

23:41

seven percent the across of. Disinterest.

23:43

So much performance has gone up.

23:46

But if you look at the emissions curves

23:48

of course we're just you know leveling off

23:50

you know. Can we say we're clearly bending

23:53

that curve down? Maybe not but that's what

23:55

we need to do. We need to do

23:57

it immediately. So innovation the focus on not

23:59

and then also the impact some people and

24:02

not just climate change related impacts that other

24:04

impacts as well and of present in this

24:06

is something putting the people in the transition

24:08

planning bring the people in the know The

24:11

technology innovation development made us guy like when

24:13

I was studying engineering and my first degrees

24:15

like a was so focus on the tax

24:17

worked and of is less focus on the

24:20

application and granted it's beginning of education but

24:22

when you make that have it. So yes

24:24

now I know how cycle works and know

24:26

how refrigeration works and turbans work in power

24:29

plants. I know. All that stuff. Okay,

24:31

but it's operating in wet system in

24:33

what way and an understanding consumer preferences.

24:35

Just yesterday I got asked in a

24:37

class i guess such during and so

24:39

is it nuclear or wins and so

24:41

went through the whole soccer team analogy

24:43

going through recently of things I talk

24:45

about around actually want to mix and

24:47

you need from power and variables cheap

24:50

and a rough but then it was

24:52

one of those things where there's a

24:54

fundamental question here though which is let's

24:56

say that those two technologies have the

24:58

same characteristics from an engineering perspective. Letters

25:00

your community want, what are your priorities were

25:02

to the trade offs you're okay with on

25:05

a nuclear perspective I may not has or

25:07

may not want to commit the amount of

25:09

water I may need or the amount of

25:11

other resources I may need when it comes

25:13

to when I may have other may not

25:16

have the lance have much less be okay

25:18

with using at an at that the.the.and so

25:20

the preferences that we have this people who

25:22

are living in the world yes who on

25:24

energy but we want more than that to

25:27

and whatever those things are, how does that

25:29

factor in supporting. Him and in the middle

25:31

of the transition earning him and how we talk

25:33

about technology Senate it's something that is a classical

25:35

engineering. I didn't start getting space shuttle later it

25:38

wasn't a my first degree as her shirt. The

25:40

I couldn't agree more and I think

25:43

that's changing the maybe not as quickly

25:45

as we like to see an engineering

25:47

education. I think it is changing and

25:49

you not The end of the day

25:51

people are gonna decide what technologies they

25:54

want. You can cause policy and sun

25:56

as you can have engineers improving these

25:58

technologies. Bad people will. I'd but

26:00

they one and I think as

26:02

researchers I feel our role is

26:05

to put information out there and

26:07

then people will make decisions and

26:09

hopefully that information can be useful

26:11

in informing those decisions. And in

26:13

a podcast like this of course

26:15

are really helpful not way as

26:17

well. You have a scraper that

26:19

is very much something we are trying

26:21

to do. I personally just had a

26:24

completely different perspective on this just from

26:26

this morning because I've been at this

26:28

conference. Distributed Quizzes is conference for the

26:30

power transmission and distribution industry and by

26:33

the time does but Goes gets released

26:35

I think that podcast will be available

26:37

published already so do go back and

26:39

listen to that as interested. But the

26:42

theme that had once been talking about

26:44

here is a I and Nuclear Fusion

26:46

and the connection between. Two and

26:48

the sense that allies both the

26:50

sort of the cause of all

26:52

the problems of the grid and

26:54

the solution to them arguably because

26:56

well known this on something actually

26:58

we should probably covered more detail

27:00

and of teach website but the

27:02

power load animus electricity demand interact

27:05

with us have been flat for

27:07

longtime couple of decades but really

27:09

looks like it's going to start

27:11

to kick off and accelerate. there

27:13

was an exact from one of

27:15

the big utilities. Speaking of this

27:17

conference of saying. And I used to

27:19

be a big deal for us when we

27:21

had a new load being added to the

27:23

grid of ten or twenty megawatts. Now we

27:26

get several people coming saying we have a

27:28

gigawatt thousand megawatts of demanded a new day

27:30

center which we want to build for a

27:32

i can you handle that increase load And

27:34

didn't you hear people below? Enthusiasts for Ai

27:37

A who think it's gonna have an enormous

27:39

teacher impact saying there is going to be

27:41

then this massive. Extra. spike

27:43

in demand for energy from city created

27:45

by with a wonderful applications that people

27:47

are again to be able to use

27:50

a i thought maybe that's right then

27:52

they get one say and also services

27:54

this big problem is been crazy good

27:56

news susan will come along so vessel

27:58

have this unlimited low-cost, low-waste nuclear

28:01

power, and AI will help us

28:03

find how to crack the secret

28:05

of that because if we apply

28:08

artificial intelligence to the various knotty

28:10

engineering problems around fusion power generation,

28:13

AI will come up with all

28:15

the answers and will work out

28:17

how to deploy that commercially at

28:20

scale. Which all struck me

28:22

as interesting and perhaps a little bit

28:24

removed from reality. But it did make

28:26

me think about, as you say, that

28:28

question of what can really be done

28:31

with the existing technologies that we've got,

28:33

and whether there

28:35

is a sort of a tendency for people

28:37

to want the Deus Ex Machina, the Magic Wand that could

28:39

be waved, to say this is going to be the thing

28:41

that will solve all of our problems, doesn't matter how much

28:43

extra late we had to the grid because fusion power is

28:45

coming and that'll make everything all right. And

28:48

that then sort of takes away some of

28:50

the momentum and the pressure and the demands

28:52

for accelerated deployment of the technologies that we

28:54

do actually have today, which are available, which

28:57

can be rolled out at scale, but as

28:59

you say, have the various downsides and possibly

29:01

people don't want them or they cost too

29:03

much or whatever it might be. Is that

29:06

something you think about? Does that

29:08

issue of kind of the

29:10

perfect being the enemy of the good come up in

29:13

your work? Yeah, I mean definitely.

29:15

I think we have to

29:17

think about this problem of investing

29:19

in climate solutions as a portfolio

29:22

problem, and there are elements of

29:24

that portfolio that could play a

29:26

huge role. If the cost

29:28

of air capture goes way

29:30

down and if we can also solve the

29:33

problems of air pollution, of combusting fossil fuels

29:35

at the same time and get rid of

29:37

that, then it could play an important role.

29:39

And if we can find ways to cost

29:42

effectively store that CO2, that it

29:44

definitely won't leak at all, even

29:47

at slow rates, because if it does,

29:49

we get back to the problem we

29:51

started with. Fusion is cost competitive. There

29:54

are these kind of technologies that it's

29:56

important to invest in, develop, but

29:58

they really need to only just one part

30:01

of the portfolio because we have so much

30:03

uncertainty. And I would

30:05

say even what's called ambiguity, so

30:07

uncertainty about uncertainty. We can't quantify

30:09

that uncertainty really just yet. You

30:12

know, people have an intuitive understanding of

30:14

this. You hear that it's 30 years

30:16

down the road and then 10 years

30:18

later the same. So that's kind of

30:20

a signature of this ambiguity. So, you

30:22

know, these should be elements of our

30:24

portfolio that we're investing in,

30:26

but we really need to invest in

30:29

other options that work

30:31

that can be deployed today,

30:33

really understand how to

30:35

make them most beneficial, attractive to

30:37

people and really continue to innovate

30:40

along those lines to accelerate that

30:42

process of adoption and also introduce

30:44

benefits to society and address climate

30:46

change. And I have a

30:48

lot to say on AI as well,

30:50

but of course, you know, there is

30:52

potentially a lot of benefits for climate

30:54

solutions for addressing climate change. I mean,

30:56

just one that I'll highlight is that

30:58

if we can make the demand for

31:00

energy more responsive to

31:02

the supply in a way that's

31:05

extremely convenient for people that they

31:07

hardly notice that doesn't cause interruptions

31:09

or if it does where they're

31:12

compensated for those interruptions, that can

31:14

be really helpful for this process

31:16

of an energy transition. But of

31:18

course, you have to consider the

31:20

energy consumption of storing

31:23

information, processing it. So

31:25

that also has to be part of that conversation. And

31:28

so around all this innovation, technology diffusion, how we

31:30

interact with technologies, what we choose, you know, if

31:32

I go up to a higher level on it,

31:35

it brings up the question of like, how quickly

31:37

are we deploying the things that bring down all

31:39

different types of air pollution emissions, Jessica? So, you

31:41

know, I care a lot about particulate matter, NOx

31:43

and clover oxides and others, and there's a lot

31:46

of stuff in our air. But the greenhouse gas

31:48

emissions, like how quickly are we moving to actually

31:50

pivot this down because the impacts of not

31:53

bringing down those emissions, of course, is very large. And

31:55

when I think about AI, when

31:57

I think about this new tech, I just keep mentally coming back

31:59

to the past. power sector and thinking about how

32:01

much electricity we're in need, how do we

32:03

build that stuff out, how can we do

32:05

it quickly enough to keep everything

32:07

reliable, affordable and clean and bring

32:10

down emissions. So high level meta

32:12

comment there for you. Indeed. And you were

32:14

just looking at some data. You were talking about

32:16

this before we came on, there's some new data

32:18

out on what the US is doing in terms

32:21

of progress on emissions reduction. Yes,

32:23

this is the fact sheet I was mentioning or the

32:25

fact book by the Business Council of Sustainable Energy. So

32:27

they talked about 2023 emissions in the

32:29

United States and how emissions in the US from

32:31

the energy sector fell even as the economy grew.

32:33

So I think overall the number was that the

32:35

US economy grew by 2.4% and emissions dropped by

32:38

1.8% falling in every sector.

32:43

But drum roll, please, transportation

32:47

was interesting. So they broke it down, you

32:49

know, record sales, record renewables, all this stuff.

32:51

When it came to renewables, they talked about

32:53

setting new highs and also how coal's contribution

32:55

to power generation is down to just below

32:58

16% in 2023. That

33:00

for someone who started looking at these numbers

33:02

in the US 20 plus years

33:04

ago, that's just wow. To read that number

33:06

out loud is pretty incredible. Absolutely. It's

33:09

not going to, I mean, it's recently, it's 2010, it was

33:11

about 50%, right? Yeah. So Ed,

33:13

if you look at the numbers and where it's gone,

33:15

one thing I will highlight is they said point blank

33:17

in this fact book that coal's contribution to power went

33:19

down to just below 16%, it was 15.8 they

33:22

said on their numbers, and it was largely replaced

33:24

with natural gas. Another statement that 15, 20 years

33:26

ago, I would have been like, gas

33:29

prices aren't that low, but of course we

33:31

all know what happened there. But two things

33:33

I'll flag. One, transportation was the one part

33:36

of this energy sector analysis where emissions didn't

33:38

go down. But the numbers are saying that

33:40

electric vehicle sales surged nearly 50% to 1.5

33:42

million vehicles sold in 2023. And there's those new federal

33:44

EV incentives, there's

33:50

price cuts, there's more models released, I would

33:52

say as an EV owner, there's also more

33:54

infrastructure to connect to, which is huge in

33:56

my decision to actually buy that vehicle and

33:59

use it. Putting it in broader context,

34:01

if we look at the pace of emissions

34:03

reductions, we're still not on track for climate

34:05

goals. I'm hopefully celebrating, you know, what has

34:07

been done. Like that's impressive. That's great. If

34:09

you asked me 15 years ago, if we'd

34:11

be here again, that 15% number, no natural

34:13

gas replacing coal, all these things. Like I

34:15

would have bet against me saying these phrases,

34:18

but under the Paris agreement, the

34:20

U S committed to reducing 50 to 52% compared

34:22

to 2005 level baseline. And

34:25

when we're looking at it, we're sitting at something like 16,

34:27

18% below 2005 levels. So

34:30

those are big differences. But for me,

34:32

going back to the headline number economy grew

34:34

as emissions fell. That's not insignificant. And all

34:36

this stuff underneath it is really encouraging. And

34:38

it goes back to Jessica, a ton of

34:40

innovation that happened over decades of investment that

34:43

led us up to this place where we

34:45

are now, where there's tracking solar battery chemistry,

34:47

all the above. It's a lot of work

34:49

behind all that. Yeah, definitely. And

34:51

I think about all the people we

34:53

don't hear about that did that. You

34:56

know, the champions of policies at

34:58

the sub national level, you know,

35:00

city state level, federal level as

35:03

well, people working on these technologies.

35:05

That's what we see actually model

35:07

technology evolution is you really see

35:10

the signature of the

35:12

work that many people did in

35:14

getting policies enacted and working on

35:16

the manufacturing floor, working in research

35:18

labs. It wasn't a single innovator

35:20

that brought us to where we

35:22

are now. So I totally agree

35:24

with you, Melissa. That was a

35:26

lot of work by many different

35:28

people that went into that. So

35:30

let's talk about EVs a bit, because I

35:32

do think that issue of transport, as you

35:34

say, Melissa, is very interesting in that as

35:37

of last year, emissions were not falling, but

35:39

there's some pretty positive trends in terms of

35:41

EV sales. I've been really struck by what

35:43

seems to be this huge disconnect between the

35:45

narrative and the data on EVs. The

35:49

narrative has been, oh, it's a disaster. Everything's

35:51

going terribly wrong and so on. I mean,

35:53

certainly it is true that growth in sales

35:55

last year, perhaps was not as great as

35:57

some people hoped it would be, but still, it's pretty

35:59

remarkable. I was looking at the data, these

36:01

are the Argonne National Laboratories figures, and that

36:03

has sales of battery electric

36:06

vehicles and plug-in hybrids, so what

36:08

you might call plug-in vehicles in

36:10

total, up to about 1.3 million

36:12

in the US last year. That's

36:14

up 54%. And that compares to

36:18

47% growth in 2022, so it's actually an

36:20

acceleration, not a slowing down of growth. And

36:23

it is true that we've seen some of the

36:25

manufacturers scaling back their targets, people

36:27

thinking perhaps they were over-optimistic a

36:30

couple of years ago. I see Mercedes just

36:32

recently said that they'd now expected only about

36:34

50% of its sales to be

36:36

EVs by 2030, and three years

36:38

ago they were saying they hoped to maybe possibly be at

36:41

100% EVs by 2030.

36:43

So perhaps the pace of the

36:45

transition is slowing, but still it

36:47

does feel like there is a

36:49

big change happening, and it is

36:51

still making progress in quite a

36:53

remarkable way. Melissa, what do

36:56

you think? What's your sense of it in terms

36:58

of where that transition to EVs is heading? I

37:00

mean, there's a lot of momentum behind EVs. It's not

37:02

just because of climate, it's not just because they're fun

37:04

to drive, it's not just because the cost makes sense,

37:07

it's not just because the maintenance is really nice, it's

37:09

not just because of any one thing, there's just a

37:11

lot of stuff that's putting wind in the sails of

37:13

EVs. We can hyper-focus on individual companies at individual moments

37:15

in time, but when I just zoom out a lot,

37:18

there's a lot of EVs on the road now in

37:20

the United States and around the world, and they make

37:22

a lot of sense on many, many different levels. They

37:24

are certainly a key technology to

37:26

bringing emissions down over time, but where I

37:28

think of it is, and I'll just focus

37:31

on the U.S., because those are the numbers I

37:33

was talking about earlier. We have a lot of

37:35

electric vehicles going into the system, and we're now

37:37

pressure testing our systems, and we're now putting a

37:40

lot of additional emphasis between figuring out how are

37:42

we upgrading our grids, and I'm not just talking

37:44

about the big wires, I'm actually not talking about

37:46

big wires right in this moment. I'm talking about

37:48

the small wires that connect to the individual charging

37:51

stations that connect to our homes room. I have

37:53

a home charger. I mean, this week is full

37:55

of, whether you're on Blue Sky, Twitter, other things,

37:57

lots of discussion about transformers, and you know, to...

38:00

distributed energy systems and all of that

38:02

for a lot of obvious reasons. And

38:04

within that, it's are we actually investing

38:06

enough in our power system, the backbone

38:08

of our future energy systems to actually

38:10

ensure that it's affordable and reliable. So

38:12

I think we're still not far enough

38:14

along in those conversations, the practical conversations

38:16

of what we need to do and how we

38:18

need to do it. But I'm not in

38:20

the camp of the evidence is not pointing

38:22

me towards a place where I think that

38:24

these systems are gonna prevent EVs from continuing

38:26

to deploy. It may flow a few

38:28

things down, but it won't prevent them from deploying. Right,

38:31

and just in case anyone hasn't been following

38:33

that debate about transformers that you mentioned, Melissa,

38:35

this is basically- Sorry, I already commented. Exactly,

38:38

because everyone knows about transformers. But you're right

38:40

to say that everyone in the energy world,

38:42

certainly in the power world has been talking

38:44

about it. There is essentially a worldwide

38:46

shortage of transformers, particularly because of tremendous

38:49

demand now as people want to invest

38:51

more in the grid and need to

38:53

build that out more for a variety

38:55

of reasons. It's very, very hard to

38:57

get hold of a transformer and

39:00

the waiting lists are incredibly long. And that does look

39:02

like a real kind of choke point in

39:04

the transition is the lack

39:06

of transformer manufacturing capacity. And if it's

39:08

possible to find ways to increase that

39:11

capacity, that could be a very significant

39:13

step forward. So going back to EV

39:15

then, Jessica, that's something you were writing

39:17

about recently. Again, to Melissa's point about

39:20

all the reasons to buy an EV,

39:22

I saw you writing a piece saying,

39:24

switching to an EV is one of

39:26

the most impactful changes that an individual

39:28

can make to reduce their personal contribution

39:31

to climate change. Why is that? What's

39:33

the argument there? So that's based on

39:35

looking at the life cycle,

39:37

what are called the life cycle

39:39

emissions of driving an EV versus

39:42

internal combustion engine vehicle, a conventional

39:44

vehicle. And when you see that,

39:47

accounting for all of the emissions from the

39:49

electricity and the production of

39:51

the battery, the production of the vehicle, if

39:54

you switch to an electric vehicle, even if

39:56

you don't change your driving, you

39:59

can cut your emissions by 30 to

40:01

50% in the US.

40:03

So that's accounting for your emissions

40:06

from driving, let's be clear, not

40:08

your overall emissions, but your emissions

40:10

from driving. And that's accounting for

40:12

the variation, that number, that range

40:14

is because of the variation in

40:16

emissions intensity of electricity in

40:19

different parts of the country. But in

40:21

the vast majority of places, you're getting

40:24

this very substantial cut in

40:26

emissions. I mean, even in places

40:28

where you have the most coal,

40:30

the highest carbon intensity electricity in the

40:32

country, you still get a substantial cut

40:34

in emissions and switching to either a

40:36

hybrid or an EV. But in most

40:39

places around the country, it's going to

40:41

an all electric vehicle, gives you that

40:43

benefit of reducing your greenhouse gas emissions

40:45

substantially. And up to 50 and in

40:47

some places even more, it depends on

40:49

the vehicle model and so forth. Right.

40:51

That is interesting because that's been debated a

40:53

bit, right? There were some studies probably a

40:56

few years ago showing that perhaps the gains

40:58

were at all that great. Obviously, it depends

41:00

what kind of EV you drive. And as

41:02

you say, it depends very much what the

41:04

source of your electricity is, presumably as electricity

41:07

in general in the US becomes cleaner, lower

41:09

carbon, then the emissions benefits of driving an

41:11

EV are going to grow. Yeah, that's

41:13

right. So as the carbon intensity

41:15

of electricity, the carbon from electricity

41:18

comes down, those benefits increase. But

41:20

even today, you get this substantial

41:23

increase, this substantial cut in emissions

41:25

in switching to an electric vehicle.

41:27

So that's really been shown exhaustively.

41:30

The serious studies all show

41:32

this. So it's really not a question.

41:34

It's just that I think it's important

41:36

to say because that information isn't always

41:38

widely recognized. And so and it can

41:40

be a little bit counterintuitive because, you

41:42

know, of course, we haven't fully decarbonized

41:44

our electricity. So where

41:47

is that coming from? Well, it's

41:49

comparison of the carbon intensity of

41:51

electricity versus the carbon intensity

41:54

of using gas or diesel. The

41:56

Other thing you were saying in that

41:59

piece is that there is still clearly

42:01

a role. for government policy in supporting

42:03

Eve and incentivizing people to buy them

42:06

to that point to a failure in

42:08

the V industry that costs you know,

42:10

the industry have kept talking about the

42:13

point where it will be very obvious

42:15

that Eve ease off significantly cheaper than

42:17

the covenant gasoline engine vehicles, and it

42:20

hasn't really happened yet. They're probably still

42:22

a bit more expensive in the Us

42:24

and Europe. Certainly, it looks like maybe

42:27

we're getting to that point in China

42:29

some pretty. Amazing things come out of

42:31

Chinese just in the past few weeks if

42:33

you look at new ease being launched by

42:35

very low cost T V when you see

42:38

what's on the manufacturer. The thing about the

42:40

costs of batteries I saw one i think

42:42

a bleak most are saying that it was

42:44

paying the current fifty six dollars per kilowatt

42:46

hour for that him for a full slate

42:49

cells that to the the lower costs type

42:51

of lithium ion battery it with used to

42:53

be. kind of talked about an industry that

42:55

hundred dollars per kilowatt hour with the absence

42:57

of of the holy grail of whatever was

42:59

going for and I'm happy for a Chinese

43:02

company thing that well below that so it

43:04

does seem like maybe China civil a coffee

43:06

these are coming but the haven't really. Emerged.

43:09

Yet in the Us and Europe and so

43:11

they do need various kinds of incentive sales

43:13

to support them? Is that a worrying sign

43:16

for them to seminal of as a from

43:18

with. Needing. Policy to support

43:20

the deployment of a technology is a

43:22

policy can change it quite possible that

43:24

get change of administration the U S

43:27

former President Donald Trump of dogs a

43:29

lot about how he doesn't like evades

43:31

and I'm sure he will be doing

43:33

whatever he can if he gets another

43:35

term to try and slow the growth

43:37

of the the industry doesn't act rate

43:40

fundamentally of in a problem for a

43:42

be deployment which is safe your reliant

43:44

on policy your valuables that policy been

43:46

take the way. The. Idea for combat

43:48

sale at some of what we've discussed and

43:51

the topic as easy as that, what you

43:53

said and also what you said no less.

43:55

And. this question as whereas the market

43:58

telling whether that and say and When

44:00

we look at the improvement in

44:02

the cost of EVs, this is

44:05

driven largely by this exponential improvement

44:07

in the cost of lithium-ion batteries.

44:09

And that's really brought down the

44:12

cost of EVs so that they're

44:14

more affordable. The upfront costs are

44:16

still a bit higher

44:18

than the internal combustion engine

44:20

upfront costs, but the overall

44:23

costs of ownership are comparable.

44:25

You know, that depends a bit again on the types

44:28

of models and the features you're looking for and so

44:30

forth. And then if we look at the growth in

44:32

the market for EVs, you really

44:34

do see this exponential growth

44:36

across different markets. Some

44:38

countries are further advanced in that,

44:40

along that growth curve. So Norway,

44:42

for example, China, the EU more

44:44

so than the US, but even

44:47

in the US we see exponential

44:49

growth. So although there

44:51

is a lot of discussion about these short-term

44:53

changes, so the noise in those trends, when

44:56

you look at the overall trends, that's what

44:58

you see. And I think that

45:00

will continue. Now the question about

45:02

policy and will policy change, of course

45:04

we can't answer that right now, but

45:07

changes to policy could have important

45:09

impacts. As I wrote in that

45:11

Newsweek piece that you mentioned, policy

45:14

is really important for ensuring that

45:16

this transition is equitably beneficial to

45:19

citizens in the US and to

45:21

people living in the US and

45:24

in other countries as well. Because

45:27

there has been public funds going

45:29

into the development of these technologies

45:31

because they provide this benefit to

45:33

society of reducing greenhouse gas emissions

45:35

and because we don't have a

45:37

price on carbon, so that externality

45:39

is in price. So the technology

45:41

has improved, but it's more accessible

45:43

to wealthier individuals. You really need

45:45

that policy to even things out so

45:48

that it's more widely accessible. You

45:50

also need that targeted funding

45:53

and electric vehicle charging infrastructure,

45:55

and this can be particularly

45:57

important again for less wealthier.

46:00

households and households that

46:02

would like to purchase one car for

46:04

all of their uses. And that's overall

46:06

better for the environment. It's also a

46:08

necessity for many people. And of course,

46:10

if you don't drive a car and

46:12

you bike and you take public transit,

46:14

that's the best option for climate change.

46:17

But the third reason that policy is

46:19

really important is to determine national competitiveness.

46:21

So if we want to really

46:23

stay competitive, become competitive in

46:26

these rapidly developing markets and

46:28

the EV market, the charging

46:31

infrastructure market is no exception, then

46:33

the way to go is

46:35

really to support that development.

46:38

And so the policies that

46:40

have been adopted also are

46:42

targeting that national competitiveness. So

46:45

those three reasons are, I think,

46:47

strong arguments for policy in

46:49

this space because the markets are changing no matter

46:51

what. I mean, regardless of what government does, it's

46:53

just, again, this question of how quickly is the

46:56

change going to happen? Is it going to be

46:58

fast enough to address climate change? And then who's

47:00

going to benefit? And are we

47:02

putting government funds in the right places

47:05

to benefit society? Yeah, and

47:07

the benefits around, I mean, we can take the

47:09

Justice 40 lens, we can take the number of

47:11

lenses, is just one example. It's like, who has

47:14

access to the opportunities presented by the transition? And

47:17

how are we thinking about the risks and where

47:19

those impacts will come? Going back to something, I

47:21

don't think I didn't know this. I just think

47:23

it was in front of my face when I

47:25

was thinking about energy systems 25 years ago,

47:28

let's say, it's just a bull hark. Every

47:30

single thing we do has trade offs. The energy transition

47:32

involves building a lot of stuff. Every one of those

47:34

things has trade offs. We are switching one set of

47:36

things for another set of things in

47:38

some cases. And overall, we're making those

47:41

choices that they are better for us

47:43

in our lives. So not mitigating climate change,

47:45

worse than mitigating, but there's still trade offs

47:47

with that, which is really important point. Something

47:49

I'll say, Jessica, I actually got a cracked

47:52

windshield on my Tesla. Man, it was a big

47:54

rock that caught it. Had to go get that

47:56

windshield. I like the phrase windscreen, I will say,

47:58

after living in Europe. I think it's a good one,

48:00

so Ed, just shout out to you for that. But

48:04

the windscreen got replaced yesterday, the cameras got

48:06

all calibrated. Walking in and out of the

48:08

service center, which is very conveniently next to

48:10

a train station that connects to the city,

48:12

I loved that. That was amazing, were a

48:15

bunch of tussles for lease. And

48:17

I was looking at this number three in front

48:19

of the, you know, it was like 359, 379,

48:23

those types of numbers. And thinking about my

48:25

monthly cost around the fuel, I put in my

48:27

car and all this other stuff and I was

48:29

like, wow. These were pretty fancy tussles that I

48:31

was looking at. They looked pretty fancy, but it

48:33

was just thinking about how the overall ecosystem has

48:36

changed, grown, and how the technologies combined

48:38

with the incentives have put us in

48:40

a position where not everyone still, there

48:42

are lots of barriers, absolutely, but more

48:44

people have the opportunity to benefit from

48:46

this technology than did in the past.

48:49

And I'm curious to see what we're

48:51

going to do to practically accelerate the

48:53

access to those opportunities to access to

48:55

these technologies moving forward. The

48:57

final thing I just wanted to talk about

48:59

very quickly, because there's something else that you

49:01

work on just going really interesting, but just

49:04

like to address briefly, is you're searching

49:07

to soft costs, which seems like

49:09

a huge sort of underexplored issue

49:11

in the energy transition. Do

49:14

you want to explain what you're working

49:16

on and what the significance of it is? Because

49:18

I think it's really interesting. Yeah, so

49:20

we started to look at soft

49:22

costs because they're a really important

49:25

part and a high

49:27

fraction of the total costs of clean

49:29

energy projects today. So they can be

49:31

up to 50% of the cost of

49:34

installing and completing a construction project in

49:36

the clean energy space. And just a very

49:38

basic thing, what is a soft cost? What

49:40

counts as soft and what doesn't? So

49:43

let's start with the costs

49:45

of hardware are the costs

49:47

of the physical technologies that

49:49

you install as part of a project.

49:52

The soft costs are everything else.

49:54

So it's the cost of the

49:56

labor to install those pieces of

49:59

physical hardware. It it's be a

50:01

cost of let's see their delays

50:03

and permitting. There's. A cost

50:05

associated with that. There's an overhead and

50:08

so forth. It's the

50:10

cost of interconnection. Delays.

50:12

There's always some amount of delay, but if

50:14

that's extended, you have costs with kind of.

50:17

Keeping these projects going

50:19

and maintaining these. Firms and

50:21

and their activities and so forth. and so

50:23

those are all sauce costs. But when we

50:25

started to look at south cause we realized

50:27

that it was useful ten a break this

50:30

whole question down at a different level because

50:32

we are looking at you know what gives

50:34

rise to the south cause. We. Found

50:36

it was more useful to think

50:39

about hardware and soft technology and

50:41

the features of those and I

50:43

won't go into the bit complicated,

50:45

but south costs are affected by

50:47

the features of hardware and soft

50:49

technology. But what's really slowing the

50:52

improvement and sauce costs is the

50:54

sauce technology. and so that's really

50:56

everything that we can put in

50:58

the bucket of codified knowledge that

51:00

provides a service. But it doesn't

51:03

take on a physical form so

51:05

it can be information. Contained in

51:07

software, it can be information shared orally

51:09

among a group of people. It

51:12

can be written down as a checklist

51:14

and it's what you need to install

51:16

hardware and a construction project for example.

51:18

So we started looking into that and

51:20

it turns out it's. Super important

51:22

for determining. The costs of

51:24

these projects and I think it

51:26

can be improved. But. We

51:29

haven't been modeling at explicitly, so that's

51:31

fled. We propose that way to do

51:33

that with my colleagues West Magdalena play.

51:35

Moon was a former a graduate student

51:38

in our professor at the Hong Kong

51:40

University of Science and Technology. Also

51:43

with ducks and padlock and James

51:45

Mcnerney who are. At. Them

51:47

brought Oh Group and Lincoln Logs respectively.

51:49

And former group members to. zoc

51:52

is be with think book

51:54

soft also from think about

51:56

regulation dealing with processes and

51:58

getting permits secure and all that

52:00

kind of thing. But from what you're saying, there's a lot more

52:02

to it than that. It's a broader issue. Yeah.

52:04

So it's the cost of customer

52:07

acquisition. It's the cost of labor.

52:10

And what I should say

52:12

is another important reason to consider

52:14

soft technology is that you don't

52:16

necessarily want to bring down all

52:18

soft costs. There are certain variables

52:20

defining soft technology that you actually might

52:22

want to increase, like wages. But

52:25

you might want to also improve

52:27

the efficiency of tasks. Many

52:30

people working in these projects report

52:32

that they would like to avoid

52:34

delays. So it actually decreases worker

52:36

satisfaction to have these delays that

52:38

increase the soft cost. So this

52:40

is another reason why we want to look

52:42

at soft technology and the variables underlying those

52:45

costs, because when we're thinking about improving technology,

52:47

we want to think not just about cost,

52:49

but of course, other factors like job

52:52

creation, job quality, worker satisfaction,

52:54

and so forth. And so at the highest level,

52:56

then, do you have any conclusions yet about, as

52:58

you say, addressing those, perhaps not all

53:00

the soft costs, but certainly the ones

53:02

that ought to come down, addressing them

53:05

in order to reduce the cost of

53:07

clean energy overall? I think

53:09

there's a lot we can do.

53:12

And some of the policy efforts

53:14

around increasing the rate of allocating

53:16

permits is really important. There are

53:19

firms that are working on reducing

53:21

delays in their processes and codifying

53:24

information better. From a research

53:26

perspective, we're working on modeling these soft

53:28

technologies to really identify where the challenges

53:30

are and where we could do better.

53:33

This, by the way, is also really

53:35

important for nuclear fission, but many other

53:37

clean energy projects as well in

53:39

solar energy, wind energy, electric vehicle charging,

53:42

and so forth. But by being more

53:44

deliberate about how we're addressing soft technology

53:46

as researchers, but then also firms, I

53:49

Think you can make a lot of

53:51

progress. And When we see the companies

53:53

that are winning the large contracts for

53:55

offshore wind for charging infrastructure expansion, they

53:58

are ones that it looks like. It

54:00

again some of the city it as

54:02

proprietary but it looks like they are

54:04

ones that have more effectively develop their

54:06

soft technologies. I think part of. What?

54:09

We need to do is to sign a

54:11

light on this issue, be more deliberate about

54:13

the soft technology and really innovate and this

54:15

area by modeling it through innovation in the

54:17

private sector. I think we're going to see

54:19

start ups and. Mature. Company is

54:21

perhaps focusing more deliberately on these

54:23

issues. This challenge of soft costs

54:25

obviously isn't new, but I think

54:27

we have the potential now with

54:30

access to information, the ability to

54:32

store information, better software, even Ai

54:34

that can allow us to make

54:36

more progress on this issue. Not

54:38

everything can be put into software.

54:40

There are other kinds of soft

54:42

technologies that are gonna remain in

54:44

that Us clean energy ecosystem for

54:46

a while I expect and those

54:48

can also be improved, but you

54:50

can. See improvements to had deliberately

54:52

adopting. Certain kinds of software. So. Had

54:55

one example and. Having the

54:57

right in line with are you have lots

54:59

of costs is my hero out I one

55:01

of his have been over the heat pump

55:03

money to permit that permit process will take

55:05

three six neat and thing hunting more than

55:08

forty eight hours because he knows those places

55:10

at eighteen or we have actual process and

55:12

that can be screen applications and do essentially

55:14

automatic approvals were to straightforward you're taking you

55:17

home heating system in converting it to electric.

55:19

Here's the center. These news do. As long

55:21

as you've done that nearby since contractors, etc

55:23

you should be good to go. I'm oversimplifying

55:26

the process. But essentially transitioning into be automatic

55:28

instead of having have multiple people revealing it's

55:30

which just takes time and a lot of

55:32

labor workforce which Having worked in government I

55:34

mean you're always trying to figure out how

55:36

you can best use the resources you have.

55:38

A trial is limited so that when it's

55:41

beyond a soft costs raid, the time just

55:43

makes it so I don't end up replacing

55:45

the thing I have with a brand new

55:47

tack. in some cases like not gonna wait

55:49

that long to get it done such as

55:51

one example that at I live. with the

55:53

work that i do just fascinating subject but as

55:55

she rolls royce or bruising zone as would be

55:58

interesting and i to think we should come back

56:00

to it in a future show. Unfortunately,

56:02

we do have to leave it there. Jessica,

56:04

just before we let you go very quickly,

56:06

do you have a free electron for us,

56:08

a personal item you brought in? I

56:11

guess I just wanted to mention that it's

56:13

been really interesting to see over

56:16

the years how the discussion of

56:18

these topics has really made it

56:20

into the popular press, into topics

56:23

of conversations at

56:25

social gatherings. In government,

56:28

there's a lot more knowledge.

56:31

In the last presidential election season, there was a

56:33

lot more coverage of climate change and energy. Overall,

56:36

I'm optimistic that these issues are

56:38

becoming more widely known, more widely

56:41

discussed. That's just a thought I

56:43

wanted to leave with after this

56:46

discussion that we've had. Yeah,

56:48

that is a great point. Thank you very much

56:50

for your contribution to increasing public understanding by talking

56:52

to us today. Although actually, I have a caveat

56:55

to that, which is going to be my free

56:57

electron. But Melissa, before I get to that, what's

56:59

yours? You can set that up. I

57:01

want to know what your free electron is. I think you

57:03

go next. I'll go after you. What are you about to say?

57:06

Mine is a complaint about the lack

57:08

of public understanding as expressed

57:10

in the final episode of True Detectives

57:12

Season 4, which was in general quite

57:14

a controversial show. In general, I very

57:16

much enjoyed it. I thought it was

57:18

terrific. I enjoyed the final

57:20

episode, the De Noumont I thought was actually

57:22

very clever. But there was something that very

57:25

much annoyed me right at the end where

57:27

I think we discussed this before. Maybe not

57:29

with you, Melissa, on the show, but I've

57:31

been talking about how the mining company is

57:33

the big bad guy in the seasonal one

57:35

of them part of it. Apologies for spoilers

57:37

there. Everyone hasn't seen it yet, but I

57:39

think it's not a massive surprise if you

57:42

see it. Anyway, this mining company is described

57:44

as polluting at levels that are, I think

57:46

they say, 11 times greater

57:48

than are allowed by the UNFCCC

57:50

and the Vienna Convention. I'm afraid

57:52

that did kind of set my

57:54

feelings jangling a bit. I mean,

57:57

the UNFCCC, as we all know,

57:59

does. not work like that. Doesn't

58:01

say it limits on pollution. Certainly doesn't say

58:03

anything about local pollution. The Vienna Convention also

58:05

says one from 1985, that's one about the

58:09

Ozid Layer, it's the original sort of

58:11

convention, say that the world needed to

58:13

do something about CFCs and so on.

58:15

So anyway, just like linking

58:17

that to mine pollution just kind of

58:19

raised my hackles a bit. It wouldn't

58:21

have been that hard to find something

58:23

that was right. Why did they have to

58:26

just get it so totally worldly wrong?

58:28

So that's, as I say, when I'm

58:30

writing the angry letter in Green Ink

58:32

to complain to the producers of True

58:34

Detective and the HBO Network, I'm going

58:36

to be saying, generally you did okay,

58:38

but that was a bit of a

58:40

bum note that I did not really

58:43

appreciate. Oh, Emily Grubert, if you're listening,

58:45

I think it's you that I've nerded out with about

58:47

this, but when we see infrastructure in movies, no, I've

58:49

nerded out with Emily and a lot of other people

58:51

actually about this one. And you see a power plant

58:53

and they're like, oh, it's a nuclear power plant. And

58:56

you're like, nope, coal, you know,

58:58

or no, nester gas or nope, something

59:00

else. There was one, I can't,

59:02

oh, I'm gonna have to find this movie and

59:04

rewatch it. And I'm thinking from memory, I didn't

59:06

like it because they had a geothermal power plant

59:08

and they called it a coal power plant. And

59:10

I was just like, no, no,

59:13

it's not. Like, I was just one of

59:15

those things where I love it when TV

59:17

shows and movies and stuff get like science

59:19

advisors and technical advisors, whatever it is, it

59:21

could be someone who's worked in politics, advising

59:24

on West Wing or something like that. Overly

59:26

dramatic, not just pushing the edges, those types

59:28

of things, but on the tech, it's like,

59:30

nope, that's not a nuclear power plant. You're looking

59:32

at right now. It's a personal pet peeve of

59:34

mine. So there you go. But I

59:37

have something way less. Well, no, I'm not gonna

59:39

say it's way less cool. It's a different type

59:41

of cool than something connected to pop culture ed.

59:43

I appreciate it. I've never watched any true detective.

59:45

We'll discuss that offline. Maybe I need to maybe

59:47

I don't. But I just want to give a

59:49

shout out to Harry Kennard, who I work with,

59:51

the Center on Global Energy Policy, but I've worked

59:53

with him for a number of years. He actually

59:55

supported work that I did with Ian Hamilton and

59:58

a bunch of people from the University College. and

1:00:00

the Lancet countdown saw the work I do

1:00:02

in public health and climate and energy and

1:00:04

how we think about the co-benefits of going

1:00:07

to net zero. But the shoutout I'm going

1:00:09

to give is that Harry actually submitted some

1:00:11

formal comments in response to a Department of

1:00:13

Energy request because the DOE is proposing a

1:00:15

national definition of a zero emission building. And

1:00:17

we all know how important definitions are to

1:00:19

setting up things from then on. Like what

1:00:21

is it? How do we define it? I

1:00:23

remember giving a TEDx talk, oh good night,

1:00:26

12, 14 years

1:00:28

ago, where it was like what is the smart grid? Let's

1:00:30

talk it out. You know, we think we know what

1:00:32

we're talking about, but are we saying the same thing

1:00:34

with the definition? So it's available online for anyone who

1:00:36

wants to read it, but it was responding to questions

1:00:39

like are the draft criteria from the DOE appropriate for

1:00:41

defining a zero emissions building? Should there

1:00:43

be any other criteria? And what is

1:00:45

the role of energy efficiency? Like where does that come in?

1:00:48

How required? How important is it? You could have a

1:00:50

zero emission building that was, you know, a leaky sieve,

1:00:52

is it where it came into insulation as an example?

1:00:54

But is that really what we're going for? You know,

1:00:57

how should we think about building performance? But Harry, and

1:00:59

then also Ian Hamilton, who I mentioned from UCL,

1:01:01

who works at the Center as a Distinguished Visiting

1:01:03

Fellow here at Columbia, they are experts on the

1:01:05

built environment, the buildings we live and work in

1:01:07

every day, and they work around the world on

1:01:10

this. So just a big shout out to Harry,

1:01:12

and if we have listeners who are really into

1:01:14

how we define zero emission buildings, how we think

1:01:16

about the future of the built environment, just would

1:01:18

point you towards that. It's available on our website.

1:01:21

And that is really cool. You're right.

1:01:23

Arguably even cooler than the true detective

1:01:25

series. Different cool,

1:01:27

different kind of cool. So

1:01:30

we do unfortunately have to leave it there, but

1:01:32

thanks very much Melissa for joining us. Thanks,

1:01:35

Ed, really enjoyed the conversation. Jessica, thank

1:01:37

you very much indeed for joining us. Thank

1:01:39

you so much. Thanks for having me. Yeah,

1:01:41

thanks a lot. I hope we will see

1:01:43

you again soon. And thanks to our producers,

1:01:45

Sam Nash, Roxy Abraham-Khan and Toby Biggins-Gillchrist. And

1:01:47

above all, of course, many thanks to all

1:01:49

of you for listening. Please do keep your

1:01:51

feedback coming. Find us on all the usual

1:01:53

social media platforms. And we'll be back in

1:01:55

two weeks with all the latest news and

1:01:57

views on the image transition. Until then, goodbye.

1:02:00

Bye.