America's public energy conversation
boils down to this question:
Would you rather die of A.) oil wars,
or B.) climate change,
or C.) nuclear holocaust,
or D.) all of the above?
Oh, I missed one: or E.) none of the above?
That's the one we're not normally offered.
What if we could make energy do our work
without working out undoing?
Could we have fuel without fear?
Could we reinvent fire?
You see, fire made us human;
fossil fuels made us modern.
But now we need a new fire
that makes us safe, secure, healthy and durable.
Let's see how.
Four-fifths of the world's energy
still comes from burning each year
four cubic miles of the rotten remains
of primeval swamp goo.
Those fossil fuels
have built our civilization.
They've created our wealth.
They've enriched the lives of billions.
But they also have rising costs
to our security, economy, health and environment
that are starting to erode, if not outweigh their benefits.
So we need a new fire.
And switching from the old fire to the new fire
means changing two big stories about oil and electricity,
each of which puts two-fifths of the fossil carbon in the air.
But they're really quite distinct.
Less than one percent of our electricity is made from oil --
although almost half is made from coal.
Their uses are quite concentrated.
Three-fourths of our oil fuel is transportation.
Three-fourths of our electricity powers buildings.
And the rest of both runs factories.
So very efficient vehicles, buildings and factories
save oil and coal,
and also natural gas that can displace both of them.
But today's energy system is not just inefficient,
it is also disconnected,
aging, dirty and insecure.
So it needs refurbishment.
By 2050 though, it could become efficient,
connected and distributed
with elegantly frugal
autos, factories and buildings
all relying on a modern, secure
and resilient electricity system.
We can eliminate our addiction to oil and coal by 2050
and use one-third less natural gas
while switching to efficient use
and renewable supply.
This could cost, by 2050,
five trillion dollars less in net present value,
that is expressed as a lump sum today,
than business as usual --
assuming that carbon emissions
and all other hidden or external costs are worth zero --
a conservatively low estimate.
Yet this cheaper energy system
could support 158 percent bigger U.S. economy
all without needing oil or coal,
or for that matter nuclear energy.
Moreover, this transition needs no new inventions
and no acts of Congress
and no new federal taxes, mandated subsidies or laws
and running Washington gridlock.
Let me say that again.
I'm going to tell you how to get the United States
completely off oil and coal, five trillion dollars cheaper
with no act of Congress
led by business for profit.
In other words, we're going to use our most effective institutions --
private enterprise co-evolving with civil society
and sped by military innovation
to go around our least effective institutions.
And whether you care most
about profits and jobs and competitive advantage
or national security, or environmental stewardship
and climate protection and public health,
reinventing fire makes sense and makes money.
General Eisenhower reputedly said
that enlarging the boundaries of a tough problem
makes it soluble by encompassing more options and more synergies.
So in reinventing fire,
we integrated all four sectors that use energy --
transportation, buildings, industry and electricity --
and we integrated four kinds of innovation,
not just technology and policy,
but also design and business strategy.
Those combination yield
very much more than the sum of the parts,
especially in creating deeply disruptive business opportunities.
Oil costs our economy two billion dollars a day,
plus another four billion dollars a day
in hidden economic and military costs,
raising its total cost to over a sixth of GDP.
Our mobility fuel goes three-fifths to automobiles.
So let's start by making autos oil free.
Two-thirds of the energy it takes to move a typical car
is caused by its weight.
And every unit of energy you save at the wheels,
by taking out weight or drag,
saves seven units in the tank,
because you don't have to waste six units
getting the energy to the wheels.
Unfortunately, of the past quarter century,
epidemic obesity has made our two-ton steel cars
gain weight twice as fast as we have.
But today, ultralight, ultrastrong materials,
like carbon fiber composites,
can make dramatic weight-saving snowball
and can make cars simpler and cheaper to build.
Lighter and more slippery autos
need less force to move them,
so their engines get smaller.
Indeed, that sort of vehicle fitness
then makes electric propulsion affordable
because the batteries fuel cells
also get smaller and lighter and cheaper.
So sticker prices will ultimately fall to about the same as today,
while the driving cost, even from the start,
is very much lower.
So these innovations together can transform automakers
from wringing tiny savings
out of Victorian engine and seal-stamping technologies
to the steeply falling costs
of three linked innovations that strongly reenforce each other --
namely ultralight materials, making them into structures
and electric propulsion.
The sales can grow and the prices fall even faster
with temporary feebates,
that is rebates for efficient new autos
paid for by fees on inefficient ones.
And just in the first two years
the biggest of Europe's five feebate programs
has tripled the speed of improving automotive efficiency.
The resulting shift to electric autos
is going to be as game-changing
as shifting from typewriters to the gains in computers.
Of course, computers and electronics
are now America's biggest industry,
while typewriter makers have vanished.
So vehicle fitness
opens a new automotive competitive strategy
that can double the oil savings over the next 40 years,
but then also make electrication,
and that displaces the rest of the oil.
America could lead this next automotive revolution.
Currently the leader is Germany.
Last year, Volkswagen announced
that by next year they'll be producing
this carbon fiber plugin hybrid
getting 230 miles a gallon.
Also last year, BMW announced
this carbon fiber electric car,
they said that its carbon fiber is paid for
by needing fewer batteries.
And they said, "We do not intend to be a typewriter maker."
Audi claimed it's going to beat them both by a year.
Seven years ago, an even faster and cheaper
American manufacturing technology
was used to make this little carbon fiber test part,
which doubles as a carbon cap.
(Laughter)
In one minute -- and you can tell from the sound
how immensely still and strong it is.
Don't worry about dropping it, it's tougher than titanium.
Tom Friedman actually whacked it as hard as he could with a sledgehammer
without even scuffing it.
But such manufacturing techniques
can scale to automotive speed and cost
with aerospace performance.
They can save four-fifths of the capital needed to make autos.
They can save lives
because this stuff can absorb
up to 12 times as much crash energy per pound as steel.
If we made all of our autos this way,
it would save oil equivalent to finding
one and a half Saudi Arabias, or half an OPEC,
by drilling in the Detroit formation a very prospective play.
And all those mega-barrels under Detroit
cost an average of 18 bucks a barrel.
They are all-American, carbon-free
and inexhaustible.
The same physics and the same business logic
also apply to big vehicles.
In the five years ending with 2010,
Walmart saved 60 percent of the fuel-per-ton-mile
in its giant fleet of heavy trucks
through better logistics and design.
But just the technological savings in heavy trucks
can get two-thirds.
And combined with triple to quintuple efficiency airplanes,
now on the drawing board,
can save close to a trillion dollars.
Also today's military revolution in energy efficiency
is going to speed up all of these civilian advances
in much the same way that military R&D
has given us the internet, the Global Positioning System
and the jet engine and microchip industries.
As we design and build vehicles better,
we can also use them smarter
by harnessing four powerful techniques
for eliminating needless driving.
Instead of just seeing the travel grow,
we can use innovative pricing,
charging for road infrastructure by the mile, not by the gallon.
We can use some smart I.T. to enhance transit
and enable car sharing and ride sharing.
We can allow smart and lucrative growth models
that help people already be near where they want to be,
so they don't need to go somewhere else.
And we can use smart I.T.
to make traffic free-flowing.
Together, those things can give us the same or better access
with 46 to 84 percent less driving,
saving another 0.4 trillion dollars,
plus 0.3 trillion dollars from using trucks more productively.
So 40 years hence, when you add it all up,
a far more mobile U.S. economy
can use no oil.
Saving or displacing barrels for 25 bucks
rather than buying them for over a hundred,
adds up to over a trillion-dollar net saving
counting all the hidden costs at zero.
So to get mobility without oil,
to phase out the oil,
we can get it efficient and then switch fuels.
Those 125 to 240 mile per gallon equivalent autos
can use any mixture of hydrogen fuel cells,
electricity and advanced biofuels.
The trucks and planes can realistically use
hydrogen or advanced biofuels.
The trucks could even use natural gas.
But no vehicles will need oil.
And the most biofuel we might need,
just three million barrels a day,
can be made two-thirds from waste
without displacing any cropland
and without harming soil or climate.
Our team speeds up these kinds of oil savings
by what we call "institutional acupuncture."
We figure out where the business logic
is congested and not flowing properly,
we stick little needles in it to get it flowing,
working with partners like Ford and Walmart and the Pentagon.
And the long transition is already well under way.
In fact, three years ago mainstream analysts were starting to see peak oil,
not in supply, but in demand.
And Deutsche Bank even world oil use could peak around 2016.
In other words, oil is getting uncompetitive even at low prices
before it becomes unavailable even at high prices.
But the electrified vehicles
don't need to burden the electricity grid.
Rather, when smart autos exchange electricity and information
through smart buildings with smart grids,
they're adding to the grid valuable flexibility and storage
that help the grid integrate
varying solar and wind power.
So the electrified autos
make the auto and electricity problems
easier to solve together than separately.
And they also converge the oil story
with our second big story,
saving electricity and then making it differently.
And those twin revolutions in electricity
will bring to that sector
more numerous and profound and diverse disruptions
than any other sector,
because we've got 21st century technology and speed colliding head-on
with 20th and 19th century institutions, rules and cultures.
Changing how we make electricity gets easier
if we need less of it.
Most of it now is wasted
and the technologies for saving it
keep improving faster than we're installing them.
So the unbought efficiency resource
keeps getting ever bigger and cheaper.
But as efficiency in buildings and industry
starts to grow faster than the economy,
Americans' electricity use could actually shrink,
even with the little extra use required
for the efficient electrified autos.
And we can do this just by reasonably accelerating existing trends.
Over the next 40 years, buildings,
which use three-quarters of the electricity,
can triple or quadruple their energy productivity,
saving 1.4 trillion dollars, net present value,
with a 33 percent internal rate return
or in English,
the savings are worth four times of what they cost.
And industry can accelerate too,
doubling its energy productivity
with a 21 percent internal rate of return.
The key is a disruptive innovation
that we call integrative design
that often makes very big energy savings
cost less than small or no savings.
That is, it can give you expanding returns,
not diminishing returns.
That is how our 2010 retrofit
is saving over two-fifths of the energy in the Empire State Building --
remanufacturing those six and a half thousand windows on site
into super windows that pass light, but reflect heat.
plus better lights and office equipment and such
cut the maximum cooling load by a third.
And then renovating smaller chillers instead of adding bigger ones
saved 17 million dollars --
a capital cost which helped pay for the other improvements
and reduce the payback to just three years.
Integrative design can also increase
energy savings in industry.
Dow's billion-dollar efficiency investment
has already returned nine billion dollars.
But industry as a whole has another half-trillion dollars
of energy still to save.
For example, three-fifths of the world's electricity runs motors.
Half of that runs pumps and fans.
And those can all be made more efficient,
and the motors that turn them
can have their system efficiency roughly doubled
by integrating 35 improvements, paying back in about a year.
But first we ought to be capturing bigger, cheaper savings
that are normally ignored and that are not in the textbooks.
For example, pumps, the biggest use of motors,
move liquid through pipes.
But a standard industrial pumping loop
was redesigned to use at least 86 percent less energy,
not by getting better pumps,
but just by replacing long, thin, crooked pipes
with fat, short, straight pipes.
This is not about new technology,
it's just rearranging our metal furniture.
Of course, it also shrinks the pumping equipment
and its capital costs.
So what do such savings mean
for the electricity that is three-fifths used in motors?
Well, from the coal burned at the power plant
through all these compounding losses,
only a tenth of the fuel energy
actually ends up coming out the pipe as flow.
But now let's turn those compounding losses around backwards,
and every unit of flow or friction that we save in the pipe
saves 10 units of fuel cost, pollution
and what Hunter Lovins calls "global weirding"
back at the power plant.
And of course, as you go back upstream,
the components get smaller and therefore cheaper.
Our team has lately found such snowballing energy savings
in more than 30 billion dollars-worth of industrial redisigns --
everything from data centers and chip fabs
to mines and refineries.
Typically are retrofit designs
save about 30 to 60 percent of the energy
and pay back in a few years,
while the new facility designs save 40 to 95-odd percent
with generally lower capital cost.
Now needing less electricity
would ease and speed
the shift to new sources of electricity, chiefly renewables.
China leads their explosive growth and their plummeting cost.
In fact, these solar powered module costs
have just fallen off the bottom of the chart.
And Germany now has more solar workers
than America has steel workers.
Already in about 20 states
private installers will come
put those cheap solar cells on your roof with no money down
and beat your utility bill.
Such unregulated products
could ultimately add up to a virtual utility
that bypasses your electric company
just as your cellphone bypassed your wireline phone company.