Welcome to everyone. Sally and I would like to welcome you to the first Stanford Global Energy Dialogue. We are living in extraordinary times. Since the beginning of this year, the world has changed dramatically. To understand this unique moment in history through the lens of energy, we at Stanford are starting a series of conversations about the future of energy. To set the stage for today's dialogue, the global pandemic has thrown the world not only into a global health crisis, but also major economic crisis. As of May 28th, 40.8 million Americans had filed for unemployment claims. Although last week saw some improvements, we have a long way to go. Unemployment rates have exceeded that of the Great Recession, and in some states it has approached those found during the Great Depression. This economic challenge must be addressed immediately. Since energy use is the foundation of all modern economies, can the energy sector play a role in short-term recovery process? And if so, how? We will explore this issue in our conversation. Now, there are mid to long-term issues that cannot be ignored. With the growth of global population and economy, there will be an increasing demand for affordable and secure energy. At the same time, rising concentrations of carbon dioxide and pollution in the atmosphere pose a threat of another kind. Unabated emissions are driving the world to a point where decadal to century scale climate disruption could place the world in economic and health crises even more challenging than the current pandemic. We must address this dual challenge of energy access and climate change in the immortal words of Reverend Martin Luther King with the fierce urgency of now. Does the current pandemic offer a rare opportunity to re-evaluate our approach and define a new normal? So just to get the audience going, we're going to launch a poll in a quiz. In a pre-pandemic business as usual scenario. Please note, pre-pandemic business as usual scenario. How many years do we have left before the world exceeds the CO2 emissions budget to keep the global average temperature rise below 2°C with a 50% probability? Is it less than 10 years? 10 to 20 years? 20 to 30 years? Or more than 30 years? So we're going to give 30 seconds before we close this poll for all of you to respond and then we will reveal the answers at the end of the opening remarks. Right. So let me continue. Putting people back to work by rebuilding a new clean energy infrastructure can go a long way towards these goals. What does the energy system of the future look like? What kind of jobs are needed? How fast can we move? And how can we help the world accelerate the transition to a cleaner, modern energy infrastructure that supports both economic development and a healthier world? This is the new normal we want to explore in the series. So joining us today for this conversation is the Honorable Ernest Moniz, the 13th U.S. Secretary of Energy from 2013 to 2017. He was the founding director of the MIT Energy Initiative and is currently the CEO of the Nuclear Threat Initiative. He's also currently the CEO of a nonprofit called Energy Futures Initiatives, where he leads a team of experts providing policymakers, industry leaders, NGOs and other leaders with analytically based unbiased policy options to advance a cleaner, safer, more affordable and more secure energy. We really cannot think of no one better to kick off our global energy dialogues. He has recently argued in an op-ed and in Congress that rebuilding a new and clean energy infrastructure could and should play a role to preserve existing jobs and create new ones, ones that are better than the previous jobs, and ones that would help us prepare for the future. After Sally and I finish our conversation, we will have a student from the Stanford Energy Club continue the dialogue. They are representing the thoughts, ideas and questions of other energy clubs around the country. And finally, Sally and I will hold an open Q&A session. So let me hand over to Sally now. Well, good morning or good afternoon or good evening, no matter where you are in the world, we're delighted to have you here with us. What I'd like to do is reveal the first poll so if we could pull that up so that we can all take a look. So the question was in a pre-pandemic business as usual scenario, how many years do we have left before the world exceeds the CO2 emissions budget to keep the global average temperature below two degrees C with a 50% probability? Okay, so we've got answers less than 10 years, okay, that was the majority, 10 to 20 next, 20 to 30 next, and then finally one degree C. So the answer is 20 to 30 years. So clearly, you're all very concerned about the urgency of this issue and rightly so. But yeah, so a little bit longer than the average there. So as I'd like to just jump right into our discussion with Secretary Moniz, so thank you again for being here. I'd like to start off with that COVID-19 has shown us just how vulnerable we are to global economic disruptions. And as Arun mentioned earlier, many have made parallels to climate change, making the case that we need to accelerate getting to net zero emissions. You have thought about this a lot. So what will it take to accelerate the pace to net zero, and what is the right pace of change, and what does this new clean energy system look like? Thanks Arun and Sally. First of all, let me thank you for giving me a virtual visit back to my alma mater for this for this discussion. And also let me say that in terms of the COVID and climate parallel, I think I would also emphasize that both present a tremendous need for what you would call risk management. And frankly, we have shown that we're not doing very well in that in either case. You know, in terms of the COVID, this is the sixth epidemic pandemic in this century. And we have not actually moved to respond very well. So on the climate side, I think one of the things we need to conclude and draw as a lesson is that first of all, we better listen to the science. And second of all, we better take much more seriously our approach to risk management. Now, in terms of the pathway, I think it's and the time for change, you asked about what's the right pace of change, the right pace of change is fast and now, and we are not exactly doing that. So we need to pick up the pace dramatically. Now, the pathway to net zero saved by mid century and I believe that that is certainly for the industrialized countries at least the kind of goal that we need to succeed at in terms of the pathways. The pathway starts with efficiency energy efficiency, and then with decarbonizing electricity, where we have in fact made a lot of progress in terms of efficiency. I would just note that the, if you take only the appliance standards equipment standards that were put in place in the Obama administration to get a scale. We're talking about nearly three gigatons of CO2 by 2030, and we're talking about over half a trillion dollars of energy savings. So in other words, that's the and that's not even counting. Let's say in the transportation sector cafe standards and the like. So this is a very, very big deal and something to which of course we all can can contribute quite quite directly on electricity. So worth noting that in the United States, the electricity sector, which we've always thought is the lead horse in getting to to a low carbon economy. We are beyond 25%. So we're making some good progress. And many of our largest utilities are beyond 40% in terms of CO2 emissions reductions. So this is a critical sector. We are seeing leadership in this sector. We are seeing the opportunities for electrifying other sectors as a pathway for the for the economy as a whole. However, let's talk even about electricity, and I'm going to be very blunt. We see lots of statements about electricity decarbonization by 2030 based upon wind solar and batteries. I'm sorry. This is what I term magical thinking. It cannot happen in that way and in that time scale. For example, in terms of the wind and solar approach, we did as you're sitting there at Stanford, we did a deep dive in terms of California's approach to deep decarbonization. And one needs to look at the data. One finds that wind. It's terrific when it blows, but what about the nine and 10 days in a row when there was no wind solar. It's not surprising. It shouldn't be surprising that the solar resource is twice as much in the summer as in the winter. So all we're saying is that there are large variabilities. These will be critical components of getting electricity to zero carbon. But we need, frankly, an assault across the board on all approaches. So renewables and batteries, yes, but we need storage for longer time periods in a few hours. We need to really push on carbon capture and sequestration. It's not universally popular, but we need it. Frankly, we found in California that nearly 20% of their goal in 2030 probably has to come from CCS in the electricity and the industrial sectors. We need to start getting hydrogen really deployed. We need to have negative carbon technologies deployed. What we need, in my view, is this decade to be the decade of all out innovation and deployment. With that, we can, I think, decarbonize electricity, certainly by 2040 maybe maybe a bit earlier, which would be great. But then to remember that we also have all those other sectors, transportation, industry, buildings, agriculture. And I'll just make two points there without going into the specifics to say that as I already noted with the CCS in electricity, the number of those technology directions, CCS, carbon dioxide removal, hydrogen, those will also be critical tools for the economy. Why decarbonization that we are going to need. So really pushing on that is important. And finally, I may have gone on too long and it's a respond to your question. But finally, to say that net zero. Is the right goal, let's say from mid century deserves having an emphasis on the word net. The word net means that it's practically a tautology that we will need significant negative carbon technologies. This is a place where we have barely scratched the surface, certainly in terms of getting scalable solutions. And I don't mean by this only direct air capture, I mean other approaches, biological approaches, for example, mineralization, accelerated mineralization, etc, etc. That this is a now feeding back. This is a good example where if we don't make the all out innovation push in this decade to get a whole portfolio of negative carbon technologies available. I don't see how we make net zero in 2050. And certainly by definition, we cannot get to the negative net emissions economy that we want to have later later in this century. So I think that's kind of the, it's the right goal. We got a lot of work to do. Let's roll up our sleeves. Let's get on the innovation and the deployment. Get that train moving right now so that by the 30s we have a lot more tools at our disposal to manage to manage to meet our goals. Okay, well, thank you. Thank you very much for that very comprehensive answer. What I'd like to do now is quickly launch another poll, which will tee up to be the next, the next topic. So how many Americans are employed by the energy sector and energy efficiency sectors. And if you could answer quickly, you've got, let's say less than like 25 seconds from now, and then we'll quickly reveal the answer that will pave the way to a deeper discussion on that topic. All right, so a wide range of answers again, two and a half million 4.2 million 5.7 million and 7.1 million. Actually, those are terrific answers. So if we look at the energy and energy efficiency industry, that's about 5.7 million. And if we include the auto industry that will add another two and a half million. So depending upon how you were thinking of that question, I'd say you well did really well. Okay, let's let's close the poll and turn this over to everyone. Thank you, Sally. And thank you, Ernie. I mean, this is a university so we have to use polls and quizzes. That's what we do. Let's only just following up on your on the numbers that you gave and the idea that the next decade is going to be critical for energy innovation, as well as for deployment. Let's take stock of that in the context of the economic recovery that we have to introduce now. So let's take stock of that. The 5.7 million people in employed in the energy and energy efficiency sector, 37% of which are in construction, 13% are manufacturing. And these sectors did not regain the job losses in the 1999 Great Recession, and they are at high risk right now. And you have argued, as you just did that, you know, energy innovations and energy recovery are are pretty are intricately, you know, involved in this so you have formed something called an energy jobs coalition with the AFL CIO, and have proposed six priority areas. So let me take the first three you said number one, energy efficiency and climate resilience. Number two, energy infrastructure, and number three, incentives so clean energy technology investments. So I was wondering if you could connect the dots between this energy innovation the next decade thing on one hand, and our economic recovery that we need to go through right now. One question Arun. One of the activities that we have carried out at the energy futures initiative, in fact, has been an annual US energy and employment report. I might I might say that some of those numbers that are out there the 5.7 million for example, you cannot derive from the conventional Bureau of Labor statistics numbers it's worth, it's worth indicating that because for example, an energy efficiency job does not exist in the in the official way of organizing the workforce, because for example, while there are 2.4 million energy efficiency jobs, about half of those are scored as construction jobs for for as as as one as one example. So so it's big, but I think for the purpose of your question. It's even more interesting to note that over the last five years. The job growth in the energy in these energy sectors that you described has been over 12%. Of course, that's during what I would call and I think you would agree is the very early stages of the energy transition that we are going going through to to low carbon. That 12 plus percent is is is an interesting number when compared to the economy wide number of 6% job creation. So one of our arguments is that, frankly, the energy transition is a high leverage situation for job creation. And boy, do we need job creation over these next this next year or two. You mentioned the larger unemployment claims. We all understand that those jobs are not just all going to snap back. The stock market might snap back, but the jobs will not so easily snap back. So, so our argument is let's combine. Let's put these threads together and start that big push we need in this decade in this energy transition, heading towards where we want to go anyway, you know, Wayne Gretzky go with a pucks going to be but doing it in a way that will have tremendous job implications right now. So we think that's that's extremely important now. You mentioned the our partnership with labor well, it's a natural development in a certain sense, given our focus on jobs. In fact, I want I'd like to say that we can discuss this more later if you wish, but one of the things at the energy futures initiative that we have put forward is our framework for thinking about these issues is what we call the green real deal. The green real deal starts by the adopting the fundamental principle of the Green New Deal. And that is that we must pursue our low carbon future and social equity together. I think that that's the case, a because it's the right thing to do, but be also because if we don't address the social equity issues that includes this jobs these jobs issues. We're going to have headwinds for that for that transition. We're going to make tailwinds and tailwinds come from getting broad coalitions together, labor and industry, finance groups and environmental groups, the Democrat and Republican, we could go on and on, in terms of the kind of coalition we need. But that that social equity dimension must always be in the foreground. So that's why we have emphasized very strongly the question around jobs and good jobs and why we've gone into partnership with the AFL CIO to both support the low carbon transition and make sure that that jobs are part of this. Now, in that energy jobs coalition as you mentioned, we kind of have six pillars, the first one around energy efficiency and and climate resilience. And there, just to take an example, one example of what we think we should push on right now to satisfy those multiple objectives. Modernization and efficiency upgrades of the enormous number of public buildings we have across the country in both urban and rural settings. One reason why that is a very interesting direction is not only for the energy issues, but also because to the extent to which we remain concerned about the virus. About rebounds in the virus. About returning to situations where isolation is even more important. Well, think about it. Public buildings typically don't have people in them for large parts of the day. Perfect time, perfect opportunity to do these major modernization and efficiency upgrades. So that's just an example of how both the long term and the short term issues can come together. I'll give another example of long term and short term. I mentioned earlier that developing carbon capture and sequestration is is very important. And it is and we need to move on it quickly. And by the way, one reason for moving on it quickly is because today there are with strong bipartisan support major tax incentives, as long as the project start, no later than 2023. Not very far away. In other words, again, there's a short term impetus for something that will have long term implications. But think of it in terms of the jobs. Well, as everyone knows, it's it's it's very volatile. But we are in a situation where the oil sector, for example, has been heavily impacted by the demand reduction that results from the COVID virus. Now the reality is that sector was under substantial pressure before the virus. In the United States, we all know that the entire shale production based upon debt accumulation, as opposed to cash flow was being looked upon poorly by the financial financial sector. The oil sector we understand will be having a secular change throughout this energy transition. So what's the connection to carbon capture and sequestration. The skill set is largely the same. The geographies will be largely the same. So in other words, as we have transitions in the oil sector will also have transitions in the CCS sector, which can solve our carbon and our jobs issues if managed properly. Here's the couple of examples in terms of how these longer term and short term issues fit in. Now we also mentioned energy infrastructure. That was our second pillar that that you referred to. And clearly there are major issues like grid modernization where we could have a tremendous focus on getting real, certainly on the pilot scale and larger projects are going, we can address the, the national need for a charging infrastructure for electric vehicles for hydrogen, etc. But let me give you another example, and in the same spirit of this short term and long term. I think the very interesting development of community solar projects. Especially living in dense urban environments, you don't have a lot of rooftops, for example, but community solar where you find patches of ground of land that can support megawatt or five megawatts of solar and be bought into by citizens in different living environments is a very interesting developing direction. Let's again talk about the issues of the virus. Well, you know, while entries into homes for putting up rooftop systems may be still uncertain in many people's minds, building a nice community solar project, perhaps close to a disadvantaged neighborhood. And we've seen that I've seen that personally in Detroit, for example, employing local labor is a way again where we we check so many boxes at once, we need to think creatively along along these lines, and coven may may may focus our minds on that. The third pillar, I think we've already touched upon is that about innovation. And it just that there, I think we could do more for example, I think we could have a real focus on rapid prototyping of new energy technologies. And that could be done with new arrangements with our DOE national laboratories. You know, it can be also technology transfer inwards in the sense of providing the capacity for entrepreneurs to move much more quickly into the prototyping stage that can that can lead to further capital accumulation for those projects. In fact, one very specific one and I, I mentioned it since a room we know your special fondness for RPE. Well, maybe there really should be some follow on RPE grants that go to this prototyping stage. For example, there's so much that we can do and unleash in what I think, again, needs to be this decade of really juiced up innovation. I think this has started something called a scale up program, which is precisely what you're talking about. But let me hand over to Sally, and I know you have some follow up on this. You know, I've had one more actually I wrote sorry before handing it over just, I would say in that that thing as well. I think so many of these projects along their development scale could really use some help in the front end engineering design period. So those gaps in the feed studies in the prototypes. Again, I think are something that we could see some frankly stimulus like support for. Yeah, I mean, you're right that, you know, we always think of R&D as upfront and then later on the industry R&D is all throughout it's not just right up front. I mean, that's the research part but the the D part continues. And I think you need the R&D support all throughout the process of scale up as well. Yes. Sally. Yeah, so so actually you had a six part six part plan with your energy jobs coalition. And the way I think of these are a little bit more that not the what so much but the how. So these included laying the groundwork for clean energy industries of the future clean energy tax incentives, and very importantly, workforce development, which gets to the equity issues you talked about. And then also how does the whole package fit together. Well, I'm laying the groundwork. The point is that in some of those areas we've already discussed, like CCS, like hydrogen like technology enhanced. Carbon removal, multiple pathways that we should be thinking about these not just as kind of, you know, new products, new processes, etc. These are new industries. I kind of alluded to that in this idea of how the CCS and the oil industries share many of the same techniques. And it's literally like building another industry, which would have enormous job job creation implications. So I think it's more thinking in that way. And I think when one thinks that way. There might be going about things in a different way than we are now. Again, I think I would say a good example is, is hydrogen. I can't say for sure and I think you cannot either that hydrogen plus carbon free electricity will be the backbones of the very low carbon or net zero economy in 2050 but I think it's a, it's an interesting candidate, certainly to do that because hydrogen will then replace in many some of the fuels requirements that we have in industry and in, and in, in, in transportation. But I think what we should be thinking about right now is, what can we be doing through policy and through support to build the hydrogen market across the economy. Not just the question of any in California I'm, I'm in no way suggesting that it isn't a good thing but you know putting up a few hydrogen filling stations for the very few fuel fuel cell vehicles that are there is not what I would call having a an integrative view of building a hydrogen economy. And this for example one of the things that we've recommended for example, is starting out by, by focusing on a set geographically distributed set of hydrogen hubs, where you start and you incentivize the supply and the use of hydrogen in so many different ways across the economy. You know, in a certain sense, hydrogen could play the role of natural gas today of an extremely flexible fuel. In fact, one might jokingly I suppose call hydrogen as carbon free methane, but, but, but again the idea of focusing on building the market structures is what I would call building an industry of the future. So I think that's very important on the on the tax incentives on the on the incentives. We've already mentioned the CCS incentives, etc. But I would say the incentives incentives take many forms, one that I would strongly advocate for and have advocated for, and we think could be part of a future stimulus package. And I think one of the advantages of building an industry out of the COVID hole COVID economic hole would be take advantage of the $40 billion left of DOE loan authorities. We worry about building energy infrastructure a lot of the things we've already talked about. There's $40 billion that can be deployed at very, very low interest rates of course now interest rates are low anyway, but, but there are. There is value. Nevertheless, even now with having the certification if you like, from a program like that. And also I think I'm at least not confident that that interest rates will stay across the economy, the place, the place where they are now. So that's there, however, there's a problem. The credit support for those loans through appropriations was very narrowly defined in terms of some renewables technologies. Let's open that up. In fact, let's open it up and do another of my favorites that we made a little progress on in 2016, when I was still secretary. We really need to get a major push on clean energy on Indian land. Where we still have in this country. A lot of people without significant electricity availability. Let's use that kind of a program, but with credit support to do that. So again, we can pursue this low carbon and the social equity agendas in parallel. And, and I think that's the winner. That's what that's what's going to get us home in a time scale that we that that we need. Last pillar was workforce development. And there, I want to say that the number one issue of workforce development and I believe my, my partners in, in, in labor and the FLC IO, etc would strongly support this. The number one workforce development issue is create jobs create the jobs will have the workforce development. For example, when we made the announcement of the partnership the FLC IO, President Trump of the FLC IO emphasized that the labor unions in the United States, despite we all know that they their their footprint has has shrunk in the last decades, really since the 80s. But still, after the military, they do more job training than anybody else. They have well established apprenticeship apprenticeship programs. Why invent new wheels. Support those programs to go forward, the way they have proved themselves to be very, very effective. So that's just one example of workforce development as I say, it really all goes back. Get those good jobs out there. And, and, and the workforce development will happen. Sure, it could use a little more push from the from the from the government. But first priority get the jobs and the workforce will follow. Okay, well, terrific. You know, clearly we need a comprehensive strategy if we're going to achieve our goals to accelerate decarbonization and getting to net zero in time. I want to switch directions now and let's let's go beyond the US and talk about global issues and the US role and leadership. In particular, you were instrumental in launching mission innovation at the Paris agreement. And how is that going? And are we on track to double R&D funding for clean energy. And, you know, just briefly what what would you consider some of the highest priority R&D means that perhaps you haven't mentioned so far. Well, I probably have mentioned the highest priority ones so far. But, but first let me let me just maybe give a brief statement about mission innovation what it is since I'm sure not all of the those who are tuned in are aware. In 2015 at the Paris COP meeting that of course produced the Paris agreement. By definition, on the last day of the COP meeting. Another event occurred, and I will say only partly tongue and cheek, which may prove in the long term to be more important. The, and that is that on the first day of the Paris meeting, when the national leaders were in fact present that included President Obama, that 20 countries at that time announced a commitment to at least to try to double their clean energy R&D efforts within the United States. A big lift, obviously, but, but recognizing that we needed this big innovation push that I said, well, now we need to start it now. Clearly, we're not on track for that doubling in five years. However, it's interesting that in the United States in the pre COVID world. And now I don't know what's going to happen obviously, particularly as we have trillions of dollars, necessarily added to the to the deficit. But it's been interesting in the last several years. If you look at the data in just the right way. You might say that we were on a doubling pace in 10 years. And what's very encouraging to me is that, while the administration consistently proposed reducing those R&D budgets, very substantially, the Congress in a bipartisan way would have nothing to do with it. And in fact, increased the budget substantially. RPE would be one example of, I think in the last several years a room correct me but it's probably been about a 60% increase perhaps in the budget that at ballpark. Roughly, but right. Yeah. So, so I think the, I think it's important to emphasize, certainly in the US context that there is a very strong bipartisan foundation for this innovation push, going back to the international arena. It's been spotty in terms of different countries, making progress towards the goal, and some, some, some really not. But I would say that there are other elements of a very, very positive outcomes. One of the ones that I really liked was a very early on in mission innovation, Canada and Mexico are both members of mission innovation, as was as the United States of course. And so very early on, already starting in 2016. There was the movement to have some trilateral some North American initiatives. And it was interesting that that Mexico took the lead. There was a support from in particular the Berkeley laboratory, but took the lead in holding a initial workshop on looking at accelerating the pace of introducing new materials for energy through high throughput means combined with machine learning. And that really kind of took off and Canada got got very, very much involved in it. So I think the idea is and there are others. Certainly the US is involved with Saudi Arabia in leading a CCS initiative, for example. And it's been certainly in that sense, positive, positive outcomes, in addition to at least some increase in the, in the, in the innovation budgets, in terms of other areas that are ripe for that. I would add what I've already mentioned, the negative carbon technologies. This is clearly something that everybody has to have a strong interest in. Only because as I said it's the only way to get to a net negative economy later in the century. But I think it is going to be essential, starting much earlier than that. It provides tremendous additional optionality and flexibility for what will still be the lead requirement of mitigating mitigating emissions, but that is a ripe area for mission innovation to to take up and I at least will keep proselytizing for that. But I want to emphasize that mission innovation, when it was announced in beginning of the Paris meeting in 2015 did have a second feature. And that was a explicit. It's funny it's not it's not an alliance maybe called an association with venture capital. And in fact, when the national leaders took the stage in Paris, after they did their leaders thing. Bill Gates was called to the stage to represent a number of individuals wealthy very wealthy individuals for many continents who were who were there to say, look, when you countries. Open up the innovation pipeline with those increased investments and those coordinated investments, we're going to be ready to pick up the products and invest in them and take risk and get them out there. And I believe you know it took a little while to get going, but I believe it's going.  But I sense more generally, and I'm not saying it's all causal to mission innovation, but I am but I am sensing a return to clean tech 2.0 in the in the innovation world. What is happening at the early stage the venture stage, but it's also going now through new groups. Frankly, I'm part of one looking at the growth capital stage. What happens when these when these technologies they go through the prototyping. They established themselves in an early with an early commercial foothold. We need another zero or two at the end of the at the end of the string of dollars in the growth capital stage. I'm seeing all of that now I think coming forward. And if we make this big innovation push in this decade. I think it's going to unleash tremendous amounts of capital all across all across the innovation chain and come 2030 we're going to be seeing the fruits of that. We're building to start scaling in serious ways. Some of these new technologies. Yeah, yeah, that's terrific. I couldn't agree with you more. I think it's never been so exciting, you know, the innovation ecosystem. You know, we are immersed in it at Stanford and I know at MIT there's a very active entrepreneurship culture. So I'm going to turn it over to a room now, and he will take it from here. And this is kind of the last question before we hand off to the students so just to kind of step back from the moment historical moment we are living through. I mean, this is the global pandemic of 1918 and 19, plus potentially a very large economic crisis, all coming at the same time and of course interconnected. And my question to you is, looking back in history on similar kind of crises, whether it was the pandemic, the Great Depression, World War two post World War one. I would ask the question, are the lessons learned in terms of new organizations that were created new ways of doing things. For example, as you pointed out, after the Great Depression, there was the Civilian Conservation Corps, rural electricity electrification and the Tennessee Valley Authority, Montevill Power, that happened at that time that has led to a huge amount of growth. Post the Great Recession, there was ARPA-E that was created. But if you look back at World War two where, you know, people realize that this is a pretty crummy world that we're living in. Millions of people have died, lots of the global economies and shambles, but we are all in this together. I mean, it is a global issue and various global organizations got created like WHO, as well as World Bank, IMF, and many other United Nations, etc. So if you were to suggest something now, given this and taking a pause, what would be the new organizations that we need globally or domestically? What kind of governance should we be introducing? Can you give us your thoughts on that? That's a tough one. First of all, let me go back to the Great Depression. You said it, but I would just add the word hydro explicitly. And we are still, of course, major parts of our country are still benefiting from the very, very large carbon-free, quotes source. In fact, hydro has remained our biggest renewable until just recently when wind just kind of nosed in front. And also on the Great Recession, and of course you were part of the 2009 DOE team, you mentioned ARPA-E, you know, I think that's, you could have mentioned a few other things as well, you know, Arun, besides your organization. For example, but I actually, I want to say that there was, again, a very, very serious, of course, push on clean energy there. ARPA-E was part of it, but another very important thing I thought was kickstarting the energy frontier research centers, six of them, mostly at universities, looking at the hard problems for, hard science problems for energy technology, but also the loan program I referred to earlier really got kickstarted at that time as well. And it's had a number of, I mean, many successes in my view, but probably the most prominent one being at a time when debt was very hard to come by to really kicking off the utility-scale solar business in this country, which is now, I don't know how many, it must be 75 or 80 now, utility-scale solar installations in the country. So the Great Depression, the Great Recession have had tremendous impact on what effectively is the clean energy transition that we need today. And so for the reasons we said earlier, including the jobs, etc., this is the time to really push forward. Now, on terms of, and also I would add the mentioned in the Great Depression, electrification of essentially every home in the country, more or less, a bit less actually, as we said earlier, but tremendous increase in rural electrification. I would just add again, and I would put it partly in that social equity basket, as we move out now, addressing rural needs is really important. We all know about the issues of broadband access needed there. Again, COVID showed the inequities that can come with the kind of arrangements we've had to make during COVID. Some people just don't have the access to, and that's both urban and rural, to the necessary equipment and internet, etc., to take advantage of. So we have a lot to do there. On institutions, well, one institution, and I have to give credit to my colleague, Melanie Kendredine, who has proposed that maybe we need either a department of rural development. We have HUD for urban development, maybe we need right now rural development, either separately or as a newly enhanced part of agriculture. That would be an example of an institutional change that, for the United States, that would be very, very important. Now, globally, clearly after World War II, United States took the lead in establishing all kinds of unique institutions, financial institutions, also in the security space, NATO. I think, unfortunately, people today, even today, forget how unique NATO is in terms of an alliance of countries that would move pretty much in the same way together for collective security. Unfortunately, I think today we would all probably think that we've seen some weakening of those of those institutions. And I think probably the first answer to your question is to reestablish the strength of those institutions as a foundation for what we do going forward. Certainly, to get the clean energy transition to happen globally. And you said it, it's right. COVID and climate are two issues that if you don't solve them everywhere, you don't really solve them anywhere. And for that to happen, boy, we are going to need some real change in the financial structures. And if these organizations are weakened, that will impact very, very directly our ability to move Africa, Southeast Asia, other parts of the world into the robust clean energy economy that we need. As far as new institutions, globally, I'm not sure that we need to go there. But certainly, we need to increase our collaboration to go there. Again, if we take, if we take Africa, another of these linkages that's not thought about. I might say that I'm truth and advertising. I'm a co-chair of something called the Global Commission to End Energy Poverty, which together with the CEO of the Rockefeller Foundation who was supporting the initiative, Raj Shah, and the CEO of the African Development Bank. One of these connections that has become very clear to this working group. Not that it's not that it shouldn't have been understood before but with the COVID situation. When you have a serious public health system, absolutely needed if you're going to be able to control pandemics earlier, early, without reliable electricity. So, Ernie, I think we have, we have only limited time left and so maybe if you could just answer and then we'll move because we do want to give students some time. I don't want to interrupt. I was just saying that in Africa, that's a situation that needs to be corrected on the energy side and on the health side. Thank you, Ernie. And we have now we'll let's hand over to the student. Juliana is going to come on board and we have actually quite a few questions lined up for you from the from the audience. So, sorry, I go once alone. No, no, no, this is great. This is absolutely terrific and you get us on the set us on the right tone. Juliana. Yes, thank you very much for the introduction Professor Majumdar and thank you Secretary Moniz for being here to kick off the entire dialogue series today. So as Professor Majumdar mentioned, this portion of the dialogue will be a chance for Secretary Moniz and also our future guests of honor to answer some pre submitted student questions. And in the spirit of the session being part of the global energy dialogues, these questions are coming not only from students from all 50 states and US territories, but also energy clubs all across the globe. That in the interest of time we'll keep it to just one maybe two questions. And so our first question are probably most highly asked question was, in the context of advancing a more sustainable national and global economy. What are some of the underrated and underdressed problems that you'd like to see more young people consider incorporating into their future career paths. Well, I think the first thing to emphasize and and hopefully your set of students who are plugged in right now reflect this. Often we think about, you know, innovation in technology as being kind of the answer and it is absolutely central to the answer. And what I want to emphasize is that innovation in just about every discipline is going to be needed to to address the issues we're talking about. We're going to need innovation in business models. We're seeing that already in many ways and transportation for example, but only scratching the surface. We need innovation in in policy and regulation. We need innovation and understanding and understanding social structures. So, I think, I think this is a problem to be addressed that we need to have students in a completely multidisciplinary way, understanding that they all have important parts of the solution. So, in terms of the question, I just almost repeat what I just said that for example, I don't think we have nearly enough research right now in the social sciences to address the kind of transition that we need an energy so that's one very very broad arena. Within within the technology space, something I've already alluded to several times I would repeat. And I think that this is to phrase it most broadly. How do we not just stop them at least the vast majority of emissions mitigate. How do we fix the atmosphere. How do we fix the ocean that we have in both cases managed to to use a technical term screw up. Because I think that that, you know, thinking big about these kinds of problems is is is really important. And carbon technologies are just one, one of one of that set of set of activities. That's definitely helpful reminder, especially as students a lot of time it's very easy to get stuck in the release focus very much on the day to day of every little brick that we're working on but certainly zooming out every once And you're a chemical engineer right so you're actually you know I'd like to make a plug here, I may to all the students and frankly all the others as well all the non students. I recommend that you go to YouTube and look at the 12 and a half minute commencement speech given virtually by Admiral Bill McRaven at MIT couple weeks ago. You know, Adam McRaven. He is the former head of he was a Navy SEAL former head of Special Operations, including during the during the period when some have been modern was brought to justice, shall we say. But he gives a very impassioned speech about the graduating students he was talking to MIT students but more broadly, as the heroes from your ranks will come the heroes that we need. He emphasizes that there's no Captain America or Wonder Woman, you have to be your own heroes. And besides being smart, he emphasizes moral courage, humility, perseverance, integrity, compassion. And I think you you'd be well served to look at it and it kind of that's what we need from this group of of of students because you're the ones that got you're the ones are going to have to do this. actionable device. Thank you for that. And zooming out for one final student question. Very generally, what is the best piece of advice you've ever received or what is one piece of advice you'd give to your younger self at the very start of your career. Um, I think I was lucky in the sense that the advice I would give myself beginning of my career was advice I followed, not knowing that it was good advice, maybe but I followed it instinctively. And that was that I really have a passion for what you want to do to solve an important problem. And you, and you got to have fun doing it. And when you have those the prospect of those two things coming together. Don't be cautious. Go after it. And, and I, I won't go into it but I very respectfully, I chose not to follow the advice of my PhD advisor in terms of where I went. In my career, I've probably changed careers in a certain sense four times.  You have, you'll have plenty of help staying in a silo. If that's your choice.  That's my advice. Excellent. So those are unfortunately all the questions that we have time for today, but on behalf of all the students in the global energy community, we're certainly glad that your own career path has led you to where you are today, and to this dialogue with us as well.  Thank you very much. Thank you, Juliana. So let's go on to the questions from the audience and they have been filtered and compressed and, you know, assembled in categories. So I think Sally, you want to go ahead. Sure. So you haven't mentioned nuclear power yet. So, so it's probably not a surprise we have a question about that. So the question is what is the probability and timing for new nuclear technology to become a big part of the energy future. Thank you for that. Actually, that was just an oversight. In fact, I should have included advanced nuclear in those industries of the future that we have to that we have to build, build and invent. So I think that the, the trend towards the smaller modular reactors is in fact very, very promising. Clearly, we don't know yet if, if, if they will succeed and in meeting economic tests, but there are various reasons to believe that they have first of all excellent safety and these are, by the way, I'm thinking about, you know, molten salt, high temperature gas, so called generation for reactors, although there is also, there are also interesting developments in light water reactors for small modular reactors. And I might add also micro reactors in the megawatts region, one to five megawatts, which can have very interesting applications. For example, in Canada, there's a very strong move towards certifying and deploying some of these so called micro reactors at things like remote mining sites, which could have a enormous impact in removing and removing greenhouse gas emissions. So I think the, I think we're on a path where I believe we will probably see some deployment maybe of light water reactors before the end of this decade, small, smaller ones and the gen four 2030 and maybe a little bit beyond. However, here, this also couples back to the earlier statement about some of the new approaches we need. We really need a major public-private partnership here for these technologies to get over the hump, or over the valley if you prefer, either way, that we have never seen so much innovation in nuclear fission in my view. But we've got to have some of those get across the finish line to at least being able to build one or two reactors to know what the techno economic performance is. And I say that in particular because one of the economic advantages of the small modular reactors or the micro reactors is that they could be they could be built on a manufacturing line in a plant and have much better kind of quality control and dedicated workforce than you have for these on site on site constructions. I want to add one more thing in word nuclear. We shouldn't forget and I truth and advertising I'm involved with one of these companies on the board, but I think there's also interesting promise in the fusion domain with novel, novel concepts. And we may not be so far from having the ability to at least have a significant scale prototype test of a of a of a fusion device. So nuclear has got a lot of promise still, I believe, for a low carbon future. I think just a really quick follow up. Does the US lead or or or where else. The US has got a lot of activity there I think we are, we are certainly up at the front of the pack, if not ahead but there is also work in in Europe UK there's working a lot of work in China. And, frankly, China does have the ability. It seems to fast track things a bit more than than than we do. So I think we need to pursue that. And in fact, since you raise that the global issue. The reality is, we also have national security issues to confront with our unfortunately kind of vanishing nuclear supply chain. We have, without being a major player in the international nuclear commerce. We will lose our ability to enforce non proliferation norms through our bilateral cooperative agreements. And domestically. It is a fact that today, other than living off of our do we stockpiles of enriched uranium. We do not have the capability to meet national security needs. We do not have the long term for naval propulsion submarines and aircraft carriers, or for elements of the nuclear weapons program. So, we really have to have to pay attention to our nuclear technology supply chain. Thank you. There's a question from the audience and this is about your comment on hydrogen. I think, I mean, we all agree that, you know, to get to carbon free fuel. Hydrogen would be, you know, a huge opportunity. There's a lot of R&D going on in hydrogen, reducing the cost of hydrogen production carbon free hydrogen production, whether it is electrolysis whether it is methane pyrolysis or steam methane reforming with carbon capture. What about hydrogen infrastructure to move it around. What about hydrogen storage, because we know that pipelines, you know there's a hydrogen embrittlement. There's a lot of problems with nimby issues with pipelines and permitting, etc. So, give us an idea of how do we address the infrastructure issues and hydrogen, both storage and transport, and long distance as well. In a cost effective way that to really bring this hydrogen economy together. That's really, really very, very, very important. The first in terms of the cost reduction of hydrogen production. I certainly agree with you and electrolyzer cost for example I've got a long way to go and they'll get there probably in a decade or so, although I think as you well know, both of you. And for splitting water for hydrogen, it will require, most of all, extremely inexpensive zero carbon electricity as as really an enormous cost driver for the electrolysis route at least. And I would say that is actually a less expensive way of producing low carbon hydrogen. And that's the kind of thing that we should be using as a bridge to build the hydrogen markets, especially in some parts of the country. It's not overtaken completely by, by, by other other other methods but, but we need to move now and we need to, as I said earlier establish those markets. Now in terms of the infrastructure. There is both R&D you mentioned the storage challenges, but also, I think on the, the transportation of hydrogen. So the central questions open. And this, these are the kinds of things we want to go on. For example, I think a lot of people automatically think about hydrogen in a pipe, but it could be that hydrogen is transported in a liquid. And then, you know, and then freed from the liquid at the more or less the point of use, for example. There's all kinds of molecules being discussed as the transport mechanism for for hydrogen. So I think that this is the case where there's lots of individual technologies and an enormous amount of systems analysis and systems technology that remains to be developed and settled on. And the thing is, in the end, what we can't afford is to have, you know, a cacophony of, we're going to need some standards for how this is done in order for it to be economy wide and economical. And that's the kind of thing that we need to pursue, in addition to things like the materials research for, for, for storage. So Sally has the last question, Sally, go ahead. Okay, so we've heard a lot of discussion that, you know, our new normal, you know, people are not commuting, people are staying at home, people aren't flying. So again, this is a question from the audience. You know, have you seen any signals that the pandemic and our economic response to it will accelerate a shift towards sustainability and our energy system. I think there's, there's, as, as the question says, I mean, as big open questions as to the extent to which remote working, for example, will become more of a norm, I think there's no doubt that there will be some element of that. I think today, I think I've seen estimates that today, approximately 50% of the workforce in the United States is working remotely using zoom, I guess, or whatever, whatever technology they choose. And I doubt we'll end up there. And that's a long, it's a long, it's a big distance between zero and 50%. And I think we will see a substantial shift there. I think that that will be associated, obviously, with likely with some fundamental impact on the airline, airline industry. I mean, good, frankly, good estimates of, of the, of the carbon impact of various scenarios that might emerge in terms of revised social structures. But I also note that there may be some other things that I've seen less talked about. I did say the COVID, while it while it has obviously had the contagion to be truly classified as a pandemic. It is the sixth major event of this century, starting with SARS in 2002.  The point being that I think many of us have always viewed public transportation as part of the sustainability solution. Now, I don't know to what extent the public is going to be shy of traveling in kind of compressed environments, shall we say, I don't know, maybe that maybe there is a even greater shift towards some of the micro mobility devices etc. So I think there are some very fundamental questions here about a social organization that we don't know the answer to yet, but, but I think we should be open arms to see what what makes the most sense. And then just to make sure that it goes in the direction of reinforcing the sustainability that we that we want to reinforcing the urban design that we need to see changed in my in in my view in the in the future. So these are these are big questions and I think it would be foolish. I think it would be foolish to make a prediction as to how it will look, but very important to explore the options and the flexibilities and the way in which low carbon will be part of the solution no matter what it is. I'm just going to ask a really quick follow up on peak emissions, you know, I think a lot of people have the dream that, you know, 2020 could represent the year for peak emissions in the context that, you know, we've already had this big disruption we've learned that we can live somewhat differently. I don't what do you think when do we reach peak emissions and could it be now.  Exactly. Yes, yes, the pre pre virus peak. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think that the, the industrialized countries. I think may have reached that point, especially that the comeback from from the economic hole we're in right now may not be to the same place that we were before I don't mean in terms of. I mean the economy will recover but I mean, maybe it may recover, for example, with some of these things we just mentioned, lowering overall overall emissions, and that we can sustain a downward downward trend. And to do that for the United States, I'll just say again industrialized United States. We clearly have to see the utility sector continue to be the lead and to be very, very aggressive on that. Many of the major utilities have adopted their own net zero goals but that's 2050. I think it's very important to see what's going to happen now to 2030 etc. And now it is, it is true that the virus has probably accelerated the closure of some additional coal plants. And so, you know the utility sector may may may be there. I think one of the issues is the still unresolved. This is a stream of consciousness but the unresolved issue of. What was I going to say the. Okay, I'll forget that statement. The he was the of the the some some unresolved issue. Oh, I'm sorry I know of cafe standards. That is, as I mentioned earlier for California but more generally, going back to the more stringent cafe standards. And as well for heavy vehicles. That's another important issue for the 2030 timeframe in term in terms of peak. Now in terms of other parts of the world. If I just flip all the way. The emerging economies are complicated by flip to the least developed countries. There is no doubt that that they will have increased emissions. And we'll need to have increased emissions, realistically, for a while.  We have some economic development, but at the same time, I think we're being penny wise and pound foolish in not doing a lot more to support the developing economies in employing a lot more renewables and and and other other low carbon have other low carbon opportunities. We've got to solve the, we can do that for electricity. But the heating and especially the cooking problems remain. So I think we have solutions out there. I think frankly, it's, we need to really get on with it and understand that it is a good investment to help that economic development in the least emissions trajectory as as possible. Certainly, I'll be to be straightforward. We know that China, for example, in as part of its belt and road is prepared to support the building of a lot of new coal plants southeast Asia. Why aren't we in there? Why don't we at least have gas plants gas plus renewables. It makes a huge difference as opposed to locking in now new coal plants in those in those countries, but we have not just not shown frankly the collective ability to to raise that in our, in our in our in our policy thinking. Anyway, I think that's certainly we have only two minutes left and so I know this conversation can go on for a very, very long time and they've been very good questions that have been posed by the audience and I don't think we'll be able to get to all of them and we apologize to the audience for not being able to get to it. But maybe we could just run I think you should have your students answer all of them. Yeah, there are actually the set of questions have been amazing and I've been following it in the Q&A and only a few of them have made it to the kind of the filtered stage. But let us first of all, thank you so much for taking the time and joining us today. It is your alma mater, a great kickoff to the Stanford Global Energy Dialogue, and we are so thankful to you to get a start here on this, and we are going to do this every two weeks, and then two weeks from now we'll have the 12th secretary of Stephen Chu, who is at Stanford to talk with us to have this dialogue with us, and we will continue with chat holiday and collect honorable and so and so forth we'll have it every two weeks in the Tuesday morning. So again, thank you all for joining us. Going back to your earlier question alone, you should ask Steve Chu how we spent all that money in 2009. I certainly will. And frankly, this is a very important issue. What were the lessons learned from that, right, the things that we should be doubling down on that went well. And what are the things that we should not be doing, based on the lessons learned in 2009 2010 on the Recovery Act. So, thank you again, and thanks to you and Sally for doing this here. Thank you all to all the audience for joining us and come join us again on June 23, 830 the morning California time.


Similar sound your mother made Hey, welcome back to our Steve Drax of Corbin I do screamo you follow some Instagram Twitter for more juicy content Thank you to everybody's sports on patreon false Twitter accounts grab like button Today we got a new trailer that dropped last night. I knew it and it's with a J Devgun in our Madhavan I felt it in my gizzard Hey, I didn't tell you to start yet But it's called shite Than shaitan shaitan Sounds it sounds German. Yeah, it's a German. That's a German curse word. Um, I don't know what it's about shaitan block and stinting No, shaitan Vashis you who's next Here we go Hello Horror Please My phone battery concocted I need that man out of the house I Is Yeah Yeah What rubbish It'll either be fabulous or horrible, yeah So the a lot of the horror elements look really cool My only concern is that if they make it to Bollywood ish, right? That's why I think in a similar way the jury is out here of a Disney film, right? In terms of like we're just a bad B horror film like making it the dialogue not what it should be right or stuff like that Right, but the horror elements look pretty good It does and my hope and it seemed to go that way toward the end Was that it's not as straightforward as we saw at the beginning which is she's simply been hypnotized I was hoping it's gonna take some supernatural bent which made that was made really clear I mean he might be possessor he might be the devil, but whatever shite. You may be shite. It's like a but yeah I mean it it could go either way this this could be really good This also could be really really like just off the charts typical It sucks sometimes you watch a horror film and it gets off to a good start and then all of a sudden it goes off the rails So, I mean rooting for it to be good. Let's see a timeless. I'm a Trivetti music. Yeah. Oh, yeah wait Plum do Pondu I don't remember if he was a boy. I don't remember either. Dosed. We'll say we'll say both. Dosed. Dosed A time of battle between good and evil with a family and botting Forces of righteousness while a man symbolizes. Okay. Okay, cool. Why do I know this name the Casabal? Oh He was This no, no, he was But I know that name we I think he's seen something he's directed before Is it Queen? Yes, so he directed Queen It says it's an adapted screenplay. Oh Really? So this is from a Story, I'm trying to see what other that actually is deeply encouraging because oftentimes a Story a book translated into film has quite good depth super 30 director. Oh Queen director And writer and then he was also but he was in so we've enjoyed both though. So that's good Yeah, but also he was director of this which was the Tiger film last year That was apparently one of the worst films of all year That's too we can't all be great, but we haven't seen it obviously So but that's kind of what it looked like. Yeah, it could be good. Yeah, but there's a queen It could be the worst Yeah, but we'll see I do want to applaud trying the horror though Not comedy the even though I think there was some comedy, but not like like the horror comedy that no, correct This looks like it's pretty straightforward. It looks like manhaven, which looks like he has a lot of fun playing this character brings some of the comedy obviously in it a J. Devgen I think has a Inkling for horror. Yeah, and I think he likes it because he's done it. Yeah, he's seen him in a few Least trailer-wise that we saw him obviously in the 90s and boot. Oh, what was the last thing we saw her in? her mm-hmm Jotica if that's a pronounce if I'm mispronouncing that my apologies and pre shirts couple of the core What am I thinking of you? Yeah, couple of the core Yeah, and then we saw her in yeah, that would have been the last thing and we've seen her in something before that as Well, I think we was she also in that she's so good at She was in that that one we saw earlier this year Arthra, right? That I don't remember but yeah Okay, but yeah, so she's in it. She's great obviously and so it does have a lot of elements of It could be very good my only concern is For lack of a better term it being too not focusing as much on the Correct dialogue that they it should be in terms of it should be pretty intense dialogue and And making it too for like a better term Bollywood eyes making it too pretty Instead of like it should be more gritty and Making the dialogue more family friendly You know and those elements and or just making it like a bad twist or yeah like that Yeah, other than that they look like it could have some really cool horror elements that I like the poster too The poster looks kind of cool. Yeah Obviously the and I love the premise of that girl being under his control to do whatever he's telling her to do a J it looked good Haven looked good and Jogitha right is her name right? Yeah, Geotica. Geotica correct. Looked good and I'm excited because obviously not like What maybe it's just more my style they should go the route that it looks like the Mammoody film Went in terms of like it's all intense, but that's Molly Elham cinema. It's just its own thing They don't have like any like oh we have to appease these masses or whatever commercially That's just what you would hope right but I do still applaud the fact that they're trying the horror Because you don't we're seeing it a little more. It's picking up some speed But you still need to do it correctly Because people like horror people want to see actual horror It's a it's its own genre that just Indian cinema for the longest time just hasn't explored And I think I would love to talk to a J for many reasons, but I that would be one of the questions I would ask I'd be are you do you have like a A soft spot for horror. Yeah, do you want to see Bali would do more of it and for obviously you to be involved? I would assume the answer would be yes. Yeah But And I like the name what does shaitan mean and it's again. What's it from because it's adapted Shaitan Some probably the devil I'd imagine an evil spirit specifically evil Johnny is this is what Yeah, and evil spirit. Yeah spirits So that makes sense. Yeah, I'm kind of like boot Which would be ghost. I think more trends literal But anyways, let us know you thought about it if you're excited for it what your thoughts on it are And anything else we need to know and which we are next horror if we're some that are good that we haven't explored yet Please let us know down below


You go to your kitchen, turn the knob on your stovetop, and wait about a minute. You start to notice that the pot of water you had on the stovetop begins to boil. And as a curious person, you ask, why did this happen? Why did the water boil? There's a particular method of thinking, a tool of critical thinking that is incredibly powerful and guaranteed to profoundly increase your understanding of the world. I call it zooming in and zooming out. And this is the example we're going to use of zooming in and zooming out, the pot of water boiling on the stove. But zooming in and zooming out can also be abused and is most often abused. People are too zoomed in or too zoomed out, and they actually lack understanding because they have the wrong resolution for their analysis of some phenomenon. So consider the water boiling. We say, why did it happen? OK, let's zoom in a little bit. Well, OK, well, what are all of the things that we're observing taking place in this example? Well, there's the knob on the stove. We notice that the orientation of the knob changes. And then we see underneath the pot of water, maybe there's a coil that gets red. And if we put our hands up, we can feel heat coming out of the coil. And then we notice it gets hotter and hotter and hotter. And the water seems to get hotter and hotter. And then eventually, the water boils. We've zoomed in a little bit more on the phenomenon we're observing. But let's zoom in even more. We say, OK, well, hang on a second. Why is it that when the orientation of the knob changes, it causes this red coil to get hotter and hotter? Why does that happen? And if we keep asking questions, we're already in the domain of something like physics, maybe even quantum physics, if we want a fundamental explanation for how does heat work. Imagine we zoom in even farther and we say, OK, hang on. Let's really try to grasp cause and effect here. Let's try to isolate in our minds all the variables and then just change one variable at a time to see if we can pick out cause and effect. Is it the case that actually turning the knob itself, the only the spatial orientation of the knob, is the thing that causes the water to boil? I think you can, if you think about it really, think through the logic of it, it's not actually the orientation of the knob, which makes the water boil. Like if you held everything else constant, just the orientation of the knob has no logical connection, no causal connection with the water boiling. And so the person who's too zoomed in concludes, aha, in fact, you cannot cause water to boil by simply turning a knob on your stovetop. You can see where that would be a mistake of resolution that it might actually technically be true that just the orientation of the knob doesn't change things. It's that one variable changes another variable, which changes another variable, which changes another variable, which ultimately results in the water boiling. That would be an abuse of zooming in. But let's do the same thing when we zoom out. So we've recognized that, OK, well, there are multiple variables at play that seem to be interconnected here. So maybe we're content with saying, well, we don't understand the laws of physics, but we understand there's some kind of connection between the turning of the knob, starting a chain of events which causes the water to boil. But why is it the case that that happens? Like, why should it be that thermodynamics is the way that it is? Do we understand why that's the case? We'll zoom out a little bit more. Well, we're talking about areas of physics here, maybe really big picture physics. What exactly is the cause of the laws of physics in the first place? And then you might end up with a question like, well, I don't know, the structure of reality is the reason for the laws of physics, or maybe the Big Bang ultimately caused the water to boil. And you ask, well, what is the cause of the Big Bang? You go, oh, well, it's God, or there is no cause, something like that. So somebody that's zoomed out too far might ultimately conclude, oh, well, what causes the water to boil? Well, God causes the water to boil. That might be true. God might have some truth to it, but it's probably not the correct resolution for understanding the phenomena that you're observing. I see the abuse of zooming in as the autistic mindset or the extremely mathematical mindset, the computer science mindset. It hyper-focuses on the logic of the thing, and then it very easily misses facts that systems are interconnected or that the assumptions of your little chain of deduction are probably wrong and connected to other areas of thought. Myself, I personally am constantly working on trying not to be too zoomed in. I've seen errors in my previous methods of thinking by being too far zoomed in and not recognizing that things are interconnected. I see the errors of zooming out coming from the stereotypical transcendentalist or mushroom eater individuals who go, look me in. Ultimately, all is one. It's all one thing. Everything is caused by God. So there's no detailed understanding of the world or how things actually function because they're observing the fact that, well, all of it is interconnected and they're content with that level of analysis. So, now, critically, both the zoomed in philosophy and the zoomed out philosophy have bits of truth. It may be very important. It might be incredibly important to go down to the most logical, finest grain understanding of some phenomenon in order to understand it. And it might be profoundly important to keep zooming out until you understand how the whole thing interconnects. But it's even more important to have both of those resolutions at the same time. So you can recognize, okay, this is true and it's zoomed in and this is true and it's zoomed out and here's how they interrelate. Unfortunately, I see that with formal education, it almost always disposes people to be too far zoomed in. They have some type of technical expertise, technical understanding of something and they don't even realize that some of those assumptions are probably mistaken or they come from other fields of thought or various fields of thought are interconnected and so the actual quality of their conclusions is very, very poor despite being technically educated because they have not zoomed out enough. It would be akin to somebody confidently saying, hey, listen, I have a degree in physics and I can tell you, you cannot boil water simply by changing the position of the knob on your stove. There's a kind of overeducation and over focus where they actually, their conclusions are completely wrong despite them having some very focused understanding of the truth. Because they missed the big picture, they effectively have built some theory that does not correctly explain reality. A good analogy might be literally like taking pictures of reality. If you try to understand the world, if you try to understand what Earth is by looking into a microscope and that's all of the pictures that you have of the world or what it looks like under a microscope, you're not going to understand what the world is. Similarly, if you try to understand what the world is by imagining what it would look like from the perspective of the sun, you know, if you're 90 million miles away from Earth and you're looking at it and you go, oh, I know what the world is. It is a blue dot and a field of black. You're going to be missing all of the details if you have various pictures of different resolutions. In fact, all of the resolutions are important because reality is very, very, very, very vast. So you want to have the microscopic, you want to have the macroscopic and the whole range in between. I hope you guys find that helpful. You'll find that over time, if you try to intentionally zoom in and say, okay, I'm going to try to understand the details of cause and effect here, your understanding will increase. And if you try to intentionally zoom out and say, okay, what are the other variables? How do they interconnect? Your understanding will increase. And then you may realize that this is kind of a primary skill in really having strong critical thinking ability is to manually and intentionally adjust your level of zooming in and zooming out.


Sup my friends how are we welcome back to yet another video today. We look at Bobby Wagner Number 29 on the list of the top 100 NFL players of 2022. He's always there over there abouts.   He's a linebacker Listed as playing for the Rams, although we haven't actually seen him suit up for them yet He was a seahawk. So was Russell Wilson as we can see on screen. Wilson's gone to the Broncos Wagster Has gone to the Rams. What are we gonna hear from the big man Russ Wilson about his defensive behemoth Bobby Wagner, let's see what makes Bobby so special is his consistency And I think that consistency shows up every day No one wants to play in snow. It's amazing the productivity from Bobby He'll go down as one of the best linebackers ever played this game consistent Bobby Wagner, he's still, you know, doing what he does. So you gotta give him respect there That's the thing. I think he came in the league in like 2013 and with that in mind, let's look up a stats Bobby Wagmeister aka Bobby Sorry guys, I actually wrote in Bobby Wagster Look am I laughing at my own jokes or I don't know. Anyway, Bobby Joseph Wagner Born July June 27th 1990 is 32 years of age Six foot even 242 pounds running round out there like an absolute beast Pick number 47 round number two of the 2012 draft been at the seahawks since being drafted in 2012 to 2021 Which means a 10 year career And he's just been traded or Entered the free agency. We will look at that I will look at that because you know a guy who's been a team for 10 years and then Goes in signs with another team Not only do I want to know the actual the money behind it that the financials behind the deal But I also want to know how it came about so With all that in mind You know, he's a Super Bowl champion. He's a six-time first team all pro participant selection in 2014 2016 2017 2018 2019 and 2020 And he made the second team all pro in the two seasons. He didn't make it in 2015 and 2021 So he's always been up there.  So, uh, yeah, look, you ain't getting past him. I'll say that much I don't know how he tackles and I'm not sure if it's a targeting type. I'm not sure if it's an arm tackle I'm not even sure if it's uh, if it's legal But he tackles and he's got 1,383 tackles in his career. That is the most we've seen thus far That is ridiculous. He runs a 40 yard dash in 4.46 seconds, which means he could play on either side of the ball Doesn't matter what position he's playing. He's going to be elite 39 and a half inches vertical jump 11 foot broad jump 24 reps on the bench. This is the most impressive athlete. We've seen thus far Not a doubt in my mind and if we have a look at how many games he's played 151 games 1383 combined tackles 23 and a half sacks 68 tackles for loss 60 passes deflected 11 interceptions With a return of 98 yards for a touchdown in 2018 Six forced fumbles nine fumble recoveries and three touchdowns off of Those fumble recoveries the the last of which came in 2017 So he hasn't scored a touchdown for a fair while But that doesn't mean he hasn't been an absolute dynamite player out there, which he indeed has he's played 16 career post season games Not including last year. Unfortunately. Seattle didn't make it But uh, look the man is absolutely everywhere and I will say he might have been in the league for 10 years But he hasn't slowed down He recorded his career high career season high 170 combined tackles last year in 16 games. He's he hasn't had a year with less than 100 tackles And the only reason he even got close is because he only played 11 games in 2014 He got 104 combined tackles when he plays the full season He's 100 plus tackles no doubt now if we look at his deal Following the 2021 season Wagner was named second team all-pro. Yep. We got that on march 9th 2022 a short four months ago Five months. He was released after 10 seasons with the seahawks. Now. I'm not sure why that was but He signed a five-year contract worth up to 65 million dollars with the los angeles rams on march 31st 2022 He's 32. He signed a five-year deal. He may well see out his career with the rams And uh, if he does he might even get the elusive career combined tackle Amount of 2000. Do you know what I probably did this last year? I can't remember But I have to look up NFL career combined tackle leaders. Let's have a look Who is leading the NFL in tackles? No, no I'm sorry NFL NFL all time. We got here. Oh my god Ray Lewis 1500 1568 is that combined? Or solo. Let's have a look. I'm assuming it's solo actually. Where's wagster? Hang on. Let's have a look at his um Let's go back here. What do we got? We've got solo 819 solo tackles They might be they They're most probably accounting total tackles As solo tackles, which would make sense. I guess 819 Where is he? Where is he? There he is bobby wagster aka bobby wagner 819 29th on the list at the moment So they don't really count combined tackles as far as tackle leaders, which you know Kind of pisses me off. I'm not gonna lie, but ray lewis leads that 1568 tackles.  It would have been to see him play What a pleasure it would have been but there we go bobby wagster, you know another good season. He might actually overtake the likes of eric weddle bryan dawkins and rodney harrison Only time will tell let's go bobby When I say about that truly relentless effort, he's a monster You know at this stage, he'd be pissed off if it was a combined tackle Like leave it to me, man. He's always been one of the best to do it since he came in the league and he's a ballhawk as well He's physical fast. He can do it all. That boy bobby putting on a clinic out on backer He could go around you Wagner wraps up look at that middle linebacker. You know just exactly the same as ray lewis captain of the defense Just watching waiting Firing up and brings him down. Oh, you could go through you. This is a heck of a bobby waggon when you have that type of linebacker You got to give a lot of respect to especially with seeing how you're going to attack him and block him Also a guy that could drop back and catch in the sessions For some reason the thing is Look, I don't know if he's still after 10 years in the league I don't know if he can still clock a 4 4 5 40 i dash, but he's got the speed Something that just comes out of the speed to do anything on the sideline. I got to watch it every time He's just popping out in zone coverage in the window All right, let's have a look and jimmy didn't see him and he catches the first one in the season You know just little things like that he always just shows that when he plays us let's go Time to get us up. He's a guy that I love playing against. I think it is We haven't seen george kittle on this list since the first video They're bringing him back in slowly but surely because he's he's bound to be in the top 20 I don't mind seeing george kittle, but what I will say is that Jesus been a while all the little things right he's flying around the field every single time great play by bobby waggon You're gonna have two guys on him. Hang on Hang on. He's got a tackle in the guard He's got one arm on each what's gonna happen here. He's still gonna figure out a way to make the play Bobby Wagner comes up the stick a shoulder pad in the gibson's chest teacher hall of fama He's always there and he's always making plays. Hey, they don't score No points. Hey, no points. He's one of those guys that you know, the older he gets it's almost like the better. He gets He's a very good player and you always know where he is for sure He's a phenomenal from time he came in as a rookie to now just a smart player Always in the right spot, you know making plays in the backfield He's so fast and so disruptive. You got to take at least a piece off of the guy. It's fast He has fast but furious in the past decade no player has taken down a ball carrier more than on pro linebacker bobby wagner In 2021 he recorded over 100 tackles for the 10th straight season That's what i'm saying, man Eat free season A streetkill look to continue as a los angeles ram I think he's one of the best players to ever play this game at that position And uh, just his ability to go get the quarterback. Jeez.  What a pick up the rams Oh, they're looking good this year again, aren't they? They go get the ball carrier. He's a force I always tell him that I have much respect for the game I love competing against him because I feel like he's one of the best in the game and he's been doing it for a long time Not bad not bad at all. All right, I won't keep you too much longer guys in the next video We look at quentin nelson aka mr. Pancake block. I'm lead to believe Um loves to paint the under eye area with the nfl paint I'm not quite sure what that's called. I did get I did get sent a little bottle of it actually By a friend of mine al back in the day uh never used it but um, certainly Certainly creates a certain look, you know a certain look especially around these these big boppers These guys who are going down in the trenches every single game and that's what guards do and that's what quentin nelson's doing but anyway, this this video is about um bobby wagster bobby wagner the wagmeister and uh, look, uh Will I back the rams this year? No, no, I'm not going to I've got four teams four teams jags bucks dolphins What was the other one? Look, we'll call it at three. Anyways guys. Thank you for watching and I'll see you in the next one Peace out


Hello, this is Don Watkins, Community Moderator at opensource.com with this week's Top 5. This week we look at how open source projects are viewed by college students, unusual tools for agile team development, setting up a Raspberry Pi for retro gaming, the future of Kubernetes, and what is your favorite Linux distribution. At number 5, why isn't open source hot among computer science students? Susie Choi, an undergraduate studying computer science at Duke University, with an interesting look at why high school and college students might fear getting involved with open source projects, and what can be done to change that. At number 4, 8 unusual FOSS tools for agile teams. Jen Krieger, Chief Agile Architect at Red Hat, has written a great article, chock full of open source tools to keep your agile team moving forward, while providing simple ways to organize your thoughts and improve communication. At number 3, how to set up a Raspberry Pi for retro gaming. Andrew Thornton, a 30 year advocate of open source software, provides a fascinating how to for those who long to relive the gaming experiences of your youth using a Raspberry Pi. At number 2, 5 reasons Kubernetes is the real deal. Neela Jacques, owner and principal of ScaleNV, writes that Kubernetes is here to stay. He predicts an explosion of interest, investment, and bandwagon jumping to occur around Kubernetes over the next couple of years. And at number 1, what is your favorite desktop Linux distribution? OpenSource.com editor Jason Baker has a new poll where you can vote for your favorite Linux distribution. If your distribution is missing from the list, please let us know in the comments. Well, that's it for this week. Thanks for watching, and we'll see you next time.