At DOE, I got so tired of hearing my checkered employment history that I just ordered the assistant secretaries to say, he's old, he's had a lot of jobs for years. They couldn't do it. It just was impossible, but we had a good time teasing about it anyway. So I'm glad to have a chance to talk a little bit today. I'm just going to try to step back and ask, where do we stand in this energy transition that we really need to make in this century and be good if we did more of it in the first half of the century than not? So let me just charge right ahead with that. What do we want for an energy system in the United States and really pretty much anywhere in the world? There are really three parts. One is economic security, efficient economies that use energy wisely and at low cost function well. We want energy security. You want to be not too vulnerable to disruptions, whether they're caused by weather or some bad actor in the world. And obviously we need to worry about greenhouse gases. I know you heard lots yesterday about climate change. It's a very big, serious issue that we really have to face, and this week it's on everybody's minds because the governor of California has convened the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco to kind of look at what we can do. I'll say more about that in just a minute. So that's what we want. Now, how do we get there? Well, let me say a word or two, oops, overshot there. So this whole question of economic security and how that works, energy costs are pretty much fundamental to all the rest of the function in the economy. So typically 6% to 8% of GDP, so that's a lot. And it actually has come down a little bit here looking back. That's probably as much as anything oil prices and oil prices have edged back up, so it'll be a little bit bigger fraction here. But it's a component that matters in how economies function because it's woven through every aspect of how modern economies work. Today's a good day to remind ourselves about energy security. There's a hurricane bearing down on the North Carolina, South Carolina coast area. And so those kinds of natural disasters, whether they're earthquakes or tornadoes or hurricanes can have a big impact. And an energy system that's diversified, that has lots of resources into it, is more resilient in those kinds of systems. And we also have to worry these days about the cybersecurity aspect of all of this as well. And this, whoop, I'm too fast there, whoop. This is not behaving the way I want it to, there you go. This portion of the slide here, this is the price of oil since 1867, or 1861 to 1869 anyway. So you can see the times when there were big price spikes in oil, those were supply disruptions, and you'd like to avoid those kinds of things as well because they have big economic impacts. I can remember in the days of the 1970s with gas lines and no availability of fuel, so it was a big problem then, so we want to avoid that too. And then the climate and energy side, I was a kid in Texas and grew up in Houston. This is a picture from Beijing, but this is Houston had air that looked like this in those days, some L.A. did as well, and a bunch of other cities, and to make a very long story short, there was just this huge debate about air quality and water quality, and some people said, well, you know, can't do anything about this, cost too much, competitors won't do it, all the same words you're hearing now, by the way. But California was choking to death, so California said to heck with you feds, we're going to pass some rules, they did, and some other states went along and pretty soon the industry was in Washington saying 50 sets of rules, not okay. So the Clean Air Act passed, Federal Water Pollution Control Act passed, and here we are, 48 years later, we haven't solved every problem, but it's a heck of a lot better than it was. I think that's kind of where we are on the whole energy and climate change side of things now that we're still in the process of making up our minds. There's a big debate underway, but I think the transition is underway, and we should do everything we can to help that. Climate change is, as I said, a primary driver, I'm not going to say any more because I know you've already talked about it. So how are we doing on greenhouse gas emissions? This curve demonstrates that humans have control over this. We did manage a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions here, unfortunately it took a worldwide recession to do that, and that might not be the way we want to do this. So instead, and we've seen evidence of leveling was up again last year a little bit, and we'll be again a little bit this year, but there's already progress here that is a set of steps in the right direction, and the trick for all of us is to figure out how to not just level this off, but bring it down after that as well. So how might we do that? Can I ask you a question? Sure. Go for it. How is the... How is the skill fuel? Well, with difficulty. So the way it's done, we know how much fuel people buy because that's market transaction, so you know that reasonably well. And we have estimates of emissions from other kinds of activities. Some of them are a little more uncertain than others, things like agriculture are harder to measure, but there's a whole team that works on this. If you look at this website, this global carbon budget website, the whole methodology is laid out, and they also have a nice set of graphs that try to partition this between what ends up in the ocean, what ends up on terrestrial systems, and what ends up in the air, and so there's a reasonable description with uncertainties for all the pieces there as well. So it's a good question. It's not an easy thing to figure out, except really for the energy industries where you have markets that determine the total amounts. So we have made progress here, and we should remember this, even as we're being nervous about how things might go in the future. What happened was that the presidents of China and the United States stood up and in parallel, this was not an agreement, but in parallel made commitments for their countries for substantial reductions. They were different in form that you can see them here. They were a statement of what those two countries were willing to undertake at least at the time. What this did, I think, was to enable the negotiation in Paris to go forward. Previous climate negotiations had sought to get a worldwide agreement. That turned out to be incredibly difficult, but instead the Paris agreement was one where each country showed up with so-called nationally determined contribution. Here's what we're willing to do, and then that came together in an agreement. It didn't, there's no enforcement there, so some people objected to that. But it was a worldwide agreement in a sense that obviously we would need to continue to work on this over time. 295 countries issued these nationally determined contributions, and 20 countries announced plans to double energy and R&D over the next five years, so the United States was one of those at the time. If you want to see more, and then a coalition of investors led by Bill Gates agreed to put up a billion dollars for early-stage investments, and if you want to see any of that stuff, you can look at those websites. Now, of course, you know that this only gets us part of the way there. If you just look at climate simulations, the baseline amounts, so there's a big uncertainty here, and that uncertainty, as much as anything, it comes partly from the climate modeling, but it also comes from the fact that it depends so much on what we do, on what emission pathways we include. If you look at what people propose to do, the nationally determined contributions, you can see that in terms of a deep reduction in carbon emissions, these kind of get us halfway there. So it's still more than, say, the two degrees C that seems to have been adopted as a goal, but it's not all the way to getting there, so obviously we need to do more, and most of this talk is about what we might do to bring that down further. So real progress, plenty more to do. So you say, okay, how does the U.S. fit into this? Well, the United States announced that it will withdraw from the Paris Agreement. You might guess that I think that's a mistake, but lots of, I mean, this week is a good time to remember about all of this because we have lots of people convened in San Francisco to talk about exactly what's on the next few lines here. Lots of state governors, mayors, company CEOs just said, well, tell you what, we know this is coming and we're going to do it anyway. And so the governor's conference this week is a way to hammer that point home. The United States would, if we just left in place the policies that we have now, we probably wouldn't quite get to the commitments of the NDC, but we'd be pretty close. But if we change the fuel economy standards, so there's a big political fight coming on that, then that will make it much harder. And there are a variety of policy things being considered. This is not mostly, not a talk about the policy side, but we still obviously have some challenges to meet there. So you say, okay, I'm convinced, what do we do? Well, the good news and the big takeaway from this slide, which, by the way, there will be a quiz on the numbers on this slide at the end, so there's one message from this slide and that is there is no shortage of energy. There's plenty of energy available, I'll explain what this means in a minute. It's all about how we convert it to energy services. And that's a place where cost matters. Energy is traded as a commodity and if you really want to penetrate markets at scale, we have to make the cost be competitive. So just to illustrate the idea, so sunlight, so these numbers here with these arrows, these are flows of energy in terawatts. So for example, 162,000 terawatts of solar radiation gets to the top of the atmosphere. Some of it gets absorbed in the atmosphere, some of it evaporates water, that's a good thing because that makes rain fall and we count on that. Some of it just warms us on the surface. If you follow those arrows all the way through, for example, this is what makes the wind, by the way, and we use .06, this is a few years old now, it's bigger than this now, .06 terawatts of wind energy. And the thing to think about is that from the surface we reflect about 5,000 terawatts of solar energy back to space. And I think on this slide, yes, here we go. We humans use order of about 15 terawatts, that's continuous power, or in the unit that absolutely everybody thinks in Zeta Joules. We use about half a Zeta Joule per year. Why are you laughing? So in any case, the ovals here talk about stored resources, so we have all the fossil fuel resources there, we have a big nuclear resource, lots of thermal energy stored in the upper part of the Earth's crust. So again, it makes the point, no shortage of energy. The whole rest of this talk will be about is the ways that we convert those energy resources into some kind of energy services that all of us can use, and trying to figure out how to make that part of it much cleaner. So you say, okay, fine, what do we do? Well, an obvious first step, and this is actually already happening because of market forces, natural gas in this country, I'll say a bit more about this in a minute, but natural gas is less expensive now than coal. The capital costs for a natural gas power plant are also quite a bit lower than they are for a coal-fired power plant, and the fuel itself has lower carbon emissions and is much cleaner, so market forces have been pushing coal out of the market and natural gas to cover it. Currently we want to use the low carbon technologies, wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, hydro. Those all have very low greenhouse gas emissions, not zero, but it's much lower. There's a whole big component of developing new technologies, and many of you I suspect here will be working on various aspects of all of that as well. There's just a giant, wide-open opportunity space here. We need to work on energy efficiency. In the United States, we have left ourselves a lot of room to do better on this. That's the politest way I can say it, honestly, and I'll tell a story that makes me seem kind of dumb, which the truth was I was. So about a decade ago when we decided that we would put in some PV cells at our house, it forced me to go look at the utility bills, and when I did I was sort of appalled where the heck is all this electricity going? So I'm an engineer, so I get up my watt meter and I go measure everything in the house that I can measure. And the stuff I can't unplug, I read the nameplates, and by the end of that I have a pretty good idea where it's all going, and there's a whole bunch of simple things. I bet I didn't spend 200 bucks of capital costs doing changing lights and so on. But I did think about how we operated the machine, the house. And by the time I got done with that, I'd reduce the electricity use by almost a third. And honestly, it was just paying attention. If we could all make ourselves do that, there are a lot of options. I'll talk about some other options too. There are lots of things that we can do at all kinds of levels. So a kilowatt hour of electricity or any other kind of energy that we don't use is one we don't have to supply and it's just, we should be doing that at every opportunity. And there really are lots of opportunities here. Electrifying energy services gives us some options. You still have to have clean electricity, but then you can use electricity very cleanly. And it's very efficient when it's in the form of the electricity. There's a big thermodynamic hit frequently in getting to electricity. We're going to need to improve our grid to accommodate all the intermittent renewables that we'll have. And I think we're going to need to deploy carbon capture and storage at large scale. All the economic models suggest that it's cheaper to do the whole system if you have that available as one of the tools. But it can't be the only thing we do. So let me say a few words about each of these areas. So energy efficiency, you know, this little graphic suggests that there's just, these are complicated energy systems, but they have a lot of individual components where we can do better. I'll just give you a few examples. So here's, you might actually get a chance, you probably will get a chance to go see the new Stanford Energy System. This is really, it's a clever application of systems approach to all of this. So the basic idea is this, all year round at Stanford, we take heat out of buildings that should water loop provides cooling. And all year round, we put heat back in somewhere. Now the overlap between winter and summer is different, obviously, with more cooling in the summer and more heating in the winter. But it turns out that if you just take the heat that the thermal energy that we take out of the buildings and push it back into the hot water side with a heat pump, then you don't buy fuel to make all that heat and you don't buy fuel for the, or don't buy any more fuel for the cooling side. So this is just, it's called a heat recovery system and it uses heat pumps. So you still need clean electricity. But this overlap between cooling and heating, all this fuel here, it saves $400 million over 30 years in reduced fuel purchases. It reduces our water use by almost 20%. And of course, it's much cleaner. So big reduction in CO2 emissions for the campus, a two-thirds reduction. We had previously had a combined cycle natural gas generating plant here on campus. So this replaced that. So, and it's fun to see and it's nice and shiny.  And a big reduction, the two-thirds reduction in the campus CO2 emissions is really quite significant. LEDs, anybody bought any LEDs lately? You know, you can, yeah, lots of you, you know, when the first sometime in the early days of the global climate and energy project that Tom mentioned, GE gave each of us that was working on it a bulb and it retailed for like 60 bucks. You know, you go, really, nobody's going to pay for this, right? Well, a couple of years ago, India bought 500 million of them for a buck each. And as the costs have come down dramatically, this has continued, it's gotten to scale. This is exactly what happens when you can bring a new technology to scale. But it took us an extended period to do that. So you have to have some patience as we invade the marketplace. But reducing the cost, you know, if you go, I just was up at the cabin in the Sierras and was kind of horrified to see all the incandescent bulbs that were still there.  And it's, you know, for the ones I was replacing up there, it's like an 80% reduction in electricity used for the same amount of light. So much, much more, much more efficient, lower cost, an example of what you can do at scale. And then on the kind of another totally different aspect, it's to think about both how we manufacture things and what we manufacture. So my friend, I'm a pilot, so I am interested in airplanes. So this caught my eye. So this is a part that goes somewhere that is some bracket and somewhere in the mounting in a commercial aircraft. If you look at how much material it takes to make that thing by conventional machining, it ends up with something called that's around a kilogram. And it takes almost nine kilograms of stuff to make it. If you do this with additive manufacturing, then uses six tenths of a kilogram of stuff. The finished part is just as strong and it's, and it weighs quite a lot less. And the conventional bracket takes three times as much energy to haul it around in the air just because it weighs more. So not only do you use the material more efficiently, use less energy to make the part, but in its lifetime, it also uses lots less energy. So now, if you think about the opportunity space for figuring out how to do this in all kinds of applications, there are lots. And you'll see much more, I think, on this. So it's another application of the whole energy efficiency idea. You say, OK, fine, I'm convinced on that. Now what else do we need? Well, obviously we need clean electric power. And there's good news on this front as well. This is if you just look at power capacity additions around the world. Now, I need to say a word here about capacity factors. People use the term capacity factor to indicate what fraction of the, you know, if you talk about a capacity of a solar cell, they talk about that as when the sun's directly overhead, it's peak power. But you don't have peak power all day long unless you have an exquisite tracking system. So the average for a lot of solar cells, about 20% of the peak capacity is the wind turbines, 30% to 40%. Natural gas turbines depends on which kind it is, but could be in the 50s. Nuclear power plants typically close to 90%. So capacity factor is different. So you have to be a little careful in looking at all this. But you can see coal is being retired, some gas retirements, but a whole lot of renewables, solar wind are the big ones here. So there's a big effort here. And part of this is really due to the fact that we can reduce costs. When I was at DOE, we worked on, there was a program called Sunshot, which had a whole series of goals for 2020, which we could see we were going to meet early. And so we decided we needed to go think about whether we could make this better. And sure enough, we had to work hard to convince the Secretary of Energy that this was not a fantasy and that we were not assuming six miracles along the way. And there are lots of components of the cost, but we could see pathways for the 2030 goals to get this down to half that in some cases lower. So there is an opportunity for continued reductions in costs there, too. And I will say that if we can get the cost of solar and wind down into the two cents a kilowatt hour range, then we can think about another transformation. So you can think about solar fuels, you can think about a whole variety of storage options that create more possibilities for the future. So lots going on here, deep reductions in solar and wind in the last 10 years. And so those are now getting to scale in this country. You say, OK, you know, this thing is touching. So what about nuclear power? Right now, nuclear power is just under 20% of the US electric power. And it's a big fraction of the non-greenhouse gas power. Those plants are actually having a tough time competing now. So there is a there's reason to worry about having to replace this as well. There are some things on the on the agenda here that that allow new reactors, the small module reactors and various other options. The big issue here, the two big issues, one is cost. The nuclear power plants are having trouble competing on cost. And and that's still likely to be true in the future. And the other is waste storage that we still have not settled that in this country. So what about natural gas? Well, natural gas has there's been a revolution in this. The ability to drill long reach horizontal wells and make them go where you want to go. It's it's sort of magic that they can do this.  You know, that's hard to do, right? Well, what what works is that you have to get use the drill bit to pull it through. But in any case, they can do this now and then learning how to hydraulically fracture it so that you can can create flow paths into the wells, opened up a natural gas that's stored in rocks called shales. If you do this replace natural gas with an old coal fired plant with natural gas, there's about almost 60% less carbon in the fuel and the efficiencies go up dramatically. So if you do it with a combined cycle plan, it's an almost 70% reduction in CO2 per kilowatt hour. Even with a single cycle gas turbine, it's about almost a 50% reduction. So so these these give you big options. And if you look at the the the future, there are some possibilities out there as one. Here's one, it turns out that you can if you're willing to separate pure oxygen from air, you can burn natural gas in a combustor here that uses a CO2 turbine. It's a it's a supercritical turbine and because mass flow over the wing is what determines how a turbine works and CO2 is denser than steam. You can have a small turbine and then you just cool it to knock the water out and now recompass and recycle. So you have a CO2 cycle here, you have to take some CO2 out in order not to have the thing just keep expanding forever. But then that's already at high pressure and could be used for carbon capture and storage and the projections are competitive cost of electricity. Now we'll see whether they deliver that. I'm not going to have time to talk about all of these, but there's been there's been some quite a lot of work here at Stanford on carbon capture and storage. And if you look at these slides later, you can get the names of the faculty members that have been working on all of this. There really is a lot, a lot that's been done and we know a lot about it and are thinking about the next set of systems in storage and shales as well. There's also lots and lots of new technology R&D and I'm sure you're you're hearing from some of these folks along the way. I'll just talk about one because it's kind of a fun thing. So this this is a device. This is actually predicted theoretically before the first systems were built. But the idea is a device that that is emits radiation in a frequency range for which the the atmosphere is transparent even during the daytime. So now you have three degrees Kelvin out of out in space. You have the surface temperature and the radiation heat transfer goes as the temperature difference to the fourth power. So so this is this this this rejects heat to space, even in the middle of the daytime. You get modest cooling in the daytime, but at night you can really drive temperatures down quite low. You still have to have some energy to to do a heat transfer fluid to put this into or out of a building, by the way. But but it doesn't take any vapor compression or liquefaction in order to do the cooling part of it. So pretty cool. So what about transportation? Well, batteries and and hybrids, you're starting to see these EVs making their way into the marketplace now. Lots of auto manufacturers have new vehicles coming up and and so you'll see much more. Britain and France have announced plans to prohibit IC engines after 2040. So we'll see if that holds right now. It's only kind of one percent of vehicle sales. But so obviously we have a long way to go. And even even if you just look at rates of penetration estimated, obviously, it's about a third of vehicles by 2040, according to one set of estimates. But we have a long way to go, which just says to me that we need high efficiency engines and and need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil that we burn and recover. And I just see Adam Brant just walked into the office and he's I mean into the room and he's going I bet he's going to say something about that. Are you are you at it? Good. You'd think we coordinated this. So there's been lots of work here at at Stanford as well about combustion, maybe wireless transfer of power to vehicles, better, better batteries for this and light waiting for the vehicles as well. Lots of lots of research. And of course, the the the dream I think this is if I get there, you'll see my wish list, which includes the ability to take electricity, all that solar and wind during the daytime, for example, and turn it into a fuel that we could use then for transportation system, chemical storage there would be now to do this. You'd have to you have to have the electricity. You have to have the right kinds of catalysts. You need to be able to reduce CO2 and you need to store all the kinds of things. So they're big, big things that would have to be done. But drop in fuels would make this all much easier. And and then, of course, we would also like to have some some machines that use solar energy and and use that to make long chain molecules. And it would be good if they would self assemble these machines. We say, wait, we have those. They're called plants. That's what they do is they take solar energy and they make big long chain molecules. So so the idea of using renewable fuels and biofuels is a possibility as well. And then there's all this solar and and so on. So OK, the grid, I'm not going to spend too much time on this, except that to say that we need a big we need a grid that's better than what we have now. The old one is a medium sized number of big power plants, radial distribution. What we're coming to is a world where there's lots of distributed generation. It's much more interconnected. They're micro grids and we're beginning to see how to do that. But there's lots of interesting mathematics and how you model model these systems and lots of evidence. I'm just going to skip on past that, but lots of evidence that these can do better. And these are systems of systems. So we need to do much better on understanding how to operate and manage and optimize these very complex systems, lots to be done there. Plenty of work to be done on energy storage as well. And I'm sure you'll hear about that. So a topic, you know, the California government are just the governor just signed a bill that says we want 100 percent clean electricity by 2045. So this is the main issue we're going to have to deal with there in the daytime. Even now, you see as the solar energy is available during the middle of the day, as the sun goes down in the in the evening, right now you have a big ramp rate that where you have to replace all that solar power. That's done with natural gas now. And so we'll have to either with some combination of storage or or perhaps carbon capture and storage. We would need to to accommodate all that. Better grid connectivity would help to lots, lots to do there. So so the I'm going to have to stop here. But here's here's my wish. And and honestly, folks, the reason you're here is to do this. Plus plus the stuff that I forgot. And if you gave me more time, I'd talk about some more. But I'd like electrochemical CO2 reduction. I think that would help a lot. It would let us close the fuel loop biofuels that store carbon and cost matters here, more efficient water purification. You know, our water is going to be a big issue for us going forward in this century as well. The dry places are going to get drier and the wet places are going to get too wet. So we're going to have issues there. Batteries, earth abundant materials, non-toxic and low cost and durable. Those would help many options there. Better sensitive for sensors for methane.  And maybe Adam's going to say a word about that, too. But to the extent that we can can control fugitive methane, it buys us time on all the other stuff. Power electronics for transformers and all kinds of other applications, the solid state ones are better than the than the transformers we have now. We need to do active controls on electric power and manage the grid better. Low costs, low global warming potential, air conditioning, solar at two cents a kilowatt hour. And oh, by the way, can we have a price on carbon? That would help. OK, so I'm going to quit. I've really said all of these things, though I'll just make this one point. Really, this is a portfolio. We have to work particularly on the R&D side. We need to work across primary energy resources and the ways we transform those into energy services. We need work on all those fronts simultaneously, especially those of us in the R&D side, because some of these are going to make their way into the marketplace and others might not. And so we need a very well-stocked portfolio. And most of those topics that I talked about there are being looked at somewhere in this university. I'll just close by saying we can do this. I'm quite confident. We humans are very inventive when we make up our minds to do something. We're still in the process of making up our minds, but I believe we can do this. And with all of your help, we can make it happen. Thank you very much. I'm curious, is there one technology or company that you explored recently that you're really excited about? Well, you know, I showed that slide of the NetPower CO2 turbine. The thing that I find interesting about that is that there's a demo plant just being built or has been built outside of Houston. They're in testing now. Now we'll see if they deliver, but if they do, then it kind of changes the game in terms of the capture side. And it gives us an option to do the intermittency balancing part of this in a way that it was, might be a little easier to do in a very clean way. So that's cool. And then if you just look across the battery landscapes, that's just, there's so much cool stuff that's going on there. It's a, you know, there's just, there's endless opportunity here. Yeah, it's just, you're working at a great time in the whole energy side of things here. So we set topics for different countries in order to introduce these three goals to, what do you think is the most, there is a way to differentiate. Yeah, so this is really a hard question. The question is, for different countries, how do you do this fairly? And there's, it's almost certain to be a continuing debate, but the way, I think the way forward is to kind of do what has been done in the Paris Agreement, which is to have each country figure out what makes sense for them. You know, we all benefit from lower greenhouse gas emissions, but most of the time, take China, for example. China has big air quality issues in some of its cities. Working on these things can get at both goals simultaneously, so they're different kinds of motivations that will drive each country and quite different settings. And I mean, there's plenty of sunlight in Saudi Arabia, not so much in Norway. So, we need to be done on a regional basis. So I think it's really, we need to depend on countries to use their own resources to figure out what makes sense for them rather than trying to impose it from the outside. Does anyone work on anything that can exploit ocean thermal gradients? Ocean thermal gradients, yes. There's the OTEC, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion is the idea.  Typically, the bottom of the ocean is like one or two degrees C once you get away from the continental shelf. So you can exploit that temperature difference to do, to run a turbine. They tend to, the temperature differences are not that big. So the efficiencies are pretty low and it takes big systems. So, in the right place, maybe I would say it'll be a modest contribution overall. What kind of innovations or work has been done for the security side of an introduction? You mentioned that at the beginning of your talk. Yeah. I'm curious about how far that along that. Yeah, so on the security side, well, diversification is one big element of that. So if you're totally dependent on an imported resource, for example, that makes you more subject. So, domestic production of various kinds of energy is one way to get at that. The whole cybersecurity side, I think is very important in terms of national security because it's now, if some Russian hacker interrupts my refrigerator at home because it's connected to the internet, world's not gonna end. But if they do that to the grid, that's obviously, I'm teasing about that. But just thinking about resilient complex systems, I think there's much more we can do. If you think about the world we live in, there's the grid, that's one system, there's the pipeline network, there's the transportation network, there's water delivery, there's sewage treatment. These are complicated systems and they're all linked to each other. You can't operate any of them without the others. But we always think about them as, if we think about them as systems at all, as the individual pieces. But we need to do a much better job of that. So there's a really interesting set of resilience questions associated with that too. So lots to be done in that area. Oh, wow. Maybe just one last quick question for the, yeah. It's great. Are global warming and climate change the same thing? Global warming and climate change is the same thing. I think most of us who work on this use those terms sort of in partly interchangeably. It's not only the temperature that matters. For example, for those of us who live in California, warming is part of that, but the distribution of rainfall and snowfall also matters because we depend on it for water. It's related to climate change, but it's not exactly identical. So warming matters, but so does the fact that we're putting lots of CO2 in the ocean, which changes the pH of the ocean and that makes it harder for the critters that fix calcium carbonate. So these are big complex systems and we need to think about the whole panoply of effects. Okay, let's thank Lynn again for great talk. Thank you.


Okay, I'm joined today by Luis Tondo from Coral Mining. Luis Copper's hot right now. Why should I own Coral? Nice to meet you, Jeff. I'm very pleased to be here to tell you about Coral. Coral is an exploration company that started in 2015 and now is evolving to be a copper producer in Chile. We think we've got all the assets and we have a very good plan to take this company to start producing up to 30,000 tons of copper cathode in the next three to five years. So it's a very exciting story that is in the market. As you've come out with the intent of doing a definitive feasibility study, you're moving to production. What do investors have to get excited about? How can they make money on this? So as part of the plan to reach to the 30,000 tons of copper production that I'm just mentioning, we just put yesterday three press releases that talk exactly about what we are doing right now and what the investor can expect for the future. First of all, we are consolidating our production in our Bert and Nora site. We are ramping up to a production of 3,000, 5,000 tons of copper per year, which should get by end of this year. And in parallel, we started a definitive feasibility study for our flagship project, which is Marimaca. So what should investors be watching for as far as news flows concerned? Okay, so the idea is to finish the definitive feasibility study for Marimaca towards the end of this year, quarter one next year. And with that, we'll probably define the financing, the money that we need to take that into production as early as possible. And by early as possible, I'm talking about end of next year, beginning of 2019, where we've recently also acquired the Ivan plan, which together with the mine site of Marimaca, will permit us to start producing copper cathode of up to 10,000 tons per year. So with the production from Bertha and the production from Marimaca will be in the 15,000 range in the short term. How do you find Chile as a jurisdiction to work in? Chile traditionally is a mining country. So there has got all the tradition for miners to get in there. It's very friendly for foreign investment. The regulations are very well understood. So I think it's a very safe environment for companies like Cura to develop their business. So you're finding them supportive in what you're trying to do? Yes, for sure. And plus we've got lots of expertise in country that we can use. For instance, we are using right now a Chilean company to develop our feasibility study. And the people that we use are also mostly from Chile. So I think we are well served and prepared to take the company forward. With the volume of copper you're talking about producing over the next three years, you've become a pretty important producer in that area. Would you see yourself being an acquirer?  Well, I think once we got to the level of 30,000 up to 50,000 tons of copper producer, obviously we are now already reaching a level where it would be a mid-tire producer. And there may be opportunities to have some MNA opportunities that we can consider. Louis, thank you very much for coming in and giving us an update on CORA. And we'll be excited to watch it moving forward in the market. Thank you very much for the opportunity. And as I said, I think we've got the resources, the people in a very good plan where we're gonna go from what we are today up to the level of production that we are aiming at.


Priyanka failed her speaking test four times in a row and she was about to give up on her dream of moving to Canada forever. But after I gave her these four simple tips, she jumped from a band six to a band eight in just two weeks. So the other day I got this email, Chris, my test is in two weeks and I'm going to fail again. I failed my speaking four times in a row and I don't know why. Help! So I replied, let's do a one-on-one speaking test. And she was right. She failed again. In fact, she got a band six in fluency, pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary. But I could tell that if she changed just four simple things, she was going to get a band eight on her next test. And when I told her this, she said, do you know my test is in two weeks? Yes. Do you know that if I fail this time, I'll never be able to move to Canada? Yes. Don't worry. Every band nine student that I've worked with used these four simple tips. The first thing we needed to work on was her per fluency. There were more ums and as in every answer than an Elon Musk interview. Um, um, um, um, um, um. And Priyanka had the exact same problem Elon does when he speaks publicly. You see, when anybody speaks, they make these audible pauses, these ums and as. This is totally normal and we all do this when we're thinking of what to say next. He's thinking of very complex things like how to launch a rocket to Mars. So he has more pauses, ums and as because he's thinking a lot about what to say next. And this is exactly the same reason why Priyanka's fluency was so bad.  If you're like me, you'll have hundreds of tabs open in your browser. And what happens when you have hundreds of tabs open, your computer slows down. So you might have the latest MacBook Pro, but if you push it too hard, it slows down. Her fluency wasn't bad. She was just trying too hard. You see, she was taught by other teachers that to get a high score on the IELTS speaking test, you need to have impressive ideas. So I asked Priyanka, what happens when you're speaking in the test and you try and think of complex ideas? And she said, I freeze and my mind goes completely blank. So why try and think of complex ideas? The truth is that nowhere in the official IELTS marking criteria does it mention complexity of ideas. In fact, ideas are not marked at all. But just telling students this information doesn't really change their behavior and their performance on test day. So I decided to show Priyanka exactly what to do. So I asked her a simple IELTS speaking question and her answer was a complete mess. The usual mmms and ahs and long pauses. So I asked her the same question again and I asked her just to change one simple thing. And this changed everything. She answered the question with band nine fluency. And Priyanka was completely amazed. You mean simple ideas increase my score? Yes. If you're trying to use complex ideas in the speaking test, you're making your life ten times more difficult for no gain at all. It's like trying to eat a bowl of soup with a Swiss army knife instead of just using a simple spoon. But just because we fixed her fluency issues doesn't mean she's going to get a high score for grammar. So let's look at that next. So we did the same thing again. I asked her a simple speaking question. How has your hometown changed since you were a child? And her first answer was long. It was complex. It had multiple different tenses and multiple different grammar structures in there. Do you think an answer like this would get a high score? Well, her answer might be complex. It might have a very wide range of grammar, but it contained multiple grammar errors. So what I did was I asked her the exact same question and I gave her some advice and told her to change just one thing. And here is her answer. My hometown has changed dramatically since I was a child. It used to be a small village, but it has grown into a bustling city with new opportunities. Despite the fast pace, a sense of community has remained strong. This example only has two of the most basic tenses in the English language. It is much, much simpler, but it contained zero errors. And to get a band seven or above on your IELTS speaking test, 50% or more of your sentences must have zero errors. To put it simply, the more sentences you produce with no grammatical errors, the higher your score. So which answer do you think would get a higher score? The one that has a very wide range of grammar, but lots of mistakes? Or the simpler one with zero mistakes? But like many of you, Priyanka was still very worried and she asked me, what about range of grammar? Aren't I being judged on both range and accuracy? Well, in the test, you know the way the examiner asks you a range of different questions. Well, they're doing that to test the range of your grammar. Just by answering each question naturally and appropriately, you'll naturally use a range of different grammar structures and tenses. All you have to do is just answer the question. So in less than five minutes, we had fixed 50% of Priyanka's problems. But she's still worried about her vocabulary and her pronunciation. She'd been told by all of her old teachers that she needed to use complex vocabulary and that her accent was a problem and this was going to lower her pronunciation score. So I said, listen, I have good news and I have bad news. The good news is you've just fixed your grammar and your fluency issues in less than five minutes and you're probably going to get a very high score. The bad news is you're going to have to completely change everything about your vocabulary and her reaction was very predictable. Like nearly every student I tell this to, they say, but my old teacher told me that I need to make all of my vocabulary complex. And this is 100% true. Most teachers, especially on YouTube, teach you that complex words equal a higher score, but we teach students something completely different. Think of vocabulary as tools in a toolkit. Each tool helps you do a job. Each word you know helps you discuss different topics. This tool helps you talk about your hometown and this tool helps you talk about where you'd like to live in the future. Band 8 and 9 students have enough words, enough tools, so that they can handle any question or any topic. You see, using fancy vocabulary is like buying a very expensive fancy tool when all you need is a hammer to hit in a nail. The truth is that the vast majority of students that we work with have enough vocabulary already to get the score that they need. But because they've been taught to use very high level complex words, they make lots of mistakes and this actually lowers their score. It's like a band 7 is a weight that they can easily lift already. But instead of just lifting that weight, they try and lift a weight way heavier that they're not capable of lifting and they end up dropping it on their head. So did Priyanka just answer some questions and use simple vocabulary and live happily ever after and get the score that she needed? No. Like many students, she got very angry with me for criticizing her old teachers. She told me that this was going to lead to failure and she ended the call. So a few days go past and I don't hear anything from Priyanka. Finally, I check my email. She's booked another one-on-one speaking test with me. But at this point, her test is in 24 hours the next day. She's not just worried, she's completely freaking right. So I asked her a simple question. You've failed four times before. Do you think doing the same thing that you did those four times is going to lead to success? You see, all these speaking tips and tricks that you'll find online are just ways of you trying to trick the examiner into thinking that you're good enough and that you deserve a higher score than you're really capable of. We have a saying here in Ireland. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. The truth is, is that you are good enough to get the score that you need. You just have to use the English level and the words and the grammar and the vocabulary that you already have and show the examiner your real, genuine English level. So finally, Pranka said, let's do a practice test. Let's do it your way. Her ideas were simple but relevant. Her grammar was appropriate and accurate. And her vocabulary was wide-ranging enough that she could talk about any topic I asked her about and she was able to speak accurately and fluently. But this just left her pronunciation. If she couldn't fix her pronunciation issues, it doesn't matter how good the rest of it was. She would still fail to get the score that she needed. And Pranka's big pronunciation problem was that she spoke too quickly. If you speak too quickly, it is really difficult for the examiner to understand every word that you're saying. And if the examiner doesn't understand every word, they give you a low score. But in that final one-on-one session, her pronunciation popped up from a band six to a band eight without me giving her any advice at all. She changed one thing without me telling her what to do. You see, once she answered each question naturally and used the grammar and vocabulary she already knew how to use, she relaxed. This meant that she made fewer mistakes, was less nervous, and relaxed even more. The more relaxed she was, the better her pronunciation. By fixing everything and being able to speak to the examiner in the same way that she would speak to a friend or a colleague, she slowed everything down. I could understand 100% of what she was saying and she instantly improved her pronunciation. And a result, on test day, she got an amazing band eight. She moved to Canada, she found a better job, she earned more money, and lived happily ever after. And she never had to think of the silly IELTS test ever again. But wait, I understand that this advice is completely different from your local teacher or other IELTS teachers here on YouTube. And you're probably worried now and thinking, what about this tip that I normally use? Or what about that tip that I hear on YouTube? Well, the good news is, in this video, I take all the most popular tips on YouTube and I analyze them so that you don't have to. And I'm going to show you exactly which tips improve your score and more importantly, which tips you're using lower your score. Click that video to find out if you are using the right tips or not.