U.S. at 3.7 cents a kilowatt hour unsubsidized and 2 cents a kilowatt hour subsidized according to Lazard which is the most prestigious industry estimator for 2013. And solar, utility scale solar is now 6 to 8 cents a kilowatt hour in 2013 which is the same as natural gas, it's the same, rooftop solar is more expensive. In terms of offshore wind, offshore wind is on large scale is about 10 to 11 cents a kilowatt hour as estimated by Willick Kempton at University of Delaware from some published studies that they have done and 15 cents a kilowatt hour at current rates. Okay, so I'm here to conclude with three minutes. Let's be clear that our opponents who are for the caption have still not answered the fundamental question about transportation infrastructure. I brought it up at the very beginning. Where will we get the liquid fuels? And their answer is, well we'll go to electric vehicles and fuel cells. Remember I mentioned we have 7,000 commercial airplanes and over 200,000 private general aviation airplanes. What about them? Not a word about what we will do with that infrastructure. Are we all going to quit flying? Fuel cell vehicles. How many are on the road today? They would be measured in the hundreds. Total for the United States. We have 253 million motor vehicles. Electric long haul trucks. Now that's a new one on me. Even natural gas fuel trucks that are the latest iteration from Cummins, the 12 liter natural gas fuel trucks, some of the cleanest burning engines on the market today, they're not able to travel in the mountains because they're not powerful enough. And yet Mr. Ding suggested that we're going to use electric trucks. Well, okay. I'm wondering why that hasn't happened. Oh, I know. It's because the century of the electric vehicle is a century of failure, tailgating failure. We've heard about electric cars for a full century and what do we have today on the road? Maybe 100,000, maybe 200,000 electric vehicles and who owns them? The rich. Now, let me point to the issue of today's headlines. We have shooting wars from Damascus to Donetsk. The global economy is slowing down again. Oil prices are falling. We've heard, oh, energy prices only rise. Fossil fuel prices only rise. That's wrong. In the last decade, natural gas prices here in the U.S. were over $8. Today, they're about $4, fallen by half, saving U.S. consumers $200 million a day. That's $73 billion per year. Today, the U.S. economy, the U.S., when it comes to energy infrastructure is the envy of the world. And if you vote for the caption, you're voting to say, we need to throw away our economic advantages and wholesale, throw them away. Industries from around the world are moving to the United States. Why? Because we have cheap, abundant, reliable energy and the rest of the world does not. Russia has invaded Crimea. Western Europe is now desperately worried about Russian natural gas supplies. And here we are in the U.S. sitting upon some of the cheapest natural gas available anywhere. Jobs are opponents of stress that they will create jobs. If we just give people a lot of shovels, we can tell them to dig holes and build them and fill them back in again. The U.S. natural gas shale revolution is creating huge numbers of jobs. Last year, IHS estimated that 2 million jobs now are being supported by the unconventional shale and unconventional oil revolution. That number could rise to $3.9 million by 2025. Last year, a study by Purdue economist Wallace Tiner estimated the shale revolution is adding $500 billion in economic activity to the U.S. economy. That's an addition in U.S. GDP of three percentage points. The caption fails. It fails on the matter of scale. It fails on the matter of environment. It fails on the matter of economics. And critically, it fails on the matter of electricity storage. Please vote against the caption. Thank you. I'm glad I don't have a red and green form, but those of you who do, who's collecting? We have people coming around to collect your votes, and so will you turn in a vote for the proposition or against the proposition? As you choose, and we'll see how we, as a room would vote if we were the legislature of the United States. So cast your votes, and while you're doing that, who wants to do the drawing? Steve, are you around? You ready to do the drawing? No, not yet. Okay, so we'll take questions. Questions or comments from the floor? Yes, ma'am. I'm worried about if I have a problem with you. Not anymore. People are saying, now, now, now, now, this is going to be huge. I will turn away from the climate change. And we need to do everything we can to possibly do to ramp up the use of all energy fuels. We're too efficient to do it in order to avoid. That answer is subjective, and it is not heat-energizing part of the fuel. In the next few years, we're going to have a major problem with the sound of the vote. Another thing that I'm really curious about is, I think the use of the normal fuel is going to be far more easier, especially if we add two of the formula, integrated design, and the terms of research. I bought the case in 2000, and when I drove out of the Toyota Velocity, I wanted this car to be full technology tomorrow. I started working on new technology tomorrow because I want a better car, and it's not my buy one. I want a carbon-fiber car. I want electric power to be in my car. I want the best damn car I can get. So, I load the weight of the car. In fact, that's a two-centimeter fuel dose. This is a very low-pursing weight of it. You can use the normal fuel. Two things that are immensely are material-designed, integrative designs. And when I wasn't quite sure about it, I was really worried that it would go all the way around. You have to know you should be spurred. Then it would be spin-roll-less, I think. And that's what's going to take us a while to go on for. It's going to take us a while to go on for. Maybe 23 years is the exact day. You can't just reduce it. But the way you don't start working more is that now, sort of like, don't record A, you're going to get a D. You know, if you don't start doing this now, I think you're going to need a small one. Okay. Any comments from anyone? I was saying that you should have replaced me. I can't speak. National security is an important issue. And, yeah, that's something we didn't mention because all the technologies, all the wind, water, and solar and all the technologies would be produced locally in the U.S. And we'd also be doing this in each country of the world. So it's not just the U.S. in isolation. Each country would be safe on its own for its own renewable energy, although smaller countries might have to rely on interconnected grids with other countries. So I'll just address that point. Efficiency is included in our plans. Building energy efficiency is included. We just didn't have time to talk about materials as well. I'll just make one quick comment. And James Hansen has written a lot about climate change, and he's been very critical of the belief that renewables can solve all of our energy needs. And, in fact, I can quote him almost directly, and he said, anyone who believes that renewable energy can meet 100% of our needs also probably believes in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. Yes, sir. And there's apparently, oh, good, microphones here. And then we'll go to the back. I agree with the opposition in the sense of one of the biggest problems, and Mark and I know each other, so we've talked about this. They brought up a very good point about the heavy Class 8 trucks. We do not have a non-liquid solution for that yet. Smith in Kansas City is working on electric cars, but I would bring awareness to the fact that now we have a hydrogen hybrid, and Mark has brought up, and PepsiCo has been running their trucks, number of their trucks on that, 100 million miles. And we just got a report today that they were able to reduce fuel consumption by 18% while increasing the power by 12%. So there are going to be hybrids between the opposition and the pro-forces here that may be transition solutions as we go forward. Well, with regard to trucks, I mean, certainly aircraft will be the hardest to change, but, you know, the space shuttle runs on cryogenic hydrogen, ran on cryogenic hydrogen, the Russians built one in the 1980s, so it's a technology that exists for aircraft. Now, for long-distance trucks, I mean, the torque in electricity is so much greater than in gasoline, and also, we've had hydrogen fuel cell buses running around California for a long time. These aren't long-distance. But it's not a new take, it's just a matter of getting the industry to do it, and that's why aggressive policies need to be put in place. It's not a technological issue to get long-distance trucks running on the combination of hydrogen and electricity hybrids. It's just policies. Well, I would submit that it is. It's a big technological problem. Storing hydrogen is very difficult. Hydrogen is a very small molecule. It's creating the seals, creating the tanks, hydrogen and brittlement. It's a very difficult process. How do you create hydrogen? Hydrogen doesn't just come out of the ground. It has to be manufactured, and that comes with a carbon footprint. We're producing hydrogen today mainly from natural gas. I'm familiar with the engineers at Toyota. They're bullish on fuel cells in more so than CNG because fuel cells are more efficient, and so they can get better range than they can with CNG or with electric vehicles. But we're still not at a point where fuel cells are even remotely close to being available in the commercial sector because they still remain too expensive. It remains a killer app. I would love to have a fuel cell at my house, but to one last point on efficiency, why has the internal combustion engine lasted so long? Because it has been improved incredibly. Today's engines are not just the same old engines that we drove 20, 30 years ago. They are, in fact, electronic engines. We've added silicon. We've added intelligence to the fuel systems, to the exhaust systems. We're now doing energy harvesting with thermal harvesting, with kinetic harvesting. The internal combustion engine is going to maintain its position in the market for a very, very long time. Quick rebuttal. First of all, all our hydrogen would be produced from electrolysis from wind and solar, be totally carbon free except for the manufacture of the turbines. In terms of the efficiencies, a hydrogen fuel cell efficiency from going from the wind turbine to the electrolyzer to the compressor to the fuel cell. It's about 28 to 30 percent efficiency compared to 17 to 20 percent for the internal combustion engine. Electric vehicles are about 80 to 86 percent, so you get three times more efficiency with electricity, but you still get more efficiency with hydrogen over gasoline. The final thing is, as I said, hydrogen fuel cell buses have been running for almost a decade or more in California, and there hasn't been any of this big problem that you just mentioned. Gentlemen in the back. Brilliantly done. Thank you all for what you've been doing. I taught urban planning for 25 or more years here in Iowa City, and despite that, I'm very skeptical about the idea of preparing a plan, especially at a national scale to make an enormous transition like this. What I am in favor of is a strategy, an energy strategy that will enable us to make a transition. So with that in mind, I wonder if the two teams could respond to the idea of doing what a good economist would advocate using prices as a means of sending signals to producers and consumers that would enable us to make this transition. I think in particular of the proposal that the citizens' climate lobby has been proposing to legislators for the last couple or three years, which would involve a revenue-neutral fee-individend approach that would involve a steadily escalating fee on carbon per ton emitted by whatever sources there are. Would that not lead us to enable us to devise a strategy that would mobilize the technological prowess of entrepreneurs and the price incentives and so on and enable us to make the kind of transition we need to make? Can we price our way to the solution or at least price our way to a position where the two sides agree? I certainly agree that the key to all this is policies, and it may be difficult at the national scale to get policies implemented. That's why we actually focus on states, individual states, and once you kind of get a critical mass of states, then you can get some national policy, but it's all driven by specific policies, but we don't actually advocate one policy over another. It's really what's the goal and let each state or even local municipality determine what's the best way to get to that goal. The policy you mentioned could be one, but there are many others, so I don't want to be too specific about a policy because there are so many possible policies that could be implemented. Mr. Rice, comment? I think the primary concern is the incredible difficulty that comes with setting a price or a fee at the right level, set low, people just sort of say whatever I'll pay a higher price and set too high, there can be sort of pretty substantial economic costs that rather than sort of drive innovation, just sort of cause bankruptcy when people have to shut down production. Well, I'll just add one quick comment. We have heard many, many times about the possibility of a carbon tax. I used to believe the carbon tax was the way forward. I don't believe it anymore. Why? The U.S. could, of course, impose a carbon tax on itself. Well, what would that achieve? Well, it would mean higher energy prices for us, but what have we seen in the climate meetings in Copenhagen, Bonn, Durban, Paris? We had the recent meeting in New York just last month. What's been the result of all the discussions, of all the climate change meetings that have happened in the last five to ten years? Effectively nothing. Why? Because you have countries like South Korea building coal-fired power plants. You have Pakistan building coal-fired power plants, Bangladesh the same. You have countries all over the world turning to coal and realizing that if they want to bring their people out of poverty, they need to create electricity in the cheapest possible manner. Therefore, they're not going to impose any kind of carbon tax on themselves. So the idea that we would impose a carbon tax, well, we could do it, but we're not going to have any kind of internationally harmonized carbon tax. So then we just trade our jobs overseas. I just think that, yes, it's a perfect solution in an imperfect world. Second, it's politically impossible in the United States, in my view, to pass a carbon tax. The public won't have it. So what do I favor? Governmental, this is where I'm not anti-government. What do we need? What are the killer applications? It's gas to liquids technology, it's home-based fuel cells, it's safe, cheap nuclear. We haven't discussed nuclear yet. It's not only pro-nuclear, but it's still way too expensive, and the public still doesn't trust it. But that's where we have to have strong governmental involvement if we're serious about climate change. Nuclear has to be part of the answer, which I quoted James Hansen earlier. He and Ken Caldera and a number of other, Tom Wigley, just published a letter in the last few months saying, if we're serious about carbon dioxide, we got to get serious about nuclear, and they challenged all the major environmental groups in America to support them. They didn't do it. One quick thing I'll add, given the discussion between the difficulty of establishing such a policy at the national level and looking to the states, those states have options for pursuing a lot of policies. Establishing a carbon tax is pretty difficult, given that utility companies often operate across state lines, which means if Illinois sets the tax higher than Iowa, there becomes an incentive for those utility companies to generate all the energy in Iowa and just move it over to Illinois. If Illinois were to try and regulate Iowa generation, there would be some issues with the Interstate Commerce Clause, and those laws would probably get struck down. Okay, when I was a debater, the affirmative always got the last word, so Mr. Jacobson, you obviously wanted to speak to this, and then I didn't see any other hands, so we'll see how the vote went after this. I just want to respond to the point about other countries not having a carbon tax. I think at some point the U.S. needs to recognize that we have been the major contributor to global warming. About 20% of all of global warming can be attributed to the United States. So I think beyond the cost, beyond the comparison of all these different numbers being thrown around, at some point we need to take the stance of leadership that says we need to own this issue, and perhaps there will be small sacrifices in the short term, and perhaps countries like India who need to get their countries out of poverty will still use fossil fuels. In the long run, the technology improvements that are made in the U.S. can be transferred to other countries. That's the beauty of technology transfer, and I think that's the type of leadership that the U.S. needs to implement. I just want to speak to the nuclear issue because it's been brought up and I never had a chance to mention it. The one reason this will never happen, if we try to focus on nuclear, besides the fact that if you want to power the world on nuclear, you need about 16,850 megawatt nuclear power plants. We have about 450 today and about 400 operational, and most countries are reducing them. And you need so many, and five countries of the world have secretly developed nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear energy program, so if you even double the nuclear energy facilities worldwide, you'd have about 800, that's only going to cover a few percent, and it takes between 10 and 19 years to plan and operate and permit one nuclear power plant, and so by the time you even put up one, this Arctic sea ice will be gone. It takes two to five years for the average wind farm, and you have this opportunity cost that results in additional emissions associated because you have to run the regular electric power grid, and in addition to the fact that you have to continuously mine and refine uranium, which is energy-intensive, so the emissions from nuclear power when you actually compare it to wind is nine to 25 times higher per kilowatt hour generated. It's less than natural gas, which is about 60 to 70 times higher than wind, but it's still not zero, and you have all the nuclear waste issues, and one and a half percent of all nuclear reactors ever built have melted down to some degree, so it's just never going to happen, so we should not even talk about it, and besides the fact it costs, according to Lazard, in 2013, the average cost of nuclear is 12 cents a kilowatt hour, which is compared to 3.7 cents a kilowatt hour for wind and 6 to 8 cents a kilowatt hour for even natural gas or utility solar, so it has so many issues it's just not going to happen. I'm told that there were some more hands coming up, and I can't see, so I'll let the people have the mics. Vic, okay. Back to nuclear. Is there a safe place on the planet to even put a nuclear energy plant? Well, so it's just a risk. It depends how much risk you want to take, so each place there's a certain risk of catastrophic meltdown, of weapons proliferation. You can even have large blackouts due to the fact that when the temperature rises and the water is too hot and you have to shut down the plants, it happens in Europe whenever they have a heat wave. Well, I was just in Japan last month. If nuclear can't work in Japan, it can't work anywhere. And right now, the nuclear sector in Japan is in crisis. I'm not sanguine about nuclear. I take all of Dr. Jacobson's points about nuclear. It's way too costly. There are very few countries that have the physical and intellectual infrastructure that will allow them to adopt nuclear. But I stridently, vehemently disagree with his point as I wrote it down, we should not even talk about nuclear? Yes, we should talk about nuclear. We absolutely must talk about nuclear. It's where James Hansen has said we have to get serious about nuclear. There's a growing movement on the left among the Greens, Stuart Brand, Ted Nordhaus, Michael Schellenberger, the Breakthrough Institute saying we have to get serious about nuclear. I agree, but I'm not sanguine about just that it's going to be easy or that it's going to happen quickly. It won't. The fuel cycle issue is a very serious one. The potential for weaponization, again, is serious. The power density of nuclear cannot be matched. And therefore, if we're serious about reducing carbon dioxide, we got to get serious. But that requires governmental involvement. And therein is another problem. The old joke is that nuclear is solar for Republicans. Well, I think there's some truth to that. But I'm adamantly pro-nuclear, but I'm not going to stand up here and say it's going to be easy. It's not going to happen for decades. There's a scale, which has the inside track to build small modular reactor here in the U.S. Even their best estimate that the soonest they'd be able to bring it online would be 2022. That's eight years for 125 megawatts of capacity. It's nothing. We said halo. Nice. Thank you. Good one. Three quick comments. I am slowly getting through this book, Reinventing Fire by Amory Lovens. It's a slow slog. But basically, to boil it down to one sentence, the guy is brilliant. He started Rocky Mountain Institute. I met him years ago when I was an energy coordinator in Minnesota. But basically, in this book, he is saying that we can increase our economy by 158% by 2050 with no nuclear, no coal, no oil, and one-third less natural gas through efficiencies, alternatives, integrative design, and materials research. It's a fascinating book, and I'm learning a lot. So I suggest that everyone who's interested in this field get a hold of this book. Two, I take your point, Mr. Bryce, about Mr. Hansen's comment about the use of nuclear fuel. And again, it's because of his concern of climate change and peaking soon and then reducing our use of fossil fuels. But I think it would be wonderful if the Iowa Policy Center could bring both Mr. Lovins and Mr. Hansen to the University of Iowa so they could tough it out on this issue of whether we really do, in fact, need nuclear fuels because they both have excellent arguments. Aymre, more on the efficiencies. I don't know if he has a timeline on climate change like Hansen does. And of course, Hansen knows the other issue. Maybe we could come up with a wonderful strategy between Lovins and Hansen. Thank you. Just to add a comment on the nuclear, I think the conception that we can't put a nuclear plant anywhere is a little bit flawed. I think I'm more sympathetic to the nuclear... No, we could put it in AIMS, apparently. Yeah, exactly. But if you look at studies, and maybe these studies don't account for the secondary radiation effects where you can't really attribute which deaths came from where, but if you look at studies, nuclear is safer than even wind in some renewable energies in terms of total amounts of deaths per kilowatt hour of operation. The problem with nuclear, like everyone's been saying, is it takes too much time. And I think where we disagree is just that our side believes we don't have that time. The tipping points are coming, and renewable costs, as Professor Jacobson has said, are low now. If we do have time, there are way better options than nuclear fission power to be studying. Nuclear fusion would... And other innovative energy solutions would be the way to invest that time if we had time into that sort of research. Well, the comment here... I have a question for the gentleman from the Manhattan Institute. Sure. I have a question whether or not the gentleman from the Manhattan Institute would be in favor of abolishing the subsidies that the federal government has been giving to the fossil fuels industry for, I think, decades now, or whether or not his objection to helping the, say, solar or wind industries and their innovation is an ideological problem. I'm for abolishing all subsidies, Fairfield, no favor. I have 3,200 watts of solar panels on the roof of my house. So why did I put them on? Because I got a big, fat subsidy. So I'm in favor of eliminating all subsidies unless I'm getting them, all right? This idea that the... We've heard this over and over. The oil and gas industry gets unconscionable subsidies. They get tax treatments that allow accelerated depreciation on their capital costs. The production tax credit given to the wind industry is then handled by the investment bankers and then sold to other industries to reduce their tax burdens. Look, you know, again, let's let them all compete Fairfield no favor, and then we'll see who wins. Clearly, solar is making inroads, and solar is... And solar and storage, I'll be clear, and I've written about it. This is a potentially disruptive technology, not just here in the United States, but all over the world, particularly in tropical areas and in equatorial areas and island economies. Aquian Energy, in my new book, I write about Aquian. It's a battery company in Pittsburgh where their first target markets, island economies, and their idea is battery, solar, diesel, and arbitraging across those three forms and because island economies have generally the highest cost of electricity. So we're getting to a point in the solar industry, some of the people in the wind industry have already said, we don't need any more subsidies. I think that that's the way forward, and I'm fully in favor of that. I just wanted to comment and say that when you refer to markets and this idea that let technologies play out, remove subsidies, it assumes that markets are not socially constructed and that markets are sort of handed down by this invisible hand and that that determines the technologies we use. I want to know if we think about all of the lobbying and path dependencies that go into our current infrastructure, you say it's so hard to change, why would you say that let the market solve something when it's socially constructed to begin with? Are you suggesting the wind and solar industries haven't been effective in their lobbying? Where you have more than 30 states now have renewable portfolio standards? I think they've been quite effective. But look, your question is about political influence. It's market influences that are going to be the decider. If solar can come in and come in and allow homeowners to produce electricity more cheaply than they can buy it from the grid, they're going to buy it. Why has natural gas been made inroads against coal in the U.S.? Why has the U.S. reduced its CO2 emissions more than any other country in the world since 2005 because natural gas is underpricing coal in the power generation sector? It's not a government mandate. I mean, it's an interesting theoretical point that you bring up that markets are a social construction. Two things on that. They're pretty socially established and there's powerful forces at work, and there's a lot of industries and corporations that operate by those market rules. So I don't think you're going to be able to change that, completely abolish that. I guess what you can do is kind of shape the way in which they're socially constructed. So sort of some of the models that Dr. Jacobson's research indicates is if you include all the social costs into the market transactions and how the market views energies, wind and solar would be way cheaper than coal in natural gas. So yeah, you can use that to sort of shape the way in which we view markets and view costs in the market, but I don't know if it means that we would never want to use the market at all. There do it. I wonder how we can do all we can. But a power line government. Why don't government attract? Yes, we have a November 2nd. No candidate has spoken on. Why and what can we do to change? I know all the answers, but your critical answer is real. What can we do to our leaders in government because no one has a threat yet but Obama? So what can we do to get our political leaders to deal, to address these issues? Because they're in the middle of an election and they aren't talking about them. Well, at the national level, it's very difficult to get agreement to do anything. Again, you have to go down to smaller scales and see where you have people who are willing to make changes. So there's some states that are very willing to make changes. And I think that's really where you have to start. You have to start at the smaller scale and move up. I mean, there is this natural transition going on right now. I mean, right now about 12.5% of all the electric power in the U.S. is wind, water, solar. 6% is wind and solar and geothermal. The other half is hydroelectric. And the wind and solar used to be about 1%, just a few years ago. There's been a natural growth. 33% of all the heating and cooling is actually electric already. And transportation, there are a few hundred thousand cars in the U.S. that are electric. But to do a more rapid conversion, you really need to focus on smaller scales, each state one at a time, basically, and doing that. And there are some states that really do want to make changes, and they're more aggressive than other states. But I can't say there's a magic bullet. It's really the people have to want to make a change. Collectively, we all have to want to do this. If we don't want to do it, then it's not going to happen. Any other thoughts on that? I mean, sort of related to the earlier point, I think that social constructions play a large role. If there's not a social force in favor of something, the political candidates have no incentive to take a stand on it. And I think that candidates are consistently let off the hook for not taking a position on things related to energy. And I think it really is just about larger numbers of people saying, if you don't take a position on this and it's not a good one, you don't get my vote. I think it's just plain political calculus. Democrats aren't going to talk about a carbon tax. I'm not going to talk about raising the gasoline tax. They're not going to talk about being anti-hydraulic fracturing or anti-natural gas or anti-coal right before the midterm elections. This is clear. I mean, you know, this is one of the things Republicans are trying to use against the Democrats. I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat. I'm a member of the disgusted party. But this is just simple politics. And the Democrats are very worried about any policy that they have that would appear to make energy more expensive. And further, it's interesting to watch the Obama administration when it comes to natural gas and hydraulic fracturing. In the last State of the Union address, the President did not mention biofuels or wind energy once. He mentioned natural gas six times. Ernie Moniz and his predecessor, Steve Chiu, mentioned natural gas all the time. They understand the economic benefits of the oil and gas boom in the United States. Why are oil prices falling today, despite all the unrest globally? Because the U.S. has increased its oil production by about 50 percent in the last few years. It's unbelievable what has happened here in the United States. And it's accruing to the benefit of the United States both economically and strategically. I would just defend my colleagues at the AIMS Lab. They probably wouldn't take it, but still would be there. We've got to remind ourselves that the AIMS Lab was the city AIMS that helped in World War II by creating the uranium in the bombs that we used in Japan. So just to defend my colleagues at the AIMS Laboratory. But as a member of the team at the Illinois Institute of Technology, and we research this all the time, we're very interested in storage. And I think that's one field that you both agree upon. And we've just submitted to the World Health Organization a solar and storage unit that we placed into medical clinics in Sierra Leone to help refrigerate the vaccine that we expect to come out for the Ebola virus in December. But it's a one kilowatt or two kilowatt unit. Professor Jacobson, we've talked about this before, but why are we so slow in getting a utility scale storage system? We've got FERC 755. We've got government support and financial incentives to put utility storage into place for solar and wind. But we still have moved very, very slowly in that regard. Well, I think part of it is there's been less need. I mean, there is some natural storage, hydroelectric storage, and there has been a lot of ice storage under buildings. I mean, there are hundreds of stadiums and universities that have ice storage. My university has had ice storage since 1998. And it uses it to balance loads when it needs to. And there's underground storage. There's all sorts of storage that's pretty cheap. But there's a lot of focus lately on battery storage, which is 10 times more expensive than ice storage, which is another five times more expensive than, like, chilled water storage. And so there's just because now there's more of a need. Now that you have more intermittent wind and solar that are coming onto the grid, suddenly there's this demand for this storage. It wasn't there before. I'll just start. I did read a story today. This was on Bloomberg. And I think it was published today or yesterday about California's bringing on a 50 megawatt hour lithium ion battery storage facility in Southern California. It's a pretty big battery. But California has also mandated that their utilities add storage. So that's the only reason it's happening in California. Now, there is a sodium sulfur battery in West Texas where it's a very long, single power line that goes down to the Rio Grande Valley. It's not the most southern most part of Texas. But there are areas where batteries make sense already on the grid just for stability purposes and have nothing to do with renewables. And so, you know, batteries are getting better, but there's still not orders of magnitude better than what Edison and Volta worked with. I just wanted to ask the panel to comment on subject of scale and coordination in getting to a national renewable energy system. And I wanted to come back to the issue that came up briefly in the first presentations about the intermittency of renewable energy and the need. And I just can't see how we're going to get beyond the need for baseload capacity in moving to wind and solar. And the baseload has to come from either natural gas or nuclear or coal. And the other issue is in regards to the NIMBY syndrome mentioned people not wanting wind farms near where they live. But it seems to be one of the emerging issues in this regard with renewable energy technologies is long distance transmission lines. And that's going to be a hard sell for people in the Midwest and the West. So I was wondering if people can comment on it. Well, yeah, I can comment on long distance transmission use high voltage direct current. And it's actually beneficial because you really combine geographically dispersed wind and solar. So when the wind is not blowing in one place it's often blowing somewhere else. So there's a benefit of combining wind and also solar from geographically far away places to smooth out the load. And but in the cost if you use HVDC and if you actually amortize over the actual correct lifetime of the transmission lines which is 70 years from most of the components. And then the cost going 2000 kilometers is about one cent a kilowatt hour mean with a range of 0.3 to three cents a kilowatt hour. Which is compared to the average price of electricity in the U.S. about 13 and a half cents is not huge for that long distance transmission. So it's really but it comes down to a zoning issue. Nobody wants to put transmission there back here. So it's not really a technical or economic issue. The transmission is really trying to get permission. But the question is about the zoning issue. Oh, about that. Yeah. Well, that's all that's a political that's where social and political. But I do want to say one thing about baseload. So baseload is really overplayed because power demand is not smooth. Power demand is variable. So the key is to match the demand and you can't do that with baseload. Especially if you have larger and larger source is the baseload becomes more worthless. So what you really need to do is that's why demand response comes into play. And in right now the way we match demand is either with hydro or natural gas by using peaker plants which are really expensive. Because you let them sit there and spinning reserve modes. And so the cost of a peaker plant for natural gas is about 17 cents a kilowatt hour to run that. According to again, Lazard study, that's what his number is around 17 cents. And hydro, though, you can turn it off instantaneously. It's still in the order of three to four cents a kilowatt hour. So if you have hydro, that's the best way to balance loads. But, you know, really to balance those loads in a future energy economy, you have more flexible load. So you actually can shift the times of the demand. You can change the demand curve with transportation, with industry and some of heating and cooling and some of electric power. So it's a totally different paradigm when you go to 100% renewable energy. It's completely different than what you see today. Your demand loads will change and you can actually shift them to match the supply rather than the other way around. I'll just make one quick point on the siding of electric power lines. It is very controversial. I live in Texas. It's been very controversial for these Cres lines that are coming from the Panhandle in Texas down to Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Houston. And the landowners whose land was appropriated for these power lines were vehemently opposed and protested similar in the UK, similar in Germany. You know, I think that you have to make it worth their while. If you're going to take their land for this purpose, which benefits them not at all, they're not using that electricity, you've got to pay them. And I think it makes sense to pay them similar to a highway toll or something that they get an ongoing revenue source because their land is being used. So, but yeah, I mean, these siding issues, particularly, I mean, Dr. Jacobson talked about 350,000 wind turbines. We have 60,000 megawatts, roughly, of capacity here in the U.S. at two megawatts each. That's 30,000. We're talking about a 10-fold, 12-fold increase in the number of wind turbines in the U.S. You don't think there's going to be a backlash? I think there will be. I promise these guys we wouldn't keep them up here forever. So I'm going to announce the results of your vote and then we'll thank our panels and then we have a drawing, I believe. Do we not? For the students. So the vote was, I think, 68 for the proposition and 25 against the proposition. So we know how this crowd leans. Tomorrow, I remind you, tomorrow we have a series of panels and they'll be discussing some of these very issues, including the infrastructure issues that are so critical that have been discussed here. But please join me in thanking the panelists once again and yourselves.