NARRATOR: HUMANITY MAY WELL HAVE IN SIGHT THE ABOLITION OF ABSOLUTE POVERTY AND, BEYOND THAT, THE AVAILABILITY OF A MODERN MIDDLE-CLASS LIFE FOR EVERY CHILD ON EVERY CONTINENT.

AS THIS GOAL GROWS CLOSER, THE NEEDS FOR ENERGY SKYROCKET.

SO FAR, THE DEBATE ABOUT THE FUTURE OF ENERGY SEEMS LOCKED IN THE PAST, A POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY AND THE RENEWABLE SECTOR, ESPECIALLY SOLAR POWER AND WIND POWER, WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN OFFERED AS ALTERNATIVES FOR DECADES.

BUT WHAT ELSE MAY BE OUT THERE ON THE TECHNOLOGICAL HORIZON TO GIVE THE WORLD TRULY NEW ENERGY ALTERNATIVES?

NARRATOR: THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY... AND BY... FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COURTROOMS AROUND THE WORLD, PEOPLE HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO TELL NOT ONLY THE TRUTH, BUT RATHER THE WHOLE TRUTH.

THE OATH REFLECTS THE WISDOM THAT FAILING TO TELL ALL OF A STORY CAN BE AS EFFECTIVE AS LYING IF YOUR GOAL IS TO MAKE THE FACTS SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

IN THE COURTROOM, THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH ALSO RELIES ON ADVOCATES ADVANCING FIRM CONTRADICTORY ARGUMENTS AND DOING SO WITH DECORUM.

ALL OF THESE APPLY TO THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, WHICH JOHN STUART MILL CALLED "THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS."

THIS SERIES IS A PLACE IN WHICH THE COMPETING VOICES ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF OUR TIME ARE CHALLENGED AND SET INTO MEANINGFUL CONTEXT, SO THAT VIEWERS LIKE YOU CAN DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES THE WHOLE TRUTH.

USUALLY, ON "THE WHOLE TRUTH," WE ARE EXPLORING DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW ON A QUESTION OF PUBLIC POLICY.

THIS EPISODE, WE WILL DO SOMETHING A BIT DIFFERENT.

ALL OF OUR GUESTS ARE UNITED IN A VIEW THAT ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY CAN AND SHOULD PROVIDE THE WORLD THE DISTRIBUTION AND PRODUCTION OF ENERGY IN WAYS WHICH ARE BETTER FOR HUMAN INTERACTION WITH THE ENVIRONMENT, AND ULTIMATELY, CAN BE BOTH LESS EXPENSIVE AND MORE WIDELY DISTRIBUTED THAN BOTH THE PRESENT INFRASTRUCTURE OF FOSSIL FUELS, OR THE NOW ALREADY DECADES-OLD ALTERNATIVES OF RENEWABLES.

GIVEN THE STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND LIVING STANDARDS AROUND THE WORLD, FINDING SUCH ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY IS AN INDISPENSABLE PART OF ANY VISION OF A WORLD IN WHICH ALL OF HUMANITY ENJOYS A COMFORTABLE LIFE.

TO SAY NOTHING OF THE NEED TO FIND SOURCES OF THIS GREATER FLOW OF ENERGY WHICH DO NOT IMPACT THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IN WAYS THAT COULD HARM THE HUMAN QUALITY OF LIFE ON OUR PLANET.

JOINING US HERE TO DISCUSS VARIOUS TECHNOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVES IN THE WORLD OF ENERGY ARE HOWARD HERZOG, SENIOR RESEARCH ENGINEER AT MIT ENERGY INITIATIVE; DR. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, CO-FOUNDER AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER OF OSCILLA POWER; DR. JOSE REYES, CO-FOUNDER AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER OF NUSCALE POWER; AND JOINING US VIA SKYPE FROM OXFORD, ENGLAND, DR. CHRIS CASE, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER OF OXFORD PHOTOVOLTAICS.

I'D LIKE TO START BY GOING AROUND AND GIVING EACH OF YOU A CHANCE TO GIVE OUR AUDIENCE AN IDEA ABOUT THE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS WHICH YOU ARE WORKING ON.

WHAT ARE THESE INNOVATIONS?

WHY AND HOW ARE THEY GOOD FOR THE WORLD?

WHAT DIFFERENCE ARE THEY GOING TO MAKE?

AND I'M SURE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE A TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE, MR. HERZOG.

CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGE, WHICH IS WHAT I WORK ON, IS A SET OF TECHNOLOGIES AIMED AT REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS FROM BURNING OF FOSSIL FUELS.

THE WAY IT WORKS IS YOU ACTUALLY REMOVE THE CO2 FROM THE EXHAUST OF FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION.

IT'S PRETTY MUCH AIMED AT LARGE STATIONARY SOURCES, MAINLY POWER PLANTS, OR INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES SUCH AS REFINERIES, CEMENT PLANTS, IRON AND STEEL WORKS.

AND ONCE YOU CAPTURE IT, YOU CAN THEN TRANSPORT IT, AND YOU HAVE TO STORE IT SOMEWHERE, AND RIGHT NOW, THE KEY PLACE TO STORE IT IS IN DEEP GEOLOGIC FORMATIONS.

WE ARE PUTTING CO2 IN THE GROUND RIGHT NOW, IN OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS FOR ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY.

IT HAS A VERY SAFE RECORD OF DOING THAT.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF STUDY ON IT, THERE'S BEEN SOME BIG PILOT TESTS, THERE'S SEVERAL PROJECTS PUTTING MILLIONS OF TONS OF CO2 IN THE GROUND RIGHT NOW, AND IT'S PRETTY SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.

YES, I SEE.

DR. NAIR?

OSCILLA POWER IS AN OCEAN WAVE ENERGY COMPANY.

THERE'S A LOT OF ENERGY IN THE OCEAN.

IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE OREGON COAST, YOU TAKE ONE METER OF WAVEFRONT, AND THERE'S ABOUT 35 KILOWATTS PER METER OF POWER DENSITY THERE.

THAT'S ENOUGH ENERGY TO POWER 20 HOMES IN ONE METER.

BUT IT TURNS OUT IT'S INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT TO CAPTURE THAT ENERGY AND CONVERT IT COST-EFFECTIVELY TO ELECTRICITY, SO WHAT WE ARE DOING AT OSCILLA POWER IS STANDING ON THE SHOULDERS OF PEOPLE WHO CAME BEFORE US, WHO HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO THIS FOR A CENTURY NOW, AND USE SOPHISTICATED NUMERICAL MODELING TECHNIQUES TO DEVELOP THE NEXT GENERATION OF WAVE ENERGY DEVICES.

YOU SAID IT'S BEEN ATTEMPTED FOR A CENTURY?

YEAH, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO CONVERT ELECTRICITY FROM OCEAN WAVES FOR OVER A CENTURY.

FIRST PATENTS WERE TAKEN OUT OVER A CENTURY AGO.

AND WHAT WOULD HAVE-- WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN TRYING TO DO THAT IN YOUR AREA?

IN THE UK, PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED IN THE NAVY, I GUESS, THAT'S KIND OF LIKE YOURS.

HARNESSING THE OCEANS, GREAT.

DR. REYES?

WELL, THANKS FOR INVITING ME.

WE ARE A DIFFERENT KIND OF NUCLEAR POWER.

WE'RE GEARED TOWARDS SMALL TO INTERMEDIATE GRIDS, AND MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS.

SO NOT JUST FOCUSING ON ELECTRICITY, BUT ALSO CLEAN WATER, HYDROGEN PRODUCTION, REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GASES FROM OIL REFINERIES.

SO A RANGE OF APPLICATIONS THAT'LL EXPAND THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

NOW, THE CONCEPT IS PRETTY SIMPLE.

IT'S A REACTOR INSIDE OF A SMALL CONTAINMENT VESSEL, SO THE WHOLE THING IS 15 BY 70 FEET LONG.

AND EACH MODULE PRODUCES 50 MEGAWATTS ELECTRIC.

IT'S SCALABLE, SO YOU CAN START WITH ONE MODULE AND YOU CAN ADD UP TO 12 MODULES FOR 600 MEGAWATTS ELECTRIC.

SO WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT MOVING THAT TECHNOLOGY FORWARD.

WE THINK THERE'S LOTS OF APPLICATIONS AROUND THE WORLD FOR THIS.

AND DR. CASE... WHAT IS THE OXFORD PHOTOVOLTAICS PROJECT?

ALL RIGHT, WELL OF COURSE, THE NAME PHOTOVOLTAICS SHOULD BE THE CLUE, WHICH IT'S SOLAR ENERGY.

SO PHOTOVOLATAICS IS THE DIRECT CONVERSION OF SUNLIGHT, OR LIGHT, INTO ELECTRICITY.

AND, YOU KNOW, SOLAR ENERGY IS NOT NEW.

IT CERTAINLY DATES BACK TO THE SEVENTH CENTURY BC, USING MAGNIFYING LENSES TO START FIRES.

BUT BACK IN 1839, THERE WAS THIS DEMONSTRATION OF PHOTOVOLTAIC EFFECT TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY FROM THE SUN.

BUT REALLY, IT WASN'T UNTIL ABOUT 1954, WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF AT&T BELL LABORATORIES' SILICON-BASED SOLAR BATTERY, THAT THE MODERN ERA OF PHOTOVOLTAICS TOOK OFF.

WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON IS A NEW APPLICATION FOR AN OLD MATERIAL CALLED PEROVSKITE, WHICH, FOR SHOW AND TELL, IS THIS LITTLE CRYSTALLINE MINERAL HERE, BUT WE ACTUALLY SYNTHESIZE THE ELEMENTS THAT GO INTO THIS INTO A SIMPLE FORMULATION FROM VERY EARTH-ABUNDANT MATERIALS.

IT'S CALLED PEROVSKITE.

YOU KNOW, A VIAL OF THIS MATERIAL COULD CONTAIN A KILOWATT WORTH OF PHOTOVOLTAIC ENERGY.

AND, OF COURSE, WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS TO PUT THIS MATERIAL ON TOP OF EXISTING SOLAR PANELS, EXISTING SILICON SOLAR CELLS, AND BOOST THEIR OUTPUT BY ABOUT 25%.

BUT, YOU KNOW, PV REALLY IS THE ONLY EFFECTIVE WAY TO BRING POWER TO ABOUT THE 1.4 BILLION PEOPLE THAT HAVE NO ACCESS TO MODERN ENERGY.

SO SOLAR REALLY IS THE SOLUTION FOR THAT KIND OF PROBLEM IN RURAL AREAS AND THOSE WHO ARE NOT CONNECTED TO THE GRID.

AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE FUTURE OF TECHNOLOGY LIKE OURS, AND THE FUTURE OF SOLAR CELL TECHNOLOGY REALLY IS AN ALL-ELECTRIC FUTURE.

ARE THESE METHODS IN COMPETITION WITH EACH OTHER?

ARE THEY COMPLIMENTARY IN SOME WAY?

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY, MR. HERZOG?

WELL, IN TERMS OF CLIMATE CHANGE, WHICH IS A BIG PUSH FOR A LOT OF THESE, THERE'S NO SILVER BULLETS, AND THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ONE TECHNOLOGY THAT'S GOING TO DO EVERYTHING.

SO I THINK YOU NEED ALL OF THESE.

THERE ARE CERTAIN ELEMENTS OUT THERE THAT ARE SORT OF PUSHING A TOTAL RENEWABLE FUTURE, BUT I THINK THEY'RE MORE OUTLIERS.

BUT THEY'RE VERY VOCAL IN WHAT THEY'RE STATING.

DR. NAIR, WHAT'S YOUR FEELING ABOUT THIS?

OUR PERSPECTIVE IS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY.

THE POPULATION AROUND THE WORLD IS GROWING, THE DEMAND FOR ENERGY IS ONLY CONTINUING TO GROW.

AND IN SOME PLACES IT'S GROWING NOT LINEARLY BUT EXPONENTIALLY, SO WE SEE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY.

AND IN MANY PLACES AROUND THE WORLD, THE DEBATE IS NO LONGER ABOUT SORT OF FOSSIL VERSUS RENEWABLE, BUT ABOUT WHO CAN GET THE ALTERNATIVES, THE RENEWABLES FASTER.

AND WE SEE THOSE AS REALLY ENCOURAGING SCIENCE, THAT THERE'S PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE.

WELL, HOW DOES IT LOOK FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE?

I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

WHEN I LOOK AT THE TYPE OF WORK THAT WE'RE DOING, WE'RE TRYING TO COLLABORATE MORE WITH THE OTHER FORMS OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY.

SO WE'VE COMPLETED A STUDY WITH-- ON RENEWABLES AND HOW OUR DESIGN COULD LOAD-FOLLOW US WIND AND SOLAR.

WE GOT SOME VERY GOOD RESULTS.

WE WERE LOOKING AT THE UAMPS PROJECT IN IDAHO.

THEY HAVE A WIND FARM, AND WE WERE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT MODES OF OPERATION WITH OUR NUCLEAR PLANT TO PROVIDE LOAD FOLLOWING.

SO I THINK THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO COLLABORATE MORE IN TERMS OF THE WORK THAT WE'RE EACH DOING.

I THINK THERE'S AN INTERFACE THERE.

WE ALL HAVE THE SAME GOAL, LIKE YOU SAID.

IT'S HOW DO WE GET THAT TECHNOLOGY OUT QUICKLY?

ARE GROUPS COMPETING TO COME UP WITH THE SILVER BULLET?

IS THIS A RACE OF SOME KIND?

IS THIS, UH, SOMETHING THAT HAS QUICKENED SUDDENLY?

WELL, THERE IS A RACE GOING ON.

OF COURSE, THAT RACE IS REALLY AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING.

I MEAN, THAT'S--SO I AGREE WITH THE PARTIES THERE THAT WE DO HAVE TO ADDRESS GLOBAL WARMING.

SO IT'S NO LONGER ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE DEPLETION OF FOSSIL RESERVES OR WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN USE NEW TECHNOLOGIES LIKE FRACKING TO EXTEND OR EXTRACT MORE FOSSIL FUELS FROM THE GROUND, OR EVEN ABOUT CARBON CAPTURE, CARBON SEQUESTRATION.

IT'S REALLY ABOUT GENERATING CLEAN RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND OF COURSE, PREDOMINANTLY, ALTHOUGH WIND COULD DO IT, SOLAR'S REALLY SIMPLY THE LARGEST SOURCE OF ENERGY.

YOU GENERATE TEN THOUSAND TIMES AS MUCH POWER FROM THE SUN THAN YOU NEED AND CONSUME IN THE WORLD.

BUT THE PROBLEM RIGHT NOW IS, OF COURSE, IT'S ONLY ABOUT 2% OF THE WORLD'S ENERGY GENERATION, SO YOU CAN'T SIMPLY GO FROM 2% TO SOME SIGNIFICANT FACTOR OVERNIGHT.

SO WE DO NEED THE CONTRIBUTION FROM ALL THESE ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES TO PRODUCE THE POWER OF THE FUTURE.

BUT AN ALL-ELECTRIC FUTURE DOES ENABLE SOMETHING THAT'S QUITE DIFFERENT, OF COURSE.

IT CHANGES THE NATURE OF POLITICS, IT CHANGES THE NATURE OF THE GRID IN THE WAY THAT WE DISTRIBUTE ENERGY.

AND, YOU KNOW, TO SUGGEST THAT IT CAN'T HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THIS HISTORY OF PV, PHOTOVOLTAICS, IN THE LAST 63 YEARS OR SO, IT'S DOUBLED 7 TIMES SINCE THE YEAR 2000.

SO IT'D ONLY HAVE TO DOUBLE 6 MORE TIMES, ACTUALLY, TO BECOME 100% PV.

SO ACTUALLY, THOSE ARTICLES ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD HAVE AN ALL-WIND OR RENEWABLE FUTURE ARE NOT UNREALISTIC.

DISRUPTION LIKE THIS DOES HAPPEN.

I'M JUST CURIOUS, IN YOUR AREA, DO YOU ENCOUNTER SUPERSTITION OR SORT OF PUSHBACK AGAINST THE VERY IDEA OF NUCLEAR?

YOU KNOW, THIS NUCLEAR IDEA OF AN UNLIMITED CLEAN RENEWABLE SOURCE, NUCLEAR, WAS SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY THOUGHT WAS GONNA HAPPEN ABOUT 50 OR 60 YEARS AGO.

WE'VE HAD DISASTERS AND PEOPLE HAVE BACKED AWAY FROM IT.

WHAT KIND OF RECEPTION DO YOU GET WHEN YOU RAISE THE WORD "NUCLEAR"?

YEAH, CERTAINLY WHAT ATTRACTED ME TO NUCLEAR TO BEING WITH WAS THE FAMOUS "ATOMS FOR PEACE" SPEECH.

THE UNITED STATES KNOWS THAT IF THE FEARFUL TREND OF ATOMIC MILITARY BUILDUP CAN BE REVERSED, THIS GREATEST OF DESTRUCTIVE FORCES CAN BE DEVELOPED INTO A GREAT BOON FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL MANKIND.

THE UNITED STATES KNOWS THAT PEACEFUL POWER FROM ATOMIC ENERGY IS NO DREAM OF THE FUTURE.

THAT CAPABILITY, ALREADY PROVED, IS HERE, NOW, TODAY.

SO THAT WAS A REMARKABLE THING TO ENVISION HOW MUCH ENERGY COULD BE PRODUCED BY A SINGLE PELLET OF URANIUM.

SO YOU DO ENCOUNTER SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE BECAUSE THEY DON'T NECESSARILY UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING ABOUT NUCLEAR.

WE'VE GONE A LONG WAY TO ALLAYING THOSE CONCERNS.

THIS DESIGN, WE BELIEVE, IS THE SAFEST DESIGN THAT'S EVER BEEN--WILL BE COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WE TALK ABOUT A EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE AROUND THE PLANT.

TYPICALLY IT'S A 10-MILE RADIUS.

WELL, IN OUR DESIGN, BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY FACTORS THAT WE'VE APPLIED TO THIS PLANT, WE'RE LOOKING AT A SITE BOUNDARY EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE.

THAT'S BASICALLY BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY OF THE DESIGN.

SO WE'RE WORKING HARD TO EXPLAIN TO THE PUBLIC THAT THIS IS A NEW GENERATION OF NUCLEAR.

AND WE'RE PAVING THE WAY FOR OTHER ADVANCED NUCLEAR DESIGNS THAT ARE COMING BEHIND US.

HAS THE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FIELD BEEN AVOIDING THAT OPTION?

IT'S INTERESTING.

I THINK THE REST OF THE WORLD IS EMBRACING NUCLEAR POWER.

ABOUT 460 NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS WORLDWIDE.

WE SEE CHINA AND MANY OTHER COUNTRIES MOVING TO NUCLEAR VERY QUICKLY BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DECARBONIZE THEIR POWER SECTORS.

SO THERE'S A WORLDWIDE EFFORT TO CONTINUE TO PROGRESS NUCLEAR POWER.

DR. CASE, I'D LIKE TO START WITH YOU ON SORT OF A SLIGHTLY, I WOULD SAY, DIFFERENT QUESTION, WHICH IS I AM WONDERING HOW THIS ENTIRE QUESTION, OR THIS FIELD, IS BEING APPROACHED.

IS THIS A NATIONAL--ARE BY AND LARGE THESE ALTERNATIVE INDUSTRIES, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, BEING DEVELOPED ON A NATIONAL OR AN INTERNATIONAL BASIS?

IS THERE A KIND OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OF SCIENTISTS WHO ARE COMING TOGETHER ON WHAT PEOPLE AGREE IS A KIND OF INTERNATIONAL CHALLENGE, OR IS THIS BEING PURSUED ON A NATIONAL BASIS?

I THINK THIS BEARS ON OBSTACLES AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

DO YOU SEE YOURSELF AS THE HEAD OF A BRITISH PROJECT, OR DO YOU SEE YOURSELF AS SORT OF PART OF A LARGER...

THE COMMUNITY, AT LEAST AROUND PHOTOVOLTAICS, IS ABSOLUTELY A GLOBAL COMMUNITY.

SO THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT THAT GOES IN TO ENHANCE THIS TECHNOLOGY IS A SETS OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF ACADEMICS, RESEARCHERS, AND NATIONAL LABORATORIES IN VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS AROUND THE WORLD, SO-- THIS IS NOT AN AREA WHICH IS IN ANY WAY BEING PURSUED AS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE.

THERE ARE DEFINITELY NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS TO SOME COUNTRIES.

FOR EXAMPLE, TAKE ISRAEL.

ISRAEL DOES NOT WANT TO BE CONNECTED TO EXTERNAL GRIDS, SO ALL ITS POWER HAS TO BE GENERATED WITHIN ITS BORDERS, AND THAT'S A DELIBERATE DECISION ON THAT COUNTRY'S PART.

SO IT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO USE THE BALANCING EFFECTS OF A LARGE DISTRIBUTED GRID AND PROBABLY MAKES IT HARDER FOR THEM TO TRANSITION INTO SORT OF A MORE RENEWABLE BASED GENERATION IN THE FUTURE.

BUT YOU KNOW, THAT MAY BE A SITUATION THAT'S UNIQUE TO THAT COUNTRY OR JURISDICTION.

BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, ALL COUNTRIES, WELL, I THINK, SHOULD BE AND WANT TO ADDRESS A RENEWABLE FUTURE.

WHAT I FIND DISTURBING IS SORT OF THESE CONCEPTS OF TRYING TO PROTECT INCUMBENT INDUSTRIES OR PROTECT JOBS, I MEAN, PV JOBS IN THE U.S. IS THE FASTEST GROWING JOB SEGMENT, MORE JOBS, IN TERMS OF OIL AND GAS.

AND THE ENERGY INDUSTRY HAS MORE JOBS CREATED IN PHOTOVOLTAICS AND PHOTOVOLTAIC INSTALLATION THAN THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY IN THE U.S.

COMBINED.

PEOPLE SHOULD WANT TO EMBRACE THAT KIND OF CHANGE IN THE EMPLOYMENT FUTURE.

AND, YOU KNOW, COAL IS-- BESIDES THE FACT THAT COAL TODAY STILL PRODUCES ENERGY THAT'S MORE EXPENSIVE THAN PV, THAT'S WITHOUT FACTORING IN THE HEALTH COSTS, WHICH HAVE INVARIABLY ATTRIBUTED BETWEEN 10 AND EVEN 30 CENTS A KILOWATT HOUR.

SO, I'M TALKING ABOUT PHOTOVOLTAICS TODAY CAN GENERATE ELECTRICITY, DISTRIBUTE IT, WITHOUT SUBSIDIES, IN MOST PLACES IN THE WORLD, CHEAPER THAN OTHER FORMS OF ENERGY.

THERE IS NO GOOD ARGUMENT NOT TO DEPLOY AS FAST AS YOU CAN THIS KIND OF TECHNOLOGY.

AND THIS DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN DO IT OVERNIGHT.

I AGREE.

IT WILL NEED A VARIETY OF THINGS TO ADDRESS THE INTERMITTENCY OF SOLAR.

BUT, YOU KNOW, STORAGE HAS A LOT OF OPTIONS, AND IT, TOO, BATTERIES AND THINGS HAVE BEEN DROPPING DRAMATICALLY IN PRICE.

SO I SEE THOSE AS PART OF A SOLUTION, BUT I SEE ONLY THE SUN AND SOLAR AS THE MOST INEVITABLE SOLUTION.

I CAN REMEMBER WINSTON CHURCHILL SAYING IN THE 1950S, "THE A-BOMB IS TURNING EVERY COUNTRY INTO A NATIONAL-- NATIONALIZING EVERYBODY'S OUTLOOK TOWARDS SCIENCE."

SO THIS IS A PROBLEM, FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, THAT IS CREATING A SORT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S TRANSCENDING SORT OF NATIONAL POLICIES.

ARE NATIONAL POLICIES IN ANY WAY LINING UP?

DO WE SEE--YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TAX BREAKS AND OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE UNITED STATES.

DO YOU SEE POLICIES LINING UP, BEING COORDINATED IN ANY-- SO WHAT I SEE IS, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE TECHNOLOGY, ALL OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES ARE INTERNATIONAL, AND THERE'S INTERNATIONAL GROUPS OF SCIENTISTS.

BUT THE FUNDING FOR THESE ARE FROM NATIONAL SOURCES.

AND THE NATIONAL SOURCES DON'T LIKE A LOT TO HAVE THEIR MONEY GO ACROSS BORDERS.

SO SOMETIMES YOU'LL SEE INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS, BUT IT'S REALLY THE POLICIES OF EACH COUNTRY.

SO IN CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE, CERTAIN COUNTRIES HAVE FAIRLY STRONG PROGRAMS.

OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE VERY WEAK OR NONEXISTENT PROGRAMS.

I THINK YOU'LL SEE THAT ACROSS THE BORDER IN ALL THESE DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES.

WHAT'S YOUR VIEW ON THAT?

THE UNITED STATES IS PROBABLY NOT UNIQUE, BUT CERTAINLY AN OUTLIER WHEN IT COMES TO SORT OF THE CURRENT PERSPECTIVE ON ALTERNATIVE ENERGIES.

THERE IS ALIGNMENT, I THINK, LARGELY IN THE REST OF THE WORLD IN AT LEAST SETTING A DIRECTION TOWARDS A RENEWABLE FUTURE IN SOME WAY.

IT DOESN'T MEAN SORT OF AN EXTREME, WHERE YOU CUT OFF FOSSIL FUELS COMPLETELY, BUT A TAPERING-DOWN EFFECT IS CERTAINLY-- DR. CASE MENTIONED ISRAEL.

ARE THERE AREAS OF THE WORLD OR SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITIES THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER TO BE HOLDOUTS?

PEOPLE WHO ARE PURSUING ENTIRELY, I WOULD SAY, SECTARIAN PROGRAMS, THINGS THAT ARE NOT-- WOULD BE MYSTERIOUS TO A COMMUNITY OF INTERNATIONAL PRACTITIONERS?

IT'S INTERESTING TO ME THAT-- WE TALKED ABOUT AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WORKING TOWARDS A COMMON GOAL OF, YOU KNOW, CLIMATE CHANGE.

I GUESS I DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY.

I DO SEE IT INTERNATIONAL, BUT I TEND TO SEE IT SILOED.

I TEND TO SEE THAT THERE'S A GROUP THAT REALLY IS PROMOTING RENEWABLES, WIND AND SOLAR, AND THEY TEND NOT TO BE ACCEPTING OF MANY OTHER TECHNOLOGIES.

SO THAT CONCERNS ME A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE AS A SCIENTIST, I'M ACCUSTOMED TO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES, LET'S REALLY DEAL WITH ALL DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF IT, AND THEN COME TO A RATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION.

SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE WORK IN THE WHOLE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IN RESOLVING THIS ISSUE AS A SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

LET'S GET RID OF THE SILOS.

I REALLY DON'T LIKE THAT.

OK, WELL, I HAVE A-- WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE SHORT ON TIME HERE.

I HAVE A QUESTION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO POSE TO EACH MEMBER OF OUR PANEL, AND THAT IS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND REDUCING EMISSIONS.

THAT DEADLINE HAS PASSED, AND THEREFORE ACTION IS NOW REQUIRED.

SO MY QUESTION IS HOW FAR AWAY ARE WE FROM A LOW CARBON FUTURE?

HOW LONG IS IT GOING TO TAKE FOR INDUSTRY TO ADJUST, FOR TECHNOLOGIES TO COME ONLINE?

IS THIS GOING TO BE AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS, OR ARE WE LOOKING AT A REVOLUTION, THAT IS, SOMETHING THAT COULD COME UPON US AS QUICKLY AS, SAY, THE PERSONAL COMPUTER, WHICH SEEMINGLY CAME OUT OF NOWHERE IN THE 1980S?

WHAT'S YOUR SENSE OF IT, MR. HERZOG?

IT'S GONNA TAKE DECADES.

DAVID: DECADES.

ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES ARE DIFFERENT THAN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES.

I MEAN, JUST LOOK AT EVEN SWITCHING OVER A WHOLE GENERATION OF AUTOMOBILES WILL BE 15 TO 20 YEARS, AND BEFORE YOU DO THAT, YOU GOTTA DESIGN THE NEW AUTOMOBILES IF YOU WANT TO ELECTRIFY IT TO GET THE CARBON OUT OF THEM.

ELECTRIFICATION OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE WILL TAKE DECADES, SO-- AND YOU LOOK AT THIS IN ALL THE OTHER SECTORS, SO ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES MOVE SLOWLY.

NOW, THEORETICALLY, IF YOU WANT TO REALLY SPEED IT UP, YOU CAN, BUT THAT MEANS EVERYBODY SAYS, YOU KNOW, PUT US ON A WAR FOOTING, AND UNFORTUNATELY, CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOWHERE NEAR THAT TYPE OF PRIORITY AT THIS TIME.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY THE WAY JIMMY CARTER POSED IT IN THE SUMMER OF 1979.

THE MORAL EQUIVALENT OF WAR, WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT AMERICAN ENERGY INTERDEPENDENCE.

BUT A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES BEGINS WITH A FIRST STEP.

HAVE WE TAKEN THE FIRST STEPS?

WE ARE TAKING THE FIRST STEPS, BUT WE ALSO ARE TAKING SOME STEPS BACKWARDS.

DAVID: OK. DR. NAIR.

I GUESS I SEE IT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY.

IF YOU JUST THINK ABOUT THE DEBATE 10 YEARS AGO, THE ARGUMENTS WERE THAT SOLAR AND WIND AND RENEWABLES IN GENERAL ARE JUST TOO EXPENSIVE TO COMPETE HEAD TO HEAD WITH FOSSIL FUELS.

NOW, AS DR. CASE MENTIONED, THE DEBATE HAS CHANGED.

IT IS ALMOST CHEAPER IN MANY LOCATIONS OF THE WORLD TO PRODUCE ENERGY.

AND THAT HAPPENED JUST IN 10 YEARS, SO I SEE THAT AS HAPPENING MUCH QUICKER THAN-- THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S OVERNIGHT, BUT IT MIGHT BE A LOT QUICKER THAN WHAT WE-- DAVID: THAT HAS CHANGED, DEFINITELY, YES.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL SOLUTION.

I THINK MANY REGIONS OF THE WORLD WILL NEED CERTAIN TYPES OF POWER, LIKE NUCLEAR.

OTHERS WILL NEED OTHER TYPES OF POWER, LIKE SOLAR AND WIND, AND I THINK IT'S GONNA TAKE TIME.

I THINK IT'S A BALANCING ACT.

AS WE LEARN MORE ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGIES AND THEIR ECONOMICS AND DEPLOYMENT, THE MARKET WILL START TO ASSESS AND SAY, WELL, THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD DEPLOY IN THIS PARTICULAR REGION.

OK. DR. CASE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DECADES HERE.

WHAT'S YOUR SENSE OF THIS?

I THINK IT COULD HAPPEN MUCH FASTER THAN SOME OF THE PANELISTS BELIEVE.

AND I THINK JUST TAKE, AS AN EXAMPLE, THE SWITCH FROM HORSES AND CARTS TO AUTOMOBILES.

IT OCCURRED IN JUST A GENERATION, RIGHT?

AND THE ADOPTION OF THE SMARTPHONE OCCURRING IN A GENERATION ALSO.

AND IF YOU LISTEN TO THAT STATEMENT I MADE ABOUT THE DOUBLING OF PV INSTALLATIONS, SOLAR INSTALLATIONS 7 TIMES SINCE THE YEAR 2000, THIS RATE OF GROWTH, 35% TO 40%, WE REALLY CAN MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL SWITCHOVER TO RENEWABLE ENERGY, IN THIS CASE SOLAR, BUT IN A SHORT ORDER.

SO I DON'T THINK IT IS NECESSARY TO SORT OF SAY THAT WE'RE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED.

WE'RE LIMITED BY OUR JUST COMMITMENT TO GO AND DO THIS.

YES, WELL, I CANNOT IMAGINE-- I'D SAY POPULATION WOULD BE THE OTHER QUESTION IN MY LIFETIME, WHICH HAS A KIND OF END TIMES FEEL TO IT.

THE IDEA THAT ENERGY COULD RUN OUT, OR THAT WE ARE GENERATING ENERGY IN A WAY THAT WILL ACTUALLY HARM THE WORLD AND HARM THE ENVIRONMENT AND SO FORTH.

THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS, AND WE GREATLY APPRECIATE THE PERSPECTIVES THAT ALL OF YOU HAVE SUPPLIED ON THIS VERY VITAL QUESTION.

DR. CASE, THANKS FOR SPEAKING TO US FROM ENGLAND.

AND THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'M NO SCIENTIST OR ENGINEER, AND I AM CERTAINLY IN NO PLACE TO ADJUDICATE EITHER THE INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS ABOUT THE PROMISE OF THE VARIOUS TECHNOLOGIES DISCUSSED BY OUR GUESTS ON THIS EPISODE, NOR RANK THE TRUE PROMISE OF THESE DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES AGAINST ONE ANOTHER, OR AGAINST OTHER ALTERNATIVES WE HAVEN'T EVEN CONSIDERED HERE.

HAVING SAID THAT, THE WHOLE TRUTH TO ME, FROM THIS DISCUSSION OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL POTENTIAL IN THE WORLD OF ENERGY IS THAT THERE IS GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE SKY IS NOT FALLING, GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT WILL BE POSSIBLE TO MEET DRAMATICALLY HIGHER DEMAND FOR ENERGY FOR OUR HUMAN RACE, GROWING BOTH IN ABSOLUTE SIZE AND IN AFFLUENCE WITHOUT DESTROYING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IN ORDER TO TRY TO MEET THIS DEMAND.

I'M DAVID EISENHOWER.

THANK YOU FOR ONCE AGAIN JOINING US ON "THE WHOLE TRUTH."

NARRATOR: THIS EPISODE OF "THE WHOLE TRUTH" WAS MADE POSSIBLE BY... AND BY... AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.