>>> WELCOME TO THE AARON HARBOR SHOW.

THE DIRECTOR OF THE PAYNE INSTITUTE.

MORGAN THANKS FOR JOINING ME.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME HERE.

>> TALK ABOUT YOUR JOURNEY.

WHETHER YOU ARE SERVING THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND OR AT THE WORLD BANK OR HELPING THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM.

I WAS PRETTY -- I WAS ASTOUNDED AT EVERYTHING YOU HAVE DONE.

I STARTED TO THINK YOU HAVE SO MANY ACADEMIC AFFILIATIONS WITH UNIVERSITIES AROUND THE WORLD.

I BEGAN TO THINK MAYBE THIS GUY CAN'T HOLD A JOB.

TELL ME ABOUT THAT.

>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

I JOINED THE COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES FIVE YEARS AGO.

I HAVE NEVER ACTED AS AN ACADEMIC BEFORE.

I HOLD A PH.D.

I HAVE NEVER BEEN IN THE ACADEMY.

I JOINED FIVE YEARS ACROSS MINES.

SO MY LAST GIG WAS AT THE WORLD BANK WORKING WITH ENERGY.

I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN ENERGY.

I HAVE BEEN IN ENERGY FOR 25 YEARS OR SOMETHING.

I WAS AT THE BANK WORKING ALL OVER THE WORLD.

BEFORE THAT I HAD A TWO-YEAR STENT AT THE NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LAB.

"BEFORE THAT, I WAS AT THE UNITED" NATIONS FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS OR SOMETHING.

THERE THAT WAS AN EXCITING ONE WHERE I HELPED THE SECRETARY GENERAL DECIDED TO ROLL OUT AN ENERGY PROGRAM.

I WAS LIVING IN VIENNA.

BEFORE THAT I MOVED FROM VIENNA TO DUBLIN.

I WORKED FOR THE GOVERNMENT THERE.

BEFORE THAT I WAS WORKING IN ELECTRICITY MARKET AND DOING POST-DOC IN NORWAY AND SIDNEY AUSTRALIA.

I ENDED UP SUPPOSED TO LEAVE FOR SIX MONTHS AND ENDED BEING ABROAD FOR 15 YEARS.

>> IT IS AN INCREDIBLE JOURNEY.

I AM INTERESTED ON YOUR TAKE IN THE TRADE OFF BETWEEN THE DEPENDANCY OF THE UNITED STATES OF FOSSIL FUELS AND PROVIDING ENERGY TO OTHER COUNTRIES IN BALANCE WITH CLIMATE CHANGE.

>> THEY CALL IT A DUAL CHALLENGE ON THE INTERNATIONAL SCOPE.

THE BALANCE PROVIDING SERVICES TO THE WORLDS ECONOMIES AND PEOPLE AND AT THE SAME TIME ADJUSTING CLIMATE CHANGE.

IT TURNS OUT THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

IT DEPENDS WHERE YOU PRIORITIES ARE.

SO IN 2008 I WROTE A BOOK THAT HAS BEEN NOT WIDELY READ.

>> WHAT A SURPRISE FOR A PROFESSOR.

">> EXACTLY, IT HAS A CATCHY" TITLE.

>> I THINK IT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

>> IN THAT BOOK I NEVER GOTTEN CREDIT FOR THIS.

IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH WE SITED THE LARGE RISK TO EUROPE.

I'VE BEEN IN ENERGY SECURITY FOR MY WHOLE CAREER.

AND MORE RECENTLY IN THE UNITED "STATES, OR ACTUALLY DURING THAT" TIME OR SINCE THAT TIME EVERY PRESIDENT AND EVERY SECRETARY USED ENERGY INDEPENDENCE.

"IT IS A POWERFUL, POLITICAL" SLOGAN.

IT IS ATTRACTIVE TO VOTERS AND ATTRACTIVE TO POLITICIANS.

SO THE GOAL IS ENERGY SECURITY.

"MAKING SURE YOU HAVE ABUNDANT," HOPEFULLY CLEAN ACCESS TO ENERGY SERVICES.

WE ARE IN AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM.

THE THOUGHT THAT THE GOAL SHOULD BE INDEPENDENCE IS A POLITICAL GOAL.

>> THE PUBLIC THINKS WE ARE PRODUCING ALL THE RESOURCES WE NEED TO PROVIDE THE ENERGY THAT WE CONSUME.

IN REALITY ENERGY INDEPENDENCE SIMPLY MEANS WE HAVE THE RESOURCES THAT ARE PRODUCED HERE COMBINED WITH RESOURCES WE CAN RELY ON AND RUSSIA IS NOT NECESSARILY ONE OF THOSE.

THAT CREATES INDEPENDENCE.

WITH INCREASE IN OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION THAT CLEARLY GIVES US MORE SECURITY.

WHAT IS THE BOUNCE THAT YOU WOULD STRIKE?

IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO "THAT, TELL ME."

BY MAXIMIZING OUR PRODUCTION OF ENERGY THAT INCREASES OUR ABILITY TO REACH THAT GOAL AND CERTAINLY ENERGY SECURITY.

"RELATED DEFINITION, ENERGY" INDEPENDENCE.

A LOT OF PEOPLE BELIEVE MAXIMIZING THAT PRODUCTION RESULTS IN ISSUES RELATED TO CLIMATE CHANGE.

I THINK A MORE SOPHISTICATED ANALYSIS IS WHAT THE UNITED STATES DOES IN RELATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE IS ONLY A PORTION OF ISSUES OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

IF WE ARE FOCUSED ON MAXIMIZING OVERALL PRODUCTION TO KEEP PRICES DOWN AND WE ARE MINIMIZING OUR PRODUCTION.

MAXIMIZING GLOBAL PRODUCTION TO KEEP PRICES DOWN.

WE ARE ASKING COUNTRIES WHO ARE NOT OPERATING IN OUR INTERESTS WHO ENVIRONMENTALLY ARE DEGRADING THE ENVIRONMENT TEN TIMES MORE THAN WE ARE.

IT SEEMS INCONSISTENT IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ENERGY SECURITY AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT TO MINIMIZE THE U.S. PRODUCTION AND MAXIMIZE IT IN THOSE COUNTRIES.

>> THESE THINGS AREN'T -- SO TWO GUIDING PRINCIPLES ABOUT THIS.

COUNTRIES AND GOVERNMENTS DO WHAT IS IN THEIR PRIORITY.

WHAT IS YOUR PRIORITY BUCKET?

NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE A PRIORITY.

THAT IS THE FIRST THING TO SAY.

IF YOU LOOK AROUND THE WORLD SAY FIVE YEARS AGO -- FOUR YEARS AGO CLIMATE CHANGE WAS ON THE TOP OF MIND FOR A LOT OF COUNTRIES.

WE HAD A SWITCH AND MIND SET.

IT WENT BACK TO ENERGY SECURITY AND PRICES SPIKED BEFORE THE INVASION.

WHEN YOU PRIORITY IS SECURITY YOU TAKE DIFFERENT DECISIONS.

IT IS NOT THAT THEY BOTH CAN'T BE ADDRESSED SIMULTANEOUSLY.

ONE IS GOING TO HAVE MORE OF A DRIVER.

RIGHT NOW WE ARE VERY IN AN ENERGY SECURITY PRIORITY FRAMEWORK.

SO THREE YEARS AGO THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY SAID DRILL BABY DRILL.

AND EVERYONE STOOD UP AND CLAPPED.

THE HIGHER LEVEL DRIVER WAS ENERGY SECURITY.

YOU GET THE SIGNALS AND THE LEGISLATION AND THE REGULATION AND ALL THE REST TO GO TO WHAT WE ARE NOW.

NOT JUST THE LARGEST PRODUCER OF OIL EVER.

THE LARGEST PRODUCER AND LARGEST EXPORTER.

THAT'S A NONLINEAR RISE IN THE UNITED STATES.

THAT COMES FROM PRIORITIZATION.

WE ALSO IN THE U.S. DON'T "CONTROL, WE ARE NOT A NATIONAL" OIL.

WE DON'T CONTROL ALL THOSE COMPANIES.

THERE ARE SIGNALS.

AT THE SAME TIME ANYONE IN THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD POINT OUT THE BILL AND ALL THE VARIOUS ACT HAVE MADE AN ENORMOUS IMPACT IN CLIMATE CHANGE.

>> I WOULD ARGUE THAT SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

THOSE BILLS YOU REFERENCE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

THEY HAVE NOT HAD A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

BUT HERE IS MY POINT.

I ALSO DISAGREE WITH YOU IN TERMS OF THIS BALANCE.

I'M SAYING THERE IS ONE ANSWER TO BOTH CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY SECURITY.

AND THAT IS THE BY NOT RELYING ON ROGUE NATIONS AND COUNTRIES THAT HAVE TERRIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS.

WE CAN MAKE THEM BETTER.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS.

"I'M JUST SAYING, I THINK THOSE" WHO ARGUE THAT WE SHOULD MINIMIZE U.S. PRODUCTION AND BY DEFAULT WE END UP MAXIMIZING PRODUCTION AND YOU KNOW HOW "THINGS ARE IN VENEZUELA, FOR" "EXAMPLE, I WOULD ARGUE THAT IS A" SHELFISH PERSPECTIVE.

MINIMIZE THEIR PRODUCTION AND AT "THE SAME TIME, IF WE MAXIMIZE" OUR PRODUCTION WE WILL RUN OUT OF EASILY ACCESSIBLE FOSSIL FUELS.

HOPEFULLY WE HAVE ACHIEVED A MUCH GREATER TRANSITION TO RENEWABLES AND THAT MEANS THE DEPOSITS IN THESE COUNTRIES THAT ARE OPPOSED TO US ARE GOING TO -- THEY ARE GOING TO END UP WITH DEPOSITS IN THE GROUNDS THAT DON'T GET USED.

IF THEY DO GET USED PROBABLY SUBJECT TO MUCH MORE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS.

>> I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.

IN MY VIEW THAT CON FLATS LIKE 15 DIFFERENT THINGS.

AS AN ACADEMIC WHO WORKED FOR A LONG TIME.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR OVERALL TAKE THERE.

IT IS ATTRACTIVE.

"LIKE I SAID, IT IS CON FLATTING" A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

IT IS CONFLATTING DIFFERENT DEMAND AND ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS.

YOU HAVE TO BREAK THOSE THINGS APART.

WHAT YOU WOULD HEAR FROM ANY "INDUSTRY IN ANY SECTOR, YOU HEAR" THE SAME IN THE ENERGY SECTOR.

THIS IS FROM A COMPANY.

ALL WE WANT IS CERTAINTY AND POLICY.

YOU TELL US WHAT TO DO AND WE WILL DO IT.

HAS THERE EVER BEEN CERTAINTY IN POLICY?

NO.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING.

ONE OF THE ONLY COUNTRIES IN OUR DOMAIN THAT CAN PUT THAT PICTURE IS CHINA.

WE CANNOT PUT INFRASTRUCTURE WHEREVER WE WANT.

WE HAVE A HUGE SET OF ISSUES.

>> YOU ARE WRONG IN THE SENSE WE DO MAKE LONG-TERM COMMITMENTS.

WHEN WE PERMIT A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.

WE ARE MAKING A COMMITMENT.

WHEN WE DO PERMIT EXPERT FACILITY.

I THINK IT IS FAIR TO ARGUE IT IS DIFFICULT TO DO IT IN THE UNITED STATES.

WE MADE IT VERY COMPLEX.

IT IS NOT ACCURATE TO SAY WE DON'T DO LONG-TERM THINGS.

WE DON'T MAKE LONG-TERM COMMITMENTS.

WE DO.

WE MAKE IT HARD.

>> THERE IS NO WE HERE.

>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE COUNTRY.

"IT IS FEDERAL LEVEL, STATE" "LEVEL, LOCAL LEVEL."

WE MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO DO.

NEVER THELESS WE DO HAVE EXPORT FACILITIES.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT -- WHEN DRILLING PERMITS ARE ISSUED FOR OIL AND GAS THESE ARE COMPANIES "WILL BE UTILIZING 20, 30, 40" YEARS.

WE DO MAKE THOSE KINDS OF COMMITMENT.

AND TO SAY WE ARE CONFLATTING A LOT OF ISSUES THAT IS RIGHT.

I THINK THERE IS.

YOU HAVE AN ADMINISTRATION THAT HAS SIGNAL IN MANY WAYS IT WANTS TO MINIMIZE.

YESTERDAY HAS GONE OUT BEGGING THE COUNTRIES TO PRODUCE MORE.

THAT DOES NOT MAKE ANY -- THAT IS NOT A COMPLETION ANALYSIS.

THAT IS CRAZY.

YOU DON'T SAY WE ARE NOT GOING TO PRODUCE HERE.

WE ARE GOING TO LET SOMEBODY ELSE PRODUCE WHERE WE DON'T "CONTROL IT, THEY GET THE MONEY" ON TOP OF IT.

THIS IS NOT COMPLEX ANALYSIS.

>> IT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SET -- EVEN BETWEEN OIL AND GAS THEY ARE NOT THE SAME MARKET.

>> I'M SAYING YOU ARE MAKING THINGS OVERLY COMPLEX.

I'M SAYING -- OIL PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES IS CLEANER THAN OIL PRODUCED IN VENEZUELA.

>> AGREED.

>> YOU CAN MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON -- CERTAINLY ABOVE -- I'M TALKING AT A MACRO LEVEL.

>> THE BEST EXAMPLE IS NOT OIL.

THE BEST EXAMPLE IS NATURAL GAS.

WE HAVE A PAUSE.

PAUSES ARE NEVER GOOD POLICY.

PAUSES ALWAYS INDICATE SOME KIND "OF A STRATEGY, A LONG-TERM" STRATEGY AND A SHORT-TERM STRATEGY.

IT WAS CLEARLY PRESENTED AS A POLITICAL DECISION.

>> RIGHT.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS TRYING TO PLEASE ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORTERS.

IT IS NOT A GREAT WAY TO SET LONG-TERM POLICY.

>> IT HAS NOTHING TO DO NOT JUST THIS ONE BUT THEY ARE ALWAYS BAD POLICY.

THEY ALWAYS HAPPEN.

IT IS A BETTER EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

IF WE TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE "BEST WORK IN THE WORLD," "PRIMARILY FROM GASE, NOT AS MUCH" FROM OIL.

>> RIGHT.

>> YOUR POINT IS CORRECT THE UNITED STATES SPECIFICALLY COLORADO HAS THE BEST REGULATORY FRAMEWORK OF ANY OTHER "JURISDICTION IN THE WORLD," PERIOD.

IT IS NOT ONLY CLEANER IT HAS THE BEST FRAMEWORK.

WE ALWAYS HAVE SOME ASYMMETRY BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND REGULATION.

REGULATION IS ALWAYS CATCHING UP.

SO IN THE UNITED STATES WE CAN SAY THAT MUCH OF THE NATURAL GAS PRODUCED ARE THE CLEANEST MOLECULES IN THE WORLD.

AT LEAST THEY ARE THE MOST TRANSPARENT.

WE HAVE GROUND -- WE HAVE "SATELLITES, WE HAVE DRONES."

OTHER COUNTRIES DON'T HAVE THAT.

THEY WILL NOT HAVE THOSE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.

"ABSOLUTELY, US LNG IS THE" CLEANEST.

AND WILL GET CLEANER.

>> THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAS PROPOSED -- I'M SURE IN THE INDUSTRY THAT ARE NOT EXCITED ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL COST.

"WHEN IT COMES TO EMISSIONS, WHEN" "IT COMES TO CLIMATE CHANGE, WE" "NEED TO, YOU KNOW, IN THIS" ADMINISTRATION ITS INTENT OF CONTINUING THAT PATH -- TO REDUCING METHANE.

>> THEY HAVE THINGS IN PLACE.

WE HAVE A HUGE GROUP OF COMPANIES HERE THAT HAVE PLEDGED TO WORK ON METHANE EMISSIONS.

I THINK THAT IS A POSITIVE STORY.

IT IS GOING IN ONE DIRECTION.

I DON'T SEE THAT MANY COMPANIES THAT ARE FIGHTING THIS.

THE COMPANIES ARE FROM WHAT I SEE DOING THEIR BEST TO START TO COMPLY WITH THESE THINGS.

AND THOSE ARE IN GENERAL MUCH STRONGER DRIVERS OF CHANGE.

CLIMATE IS ON EVERYONE'S TALKING POINTS.

THE STRONGEST DRIVER IS SECURITY.

THE BETTER WAY TO NAVIGATE THIS OR ASK THE QUESTION CAN WE GUESS FROM HERE TO THERE WE WANT THESE CLIMATE CHANGE GOALS.

WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO DO IT?

I THINK THE BEST WAY TO DO IT IS FOCUS ON SECURITY AND THROUGH SECURITY LENS YOU HAVE MUCH MORE "POWER, MUCH MORE BUDGET AND MUCH" MORE INFLUENCE.

>> FINISH YOUR EXAMPLE ABOUT GAS.

>> WHAT WE SEE IS THESE DIFFERENT INITIATIVES THAT I RUN THROUGH GLOBALLY NOT JUST IN THE UNITED STATES.

IN THE UNITED STATES THEY ARE MOST SOPHISTICATED.

OUR STATE OF COLORADO IS THE BEST ON IT.

WE SEE IT EVERY DAY.

EVERY DAY WE WILL TAKE MILLIONS "OF DATA POINTS, WIND DIRECTION," ALL KINDS OF THINGS AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN AND WORKING ON THE DATA SCIENCE ASPECT OF IT.

IT IS VERY COMPLICATED.

WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS SIMPLIFY IT.

IT INCLUDES LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS FOR LNG.

I THINK IT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE RIGHT NOW ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

WE ARE SUR APPLYING THE WORLD WITH THE CLEANEST AND ENERGY SECURE.

IT IS FLEXIBLE.

IT IS NOT A SELLS PITCH FOR LNG.

THROUGH A SECURITY LENS WE CAN "GET TO ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS," THAT WILL HAVE BENEFITS OUTSIDE OF THE ENERGY SYSTEM.

WE WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE OUR MONITORING.

IT IS STEMMING FROM THE SECURITY NOT CLIMATE.

>> I'M GOING TO RAPID FIRE SOME QUESTIONS.

>> SURE.

">> SMRs, WHAT IS -- YOU GET ONE" OR TWO SENTENCES WHAT IS YOUR TAKE OF THEM MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN THE NEXT DECADE OR TWO.

>> THE INTERESTING PIECE I CAN ADD TO THIS I HAVE TWO PH.D.

PUTTING NUCLEAR POWER ON THE MOON WHICH IS -- WE ARE IN COLORADO WE WORK WITH PLACES LIKE SPACE COMMAND AND SPACE FORCE.

THERE WILL BE A WHOLE NEW SPACE EXPLORATION ASPECTS.

THERE ARE SOME EXCITING MARKETS.

"ON EARTH, SURE, I THINK IT WILL" BE PART OF A FUTURE SOLUTION.

>> GLOBAL WHERE YOU HAVE WIND SPEEDS ARE APPEARING TO REDUCE ONE OR TWO PERCENT.

IF YOU WANTED TO BE THERE 20 OR 40 YEARS THE TWO PERCENT WILL HAVE A TREMENDOUS IMPACT.

>> I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT.

I CALL IT RED HAIRING.

I WOULDN'T THINK IT MATTERS AT ALL IF IT IS A THING.

">> ACTUALLY, IT IS."

BELIEVE IT OR NOT.

WE TALKED ABOUT METHANE.

WE HAVE MADE GREAT PROGRESS HERE IN COLORADO.

WE STILL ALLOW FLAIRING.

FLAIRING IS WHEN -- AND VENTING IS WHEN PRESSURE BUILDS UP AND AVOID AN EXPLOSION AT A GAS WELL.

FLAIRING IS WHEN ARE IN A SIMILAR SITUATION BUT BURN IT.

A LOT OF THAT STILL DOES NOT COMBUST.

IT IS STILL VERY SIGNIFICANT.

WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT METH THAT I KNOW.

WE PROVIDE DATA FROM SEATTLES THAT SEE THE ENTIRE EARTH EVERY DAY.

A FEW YEARS AGO THE UNITED STATES WAS IN THE THIRD POSITION.

THE THIRD FLAIRING IN THE WORLD.

WE ARE OUT OF THE TOP TEN.

"THE TOP TEN INCLUDE RUSSIA," "IRAN, NIGERIA."

NOT GOOD COMPANY TO BE IN.

THERE IS A GLOBAL PLEDGE TO GO TO ZERO ROUTINE FLAIRING.

IN COLORADO WE HAVE ZERO ROUTINE FLAIRING AND IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS THEY DO TOO.

I THINK WE ARE SEEING A INCREASE IN FLAIRING WITHIN UP TICK IN OIL PRODUCTION.

"AND GLOBALLY, IT IS NONSENSICAL."

IT IS A WASTE OF GREAT RESOURCE.

IN THE SOUTH IT SHOULD BE USED FOR POWERING A GAS TURBINE.

IN THE U.S. WE ARE MOVING TOWARDS ZERO ROUTINE FLAIRING.

THAT WILL BE PART OF MAJOR STRATEGIES.

>> A COMPANY WILL SAY WHY WOULD WE FLAIR OUR PRODUCT?

WHY WOULD WE VENT OUR PRODUCT?

YOU DO IT BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER TO FLAIR IN.

YOU MAY NOT HAVE THE PIPELINE OR THE VALUE MAYBE TOO SMALL.

>> RIGHT NOW IT IS A MARKET ISSUE.

">> WHICH, OF COURSE, VARIES."

THEY DO IT BECAUSE IT IS IN THEIR FINANCIAL INTEREST.

I WILL BE INTERESTED ON YOUR TAKE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION.

WHY AREN'T WE DOING MORE?

>> IT GOES BACK TO THE FIRST THING I SAID.

YOU ONLY DO THINGS THAT ARE PRIORITIES FOR YOU.

IT HAS NEVER RISEN UP THE LATTER IT COMES FROM A PR PROBLEM.

THAT IS THE REAL REASON.

IT IS JUST NOT SEXY TO BE ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NEWSPAPER.

>> IF YOU COULD CHANGE ONE CHANGE WHAT WOULD IT BE?

>> I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT.

"I -- YOU KNOW, I THINK RIGHT" NOW -- I DON'T HAVE AN OVERALL ONE CHANGE.

I THINK ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW.

IT IS NOT HOW I THINK.

>> WHAT DO YOU SEE THAT AHEAD IN TECHNOLOGY THAT WE ARE DEPLOYING YET?

>> IT IS NOT AT THE POINT WHERE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DEPLOYED FULL SCALED.

LOOKING AHEAD WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT IN TERMS OF TECHNOLOGY CHANGE THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

>> I'M NOT A TECHNOLOGYIST WE "NEED ONE THING, SORT OF A BILL" GATES I THINK IN TERMS -- THE ISSUES IN THE ENERGY SYSTEM LIKE IN MOST OTHER SYSTEMS ARE NOT TECH CALL CHALLENGE.

IN HOW YOU INTEGRATE WHAT OUR TECHNICAL SOCIETY.

I THINK ACTUALLY IF YOU FOCUS JUST ON THE TECHNOLOGY SIDE YOU MISS ALMOST EVERYTHING.

MAKING TRADEOFFS EXPLICIT.

IT HAS RISEN UP THE PRIORITY AREA.

IS THERE ONE TECHNOLOGY CHANGE THAT CAN SOLVE A CRITICAL MINERALS ISSUE?

NO.

WE HAVE TO HAVE SOCIETY DIG THINGS FROM THE GROUND.

THERE IS TRADEOFFS.

THAT HAS EVERYTHING WE DO WITH COMMUNITIES.

VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH SOME MAGIC BULLET.

>> MORGAN THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THAT WAS PROFESSOR MORGAN OF THE COLORADO SCHOOLS OF MINES AND PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC POLICY.

I'M AARON HARBOR.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

\M\M \M\M \M\M \M\M [ CAPTIONS PROVIDED BY VZP DIGITAL ]