change is happening. those are the people who are really revolutionizing the world. i want to be part of that. and i say coincidently, it is not that unlike what happened during the free speech movement where you had people who were literally watching newsreels at the time on the east coast of what was happening and berkeley and saying they wanted to be a part of that thing. and i guess the lesson that i would give on this is that -- when i look back on it, i have known for some time that electoral politics -- i was not getting what i wanted out of it. i think it probably took me longer in hindsight than it should have to make the change. and i think -- i talk to people, particularly new grads that work

with us a lot about this where you may not be certain what your calling is and in that case, keep experimenting. the flipside of that is there are many people, and if you push them on it, they will tell you they will say i don't know what my calling is but what i am doing is not that. and yet they don't have the courage to make the change. and so for me, the main lesson was when i knew that that was not my calling, it probably was -- i don't know, a year, a couple of years before i really owned that and said, you know what, i'm going to honor the fact i know this is not the right path for me. and you would pursue something else. rich: part of that transition for all of us is, the kernel of that notion of facilitating

social change. we don't always know what the kernel is. once we identify the kernel, the options that are likely to be more aligned become more clear. gabriel: for me, part of the inside i had came out of trying to create a little bit of distance from it and saying, ok, what is it i am doing? what is the pleasure i derive from this? what is it that is inspiring? is this the best venue for me to be living that out? and even in the world of media and communications and public policy, i didn't necessarily know that was the job for may -- for me. but the insight i had was it seems like technology is the general venue for me to live this out. >> it is great. it is great. you as a leader, as a manager, what is your leadership style? how has your thinking and leadership changed?

-- on leadership changed? gabriel: my thinking on leadership and management is in some ways formed by my experience in political campaigns, which if you were going to have -- first on management. and then i would just say on leadership. but if you were to create a petri dish of how not to manage people, you would have created a political campaign. [laughter] it is -- and i suppose to be fair, it has been a longtime since i worked on a political campaign. so let me just give that the benefit of the doubt and say maybe a lot has changed. but at the time, in this country

at least -- you have environment where it is very transaction-based, a bunch of people trying to win something by a certain date. it doesn't lend itself to really nurturing people over a long pe riod of time. it is really transactional now. for me, so much of my approach to management and leadership was informed by what was not happening. and i think the beauty of the technology industry is you end up getting a lot less experienced people who bring really, really new ideas to the table and if you can embrace that, -- i would say to the question of my leadership style, i really try to get people a ton of room to make a lot of small

mistakes. and i believe that as leaders and managers -- and again, sometime from now you could have someone else on the stage process, i want people to fail -- who says i want people to fail and it is easy to say. you cannot just say that. you need to, especially for less experienced people, you need to go out of your way to force them to make mistakes. i remember i had someone who would work for me who was -- who i would say, you need to be taking more risk. and we have these quarterly objectives and measurable goals. a lot of companies have these

things. and i said to her, here is what is going to happen. for you, when you set up your quarterly goals, i want you to put in their -- put in there that you will make a certain number of mistakes. then, we will revert back to the mistakes and what you learned from them. unless you are really deliberate with people about this, it is not going to happen. so i guess my style is letting encouraging people to take risks, encouraging them to make mistakes, and having an

encouraging them to take risk, to make mistakes, and make sure they know they are unable to make a catastrophic mistake. if someone makes a catastrophic mistake, that is more of a position as a leader when they can make a catastrophic mistake as a leader. you can put them in a position to make a small mistake and if there is something cataclysmic on your watch, it is up your -- it is up to you to take responsibility for. >> also the stretch assignments as well. it just popped into my head that one of our faculty, he was giving a speech, a commencement speech and there was a project in the phd student said i don't know if i can do that. he said i would not have asked you to do that if i did not think you could do that.

there is a profoundly validated element pushing places. that is a great management style. can ask you one more questions before you eat open -- before we open it to the floor? you think about your role in the senior team in helping to keep twitter "can you talk about how you keep and think about that part of the inward-facing role? gabriel: the culture is a living, breathing thing. especially in the technology world where you have companies like twitter that are young -- twitter is going to be nine later this year. you imagine this has been there forever but it has not. not even close. yet, because of the cycle of our role in the media and technology world, there is a sense of attachment to things, including culture. even in companies like ours, there is this pull to preserve

parts of our culture. at twitter, -- dean lyons: are they well identified? they are. gabriel: they are. we have these core values. we want to create a culture where those values can continue to exist but that is different from reserving a culture. -- preserving a culture. inwardly, our responsibility on the leadership team is to create an environment where those types of values can continue to flourish and also, being really open-minded about when some of these things are falling down. i'll give you a specific example. we had to core values which are deliberately in opposition to each other.

one of which is to be rigorous and get it right. another is to ship it. we talk about launching things as shipping things. ship it is just get it out the door. get it right is a different, thoughtful value. those two things are at all the with one another. when as a company we felt like the fact these things are at odds with one another is slowing us down, creating tension we don't need and building

headwinds that are counterproductive. then it is our responsibility as a leadership team to acknowledge it. i think our companies tend to fall down is these things possibly exist. you are building this. you sit at that table. if you are doing nothing, you are just standing by, you are facilitating this counterproductive thing. acknowledge what is going on and acknowledge for everyone outside of that room it is going on and say, even if it is the case we don't have an answer, this is something we are thinking about. we are trying to address it. part of us as a culture, we were talking earlier about our external transparency report. we try to be radically transparent internally also. as a leadership team, we are deliberating over a number of things that impact our culture but we try whenever possible to

share that with the company as it is happening. >> that is great. a great internal norm. dean lyons: those are some of the difficult conversations not usually framed that way. usually, we are thinking about a manager and a direct report and something that is not go right. but this notion of saying, this is a tension in our work environment. we don't have the answer but let's talk about it. that is a great example. questions from the audience. let's open it up. we have a couple of microphones. we want to make sure to capture it in the video. we have the capacity for questions to come from remote. >> a recent article on npr highlighted the role with her -- the role twitter was playing in journalism in mexico with the cartel violence that was a rubbing -- that was erupting. one woman's account was hacked and it was reported she died. what response is any dust twitter avenues violet situations? gabriel: the account was not true? >> she was reporting on the violence. no one was entirely clear if she ever was a real person or not. gabriel: i would say in the context of violence or any kind of crisis kind of situation, part -- we get this question a lot. i will give you another example. it relates. in the aftermath of hurricane sandy, there were accounts on twitter of flooding in this place and people had these falsified photos of certain places underwater. there, you have questions like twitter and other social media seem to be giving rise to potential misinformation. as i was saying earlier, i really believe it is one of the most extraordinary viral platforms ever in existence. it can be a vector for the viral spread of misinformation.

what i always point out in this context is the spread of misinformation in the context of some kind of crisis breaking news situation is not new. it far predates certainly social media. the example i would give from sometime after i graduated from here was the bombing of the federal building in oklahoma city. before social media, you had established media and news accounts at the time were that there were people of a certain ethnicity who purportedly executed that bombing. the difference, and i think this is the key distinction, it can be this vector of this

misinformation but the difference is i don't remember the confines but if you go back it was not minutes that that misinformation was out there. perhaps someone knows how long the duration was. it seems to me it may have been days. the fundamental change is that you have on one hand, with platforms like twitter, an opportunity for incredible on the ground reporting. i am standing on the hudson river, there is a plane. it just landed. here is a picture. we later find out this is true. or, i am standing on the corner of bleaker street and we are underwater. ps, it is not true.

the beauty of social media is it has accelerated the time of the debunking of these things. if we could rewind to the oklahoma city bombings, with that tragedy, with a platform like twitter, we might have accelerated the time it took to debunk the misinformation. it exists but it can get put act in its place better -- put back in its place better and mark quickly now. dean lyons: thank you for that. can you use the microphone? thank you. >> thank you. what is your view on google withdrawing from china? more specifically, to provide limited but still superior service to 1.4 billion people compared to no service at all. gabriel: that was definitely the most challenging chapter of my time at google without a doubt. you know, it was a source of real soul-searching at the company. first, let me tell you where we stand on this at twitter and i can try to shed some light on how that went for us at google.

twitter is currently blocked in china. as much as we would love for people in china to be able to freely access twitter, they cannot. what we said is that we are unwilling to make the kinds of sacrifices that we believe we would need to make in order to be unblocked there. perhaps there is a world in which twitter can be unblocked but it would require sacrifices that were just not prepared to commit to because of our values. in the case of google, i would say it was similar. the difference was for us at the time to continue to operating

there, it was requiring levels of sacrifice that we were unwilling to continue to sign up for. you can absolutely argue as it was argued extensively internally at the time that being there even in this diminished capacity and giving people some access to the service is better than nothing but what i will tell you about the experience of the time was the premise of it was we will be there and hopefully, the trendline will be one of greater and greater openness. yet, we view the opposite. coinciding with our presence was a move towards more and more closed behavior and limited

access and then finally, at the time when we decided to take the action that we did, actual targeting of activists and dissidents, the question was what is the benefit coming from our presence? it didn't seem like it was benefiting the people in mainland china and it did not seem like it was benefiting people outside either. it is a perfectly valid question. it was one that required years of deliberation on our part. that was a conclusion we can do and it is a similar conclusion we have come to at twitter. dean lyons: thank you for that. feel free to line up. >> one of the things with twitter that is interesting is you have seen a decline -- or not the growth people have wanted to see for monthly active users. one of the trends is around syndication, how is twitter being integrated into tv shows etc..

it is a greater measure of the impact twitter is having. now that you are talking about the free speech movement, i have been wondering, do you have any thinking about what metrics you could use to more quantitatively measure how twitter is being used as a movement and whether it is where you want to see it and the impact it has had as a company? gabriel: this is a great question. before when i was saying that i feel like being a publicly traded company has not changed us that the spotlight as maybe brighter, this is a great example.

we love the growth we see with the company. there are people who have their own ideas of what that growth should look like. the disconnect is if you just view twitter through the lens of monthly active users, it is missing the whole part of the equation and it is certainly missing it in the context of a broader movement. for us, when we think about the impact we had and how best to measure it, it is much more to do with the audience associated with any moment than it does the

specific number of monthly active users exposed to something. it has more to do with the number of people who got to view and interact with a tweet associated with the oscars or the super bowl or elections in then the individual number of -- elections in the u.k. then the individual number of people who produced a tweet. it has more to do with the audience than it does this limited slice of a user base. that is more how we think about it. most recently, you saw it is hard to experiment with different kind of logged out experience that would allow you to experience this. that is how we are thinking about it. hopefully, it will let people experience that part of the global conversation.

>> when you use the term audience, you are not just thinking collective followership. it is retweets, expression of engagement with the content. gabriel: if you are barack obama and you want to tell the world you have just and reelected as president of the united states you take to twitter to do so and you tweet out four more years, as he did is, but you take to twitter to do so because it is not only your x million followers could see that. you do that because that tweet gets syndicated around the world, around the web, broadcast on television. that is your audience exposed to that particular expression. our users already think of it in this way and it is just a question of what are the ways to quantify that and we are certainly thinking along those lines. dean lyons: great question. we have time for some more questions. can you give us examples of things that might be worrisome? gabriel: the china example is a fair one. we have been blocked at various times by other countries around the world also. these are things that keep us up. suddenly, people are unable to access this platform that gives their voice this broader

megaphone, it is really challenging for us. and how do we do that well continuing to uphold our values? yeah, those are things certainly for me, those are things that are really, really challenging. dean lyons: especially for you you get the first call. gabriel: yeah. dean lyons: how often do you tweet? gabriel: several times a day. one of you was tweeting you were excited to have me here. i responded. was that you? good to see you in the world. just to tread lightly and question the status quo, partly for me what i feel is a visible position, i am a private person, and i use twitter more for professional services, so you

will see me tweeting things like we issued our transparency report. that is the kind of thing i want people to know about. i know there are a lot of other people tweeting about seeing their daughters first steps. my daughter's first steps were experienced by me in the comfort of my own home and were not disseminated in this way, but that is up to each on their own. dean lyons: i tend to use it professionally as well as well but occasionally i will tweet about my kids, and it sounds authentic to them. i think they respond favorably. gabriel: it is lovely. it is lovely. as a user, some of those moments where i get to see this unvarnished look at people i've never would have had access to -- i love those experiences. to be able to be exposed to interactions between people -- i love those experiences, too, and to the extent there is an appetite to see that unvarnished look at me, i am happy to catch up over a coffee at some time, but i am not putting it on display.

dean lyons: are there any tweets you regret? gabriel: that is a great question. maybe because i am a cautious person, no, there are none, but i stand by them. there are plenty of other people i regret having done. dean lyons: that is great. this is a relatively recent tweet of mine and i thought it was harmless. my daughter had a civilization's history textbook and i picked it up and started going through it and it mentioned that as best experts can tell, christ was not born in the year zero. he was born in the year 5 bc that was the best guess. i tweeted i just learned this, am i the last to know? the birthdate of christ is an important date for a lot of people in the world, and i got a response. [laughter]

i was trying to be the scientist. it was one of those things where it got a little more response than i expected. [laughter]

gabriel: if it makes you feel any better, we had dr. neil degrasse tyson out in the bay area area last week, and he came by the office and i was asking him about an extraordinary exchange he had -- some of you may have seen this -- i think it was last christmas, and he tweeted out that on this day december 25, we celebrate -- i will do a bad job of paraphrasing, but this is the spirit of it, for you fact-checkers -- "on this day, we celebrate a man who was born, and by the time he was 30 revolutionized the world. happy birthday, isaac newton." it turns out people assign very special value to december 25 and he heard an earful about that, but to your question, any

tweets that we or others regret -- he certainly was unapologetic in having made that. you know, i think, again, people are provocative in their lives. he is certainly a provocative member of our society, and i think he is probably just as provocative now as he was before twitter, it is just that we all get to experience it along with him. those types of behaviors, i love seeing. dean lyons: that is part of why the university is such an exciting place. the marketplace for ideas is open, and that is why we love it here so much. gabriel, thank you very much for being here today. gabriel: thank you for having me. [applause] dean lyons: thank you you all for being here. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> we are led this afternoon at

the atlantic council hearing washington, d.c. for a discussion on new battery technology. among the speakers is georgetown university professor steve levine. he is excited to talk about the technical challenges of next generation energy storage and what that could mean for the renewable energy sector. this is scheduled to start -- it is a couple minutes late. we will have live coverage when it does get underway here live on c-span. while we wait for the start of this program, today is the day of the annual easter egg roll at the south lawn of the white house. president obama and first lady michelle obama open the festivities with an addressed to those gathered on the lawn. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states barack obama and michelle obama

accompanied by the easter bunny. >> ladies and gentlemen -- id for girls. [applause] ♪ oh say can you see

by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming and the rockets red glare the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night

that our flag was still there o say does that star-spangled banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave ♪ [applause] president obama: hello everybody.

happy easter. we are so blessed to have this beautiful day and have so many friends in our backyard. malia and sasha asked school stuff going on today, but they want to send their love. along with the easter bunny. this is one of our favorite events. we hope you guys are having fun. this is a particularly special easter egg roll because we have actually got a birthday to celebrate. it is the fifth anniversary of the first ladies lest move initiative. -- let' move initiative.

s to help us celebrate, we have the updated -- group fits harmony here to celebrate. are you ready to sing happy birthday? it harmony. -- fifth harmony. >> thank you so much for having us. it is so incredibly cool to be singing at the white house. we are so honored to be here to help sing mrs. obama's initiative and happy birthday. we think it is really cool that she wants to help people around the nation be happy and healthy. the cause of this special occasion, we want to present you guys a birthday cake. happy birthday. happy easter. [applause] give me five. all right. president obama: are we ready to sing?

let's do it. >> are you going to sing with us? president obama: sure. >> ♪ happy birthday to you happy birthday to you happy birthday let's move. happy birthday to you ♪ [applause] >> thank you. happy easter. president obama: thank you. michelle obama: thank you guys . president obama: appreciate it.

>> thank you. president obama: all right. michelle obama: that was so good. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] michelle obama: welcome to the easter egg roll. as you have for, this is the fifth anniversary of let's move. we are celebrating by taking over the easter egg roll with #givemefive. for those who do not know about the give me five challenge, it is the fun and exciting way to get the whole country to celebrate the fifth birthday of let's move and we are asking americans of all ages to give me five ways that they are leading a healthy life. five jumping jacks, eating five new vegetables, maybe doing a

give me five dance. you name it. go on and instagram it #givemefive and challenge somebody else. we have done so much fun. the author has done it. michael strahan has done it. be part of the movement. it is a great way to get everybody movement. i want to thank all the staff and all the volunteers. give it up for our volunteers who work so hard to put this together. i want you to enjoy the stay and take advantage -- this day and take advantage of all the great activities and the cooking stage that we have over there. i'm going to be over at the main stage in a few minutes and we are going to be doing the give me five dance with us so you think you can dance all-stars and mentors. i hope you guys have been learning the steps because we are going to be doing it over there in just a few minutes. i hope you join me over there. we are going to turn this

backyard into a huge give me five flash mob. are you ready for that? let's get down and do some easter egg rolling. thank you guys so much and have a great time and happy easter. love you. [applause] ♪

president obama: is everybody ready? all right. roll those eggs. on your mark, get set, go. [applause]

president obama: you're almost there. [applause] good job guys. great job, everybody.

president obama: you worked hard. congratulations.

[applause] [crowd cheering]

>> beautiful weather for the easter egg roll today on the south lawn of the white house. live pictures from the atlantic council. washington. we are awaiting the start of a discussion on new battery technology with georgetown professor steve levine. he is the author of the book " powerhouse." he will talk about some of the technical challenges of next generation energy storage. it should get underway in just a few minutes. we will have it live for you right here on c-span.

jeffrey: welcome everybody and good afternoon. welcome to the atlantic council. we are pleased to have you all here today. i want to apologize in advance. we had some internet difficulties today. we will be passing microphones back and forth if it is not up and running by the time stephen just start. -- stephen and jeffrey start. i'm sure it will all work out. i do want to emphasize that this

is a very important event today. it is the inaugural event and how the new technology speakers series. one of the things that are new global energy center that we are emphasizing is the critical role that technology will play in helping us to meet clean energy challenges and also the political and international ramifications of this new technologies. richard: for this reason, we are thrilled to have and host steve levine and jeff chamberlain this afternoon. we could all stand here and identify the key technological breakthroughs in the past, but our guest today have taken on the challenging task of looking to the future.

more specifically, the future of next generation lithium ion -- shows you how technical i am -- batteries. the next generation battery technologies have the potential to have a momentous impact on markets, international politics and climate change, enriching some countries and governments while exacerbating the economic woes of others. but how close we are to seeing these developments play out in the real world and what the obstacles are -- that is what we are going to talk about today. our speakers today seek to answer these questions and more. steve levine, who i've known many many years and was the preeminent energy journalist anywhere.

the washington correspondent for quartz and in his long and distinguished career, he has covered geopolitics, energy, and technology and extraordinarily keen eye. his most recent book "powerhouse : inside the invention of the battery to save the world" has provided the inspiration for today's event and there are some copley's -- copies available outside afterwards. steve has also written "the oil and the glory." i think he has the tremendous ability to take a very technical subject and write about it in a way that ordinary, nontechnological types like me can understand. in the process of writing this book, steve has worked

extensively with dr. chest chamberlain -- jeff chamberlain who is the director of the research facility at the argonne national laboratory. in that role, dr. chamberlain has worked at the comedy edge of energy storage and next generation battery technology. i cannot be happier to kick off our new technology series with such a great pair of speakers on such a fascinating topic. the way that this will be handled compared to some atlantic council events is a conversation really between steve and jeff. steve will start off and introduce the subject and they will talk back and forth. and then, i'm sure we will open it up to your questions a little bit later. so again, thank you all for coming and steve and jeff, it is all yours. [applause]

>> it is actually jeff who is going to start out. jeffrey: thanks for the introduction. i will start off. as was just mentioned, i'm just chamberlain. -- jeff chamberlain. i'm a scientist from argonne laboratory. i appreciate everyone coming on this beautiful day to come inside and listen to us talk. i happen to work at a national laboratory and that is a place where your tax dollars are invested to do things for the nation. it happens to be research and it is mostly fundamental research aimed at enabling that involvement of technology that will change our lives, not only our day-to-day lives, but change our lives in terms of gross domestic product in this country and jobs, etc.. we are limited on time to dive right into the conversation. maybe to finish that little bit of an introduction, if you have not read the book yet, this is actually quite a surreal thing

happening right now. and i hope you have read or will read the book and enjoyed this a reality if that is a word of what you are witnessing because i'm a character in the book. i'm glad to get some chuckles live because it is a very odd experience to be a character in a story that other people are reading and black and white. it makes this conversation quite surreal. in several years of work that steve has done working with me and other people at argonne national laboratory to write a story that i think is a good story in the book. so enjoyed the surreal nature of the book and the surreal moment when you read the book. i will start with a very obvious question and i think that we in the lab are eager to have our stories told and are very suspicious as to whether it can be told in a compelling way when you are doing science and the laboratory. my first question is -- generally speaking, why write this book? why batteries?

why science? why technology? steve: thanks, jeff. first, i want to thank ambassador morningstar for having us today and inviting us to be the guests for the inaugural session -- the inaugural technology session for the new energy center here at the atlantic council. why batteries and why argonne? i get this all the time. you wrote a whole book about batteries? you talking about batteries in my tv and my radio and so on? what is the big thing about that? when i saw back in 2010 and 2011 when i decide to do this book

was the geopolitics. that was that -- first i noticed that there were a lot of people talking about batteries and this is just a couple of years after the financial crash. the soul-searching going on, bringing down the idea that the united states financial system had shenanigans going on in the united states and it almost brought down the global economy and put us in trouble. and could we create an economy that has the foundation of something real that we were making and not bubble -- real estate bubble, a.com bubble, and so on? country after country -- 20 countries glomming on to batteries as the next big thing.

real economies could be built on a super battery, taking these batteries that we currently have an making them 3, 4, 5 times better. that being worth tens of billions of dollars by themselves and then, if you can get them into electric cars build an electric car industry and then suddenly you had a new $100 billion a year industry the size of -- back then, google, exxon. that was a big thing, especially if it impacted nations. if it undermined nations, if the united states, for example, if it won this race among nations created the super battery, created these industries, was using less oil, and china was using less oil, and countries

whose power and influence in the world since the 1970's had had distorted global geopolitics because they had oil. opec russia, they would suddenly by comparison have less power. all of that was very exciting. the proof of that was before -- and we can go into that, later before i actually got you guys to agree to let me in, i told my publisher that you had already agreed. [laughter] steve: i did that and that was one of my shenanigans. but they bought into that whole thing that i just laid out and it was very exciting for them. so, it's fine. jeffrey: let's put some numbers

to this. in the last nine months there has been an additional excess of three to 5 million barrels a day of oil put on the market through the shale gas or shale oil revolution. could you talk a little bit about that and what the implications are if the super battery can move us around in vehicles, but also could be put on the grid? what is that equivalent to in terms of demand reduction that would be comparable to increase in supply that we have been seeing in the last year? steve: a couple of ways of looking at that is that one, we have an experiment in motion. we are watching shale oil change geopolitics. it has already change geopolitics and will continue to the degree it has long 70 and traction. it is 4 million barrels a day, going on five, that is come on the market and did not exist

three years ago or four years ago and 2011. and it has put opec into chaos. it has undermined vladimir putin and put the u.s. in a much stronger position of internationally -- internationally. that is the same volume. when citibank came out with a report three or four months ago talking about only stationary batteries, stationary batteries shifting into our utilities and other power companies, being adopted by countries like saudi arabia and japan that currently burn a lot of oil to shave the peak periods of burning oil to create electricity. it just stationary batteries moved into the market, and they had a forecast of how many, how

much penetration stationary batteries would penetrate and by the year 2020, 4 million barrels a day of current low consumption would be removed from the market. it is the mirror image of adding the 4 million barrels a day. what you would have if shale oil -- and there's the debate going on right now about how real this shill oil revolution is -- shale oil revolution is. the bears say this is it. you're watching it. it is wednesday over next year. in the bowl say, actually not. this will be going to 2020 and onto 2030 or so. if the bears are wrong, and city is right, you would have the same impact that you're watching -- the same geopolitical impact as you are watching the shale oil. the bulls have this compound

impact. it is this tremendous, momentous impact that changes our presumptions and presumptions around the world about what happens next. what our foreign policy should be around the world because the underpinnings of it are being pulled -- look like they being pulled out before our eyes. jeffrey: thanks for that. maybe to drive home the point of why we think it is so important to develop what is called a super battery is the way that some of us tend to think of it is that we are aiming at -- and you heard elements of this in steve's words in the last few minutes of solving a first world problem. i just realized that knowing steve in the last few years that volatility is a problem and fossil fuels go up and down pretty dramatically when these big shifts happen. if we can develop something like

a super battery where we can rely more on electricity and moved to the age electricity to point out -- 2.0 where storage on the grid enables us to be more reliant or less resigned -- rely on fossil fuels and more reliant on renewable energy costs --, if you have not driven a tesla, you want to own a tesla. however, it is about $100,000 roughly to buy that car, and not all of us can afford that, especially those who work in a government lab. we want to have a solar array on the roof. we want to be free from the man and get off the grid and have freedom to create electricity and use it at our well. as i'm phrasing this, our phone is really powerful. we only need to charge it every week or so. those are first world bots.

the beauty of this project, and we could talk about this a low bid by aiming at that first world prodromal -- problem, we actually have an anonymous opportunity to solve a third world problem. there are places in the world in sub-saharan africa and india and china where the grid does not exist and they do not have electricity. their version of energy storage and i pictures that i can show you showed children studying by burning a plaintiff would, which is energy storage and energy release. that is because they do not have electricity. to drive home how important this problem is, yes, we can potentially salt the variation problem and the cost of fossil fuels. we can help create a 100 billion dollar industry, about the same time, we can improve the quality of of life inhumanity across the world. steve: let me turn the tables on you. so, we laid out the big stakes

geopolitically here in the united states. we would like our iphone to last a week instead of a day but and we would like on another level for those 1.4 billion people around the world who did not have electricity to have electricity. but why are we there -- why are we not there? two questions. what is the problem and why aren't we there yet? the second thing is that the answer is that we see out there on both vehicles and on stationary storage -- what is real? jeffrey: ok. i was going to ask him that question. [laughter] darn it. i guess i will start by framing the problems and a way that we have not yet for this audience and that is that electricity is

an on demand product. it is the only one that i really know of and i'm aware of that is truly on demand. somewhere there is a knob that turns up and down at a coal-fired power plant or nuclear power plant every time you turn on a light switch. electrons flow through those copper wires in the get to your house and it is truly on demand. imagine if you want to buy running shoes of the stores and they came off the factory line just as you went there with your hand to grab the shoes you want to wear. that kind of consumption does not exist outside of electricity. the problem is that when you moved to wind or son to create electricity it is no longer on demand. we cannot at this point and maybe we will get there as a human race -- we cannot control the wind and the sun to move the power of and down to our needs. the idea is to create a super battery that is inexpensive and competitive with plants that exist today. we need to be cost competitive and performance competitive and

life competitive and safety competitive i having about thr -- by having a battery to serve as a buffer zone like a tivo. we want to do the same thing with electricity. we want to democratize the creation and use of electricity in much the way that media has been democratized the last 10 or 15 years. steve and i talked about this a little bit. i'm not a geopolitical expert, but i've read that egypt would not have fallen if social media did not exist. this is how much the media has shifted in the course of my life. i think we are on the cusp of that happening if the super battery existed with electricity. if we could create and use electricity at her own will. not getting to what steve is asking -- what is the problem? one problem is that he is asking a physical chemist that question. a business man or woman might have a different answer, but for us, we translate that right down

to molecules. steve does this in his book. do not let that scare you off the book by the way. to be able to store energy in a cheap and reliable fashion which happens right now with fossil fuels, for us renewable energy is not that different for fossil feels -- from fossil fuels for chemist. chemist look at burning coal, oil, and gasoline and your breaking chemical want and releasing energy and releasing a lot of gas and releasing energy. you drive pistons in the vehicle. the go straight down to the chemistry of the molecules in which you store though -- that energy. renewable energy in the case of batteries, it is the same thing. it is just long creation and formation and bond breaking. when you break on's, you release energy. there are two big differences. one in the case of batteries instead of getting heat and gas evolution like when you burn gasoline, wood, or coal, you get

a release of a cascade of billions electrons that forms the current that can drive an electric motor. that is one big difference, but again, think as a chemist. that is just another reaction. the process of that reaction is difference. it is electrons instead of heat and gas. the other important thing is that if you can reverse that reaction. every time you plug in your phone or computer or electric car if you drive one, you are reversing a chemical reaction right there on your kitchen table or on your desk. we cannot do that with fossil fuels, at least not today. he cannot capture the carbon dioxide and water that comes out of the exhaust height and reverse that reaction. so scientists answer the question of why are we there yet? it is a very complicated physics question of physics and chemistry. can we design systems that are reversible in the case of batteries?

and everyone here in the room knows how long a lift them -- a lithium ion battery lasts and your device -- two to four years. that is when you start noticing that this laptop does not last every six hours, it is too. you are moving matter around them moving lithium ions inside that battery from one side to the other side from the a note to the cathode. you are actually distorting and changing the physical nature of the material that those ions are moving around in. the big challenge for a scientist this can we develop an architecture down to the atomic level that does not change every time you move in ion? i like to liken it to bowling. i'm from the midwest. not everyone bowls here in washington. it says that if the object of bowling were to throw the ball down the alley and have it slightly through the pins and not knock over a single one, and those pins in this analogy

represent the atoms in a structure inside of a battery and the bowling ball is a lithium-ion, do want that ball to goes through those pins and then come back out to the user when you recharge it without knocking them over. that is a very difficult question of thermodynamics. one reason we are not there is that we are about somewhere between 1/10 and one fifth of energy density of gasoline when you put energy and the battery and use it, we are down 10% to 20% of where we are with gasoline. or coal, if you're talking about the grid. ticking dirt out of the ground and burning it is still a very effective and efficient way to do things. that is the physicists answer. there's a whole series of political and business answers as how you make a shift to the electric age 2.0. steve: i know that just with the stuff and material that are gone

invented that is at the cutting edge and this is the stuff that if a super battery, at this time, if a super battery is going to be invented, it is thought by people like jeff to have the greatest chance to do that. the trouble is that when you're going -- the stuff is called n mc, by the way. this stuff is called nmc and you are shifting it to the 2.0. just described it as watching the bowling pinfall. when you do that and those bowling pinfalls fall, the architecture you set up in the house that you built, so to speak, turns into though as you drive home from here and half the front door is in the back door in the living room is in the bathroom and this really

happens in that battery. i know that you are trying to get the atoms to stay in one place. but that is a very, very hard thing to do and the stakes of putting the two pieces together -- though stakes being so very very high. and being so very, very hard to do, you get exaggerator is an hucksters and liars basically claiming that they have got the answer and give me $50 million so i can develop that. i want to roll back to that second question. this is one of the things that i suffered personally in the book. one of the sources on whom i had relied for a very big part of the book and was at the closing section of writing the book turned out to be a liar and

turned out to be deceiving me and the department of energy and general motors the whole time. and so a lot of people had to recover, but what you have told me is that this is a symptom and a big symptom of what is going on and one problem with batteries -- i want to roll back. can you talk a little bit about that. also, again, what is real and what can we trust that is out there? for example, when wall street forecasts that in the year 2020 our utility industries and power companies are going to be enough people, that stationary batteries will be adopted and widely adopted in the united states, is that true? jeffrey: ok, so that is a good question. this is where we get into the realm of my opinion. all that other stuff i think i

would consider fact. what was not said in the introduction is that i left graduate school at georgia tech in 1993 and went into industry for big companies and small companies for most of 14 years including a couple of startups before moving into the national lab in 2008. what you are hearing steve implied here is that one of the great things about working at the national lab is that the basis of our careers that grew up in a national lab system is very different from the basis of careers of the product about theirs, which is the world that i came from an industry. the basis of the careers in the national labs and universities is to be the true sayers. you do research and publisher science and a juried fashion were other scientists review your sides before it is even allowed to be published. so there is a system in place where the truth really matters. now, if ice yet completely -- if i skip them plainly to the other

side of the spectrum, that same thing as kind of true there. big businesses that i have argued for -- big businesses that have lasted for 150 years cannot be diminished. when you are developing a problem -- product for customer that truth matters. in my opinion, in the middle of that spectrum where the start of world lives and the venture capital world lives, it is not particular the case. when you look at the history of batteries in terms of exaggeration could i would broaden that argument to say it is much beyond batteries because of you were ward mechanisms in the way that reward -- venture capital works. vc once a turnaround of 5% to 10% of their investment. i know this from personal experience and you can read it and books like the innovators.

you live a quarter by year based on when you can next series of investments. i'm quoted in a book saying something like what steve was saying and that it encourages the exaggeration because it is either that or you cannot feed your children. it really does come down to that. when you work in a large organization, it is not quite that way. the customer reliability that the customer has on you as a supplier of technology is so high that it is not worth the risk of exaggerating to the customer. i'm not sure if that is exactly the answer that you are looking for, but maybe we can continue that part of the conversation. steve: i'm going to go at it again. what do you expect to happen? come out with it, chamberlain. jeffrey: the second half of his question -- what can we expect?

i was saying in the green room before we came out here, i've been in the lab for eight years and batteries have begun to take off. an case you don't know, here are some numbers. the lithium ion battery market share is about $15 billion a year right now. well over 90% of that is manufactured in japan, china and korea. that is almost all for portable electronics. the vehicle market is just now taking off and prognostications are that is it going to be an additional tens of billions of dollars of gross the message on it for some country or multiple countries. will that happen? that is a great question. the grid for gnostic hitter say it is larger on the great. is significantly larger market for the low hundreds of billions of dollars for the total available market on the grid. one thing that i noticed is that j.p. morgan and other banks have come to talk to us recently in the last few months asking a series of questions that really

boil down to one question -- at what point do they take their investors dollars and put it into batteries? i will tell you as a side note, it is fascinating that they are asking scientists that question. i think it is the same reason that steve is bringing up -- they do not know who to trust. when it is companies that have vested interest in the success of their company, there is a bit of a conflict there and how that question should be answered. that is around beating the bush -- beating around the bush in answering your question. is it coming? yes. the market has gone from about a billion dollar total available market to a $15 billion total available market. it looks like a traditional freakonomics s-curve when you look at the adoption rate. i would love to show you a graph on this. i personally was shocked when we ask ourselves the question -- why aren't plug-in vehicles being adopted? we realize that looking at the

data that the question was wrong. if you plot the amount of free us is that were sold in 1999 to 2004 versus the amount of vehicles that you plug-in and that is pure vehicles as well as hybrids, the adoption rate from 2010 to 2015 is twice the adoption rate of the previous and light vehicles. i'm in that world and i was shocked by those numbers because i believe that marketing works. i believe in media and i believe in guys like steve. the media was harping on the negativity of the adoption of these vehicles. guess what? i can show you the data if you want me to. it is twice the adoption rate. it is still small. it is about 1% of light duty vehicles. by adoption rate, i was referring to the united states alone. and does look like the beginnings of that s-curve. maybe more importantly, looking from the bottoms up, batteries alone for vehicles has cracked the billion dollar a year total sales.

that is starting to get the attention of the big companies. when will it happen? let me rephrase the question. is it too early to invest? is it too late to invest? or is it just the right time to invest if you are an investor? i think the answer is right there in the middle. it is not too late and it is also not too early. the number of big companies from around the world that are coming into the national labs asked questions not only about investment but could we perform private research for them is all indicators that that tipping point is arriving soon, if not had already arrived. and what like to get onto the next topic before i hand the microphone back to you, but that is -- what i just described touches on another part of the answer to steve's first question which is why is this so hard? what has this not been done yet? i gave you the physicists answer because we are not designed

atoms and molecules and crystal structures and using it as a building block. the other problem is a business problem. what i mean is -- how do we solve the problem of transitioning from the physics to a full-blown pack device? for those of you who have not been in technology product development, i cannot overstate how difficult problem is. as hard as it is to build a perfect set of bowling pins inside of a battery and adams that do not move this does it is significant harder to turn that innovation and turn it into a high quality, high profitable product. it is almost an impossibility. the investment is 10x harder to perform the commercialization. startups can and ultimately get gobbled up by acquisition from a larger company. we are competing with the asian world where they operate more socialistic lee or communist where their companies risk is

almost down to zero. i'm not saying that we should copy of that, but that is the challenge that we face if we want to own a big chunk of this market. steve: so, i want to say and i want to close out that one part and let us shift over and see if anyone wants to ask anything. that's a good point that -- the tipping point has been insight and it has increased and that is indisputable. you have gm and tesla both saying -- and one of them, gm already having unveiled a car that will go 200 miles on a charge and both of them aimed at having a model three go to hundred miles. both of them in that sweet spot

of 30,000 to $40,000 -- a big jump down from that $100,000 car. my wife and i just bought a honda odyssey and that was about $35,000. that is what people will pay. it is not exactly in the mass market but since 2018, that is three years away. it is very, very close. apple is rumored and reported to be working on electric car. richard branson, bmw, audi, all them aiming more or less in the same space. they see that this new age is coming in this very short period of time. there are two pillars to winning in the electric age, to winning in the super battery age. one of them is discovery.

if your guys or guys like you are making a super battery. the other pillar is manufacturing them. you mentioned the innovators and steve jobs did not invent the smartphone. he is an ingenious designer and manufacturer and right now, the steve jobs'of the battery world are in asia. you could invent in your guys could invent a super battery and you already may have gotten a phone call about the super battery -- jeff, come home right now. but will you, can you guarantee that that super battery will be manufactured in the united states? this is the next challenge that the united states really has to

grapple with and i think it is grappling with it. what do you think about that? jeffrey: yes. thanks, steve. that is the question that i was beginning to touch on. it is my own believe that the manufacturing problem is more difficult and more significant and more costly than the physics problem. as hard as the physics and chemistry problem is, the commercialization of that physics and chemistry is significantly harder. i will just give a couple minutes of a history lesson about l laughter i came out of grab -- bell labs. i came out of grad school in 1993. i representative of the area that is beyond bell labs. i went straight into the microchip world and did materials for the the moment of microchips. i know a lot about that world. in case this audience does not know, bell labs has had a hand in almost everything that has change our lives. the microchip, certainly.

the last fiber came out of bell labs. satellite technology, cell phone technology. the idea and find out -- philosophy of using binary code. the idea of using switches which is what a transistor is, to advance computing which is binary code -- that came out of bell labs. most people know that. what you might not know is that the venture capital world also help bell labs. william shockley, one of the key inventors of the semi conductor brought with him the invention because bell labs was licensing the semi conductor at one dollar per license. so kim -- silicon valley exist because of bell labs. the venture capital model exist because of bell labs because vcs could come and out of place like mel labs which is a monopoly and

partly government-funded. if they do not take 10 to 20 years of patient money and being a very, very richman ottley there would not be a silicon valley. in fact, it would've been to germanium valleys. people in the room might not know that the first transistor was germanium and not silicone. if they do not spend another 10 years, they would've been talking up the germanium treat and startups with a failed deservedly if all the scientific research had not been done at bell labs. the question for groups like this one in the room is -- how do we re-create that innovation ecosystem? i personally do not think that we grow back and create monopolies that are partially government funded. we are competing with that in asia. the question is what do we do? is there way to bridge the basic cap of core research -- and these of the questions that are being asked in washington and businesses today -- can we envision a public-private partnership that exists outside the fence of the federally run

properties like argon national laboratory, where we pull patient money and and bridge the gap between our doing science and handing it off relatively blindly to startups that will try to raise funds to develop a product? can we participate and enliven the developing process outside of the federal spirit -- sphere that is led by the private industry as opposed to the research and the public industry? that is the question. much like sematech pulled them together to elaborate on new manufacturing processes to make the chip ubiquitous and every device that we use today, can we do that for batteries? can we do that for high end with semi conductors? -- bandwidth semi conductors?i think the answer is yes.

i do not think that scientist can imagine these things on their own without the think tanks and businessmen and women and the investors. steve: i think we should open it up to questions. could you please have a question . and the other thing is -- identify yourself and since we have this problem with the system -- are we up again yes ? audience member: holden meyer. what is the house between cooperation by multi-lateral cooperation and r&d and innovation and competition? i know we have some bilateral programs with china and also with the japanese and asian and south pacific council.

what is the tension between cooperation and competition in the battery technology space? jeffrey: that is a great question. argon is one of the it's one of the leaders of the cooperation that is happening with china today in batteries. there is another one being led by the university of michigan in batteries. the essence of the answer to your question is that if you focus on doing the basic fundamental science that is pretty competitive then collaboration is a good thing. scientists their whole alias to publish. find the discovery published the discovery. we should encourage that. be more brains and physicist and chemist's that are trying to solve this problem, i myself have been in china talking to scientists about this problem, it is not just an an american

phenomenon that scientists want to compete to be the first of publish. back to the monologue and was giving before the q&a session. if the desire is to have profit as opposed to do the research that enables the technology to develop the products that results in profit, then we can carefully troll a line between those two things. in asia, europe, africa solving these fundamental problems, that will speed things along. but we have to draw the line on where the competition against for developing projects out of that research. there are ways to do that. i do not want to blithely say that is easy to do. it is difficult, but there are ways. steve: the first time that i went to our -- argon, jeff was hosting the chinese minister of science and technology.

and trying to act in a conspiratorial way. hide from him the stuff that they presumed he was really after. he wasn't after coming in to collaborate like he said they to take something from us. what i have observed is that there is, from president obama down, this very high-minded statesmanlike notion that we are all trying to change the world we are all trying to save the world, and can we not all do it together? the formation of committees, groups, that meet every year. but my own experience and jeff may bitterly dispute this, but it is on paper. they are sitting there and they

are exchanging their favorite coffee flavor in starbucks, and not delving into the batteries because of the competition. it is so stiff. here in the doe there is a paranoia almost of paranoia that we are developing this, is the chinese going to get that? so this race, this competition between nations is uppermost. it is almost a subtext to every decision every competition, the whole vision. it hasn't as a subtext -- has it as a subtext. jeffrey: i will not bitterly

disputed, but i will add a little flavor to what he is saying. it is kind of on paper, but the reason that favors the first thing we do is because we patent our innovations. so yes, he is kind of ride, when we talked it has already been written down somewhere. it is either a patent, publication, or both. but is still triggers the spirit of collaboration. but to protect the taxpayers investment we do have policy in place where we filed those patents before we discuss the science. >> thank you. i am david from the heritage foundation. i have a question. how different is a lithium-ion battery now that from 10 years ago. ? is there innovation in producing the same thing cheaper? or is there something

fundamentally, chemically, physically improved about it? jeffrey: thank you for that question. it is a very important question. when you go to walgreens to buy an alkaline battery, or you go to pep boys to buy a acid battery for your car, it is designating a specific type of electrolyte material. lithium-ion, when you say the words with him ion battery, the only thing that it is dictating is the counter ion that moves back and forth. you can completely change every material in that battery and still call it a lithium island battery.

this is a source of much confusion in the government and the public. that you can massively advanced lithium ion batteries, but it is still called the lithium-ion battery. the batteries from tennis have nickel cobalt aluminum instead of nickel oxide. does that matter to the average person? no. it holds more energy and is cheaper to make. the other one is even less expensive. but again, that is just going to be called a lithium-ion battery. so down at the materials and physics level there has been a series of innovations that has occurred. what we're trying to do was move from carbon to silken, because silken holds about seven times as much with u.s. carbon does. as the industry moves to that it is still going to call a lithium-ion battery. folded it on top of that are other innovations.

elon musk and tesla are rely ing on innovation. it is worth mentioning, but i used to record little cassette tapes of little songs from the radio. that is not happen anymore. but the lithium-ion batteries are made the same way as those cassette tapes. you can magnetically store information on that tape. the japanese manufacturers said why don't we just use this equipment that we are mothballing over here? that is very different from saying what happened in the microchip world. what is the least expensive least time-consuming highest-quality way and those

innovations are happening right now. once that market cracks tempered -- cracked $10 billion, the major players got involved. we are working on filling the front end of the asian pipeline. that is really far field frontier science. but there are enormous innovation that will improve leave the ion batteries decrease the cost. steve: i want to get very specific on this, it will take 60 seconds. the question is, has left him -- has lithium-ion advanced of the

last 10 years? i already told the group that selected valley startup had to deceive gm, that was there to an amount car -- their 200 mile car. it did not have when it said they had. but gm, a month ago, in detroit, unveiled its concept car, the full. -- bolt. lg, which supplies gm took the argon material that it had in its volt plug-in. it is partly stable, they have to mix it with another chemistry. when they do that, they make the battery weaker.

all it can do is service able [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] -- a volt, a plug-in. the battery that is going into the volt is stabilized enough that instead of going 30 miles it goes 200 miles for the same chart. ge. >> my name is hart. there were a lot of breakthrough inventions that i do not think relied on government funding. the telegraph, telephone, photographs and so on and so forth. these were mostly in

vented and commercialized. how can they do this without government funding? jeffrey: i do not know the history of that particular type of technology as well as you do. i know the history of things like the microchip. that was heavily invested in by the government, especially the military. what makes it different, if i look at history, and let's assume you're correct, that edison and ford used their own money to get really needed to go , than 60 years later that was not much case. you know what you think of bell as a -- i do not want you to

think of well as a monopoly, they got a lot of money from the government. they hired an army of engineers and tried every single material they can find. it is called the edison be in approach, where you take every type of material you can imagine, pass a current throat and see how bright the light is an how long the film last. -- filament lasts. the same thing with board, his big thing was the internal combustion engine. when you get down to trying to control and move atoms around we're something called the advanced photon source, which is a machine where electronics spin

around a massive ring at the speed of light. you can see adam's move around inside a material. you can examine a protein and see what happens inside dna. to do that type of research there is some supercomputers in berkeley that require the public investment to get down to study how do we design better systems at the atomic level so that once that understanding occurs, a product can be developed from it. that is the transition i was talking about. can we use that transition so that a product can be brought up on the back to the basic research we are doing. steve: the answer to that, is

those inventions of those days, there were five or six industrial labs in the united states were private industry took it upon itself to have an army of individuals trying every little thing, and they almost do not exist anymore. private industry is relying on things like national labs to do things that they used to do by themselves. >> thank you. jim woolsey, foundation for democracies. about halfway through your book. i question for a geopolitical implications, but it has to do with leveraging battery performance and plug-in hybrids by using natural gas-based fuel.

dan coinsured in m.i.t. study for years ago on how to use natural gas and transportation. it said basically for a family car you want to use methanol. if you have a plug-in hybrid, so you can go 40 miles on your overnight charge of electricity, and then it becomes a regular hybrid, essentially you are driving a way a hybrid does. but if you're using methanol 85, 15% gasoline from natural gas the way i calculate it, you would beginning -- if what you

care about is oil dependence and rice, you would be getting a slightly better rise and you would beginning about 400 miles per gallon of gasoline. because the only gasoline you're using, the only thing from petroleum is the 5%, or 15% for cold weather starting. i'm curious as to why or whether you include need to stay -- think we need to stay in the all battery world, or why isn't somebody working more resolutely to use both electricity from great batteries and methanol from natural gas to get the consumption of oil way down?

steve: thank you. thank you for that question. the short answer is that there are inventors and companies, and jeff will talk about this i am sure, who are trying all of these. i am a believer in natural car -- natural gas car futures. it is for this reason. in economics, blind man does -- one of the interesting formulations is supply and demand. the way i like to picture it is the cocaine model.

data americans income hooked on crack ok and because we started out being hooked on crack cocaine? the cartel been responded to that? or did the cartel start pumping cocaine into the united states and then the markets developed from that? transferring that over to natural gas, here we are in a world that is utterly awash in natural gas, it is cheap. the verizon for it for this supply is from here to eternity. there are big thinkers, and a

include at morse at citigroup who ascribes -- because it is so cheap. natural gas vehicles with their lng, cmg, and supporting itself to the market. when i hand this over, i want to broaden out your question a little bit because it is not just natural gas. it is super capacitors rate it is you'll sell -- capacitors. it is fuel cells. when i first went to oregonargon

they were asking what you think about winning batteries with fuel cells in order to get there. jeffrey: another good question thank you. as a technologist, i'm very high and hybrid vacation -- in hybridization f. the gasoline engine is just a generator, that is all it is. if he could move to natural gas that would make sense. we are doing research in this. to me, we would have met years ago that pure electric were way off the. i have learned this enough in my life i should stop saying is new to me, you cannot predict consumer. the analysis where the doctor rate were double the previous your electric vehicles have

outsold the hybrid plug-ins. that makes zero sense to me. why you would drive a car that has 80 miles per charge like the nissan leaf, or by a tesla which is an amazing vehicle, but costs 100 grand. near their of those ideas appeal to me. i can write wholly-owned very expensive electricity. and i can drive my son to baseball classic -- baseball presspractice. elon musk has figured this out but it is not in the public domain yet. what the consumer is used to is infinite range. the reason that they designed the tank to go 300 miles, it is

about as long as we can drive physiologically before we need a break. and we do not want those breaks we longer than five or 10 minutes. there is no system in place regardless of how many miles you can put and juice you can put in your battery. i agree with what you're implying in your question. it will solve the same global geopolitical implication, the security invocation. as a technologist, we are working on it. but when you look at the adoption, the consumer is more infrequent. we will revert back to these and expensive hiybrids or something.

>> thank you for your discussion . i'm from the china daily. speaking of asia, i want to ask what china and the u.s. could do to cooperate in terms of scientific research, manufacturing, and also the promotion of the new technology and resources. what is the role of ecp in this cooperation? also, how they keep a relationship between china and the u.s.? [laughter] steve: that is a big question. i will take a stab at this. you are right inside the game.

the cooperation in my own v iew will happen after the innovation. the competition is too stiff, and the stakes of winning are too high for any of the countries to operate with each other. you're not going to have, for example, japan handing over its innovations to china, to south korea, or south korea is doing so without china or the united states. look at what happened with john goodenough the inventor everyone who has a smartphone in their hands.

this went to be reinvented by a bunch of other people, including a company called a one to three. it built its batteries, built the factories to make those batteries in china. resulting in 30 or 40 other countries in china suddenly having exactly the same chemistry. creating competition for a one to three. for these reasons i cannot imagine there being very close cooperation --

both countries are very close. china has a premier policy, they are right on the vanguard of cleaning up his error. this is the stage at which you can have the united states and china cooperating. jeffrey: thank you for the question. it is a very big question you're trying to ask. many are trying to insert in the government as well as the world of business. we all have to recognize, including our friends at capitol hill, that we live in a world of economy. even with the competition steve is talking about. i will give a couple of examples of that in the battery world. steve just mentioned the lithium-ion batteries. they have had a problem, about three years ago, that resulted

in a $50 million recall. and that one quality problem, because it had one product bankrupted them. they were a $70 million recall. we went out on the market, and were nbought. their dod contract work went to a different group, but the majority of the company went to a company called one-shot. that bankruptcy happened about three years ago. one-shot land is now working at full capacity in michigan. they have to send everyone up their cells to china. look at it in the reverse. i think i finally converted over from the injury telephone to.

my kids used apple, and it was much easier to communicate with apple products. they are made in china. we already are apple as an example of american-made products. that is on the backs of the folks and manufacturing, and much of that goes on in china. the problem i have not answered question about, and the way i would answer it yes, there is room to collaborate in the research with other scientists from around the world. this is a tradition that has been going on for decades if not centuries steve \\\\. steve is right, the exciting part comes in when you try to

find out whether or not you can collaborate on the research . steve: i think we have run out of time. thank you for coming. [applause] >> thank you steve and jeff for such a wonderful presentation. thanks to everyone here for all of your excellent questions. i do want to tell you that at least we have planned our second of our technology series on april 24. peter dean, one of our nonresident senior fellow's is here today and will be part of that. we will be talking about the future of renewables from the viewpoint of the private sector. where they see things going over the next months and years. i hope you will be able to attend that. we'll be sending out notices of that in the next week or so. thank you very much for coming.

[applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, wiich is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org][captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> while congress continues on its two-week easter recess, congressional leaders are sending out messengers today on various social media platforms. house speaker john boehner posted this talking about his trip to the middle east. democratic leader harry reid sent out this tweet. he included a link