The old story about climate protection is that it's costly, or it would have been done already. So government needs to make us do something painful to fix it. The new story about climate protection is that it's not costly, but profitable. This was a simple sign error, because it's cheaper to save fuel than to buy fuel, as is well known to companies that do it all the time -- for example, Dupont, SD micro electronics. Many other firms -- IBM -- are reducing their energy intensity routinely six percent a year by fixing up their plants, and they get their money back in two or three years. That's called a profit.
Stara priča o zaštiti klime jest da puno košta, inače bi već bila ostvarena. Stoga nas vlada treba natjerati na bolne mjere da se situacija popravi. Nova priča o zaštiti klime je da ne košta, već je profitabilna Jednostavno, imamo pogrešan predznak jer je jeftinije štedjeti gorivo nego ga kupovati, što je dobro poznato kompanijama koje to stalno rade -- na primjer: Dupont, SD Micro Electronics i mnoge druge, IBM, svoju potrošnje energije rutinski smanjuju za 6% godišnje modernizacijom svojih tvornica, uz povrat ulaganja za dvije, tri godine. To se zove profit.
Now, similarly, the old story about oil is that if we wanted to save very much of it, it would be expensive, or we would have done it already, because markets are essentially perfect. If, of course, that were true, there would be no innovation, and nobody could make any money. But the new story about oil is the government doesn't have to force us to do painful things to get off oil -- not just incrementally, but completely -- quite the contrary. The United States, for example, can completely eliminate its use of oil and rejuvenate the economy at the same time, led by business for profit, because it's so much cheaper to save and substitute for the oil than to keep on buying it. This process will also be catalyzed by the military for its own reasons of combat effectiveness and preventing conflict, particularly over oil.
Slično tome, stara priča o nafti jest da ako bismo je htjeli puno uštedjeti, to bi bilo skupo, ili bismo to već napravili, jer tržište u osnovi savršeno funkcionira. Naravno, kada bi to bilo tako onda ne bi bilo inovacija i nitko ne bi mogao zaraditi. Ali nova priča o nafti jest da nas vlada ne mora tjerati na bolne postupke kako bi se riješili nafte -- i to ne djelomično, već potpuno -- upravo suprotno. SAD, na primjer, mogu potpuno eliminirati svoju potrebu za naftom i istovremeno potaknuti ekonomiju, pod vodstvom poslovnog svijeta, jer je puno jeftinije štedjeti i zamijeniti naftu nego je nastaviti kupovati. U tom će procesu katalizator biti i vojska zbog vlastitih razloga borbene spremnosti i sprječavanja sukoba, posebno oko nafte.
This thesis is set out in a book called "Winning the Oil Endgame" that four colleagues and I wrote and have posted for free at Oilendgame.com -- about 170,000 downloads so far. And it was co-sponsored by the Pentagon -- it's independent, it's peer-reviewed and all of the backup calculations are transparently posted for your perusal. Now, a bit of economic history, I think, may be helpful here. Around 1850, one of the biggest U.S. industries was whaling. And whale oil lit practically every building. But in the nine years before Drake struck oil, in 1859, at least five-sixths of that whale oil-illuminating market disappeared, thanks to fatal competitors, chiefly oil and gas made from coal, to which the whalers had not been paying attention. So, very unexpectedly, they ran out of customers before they ran out of whales. The remnant whale populations were saved by technological innovators and profit-maximizing capitalists.
Te su teze predstavljene u knjizi "Pobijediti u naftnoj završnici" koju smo napisali četvero kolega i ja. Knjiga je dostupna besplatno na Oilendgame.com -- i do sada je preuzeta oko 170.000 puta. Knjigu je djelomično sponzorirao i Pentagon -- neovisna je, recenzirana od strane drugih stručnjaka. i svi proračuni transparentno su objavljeni, vama za provjeru. Sada, malo ekonomske povijesti, koja bi mogla pomoći ovdje. Oko 1850., jedna od najvećih industrija SAD-a je bio kitolov. A kitovo ulje je osvjetljavalo, praktički, svaku kuću. Ali u 9 godina prije nogo je Drake pronašao naftu 1859. barem pet šestina tržišta kitovim uljem je nestalo, zahvaljujući konkurenciji, prvenstveno ulju i plinu proizvedenom od ugljena, na koju kitolovci nisu obraćali pažnju. I tako su, vrlo neočekivano, ostali bez kupaca prije nego li su ostali bez kitova. Ostatke populacije kitova spasili su tehnološki inovatori i profita gladni kapitalisti.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
And it's funny -- it feels a bit like this now for oil. We've been spending the last few decades accumulating a very powerful backlog of technologies for saving and substituting for oil, and no one had bothered to add them up before. So when we did, we found some very surprising things. Now, there are two big reasons to be concerned about oil. Both national competitiveness and national security are at risk. On the competitiveness front, we all know that Toyota has more market cap than the big three put together. And serious competition from Europe, from Korea, and next is China, which will soon be a major net exporter of cars. How long do you think it will take before you can drive home your new wally-badged Shanghai automotive super-efficient car? Maybe a decade, according to my friends in Detroit. China has an energy policy based on radical energy efficiency and leap-frog technology. They're not going to export your uncle's Buick.
I smiješno je jer podsjeća na sadašnju situaciju sa naftom. Trošili smo mnogo u zadnjih par desetljeća akumulirajući vrlo moćan skup tehnologija za štednju i zamjenu nafte, a da se nitko nije potrudio objediniti te tehnologije. A kada smo ih zbrojili otkrili smo vrlo iznenađujuće stvari. Postoje dva velika razloga zašto bismo treba biti zabrinuti oko nafte. I nacionalna konkurentnost i nacionalna sigurnost su u opasnosti. Kada je riječ o konkurentnosti, svi znamo kako Toyota ima veći udio na tržištu nego GM, Ford i Chrysler zajedno. A tu je i ozbiljna konkurencija iz Europe, iz Koreje, a sljedeća je Kina, koja će ubrzo biti velik izvoznik automobila. Što mislite koliko vremena će proći prije nego budete u mogućnosti dovesti pred kuću vaše novo super efikasno vozilo Šangajske autoindustrije? Možda za desetljeće, ako se pita moje prijatelje u Detroitu. Kina ima energetsku politiku baziranu na energetskoj efikasnosti i preskakivanju zastarijelih tehnologija. Kina neće izvoziti Buic vašeg strica.
And after that comes India. The point here is, these cars are going to be made super efficient. The question is, who will make them? Will we in the United States continue to import efficient cars to replace foreign oil, or will we make efficient cars and import neither the oil nor the cars? That seems to make more sense. The more we keep on using the oil, particularly the imported oil, the more we face a very obvious array of problems. Our analysis assumes that they all cost nothing, but nothing is not the right number. It could well be enough to double the oil price, for example. And one of the worst of these is what it does to our standing in the world if other countries think that everything we do is about oil, if we have to treat countries that have oil differently than countries that don't have oil.
A poslije dolazi i Indija. Stvar je u tome kako će se vozila proizvoditi da budu super efikasna. Pitanje je tko će ih proizvoditi? Hoćemo li mi u SAD-u nastaviti uvoziti štedljiva vozila da zamijenimo stranu naftu, ili ćemo proizvoditi vlastita štedljiva vozila i ne uvoziti niti strana vozila niti stranu naftu? Mislim kako ovo drugo ima više smisla. Što više budemo koristili naftu, pogotovo uvezenu naftu, to se više suočavamo s očitom mrežom problema. Naša analiza pretpostavlja kako sve to ne košta ništa, no ništa nije ispravan broj. bilo bi dovoljno poduplati cijenu nafte, na primjer. A jedan od gorih problema je što to utječe na naš položaj u svijetu ako druge države misle da sve što radimo ima veze sa naftom, ako moramo države koje imaju naftu tretirati drukčije nego države koje nemaju naftu.
And our military get quite unhappy with having to stand guard on pipelines in Far-off-istan when what they actually signed up for was to protect American citizens. They don't like fighting over oil, they don't like being in the sands and they don't like where the oil money goes and what sort of instability it creates. Now, in order to avoid these problems, whatever you think they're worth, it's actually not that complicated. We can save half the oil by using it more efficiently, at a cost of 12 dollars per saved barrel. And then we can replace the other half with a combination of advanced bio-fuels and safe natural gas. And that costs on average under 18 dollars a barrel. And compared with the official forecast, that oil will cost 26 dollars a barrel in 2025, which is half of what we've been paying lately,
A i naša vojska neće biti sretna ako bude morala čuvati naftovod u Negdje-zemskoj umjesto da rade ono za šta su se i prijavili u vojsku a to je štititi američke građane. Vojska se ne želi boriti oko nafte, ne žele biti u pijesku i ne sviđa im se gdje ide novac od nafte i nestabilnost koju ona stvara. Sada, kako bi izbjegli te probleme, bez obzira koliko mislite da koštaju, to i nije toliko složeno. Možemo uštedjeti pola nafte koristeći je efikasnije po cijeni od 12 dolara po ušteđenom barelu. A drugu polovicu možemo zamijeniti kombinacijom naprednog bio-goriva i prirodnog plina. To nas u prosjeku košta ispod 18 dolara po barelu. Ako to usporedimo sa službenim procjenama kako će nafta koštati 26 dolara po barelu 2025, što je otprilike pola od onog što plaćamo u zadnje vrijeme.
that will save 70 billion dollars a year, starting quite soon. Now, in order to do this we need to invest about 180 billion dollars: half of it to retool the car, truck and plane industries; half of it to build the advanced bio-fuel industry. In the process, we will gain about a million good jobs, mainly rural. And protect another million jobs now at risk, mainly in auto-making. And we'll also get returns over 150 billion dollars a year. So that's a very handsome return. It's financeable in the private capital market. But if you want it for the reasons I just mentioned, to happen sooner and with higher confidence, then -- and also to expand choice and manage risk -- then you might like some light-handed public policies that support rather than distorting or opposing the business logic. And these policies work fine without taxes, subsidies or mandates. They make a little net money for the treasury.
Tako ćemo uštedjeti 70 milijardi dolara na godinu, počevši prilično brzo. Kako bi to napravili moramo uložiti oko 180 milijardi dolara. Polovicu kako bi se opremile industrije automobila, kamiona i zrakoplova. Polovicu kako bi se izgradila napredna industrija bio-goriva. U tom procesu otvoriti će se otprilike milijun dobrih radnih mjesta, većinom u ruralnim krajevima. I zaštititi još milijun ugroženih radnih mjesta, pretežno u auto industriji. I zaraditi povrat od preko 150 milijardi dolara na godinu. To je prilično dobar povrat. I može se financirati iz tržišta privatnog kapitala. No ako to želite iz razloga koje sam upravo spomenuo, da se dogode prije i sa većom razinom pouzdanosti, onda -- isto tako proširiti izbor i kontrolirati rizik -- onda bi vam se svidjele neke "meke" javne politike koje podržavaju, radije nego da se opiru ili suprostavljaju logici tržišta. A te politike rade sasvim dobro i bez poreza, poticaja ili mandata. Stvarale bi mali neto prihod državnoj riznici.
They have a broad trans-ideological appeal, and because we want them actually to happen, we figured out ways to do them that do not require much, if any, federal legislation, and can, indeed, be done administratively or at a state level. Just to illustrate what to do about the nub of the problem, namely, light vehicles, here are four ultra-light carbon-composite concept cars with low drag, and all but the one at the upper left have hybrid drive. You can sort of have it all with these things. For example, this Opel two-seater does 155 miles an hour at 94 miles a gallon. This muscle car from Toyota: 408 horsepower in an ultra-light that does zero to 60 in well under four seconds, and still gets 32 miles a gallon. I'll say more later about this.
Imale bi širok trans-ideološki utjecaj, i zato jer želimo da se zapravo dogode, smislili smo načine kako to napraviti koji ne zahtijevaju puno, ako uopće, federalne legislative. I mogu biti učinjene administrativno ili na razini pojedine države. Ilustrirati ću vam što bi trebalo napraviti s dijelom problema, i to, lakim vozilima, ovdje vidite četiri koncepta načinjena od ultra-lakih karbonskih materijala s niskim otporom zraka i sva, osim vozila gore lijevo, su hibridna vozila. S ovim vozilima možete imati gotovo sve. Na primjer, ovaj Opel roadster ide 250 km/h i troši 3 litre na 100km. Ova sportska Toyota: 408 konja u ultra lakom pakiranju koja ide od 0 do 100km/h ispod 4 sekunde, i troši samo 8 litara na 100km. No o tome kasnije.
And in the upper left, a pioneering effort 14 years ago by GM -- 84 miles a gallon without even using a hybrid, in a four-seater. Well, saving that fuel, 69 percent of the fuel in light vehicles costs about 57 cents per saved gallon. But it's even a better deal for heavy trucks, where you save a similar amount at 25 cents a gallon, with better aerodynamics and tires and engines, and so on, and taking out weight so you can put it into payload. So you can double efficiency with a 60 percent internal rate of return. Then you can go even further, almost tripling efficiency with some operational improvements, double the big haulers' margins. And we intend to use those numbers to create demand pull, and flip the market.
U gornjem lijevom kutu, pionirski rad od prije 14 godina GM-a, s potrošnjom od 3.3 litre na 100 km bez hibridnog pogona i četiri sjedala. Štednjom tog goriva, 69% goriva u lakom vozilu košta oko 57 centi po ušteđenom galonu. (galon=4.5 litre) Još su bolji rezultati za šlepere, gdje se uštedi slična količina goriva za 25 centi po galonu, s boljom aerodinamikom, gumama, motorom i tako dalje. Štedeći na težini vozila povećava se prostor za robu. Tako se dupla efikasnost sa 60% interne stope povrata. Možete ići i dalje, gotovo triplicirajući efikasnost s nekim operativnim poboljšanjima, dvostrukim povećanjem dimenzija velikih šlepera. I mi smo namjeravali tim brojkama stvoriti potražnju te preokrenuti tržište.
In the airplane business, it's again a similar story where the first 20 percent fuel saving is free, as Boeing is now demonstrating in its new Dreamliner. But then the next generation of planes saves about half. Again, much cheaper than buying the fuel. And if you go over the next 15 years or so to a blended-wing body, kind of a flying wing with internal engines, then you get about a factor three efficiency improvement at comparable or lower cost. Let me focus a minute on the light vehicles, the cars and light trucks, because we all know the most about those; probably everybody here drives one. And yet we may not realize that in a standard sedan, of all the fuel energy you feed into the car, seven-eighths never gets to the wheels; it's lost first in the engine, idling at zero miles a gallon, the power train and accessories.
U zračnom prijevozu je slična priča gdje je prvih 20% uštede na gorivu besplatno, kako je i demonstrirao Boeing u svom novom Dreamlineru. Onda sljedeća generacija zrakoplova štedi oprilike 50%. Ponovo, bitno jeftinije nego kupovati gorivo. Ako se u sljedećih 15 godina prijeđe na zrakoplov koji je u osnovi jednokrilni, s motorima unutar tijela zrakoplova, onda se efikasnost poveća za tri puta s istom ili manjom cijenom koštanja. Dopustite da se na trenutak fokusiram na laka vozila, automobile i lake kamione. Jer o njima znamo najviše, vjerojatno svaki od vas ovdje vozi jedan. Pa ipak ne uviđamo kako u standardnom automobilu, od svog goriva koje se natoči u vozilo, sedam osmina nikad ne dođe do kotača, najprije se potroši u motoru, kada je isti u praznom hodu, pa u sustavu prijenosa i dodatnoj opremi vozila.
So then of the energy that does get to the wheels, only an eighth of it, half of that, goes to heat the tires on the road, or to heat the air the car pushes aside. And only this little bit, only six percent actually ends up accelerating the car and then heating the brakes when you stop. In fact, since 95 percent of the weight you're moving is the car not the driver, less than one percent of the fuel energy ends up moving the driver. This is not very gratifying after more than a century of devoted engineering effort.
Pa tako od energije koja dođe do kotača, samo osmina, pola od toga, ide na zagrijavanje guma na cesti, ili na savladavanje otpora zraka. A samo ovaj mali dio, samo 6% u stvari ubrzava vozilo i onda zagrijava kočnice kada kočite. U osnovi, pošto 95% težine koju koju vozimo nije vozač, manje od 1% energije goriva koristimo za prijevoz osobe. To i nije zadovoljavajuće poslije više od stoljeća predanoga rada inženjera.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Moreover, three-fourths of the fuel use is caused by the weight of the car. And it's obvious from the diagram that every unit of energy you save at the wheels is going to avoid wasting another seven units of energy getting that energy to the wheels. So there's huge leverage for making the car a lot lighter. And the reason this has not been very seriously examined before is there was a common assumption in the industry that -- well, then it might not be safe if you got whacked by a heavy car, and it would cost a lot more to make, because the only way we know how to make cars much lighter was to use expensive light metals like aluminum and magnesium. But these objections are now vanishing through advances in materials.
Štoviše, ¾ potrošnje goriva uzrokuje sama težina vozila. A očito je iz dijagrama kako od svake jedinice energije koju uštedite na kotačima izbjegnuti će se bespotrebno trošenje sedam jedinica koje se izgube prema kotača. To je veliki poticaj da se vozila rade puno lakša. A razlog zašto ovo nije prije ispitano ozbiljno jest zajednička pretpostavka industrije kako onda ne bi bili sigurni u sudaru s teškim vozilom, i koštao bi puno više za proizvodnju, jer je jedini način na koji znamo raditi vozila puno lakšim upotreba skupih lakih metala poput aluminija i magnezija. No napretkom razvoja materijala takve opaske sada gube smisao.
For example, we use a lot of carbon-fiber composites in sporting goods. And it turns out that these are quite remarkable for safety. Here's a handmade McLaren SLR carbon car that got t-boned by a Golf. The Golf was totaled. The McLaren just popped off and scratched the side panel. They'll pop it back on and fix the scratch later. But if this McLaren were to run into a wall at 65 miles an hour, the entire crash energy would be absorbed by a couple of woven carbon-fiber composite cones, weighing a total of 15 pounds, hidden in the front end. Because these materials could actually absorb six to 12 times as much energy per pound as steel, and do so a lot more smoothly.
Na primjer, kompozitni materijali od karbonskih vlakana se koriste u sportskoj opremi. I ispostavilo se kako su izuzetno sigurni. Na slici vidite McLaren SLR od karbonskih vlakana u kojeg je udario Golf. Na golfu je totalna šteta. McLaren je malo udubljen i izgreban. Samo će poravnati i popraviti ogrebotine. Ali da se ovaj McLaren zaleti u zid pri brzini od 100km/h, cijelu energiju sudara bi apsorbiralo par tuljaca od pletenih karbonskih vlakana, koji zajedno teže 7kg i skriveni su naprijeda u vozilu. S obzirom da ti materijali mogu absorbirati 6 do 12 puta više energije nego čelik iste težine, i to puno uglađenije.
And this means we've just cracked the conundrum of safety and weight. We could make cars bigger, which is protective, but make them light. Whereas if we made them heavy, they'd be both hostile and inefficient. And when you make them light in the right way, that can be simpler and cheaper to make. You can end up saving money, and lives, and oil, all at the same time. I showed here two years ago a little bit about a design of your basic, uncompromised, quintupled-efficiency suburban-assault vehicle -- (Laughter) -- and this is a complete virtual design that is production-costed manufacturable.
To znači da smo upravo riješili probleme sigurnosti i težine. Mogli bi izrađivati veća vozila, zbog sigurnosti, s malom masom. S druge strane kada bi ih izradili teškim, bila bi nesigurnija i neefikasna. A kada ih se napravi lakšim, na pravi način, mogu biti jednostavnija i jeftinija za proizvodnju. Možemo uštedjeti novce, naftu i spasiti živote sve u isto vrijeme. Prije dvije godine sam vam pokazao neke sitnice o dizajnu osnovnog, beskompromisnog, pet puta efikasnijeg vozila za napad na predgrađe -- (Smijeh) -- a to je bio potpuno virtualni dizajn koji se može proizvoditi po normalnim cijenama.
And the process needed to make it is actually coming toward the market quite nicely. We figured out a kind of a digital inkjet printer for this very stiff, strong, carbon-composite material, and then ways to thermoform it, because it's a combination of carbon and nylon, into whatever complex shapes you want, like the one just shown at the auto show by one of the tier-one suppliers. And the manufacturing you can do this way gets radically simplified. Because the auto body has only, say, 14 parts, instead of 100, 150. Each one is formed by one fairly cheap die set, instead of four expensive ones for stamping steel. Each of the parts can be easily lifted with no hoist. They snap together like a kid's toy. So you got rid of the body shop.
A proces koji je potreban za izradu dolazi na tržište prilično dobro. Smislili smo neku vrstu digitalnog inkjet printera za ovaj čvrst, snažan, karbonsko kompozitni materijal, i načine za njegovo termo-formiranje, jer je kombinacija ugljičnih vlakana i najlona, u bilo koji složeni oblik koji želite, poput pokazanih na auto sajmu od jednog proizvođača. A proizvodnja na taj način postaje radikalno jednostavna. Jer tijelo automobila ima samo, ponavljam, samo 14 dijelova umjesto 100, 150. Svaki dio je oblikovan pomoću jeftine preše, umjesto četiri skupe preše za čelik. Svaki dio se može lako podići i bez dizalice. Slažu se zajedno poput dječje igračke. Tako ste se riješili karoserijske radionice.
And if you want, you can lay color in the mold, and get rid of the paint shop. Those are the two hardest and costliest parts of making a car. So you end up with at least two-fifths lower capital intensity than the leanest plant in the industry, which GM has in Lansing. The plant also gets smaller. Now, when you go through a similar analysis for every way we use oil, including buildings, industry, feedstocks and so on, you find that of the 28 million barrels a day the government says we will need in 2025, well, about eight of that can be removed by efficiency by then, with another seven still being saved as the vehicle stocks turn over, at an average cost of only 12 bucks a barrel, instead of 26 for buying the oil. And then another six can be made robustly, competitively, from cellulosic ethanol and a little bio-diesel, without interfering at all with the water or land needs of crop production.
A po želji se može nanijeti boja direktno u kalup i tako se riješiti lakirnice. A to su dva najteža i najskuplja dijela proizvodnje vozila. Tako možete imati barem dvije petine manja ulaganja nego najjeftinija tvornica auto industrije, koju ima GM u Lansingu. Površina tvornice se također smanjuje. Kada napravite sličnu analizu za sve što koristi naftu, uključujući građevine, industriju, stoku, itd. shvatite kako od 28 milijuna barela dnevno za koje vlada kaže da ćemo trebati 2025, osam barela se do tada može maknuti s boljom efikasnošću, s još sedam ušteđenih putem prihoda od dionica autoindustrije, po srednjoj cijeni od 12 dolara za barel, umjesto 26 za kupovanje nafte. A sljedećih šest se može proizvoditi pouzdano, kompetitivno, iz celuloznog etanola i malo bio-dizela, bez da utječemo na vodu i zemlju potrebnu za poljoprivredu.
There is a huge amount of gas to be saved, about half the projected gas at about an eighth of its price. And here are some no-brainer substitutions of it, with lots left over. So much, in fact, that after you've handled the domestic oil forecast from areas already approved, you have only this little bit left, and let's see how we can meet that, because there's a pretty flexible menu of ways. We could, of course, buy more efficiency. Maybe you ought to buy efficiency at 26 bucks instead of 12. Or wait to capture the second half of it. Or we could, of course, just get this little bit by continuing to import some Canadian and Mexican oil, or the ethanol the Brazilians would love to sell us. But they'll sell it to Japan and China instead, because we have tariff barriers to protect our corn farmers, and they don't.
Velika količina goriva se može uštediti, otprilike pola procijenjene količine za osminu cijene nafte A ovdje su neke jednostavne zamijene za naftu, kojih imamo viška. Dovoljno da, nakon šta smo se pozabavili procijenjenom količinom nafte iz domaćih izvora koji se nalaze na već odobrenim područjima, ostao je samo taj mali dio, i hajde da vidimo kako možemo to riješiti, jer imamo prilično fleksibilan meni mogućih rješenja. Mogli bi, naravno, kupovati više efikasnosti. Možda bi trebalo kupovati po cijeni od 26 umjesto 12 dolara. Ili pričekati da uhvatimo drugi dio. Mogli bi, naravno, tu malu količinu uvoziti iz Kanade i Meksika, ili etanol kojeg bi nam Brazilci voljeli prodati, no prodaju ga Japanu i Kini, jer imamo carine koje štite naše proizvođače kukuruza, dok oni nemaju.
Or we could use the saved gas directly to cover all of this balance, or if we used it as hydrogen, which is more profitable and efficient, we'd get rid of the domestic oil too. And that doesn't even count, for example, that available land in the Dakotas can cost effectively make enough wind power to run every highway vehicle in the country. So we have lots of options. And the choice of menu and timing is quite flexible. Now, to make this happen quicker and with higher confidence, there is a few ways government could help. For example, fee-bates, a combination of a fee and a rebate in any size class of vehicle you want, can increase the price of inefficient vehicles and correspondingly pay you a rebate for efficient vehicles. You're not paid to change size class. You are paid to pick efficiency within a size class, in a way equivalent to looking at all fourteen years of life-cycle fuel savings rather than just the first two or three.
Ili bi mogli koristiti ušteđeno gorivo direktno da se pokrije razlika, ako bi koristili vodik, koji je profitabilniji i efikasniji, riješili bi se i domaće nafte. A u to nismo ubrojili, na primjer, dostupnu zemlju u Dakoti, koja može jeftino proizvoditi dovoljno struje iz vjetrenjača da napaja sva vozila u zemlji. Imamo puno opcija. A izbor i tempiranje su dosta fleksibilni. Sada, kako bi to postigli brže i s većom pouzdanosti, vlada može pomoći na nekoliko načina. Na primjer, kombinacijom poticaja i penala u bilo kojoj klasi vozila, možete povećati cijenu neefikasnih vozila i istovremeno poticati kupovinu efikasnih vozila. Ovdje niste plaćeni za promjenu klase vozila. Plaćeni ste da izaberete efikasnost u istoj klasi, ekvivalentna s 14 godina standardne štednje u gorivu nego samo s dvije ili tri.
This expands choice rapidly in the market, and actually makes more money for automakers as well. I'd like to deal with the lack of affordable personal mobility in this country by making it very cheaply possible for low-income families to get efficient, reliable, warranted new cars that they could otherwise never get. And for each car so financed, scrap almost one clunker, preferably the dirtiest ones. This creates a new million-car-a-year market for Detroit from customers they weren't going to get otherwise, because they weren't creditworthy and could never afford a new car. And Detroit will make money on every unit. It turns out that if, say, African-American and white households had the same car ownership, it would cut employment disparity about in half by providing better access to job opportunities. So this is a huge social win, too.
To naglo širi izbor na tržištu, i donosi veću dobit autoindustriji. Htio bih vam skrenuti pažnju na nedostatak pristupačnih novih osobnih vozila, radeći ih jeftino omogućili bi obiteljima niže platežne moći da kupe efikasno, pouzdano, vozilo pod garancijom koje si inače ne bi mogli priuštiti. A za svako vozilo tako financirano, možete zdrobiti neku krntiju, po mogućnosti one najprljave. To bi stvorilo novo milijun-vozila-na-godinu tržište za Detroit za mušterije koje prije nisu ni imali, jer nisu bili kreditno sposobni i nikad si ne bi mogli priuštiti novi auto. A Detroit će zaraditi na svakom vozilu. Pokazalo se kada bi afro-američka i bijela domaćinstva u SAD-u imala isti broj vozila u vlasništvu, to bi smanjilo razlike u mogućnostima zaposlenja na pola omogućujući bolji pristup mogućim prilikama za posao. To bi bila i velika socijalna pobjeda.
Governments buy hundreds of thousands of cars a year. There are smart ways to buy them and to aggregate that purchasing power to bring very efficient vehicles into the market faster. And we could even do an X Prize-style golden carrot that's worth stretching further for. For example, a billion-dollar prize for the first U.S. automaker to sell 200,000 really advanced vehicles, like some you saw earlier. Then the legacy airlines can't afford to buy the efficient new planes they desperately need to cut their fuel bills, but if you felt philosophically you wanted to do anything about that, there are ways to finance it.
Države kupuju stotine tisuća automobila godišnje. Postoje pametni načini kupovine i akumuliranja kupovne moći za omogućavanje bržeg proboja efikasnih vozila na tržište. Mogla bi se organizirati neka vrsta nagrade koja bi još više potakla tržište. Na primjer milijarda dolara prvom proizvođaču automobila koji proda više od 200,000 zbilja naprednih vozila, poput onih koje smo vidjeli. Zrakoplovne kompanije si ne mogu priuštiti nove, efikasne, zrakoplove. jer oni očajnički moraju smanjiti troškove goriva, no ako bi zbilja htjeli poduzeti nešto oko toga, našli bi načine za financiranje.
And at the same time to scrap inefficient old planes, so that if they were otherwise to come back in the air, they would waste more oil, and block the uptake of efficient, new planes. Those part inefficient planes are worth more to society dead than alive. We ought to take them out back and shoot them, and put bounty hunters after them. Then there's an important military role. That in creating the move to high-volume, low-cost commercial production of these kinds of materials, or for that matter, ultra-light steels that are a good backup technology, the military can do the trick it did in turning DARPAnet into the Internet. Just turn it over to the private sector, and we have an Internet.
I u isto vrijeme "umiroviti" stare neefikasne zrakoplove, jer ako bi ostali i dalje u upotrebi samo bi trošili puno goriva, blokirajući tranziciju novim efikasnim zrakoplovima. Takvi neefikasni zrakoplovi više vrijede društvu na otpadu nego u zraku. Trebalo bi im polomiti krila ili poslati lovce na njih. Tu je i značajna uloga za vojsku. Stvarajući potrebu da se prijeđe na masovnu, jeftinu proizvodnju takvih materijala, kao na primjer, ultra-laki čelici koji su dobra rezervna tehnologija, vojska bi mogla napraviti isti trik kao šta je napravila s DARPAnetom pretvorivši ga u Internet. Prepustila je tehnologiju privatnom sektoru, a mi smo dobili Internet.
The same for GPS. The same for the modern semi-conductor industry. That is, military science and technology that they need can create the advanced materials-industrial cluster that transforms its civilian economy and gets the country off oil, which would be a huge contribution to eliminating conflict over oil and advancing national and global security. Then we need to retool the car industry and do retraining, and shift the convergence of the energy and ag-value chains to shift faster from hydrocarbons to carbohydrates, and get out of our own way in other ways. And make the transition to more efficient vehicles go faster.
Isto vrijedi i za GPS. I za modernu poluvodičku industriju. Tako su znanost i tehnologija koje su potrebne vojsci mogu stvoriti klaster industrije naprednih materijala koja bi preobratila civilnu ekonomiju i skinula zemlju s nafte. To bi bio velik doprinos eliminaciji sukoba oko nafte poboljšavajući nacionalnu i globalnu sigurnost. Potom moramo obučiti i preoblikovati auto industriju, pomaknuti konvergenciju energije i poljoprivrede na bržu tranziciju s ugljikovodika na ugljikohidrate, i maknuti same sebe iz utabane staze. Omogućavajući bržu tranziciju na efikasnija vozila.
But here's how the whole thing fits together. Instead of official forecasts of oil use and oil imports going forever up, they can turn down with the 12 dollars a barrel efficiency, down steeply by adding the supply-side substitutions at 18 bucks, all implemented at slower rates than we've done before when we paid attention. And if we start adding tranches of hydrogen in there, we are rapidly off imports and completely off oil in the 2040s.
Ovako bi cijela stvar išla zajedno. Umjesto službenih procjena potrošnje nafte i povećavanja uvoza iste, može se gurnuti prema dolje s 12 dolara po barelu efikasnosti, još snažnije ako se dodamo zamjene nafti za 18 dolara, sve implementirano manjom brzinom nego prije kada smo obraćali pažnju. Ako još dodamo vodik u sustav, izostaje potreba za uvozom i potpuna sloboda od nafte do 2040.
And the one thing I'd like to point out here is that we've done this before. In this eight-year period, 1977 to 85, when we last paid attention, the economy grew 27 percent, oil use fell 17 percent, oil imports fell 50 percent, oil imports from the Persian Gulf fell 87 percent. They would have been gone if we'd kept that up one more year. Well, that was with very old technologies and delivery methods.
Htio bih istaknuti kako smo to već jednom napravili. U periodu od osam godina od 1977. do 1985. kada smo zadnji put pazili, ekonomija je porasla za 27% a upotreba nafte pala za 17%. Uvoz nafte je pao 50%. Uvoz iz perzijskog zaljeva je pao za 87%. Da smo ustrajali na tom putu uvoz bi nestao za godinu dana. A to sve sa starom tehnologijom i metodama transporta.
We could rerun that play a lot better now. And yet what we proved then is the U.S. has more market power than OPEC. Ours is on the demand side. We are the Saudi Arabia of "nega-barrels." (Laughter) We can use less oil faster than they can conveniently sell less oil.
Sada bi mogli puno bolje odigrati tu istu partiju. A onda smo bili dokazali kako SAD ima veći udio u tržištu nego OPEC. Mi smo na strani potražnje. Mi smo Saudijska Arabija anti-barela. Možemo koristiti manje nafte brže nego nam oni mogu manje prodati.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Whatever your reason for wanting to do this, whether you're concerned about national security or price volatility -- (Laughter) -- or jobs, or the planet, or your grand-kids, it seems to me that this is an oil endgame that we should all be playing to win. Please download your copy, and thank you very much.
Koji god da je vaš razlog da želite ovo, bilo da ste zabrinuti za nacionalnu sigurnost ili nestabilnost cijena -- (Smijeh) -- ili sigurnost poslova, zabrinuti ste za planet ili vaše unuke, čini mi se kko bi ovu igru kraja nafte trebali igrati da pobijedimo. Slobodno skinite vlastitu kopiju knjige i hvala na pažnji.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)