As you pointed out, every time you come here, you learn something. This morning, the world's experts from I guess three or four different companies on building seats, I think concluded that ultimately, the solution is, people shouldn't sit down. I could have told them that. (Laughter) Yesterday, the automotive guys gave us some new insights. They pointed out that, I believe it was between 30 and 50 years from today, they will be steering cars by wire, without all that mechanical stuff. (Laughter) That's reassuring. (Applause) They then pointed out that there'd be, sort of, the other controls by wire, to get rid of all that mechanical stuff. That's pretty good, but why not get rid of the wires? Then you don't need anything to control the car, except thinking about it. I would love to talk about the technology, and sometime, in what's past the 15 minutes, I'll be happy to talk to all the techno-geeks around here about what's in here. But if I had one thing to say about this, before we get to first, it would be that from the time we started building this, the big idea wasn't the technology. It really was a big idea in technology when we started applying it in the iBOT for the disabled community. The big idea here is, I think, a new piece of a solution to a fairly big problem in transportation. And maybe to put that in perspective: there's so much data on this, I'll be happy to give it to you in different forms. You never know what strikes the fancy of whom, but everybody is perfectly willing to believe the car changed the world. And Henry Ford, just about 100 years ago, started cranking out Model Ts. What I don't think most people think about is the context of how technology is applied. For instance, in that time, 91 percent of America lived either on farms or in small towns. So, the car -- the horseless carriage that replaced the horse and carriage -- was a big deal; it went twice as fast as a horse and carriage. It was half as long. And it was an environmental improvement, because, for instance, in 1903 they outlawed horses and buggies in downtown Manhattan, because you can imagine what the roads look like when you have a million horses, and a million of them urinating and doing other things, and the typhoid and other problems created were almost unimaginable. So the car was the clean environmental alternative to a horse and buggy. It also was a way for people to get from their farm to a farm, or their farm to a town, or from a town to a city. It all made sense, with 91 percent of the people living there. By the 1950s, we started connecting all the towns together with what a lot of people claim is the eighth wonder of the world, the highway system. And it is certainly a wonder. And by the way, as I take shots at old technologies, I want to assure everybody, and particularly the automotive industry -- who's been very supportive of us -- that I don't think this in any way competes with airplanes, or cars. But think about where the world is today. 50 percent of the global population now lives in cities. That's 3.2 billion people. We've solved all the transportation problems that have changed the world to get it to where we are today. 500 years ago, sailing ships started getting reliable enough; we found a new continent. 150 years ago, locomotives got efficient enough, steam power, that we turned the continent into a country. Over the last hundred years, we started building cars, and then over the 50 years we've connected every city to every other city in an extraordinarily efficient way, and we have a very high standard of living as a consequence of that. But during that entire process, more and more people have been born, and more and more people are moving to cities. China alone is going to move four to six hundred million people into cities in the next decade and a half. And so, nobody, I think, would argue that airplanes, in the last 50 years, have turned the continent and the country now into a neighborhood. And if you just look at how technology has been applied, we've solved all the long-range, high-speed, high-volume, large-weight problems of moving things around. Nobody would want to give them up. And I certainly wouldn't want to give up my airplane, or my helicopter, or my Humvee, or my Porsche. I love them all. I don't keep any of them in my living room. The fact is, the last mile is the problem, and half the world now lives in dense cities. And people spend, depending on who they are, between 90 and 95 percent of their energy getting around on foot. I think there's -- I don't know what data would impress you, but how about, 43 percent of the refined fuel produced in the world is consumed by cars in metropolitan areas in the United States. Three million people die every year in cities due to bad air, and almost all particulate pollution on this planet is produced by transportation devices, particularly sitting in cities. And again, I say that not to attack any industry, I think -- I really do -- I love my airplane, and cars on highways moving 60 miles an hour are extraordinarily efficient, both from an engineering point of view, an energy consumption point of view, and a utility point of view. And we all love our cars, and I do. The problem is, you get into the city and you want to go four blocks, it's neither fun nor efficient nor productive. It's not sustainable. If -- in China, in the year 1998, 417 million people used bicycles; 1.7 million people used cars. If five percent of that population became, quote, middle class, and wanted to go the way we've gone in the last hundred years at the same time that 50 percent of their population are moving into cities of the size and density of Manhattan, every six weeks -- it isn't sustainable environmentally; it isn't sustainable economically -- there just ain't enough oil -- and it's not sustainable politically. I mean, what are we fighting over right now? We can make it complicated, but what's the world fighting over right now? So it seemed to me that somebody had to work on that last mile, and it was dumb luck. We were working on iBOTs, but once we made this, we instantly decided it could be a great alternative to jet skis. You don't need the water. Or snowmobiles. You don't need the snow. Or skiing. It's just fun, and people love to move around doing fun things. And every one of those industries, by the way -- just golf carts alone is a multi-billion-dollar industry. But rather than go license this off, which is what we normally do, it seemed to me that if we put all our effort not into the technology, but into an understanding of a world that's solved all its other problems, but has somehow come to accept that cities -- which, right back from ancient Greece on, were meant to walk around, cities that were architected and built for people -- now have a footprint that, while we've solved every other transportation problem -- and it's like Moore's law. I mean, look at the time it took to cross a continent in a Conestoga wagon, then on a railroad, then an airplane. Every other form of transportation's been improved. In 5,000 years, we've gone backwards in getting around cities. They've gotten bigger; they're spread out. The most expensive real estate on this planet in every city -- Wilshire Boulevard, or Fifth Avenue, or Tokyo, or Paris -- the most expensive real estate is their downtowns. 65 percent of the landmass of our cities are parked cars. The 20 largest cities in the world. So you wonder, what if cities could give to their pedestrians what we take for granted as we now go between cities? What if you could make them fun, attractive, clean, environmentally friendly? What if it would make it a little bit more palatable to have access via this, as that last link to mass transit, to get out to your cars so we can all live in the suburbs and use our cars the way we want, and then have our cities energized again? We thought it would be really neat to do that, and one of the problems we really were worried about is: how do we get legal on the sidewalk? Because technically I've got motors; I've got wheels -- I'm a motor vehicle. I don't look like a motor vehicle. I have the same footprint as a pedestrian; I have the same unique capability to deal with other pedestrians in a crowded space. I took this down to Ground Zero, and knocked my way through crowds for an hour. I'm a pedestrian. But the law typically lags technology by a generation or two, and if we get told we don't belong on the sidewalk, we have two choices. We're a recreational vehicle that doesn't really matter, and I don't spend my time doing that kind of stuff. Or maybe we should be out in the street in front of a Greyhound bus or a vehicle. We've been so concerned about that, we went to the Postmaster General of the United States, as the first person we ever showed on the outside, and said, "Put your people on it. Everybody trusts their postman. And they belong on the sidewalks, and they'll use it seriously." He agreed. We went to a number of police departments that want their police officers back in the neighborhood on the beat, carrying 70 pounds of stuff. They love it. And I can't believe a policeman is going to give themselves a ticket. (Laughter) So we've been working really, really hard, but we knew that the technology would not be as hard to develop as an attitude about what's important, and how to apply the technology. We went out and we found some visionary people with enough money to let us design and build these things, and in hopefully enough time to get them accepted. So, I'm happy, really, I am happy to talk about this technology as much as you want. And yes, it's really fun, and yes, you should all go out and try it. But if I could ask you to do one thing, it's not to think about it as a piece of technology, but just imagine that, although we all understand somehow that it's reasonable that we use our 4,000-pound machine, which can go 60 miles an hour, that can bring you everywhere you want to go, and somehow it's also what we used for the last mile, and it's broken, and it doesn't work. One of the more exciting things that occurred to us about why it might get accepted, happened out here in California. A few weeks ago, after we launched it, we were here with a news crew on Venice Beach, zipping up and back, and he's marveling at the technology, and meanwhile bicycles are zipping by, and skateboarders are zipping by, and a little old lady -- I mean, if you looked in the dictionary, a little old lady -- came by me -- and now that I'm on this, I'm the height of a normal adult now -- and she just stops, and the camera is there, and she looks up at me and says, "Can I try that?" And what was I -- you know, how are you going to say anything? And so I said, "Sure." So I get off, and she gets on, and with a little bit of the usual, ah, then she turns around, and she goes about 20 feet, and she turns back around, and she's all smiles. And she comes back to me and she stops, and she says, "Finally, they made something for us." And the camera is looking down at her. I'm thinking, "Wow, that was great -- (Laughter) -- please lady, don't say another word." (Laughter) And the camera is down at her, and this guy has to put the microphone in her face, said, "What do you mean by that?" And I figured, "It's all over now," and she looks up and she says, "Well," she's still watching these guys go; she says, "I can't ride a bike," no, she says, "I can't use a skateboard, and I've never used roller blades," she knew them by name; she says, "And it's been 50 years since I rode a bicycle." Then she looks up, she's looking up, and she says, "And I'm 81 years old, and I don't drive a car anymore. I still have to get to the store, and I can't carry a lot of things." And it suddenly occurred to me, that among my many fears, were not just that the bureaucracy and the regulators and the legislators might not get it -- it was that, fundamentally, you believe there's pressure among the people not to invade the most precious little bit of space left, the sidewalks in these cities. When you look at the 36 inches of legal requirement for sidewalk, then the eight foot for the parked car, then the three lanes, and then the other eight feet -- it's -- that little piece is all that's there. But she looks up and says this, and it occurs to me, well, kids aren't going to mind these things, and they don't vote, and business people and then young adults aren't going to mind these things -- they're pretty cool -- so I guess subliminally I was worried that it's the older population that's going to worry. So, having seen this, and having worried about it for eight years, the first thing I do is pick up my phone and ask our marketing and regulatory guys, call AARP, get an appointment right away. We've got to show them this thing. And they took it to Washington; they showed them; and they're going to be involved now, watching how these things get absorbed in a number of cities, like Atlanta, where we're doing trials to see if it really can, in fact, help re-energize their downtown. (Applause) The bottom line is, whether you believe the United Nations, or any of the other think tanks -- in the next 20 years, all human population growth on this planet will be in cities. In Asia alone, it will be over a billion people. They learned to start with cell phones. They didn't have to take the 100-year trip we took. They start at the top of the technology food chain. We've got to start building cities and human environments where a 150-pound person can go a couple of miles in a dense, rich, green-space environment, without being in a 4,000-pound machine to do it. Cars were not meant for parallel parking; they're wonderful machines to go between cities, but just think about it: we've solved all the long-range, high-speed problems. The Greeks went from the theater of Dionysus to the Parthenon in their sandals. You do it in your sneakers. Not much has changed. If this thing goes only three times as fast as walking -- three times -- a 30-minute walk becomes 10 minutes. Your choice, when living in a city, if it's now 10 minutes -- because at 30 minutes you want an alternative, whether it's a bus, a train -- we've got to build an infrastructure -- a light rail -- or you're going to keep parking those cars. But if you could put a pin in most cities, and imagine how far you could, if you had the time, walk in one half-hour, it's the city. If you could make it fun, and make it eight or 10 minutes, you can't find your car, un-park your car, move your car, re-park your car and go somewhere; you can't get to a cab or a subway. We could change the way people allocate their resources, the way this planet uses its energy, make it more fun. And we're hoping to some extent history will say we were right. That's Segway. This is a Stirling cycle engine; this had been confused by a lot of things we're doing. This little beast, right now, is producing a few hundred watts of electricity. Yes, it could be attached to this, and yes, on a kilogram of propane, you could drive from New York to Boston if you so choose. Perhaps more interesting about this little engine is it'll burn any fuel, because some of you might be skeptical about the capability of this to have an impact, where most of the world you can't simply plug into your 120-volt outlet. We've been working on this, actually, as an alternative energy source, starting way back with Johnson & Johnson, to run an iBOT, because the best batteries you could get -- 10 watt-hours per kilogram in lead, 20 watt-hours per kilogram nickel-cadmium, 40 watt-hours per kilogram in nickel-metal hydride, 60 watt-hours per kilogram in lithium, 8,750 watt-hours of energy in every kilogram of propane or gasoline -- which is why nobody drives electric cars. But, in any event, if you can burn it with the same efficiency -- because it's external combustion -- as your kitchen stove, if you can burn any fuel, it turns out to be pretty neat. It makes just enough electricity to, for instance, do this, which at night is enough electricity, in the rest of the world, as Mr. Holly -- Dr. Holly -- pointed out, can run computers and a light bulb. But more interestingly, the thermodynamics of this say, you're never going to get more than 20 percent efficiency. It doesn't matter much -- it says if you get 200 watts of electricity, you'll get 700 or 800 watts of heat. If you wanted to boil water and re-condense it at a rate of 10 gallons an hour, it takes about 25, a little over 25.3 kilowatt -- 25,000 watts of continuous power -- to do it. That's so much energy, you couldn't afford to desalinate or clean water in this country that way. Certainly, in the rest of the world, your choice is to devastate the place, turning everything that will burn into heat, or drink the water that's available. The number one cause of death on this planet among humans is bad water. Depending on whose numbers you believe, it's between 60 and 85,000 people per day. We don't need sophisticated heart transplants around the world. We need water. And women shouldn't have to spend four hours a day looking for it, or watching their kids die. We figured out how to put a vapor-compression distiller on this thing, with a counter-flow heat exchanger to take the waste heat, then using a little bit of the electricity control that process, and for 450 watts, which is a little more than half of its waste heat, it will make 10 gallons an hour of distilled water from anything that comes into it to cool it. So if we put this box on here in a few years, could we have a solution to transportation, electricity, and communication, and maybe drinkable water in a sustainable package that weighs 60 pounds? I don't know, but we'll try it. I better shut up. (Applause)
正如你所說,每次來這裡都有一些收穫。 今天早上,大概有三至四家 世界級座椅製作公司的專家告訴我們, 人類不應該坐下, 我早就知道了! (笑聲) 昨天那些車商提出一些新的見解, 他們說,在未來的30年到50年, 人們的車子將會以電線驅動, 不再需要那些機械了。 (笑聲) 這真讓我鬆了一口氣! (掌聲) 然後他們又說會有其他一組以電線操縱的裝置, 來取代現有的機械零件。 那也很好,但為什麼不拿掉電線呢? 既然不用任何東西就能操縱車子,為什麼不用意志來操縱呢? 我想談一下科技, 大概會用去十五分鐘, 我想跟在座愛好科技的朋友談一下, 這裡面有什麼。 可是在開始之前, 我要先說,在我們開始打造這台車的時候, 重點並不在於技術本身, 重點在於我們想將iBOT這項技術 應用到殘障朋友身上, 我們希望這項創新發明, 能改善這項嚴重的交通問題。 長遠來看,有很多構面, 我很樂意從不同構面來解釋這件事情。 不知道為了什麼, 大家都相信汽車改變了世界。 大約在100年前,福特開始生產T型車, 我認為大部分的人不會去想 汽車裡面到底放了什麼了不起的科技。 舉例來說,當時有91%的美國人 住在農村和小鎮, 所以汽車 這種不需要馬拉的車輛,代替了馬車,那是很了不起的! 汽車的速度比馬車快上一倍, 車身又只有馬車的一半, 還可以改善環境衛生,因為在1903年, 政府禁止市民在曼哈頓區內駕駛馬車, 想像一下那些馬路的模樣, 當路上有百萬匹馬在走, 隨時都在便溺或做些什麼其他的事, 那會引發傷寒,還有其他我們無法想像的問題。 所以與馬車相較,汽車是讓環境更衛生的交通工具。 汽車也可以讓人來往農莊之間、 讓人從農莊走進城鎮, 因為那時有91%的人住在農莊,所以這很合理。 但自1950年代起,我們開始以被世人稱為 世界第八奇景的公路系統,將所有城鎮連接起來, 形成另一奇景。 對了,在我談論舊式科技的時候, 我想向各位保證,尤其是對一向非常支持我們的 汽車業保證, 我不認為這台車能與飛機或汽車競爭。 但請想想目前世界的狀況, 有一半人口住在城市裡, 足足有32億人。 所有交通問題都已被汽車和飛機解決, 他們改變了世界,讓我們得以享有今日的一切。 500年前,發展成熟的造船技術 讓我們發現新大陸; 150年前,蒸汽火車發展得很好, 讓我們把一片大陸變成一個國家; 在過去的100年裡,我們開始製造汽車, 然後在後來的50年裡,以極有效率的方式, 將所有城市連結起來, 也為我們帶來極高水準生活品質。 但在這段時間裡,有大量的人口出生, 也有越來越多人搬進城市。 在未來15年,單是中國就有 四至六億人會遷入城市。 所以我認為,沒有人會否認在過去50年間, 飛機已把大陸和國家轉化為一個社區。 如果觀察科技運用的情形, 你會發現,無論距離、速度、數量、 重量,我們都能進行運輸, 沒有人會想放棄這些技術。 當然,我也捨不得我的飛機、 直升機、悍馬或保時捷, 雖然我沒法把它們放在客廳裡,但我還是很喜歡它們。 問題是出在最後那一段路, 因為有一半的人居住在城市裡。 雖然每一個人的狀況不同,但大多數的人 會花90%至95%的體力徒步行走。 我不知道哪種數據會讓你印象深刻, 但美國市區的汽車就用掉了 全球43%的汽油; 每年有三百萬市民死於空氣污染; 而幾乎地球上所有的微粒污染 都是源於交通工具,尤其是市區裡的交通工具。 我再一次說明,我不是在抨擊任何產業, 我真的很喜歡我的飛機, 也喜歡在公路上以時速100公里奔馳的車子, 他們的效率都非常好, 不管是從工程的角度、 能源消耗的角度,或從效用的角度上看都一樣。 我們都愛自己的車子,我也是。 問題是,當你在市區裡,想走過四個街區, 那既無聊又沒有效率,也沒有生產力, 更不可能持久。 1998年的中國,有四億一千七百萬人騎自行車, 170萬人開車。 如果當中有5%的人成為了所謂的中產階級, 希望走上我們過去100年的發展路徑, 同時當中有一半的人每隔六週 就會遷入面積和密度跟曼哈頓一樣城市, 那麼整個環境會撐不住、 經濟也撐不住,因為汽油不夠; 政治上也撐不住。 我想說的是,我們現在到底在爭什麼呢? 我們可以把問題變得再複雜一點,但大家到底在爭什麼呢? 對我來說,總有人要負責那最後一哩路, 所以我們決定研發iBOT; 但當我們做出iBOT後,我們馬上發現 iBOT就像是陸地上的水上摩托車, 或是不用在雪地裡駕駛的雪車, 甚至像是純為好玩的滑雪工具,大家都喜歡跑來跑去做些有趣的事。 話說回來,在水上摩托車或雪車等行業中, 只有高球車才是價值數十億元以上的行業。 我們平常都會幫研發出來的東西申請執照, 但除此之外,我認為我們也不應該太強調這裡頭的科技, 反而應該讓大眾瞭解我們解決了大部分人們的問題, 讓大家可以融入這個城市, 就像古希臘人所創造的城市一樣,那是要讓人走入的城市, 是為居民打造的城市, 我們讓人可以走入其間, 我們讓現在交通工具改進的速度 就如摩爾定律一般。 我是說,以前我們是以寬輪篷車穿越大陸, 然後是火車,接下來是飛機, 每一種交通工具都進步一點。 五千年來,我們慢慢聚集到城市裡, 城市變得更大、更廣, 地球上最昂貴的房地產是在城市裡, 無論是威爾夏大道、第五大道、東京還是巴黎, 最貴的房地產就位於市中心。 市區內有65%的土地是用來停車的, 全球二十大城市都是如此。 你或許會想,如果城市裡的行人 也能像我們現在開車在城市裡自由行走,那該有多好? 如果我們可以讓城市變得更有趣、更吸引人、更整潔、 更環保,那該有多好? 如果我們能讓大眾更方便地到達 大眾運輸系統,或是更方便地從捷運下車 回到車上,那麼大家都可以住在郊外, 更有效率地使用我們的車輛, 讓我們的城市再次充滿活力,那該有多好? 我們覺得能達到這些目標會很棒, 但真正困擾我們的是, 如何合法地在人行道上使用這台車, 因為技術上來說,這台車有馬達和車輪,這是一輛機動車, 但它根本不像是台機動車輛, 它跟行人一樣會留下足跡, 它也同樣可以 在擁擠的環境中前進。 我曾駕駛這台車去911之後的世貿大樓遺址, 花了一個小時才從人群中擠出來, 我就是行人。但法律通常比科技落後一至兩代, 如果我們不能走人行道,我們還有兩個選擇, 其一是成為微不足道的休閒車, 但我不會把時間花在這種事情上; 其二是我們應該行走在公路上, 就走在灰狗巴士或汽車的前面。 我們很擔心這個問題, 所以我們去拜訪美國的郵政署長, 那是我們第一次對外發表這台車, 我們說:「讓郵差試試看吧,大家都信任郵差, 郵差本來就可以走在人行道上,他們會認真地看待這台車。」 他同意了。我們還去拜訪了好幾個警察局, 請他們讓員警駕駛這台車到社區巡邏, 員警身上本來就有三十多公斤的配備,他們愛死這台車了, 我才不相信有哪個警察會給自己開罰單。 (笑聲) 所以我們真的下了很多、很多工夫, 但我們知道開發這項科技並不是最難的, 最難的是培養知所輕重的態度,以及運用科技的正確心態。 我們找到了一些有夢想的投資者, 他們提供了足夠的資金讓我們研發這東西, 大家都希望能儘快推出上市。 我很高興,我真的很願意盡可能地與各位討論這項技術, 這真的很有趣,你該出去試一試! 我只拜託各位一件事, 不要只把這台車當成是一種技術, 我請各位想像一下,我們都知道 重達約二噸的汽車是很好用的, 時速有100公里, 你可以開你的車子到任何地方去, 但就在快到達目的地時, 車子卻壞了,不能動了。 我們遇過最興奮的事情之一, 就是在加州這裡,那件事讓我們覺得一般人應該會接受這台車。 就在幾個星期前,那時我們剛剛才公開這台車, 我們在威尼斯海灘與一位新聞採訪人員一起試乘這台車, 他對這項技術讚歎不已, 這時候騎腳踏車的人也停了下來, 溜滑板的也靠了過來, 還有一位矮小的老婦人,就是一個矮小的老婦人, 也靠到我身邊, 當時我站在這上面,跟一般成年人一樣高, 她停了下來,鏡頭就在那邊,她抬頭看著我, 說:「我可以試嗎?」 你覺得我可以說什麼嗎? 所以我說:「當然可以。」 我從車上下來,她站上去,和平常人一樣東摸西摸, 在附近繞了大約五、六公尺, 又繞回來,臉上一直保持著微笑。 她回到我旁邊停下來說: 「終於有專門為我們打造的東西了。」 鏡頭往下對著她拍, 我心想:「哇,太好了! (笑聲) 拜託,不要再說別的了!」 (笑聲) 鏡頭仍然對著她拍, 那位採訪員把麥克風對著她問: 「你這麼說是什麼意思?」 我想著:「完蛋了!」 她抬起頭說:「嗯,」 她還在看著附近的人來來去去,說:「我不會騎腳踏車」,不, 她是說:「我不會溜滑板,也沒玩過溜冰鞋,」 她還知道這些東西的名字哩... 她說:「我上次騎腳踏車已經是五十年前的事了。」 然後她抬起頭,看著鏡頭說: 「我今年81歲了,已經不能開車了, 但我還是得去超級市場,只是不能帶太多東西。」 我突然發覺,我最怕的 不是官僚體系、法令規範者、 或立法的人不能接受這台車, 而是我相信人們會給我們壓力, 要我們不得侵佔城市中僅剩的一點空間, 也就是行人的人行道。 法令規定人行道最少要有90公分寬, 然後加上停一台車的寬度是2.5公尺,再加上三線車道, 再過來是對向車道的停車位2.5公尺, 人行道就只有那麼一點空間。 可是她對著鏡頭這麼說, 我突然覺得,嗯,孩子們不會介意, 而且他們沒有投票權;商人和年輕的成人 也不會介意,他們只在乎酷不酷; 因此潛意識裡,我所擔心的 是老人家們會反對。 所以,在看到這個老婦人的反應後,在我擔心了八年之後, 我立刻撥電話給我們的行銷人員和法律顧問, 要他們和AARP(美國退休人員協會)立刻安排時間會面, 我們得給他們看看這個東西。 然後他們把這台車帶到華盛頓,做了一番展示, 現在他們也想要參與這個計畫, 他們想看看著這台車在幾個大城市的反應, 像是亞特蘭大,我們目前正在當地進行試乘, 我們想看看是否能為市區注入新的活力。 (掌聲) 最後,不管你相不相信聯合國, 也不管你相不相信其他智庫組織所說的, 在未來的二十年內,人口的增長 將會集中於城市。 單是亞洲就會有超過十億人口居住在城市, 這些新的城市居民一開始就會用手機, 不用走回我們過去100年走過的老路, 他們所使用的全是最尖端的科技產品。 我們要打造的城市或環境, 必須可以讓一個70公斤的人在密集、富庶、 綠化的環境中走上個幾公里路, 而不需要倚賴重達2噸的汽車來載送。 汽車不是用來停的, 汽車是讓我們得以穿梭城市的美好工具,但請試著想一下: 我們用汽車解決了遠距離和高速的問題。 古希臘人穿著涼鞋從戴奧尼索斯劇場走到帕德嫩神廟, 你現在只不過換成運動鞋而已, 沒什麼變化。 如果有東西能讓人提升行走速度三倍--三倍-- 也就是把30分鐘的路程縮減為10分鐘, 如果你住在市區,而路程只有10分鐘,你會選擇什麼? 如果是30分鐘的路程,你可能會想搭公車或火車, 或者蓋個簡便的輕軌捷運, 或者選擇開車去。 如果你注意觀察大部分的城市, 在你有空閒的時候,走上30分鐘,看看你能在城裡走多遠。 如果路程可以變得更有趣,時間又可以縮到8至10分鐘, 這點時間還不夠你找到車子、開車、到某個定點、 再把車子停好; 這點時間也不適合搭計程車或捷運。 我們可以改變分配資源的方法, 改變世人消耗能源的方法, 讓它變得更有趣。 同時我們希望,在某個程度上,未來歷史會證明我們是對的。 那是賽格威,這是史特林引擎, 很多人搞不清楚我們在做什麼。 這個小怪獸現在正在產出數百瓦的電力, 對,它能夠接在這個後面, 只需要用一公斤的丙烷, 你願意的話,就可以從紐約走到波士頓。 也許更有趣的地方是,這台小機器可以燃燒任何燃料, 你們之中可能有人會懷疑 這台車是否會對環境造成影響, 因為除了美國之外,其他國家都不能插入120伏特的插座。 我們現在正在想辦法解決這個問題, 想要為iBOT找到替代能源, 我們開始和嬌生公司合作, 我們所能取得最好的電池是: 每公斤鉛10瓦小時, 每公斤鎳鎘20瓦小時, 每公斤鎳金屬氫化物40瓦小時, 每公斤鋰60瓦小時, 每公斤丙烷或汽油8千750瓦小時, 這就是為什麼大家都不開電動車的原因。 如果有其他東西燃燒後可以產生相同效果-- 因為它是外部燃燒--跟你家的爐灶一樣, 所以不管燃燒什麼燃料,都不會有污染。 它所產生的電力恰好可以發動這台車, 對世界上其他地方來說,也足夠支應晚上所需電力, 正如何利先生--何利博士所指出的, 剛好足以啟動電腦和一盞燈泡。 更有趣的是,這方面的熱電學家說, 這個東西的效能,絕對不會超過20%, 這樣也沒關係,也就是說如果產生了200瓦的電力, 就會產生700到800瓦的熱能。 如果我們想要以每小時40公升的速度煮沸水, 就需要大概25,或比25.3千瓦再多一點, 大概要持續維持在二萬五千瓦的熱能才能辦到。 這會耗去大量的能源,根本無法用此法淡化海水, 或以此法清潔水源。 當然,在世界上其他地方,這樣做無疑是摧毁當地資源, 把所有可燃的物質都轉化為熱能,或把所有可喝的水都喝光。 世界上首要的致命原因就是水質不良, 端看你採信什麼數據, 實際上每天有六萬至八萬五千人因此死亡。 我們還不需要技術成熟的心臟移植手術, 我們需要水源。 婦女們不該再每天花四個小時尋找水源, 或看著孩子們死去。 我們想出該怎麼樣把蒸汽壓縮蒸餾器放在這上面, 再以反流式換熱器採集剩餘的熱能, 然後只要用少量電力控制整個過程, 大約是450瓦,就是比剩餘熱能的一半再多一點, 如此每小時就能造出十加侖蒸餾水, 任何東西都能發揮冷卻的作用。 所以,如果我們把這個盒子放在這裡, 放個幾年看看,我們能否在這不到30公斤重的盒子裡, 創造出能夠有效解決交通、電力、 通訊、甚或飲用水問題的方案? 我不知道,但我們會試試看。 我該住口了。 (掌聲)