A Conversation with Shell
Through the TED Conversations platform, Shell is partnering with TED to engage the community in meaningful discussion on key global issues.
Nick Allen
Vice President,
Shell International
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
A conversation with Shell: How can the smarter use of energy and other resources unlock the true potential of cities?
There are 7 billion people on this planet, and half live in cities. In 40 years there are likely to be 9 billion, and three quarters of these will be urbanites -- that's the equivalent of building one new city of 1.3 million people every week for the next 40 years.
The world has never experienced a pace of change like this, and the transition will create new challenges and new opportunities.
Energy is at the heart of this revolution. It courses through the veins of cities and how cities use energy in the future will be critical to their successful development. But, it is not just about energy - how cities develop will also have a huge impact on water, food, waste and the environment.
During the week of TEDGlobal, we will debate many of the challenges that face cities. What would you propose to overcome these challenges?
Rakshith Nayak
griffin tucker 10+
"Take batteries in vehicles. Caterpillar has been using them in heavy machinery to assist their diesel engines in power production for quite some time now, but their tech isn't filling our streets, powering our vehicles and adding capacity to our power grids when not in transit"
hybrid cars (run on batteries and petroleum fuel) as well as excess electricity in homes that have renewable energy sources (such as solar panels on roof) could pump electricity back into the grid. instead of having a home that costs money to run, the home could potentially earn money for the house-holder by putting more energy back into the city's energy grid. this is possible now, with any city.
as for a city 2.0, roads could be developed to have wire-less electricity (as being developed by the good folks at M.I.T.) to charge driver-less automated freeways. instead of the cars using energy on a long trip, the cars would be charging with energy. any excess energy that isn't used once the vehicle is stationary can be put back into the grid.
granted, you would get some hoarders of energy (speaking of end of the world mayan theory) but i would think most people would put the energy back in to the grid in order to earn money for themselves, or at least make their house-hold energy bill cheaper.
we're at 'kardashev' 0.74, if we're going to look deeper into the future, homes should be generating energy for the greater good of humanity.
if we're going to continue to use fossil-fuels, then any waste of energy that is produced should be contained and put back into the grid.
p.s. for all you mayan calendar 'end of the world' buffs out there, the calendar isn't finished. there's another symbol that can be added to the calender, technically giving us a few more thousand years or so. and then another symbol, etc.
Nick Allen 100+
- looking to optimise the whole (or a great part of) the system rather than only a single part/individual elements of it
- solutions come out of the imposition of new constraints - nothing focusses the mind more than significant constraints
One example ive picked up recently is how the Japanese are looking to address their significant electricity supply constraint through optimising the home/car axis.
All require new behaviours/habits, which sometimes constrain the ability to grasp the potential for new solutions like these, but stranger things happen.
-
Kat Haber 500+
MR T
Energy is needed for cities, and where is it going to come from in 50 years?
Erik Richardson 500+
Adam Cross
If you harness the kinetic power of water flowing into and out of a city would the amount of energy harnessed be worth the initial investment?
Nick Allen 100+
Having lived in 2 close but very different Asian cities (Bangkok and Singapore) I can recognise the challenge -even before the recent terrible experience in Bangkok.
Singapore has a drainage system that is usually able to manage dispersion of significant amounts of water, whereas Bangkok is more succeptible to flash floods. Hwoever, even with the civil engineering capability of Singapore, flash floods are a challenge - as experienced in 2010, 2011, 2012.
A key question for many cities looking forward is...when the stress test their drainage systems for increased volatility of rainfall, can they cope?
I like the systems thinking of harnessing the kinetic energy potential of the flows of water - potentially turning the challenge into a strength. Do you have any practical examples?
Adam Cross
As for stress put on to the system I know that this system is capable.
Gord G 30+
Of course at this moment in history, to suggest energy is not a need, is considered lunacy. And perhaps it is... but it isn't crazy to suggest we need to consider the fallacy of the moral and ethical implications of that manufactured need
scott lee
What we need most is renewable energy. I am in the process of changing careers to be an engineering technologist, in an effort to be part of this future economy. However, all the jobs are in oil and gas (I'm from western Canada). We have a serious chicken and egg problem when it comes to the expertise required to make renewable energy a reality. Its hard to create a green economy without the skilled people required to build it, and its hard to attain those skills when that economic activity isn't present.
The Oil based economy isn't going to change overnight, we would literally starve without it. Furthermore, it takes oil to build windmills and solar panels, to mine the lithium for electric cars or the uranium for a nuclear economy. We have to use the oil that is left to built its replacement and the wealth generated by fossil fuels to finance the transition. Part of that is creating the training programs and career opportunities for engineers, technologists and skilled labourers to transfer their skills into the future economy.
Tone F
And why aren't some of Shell's £2 million an hour profits channelled into providing this technology to communities that need it most?
Nick Allen 100+
At Shell, we do not have direct involvement in solar, however Show Shell in Japan (of which we have a shareholding) does. Our involvement in renewables focuses on managing wind farms and more specifically significant focus on biofuels, and particularly advanced biofuels.
Ted Chinwag
ps,
If I had my way, gas stations would be done away with. Fuel distribution would be done by vehicle to vehicle transfer with vehicle to vehicle internet networking keeping track of where every drop of fuel goes. You could pull into a designated area of a shopping center parking lot and search via wifi for vehicles in the area with fuel ready to share, then you pull up alongside them and make the transfer. Distribution costs would be lowerec and as an incentive for being a fuel carrier/distributor a small share of the sale could be creditted to the person's bank account who's doing the sharing.
David C
I cannot just believe that you are 'evil' but these actions are evil so please help me, and many others, to understand this from your perspective.
We all understand the requirements for energy, but how will those billions of people live when Shell and co have destroyed the planet? Or at least the quality of life the planet can afford us.
Just watched the tar sands 'The True Cost of Oil' Ted talk - as part of the machine that is actively creating and continuing this ecological and humanitarian disaster - what are your reactions / the justifications you use to make it ok?
If for instance your children watched that talk how would you explain to them why you plan to not cease this but rather to ramp it up and magnify it? Or to the people who will be most immediately affected - the local tribes etc. When we see the images of what has already taken place and it wrenches our hearts - what do you see? Dollars? When we recycle at home and buy eco cars and ride our bikes to work and turn our eco bulbs out when we leave the room and wear jumpers so we can keep the heaters down low to preserve energy... then we see this - how are we not to feel, marginalised, futile and condescended to?
Your response is apreciated.
David (from NZ where our PM John Key is planning to exploit our oil reserves with no thought for the potential repercussions - even so soon after the Gulf Catastrophe.)
Nick Allen 100+
We are on our way to 9 billion. In the decades to come, major economies will continue to consume energy to grow. In developing countries many people will become more prosperous, able to enjoy the benefits we in the West take for granted. In short, the world will need more energy. What is important is the source of that energy. Fossil fuels will still provide the bulk of this energy with, we believe, a greater role to play for cleaner-burning natural gas. Renewable energy, including low-carbon biofuels for transport, are important and will also increase steadily.
At Shell we believe responsibly delivering cleaner/more reliable/affordable energy is the best contribution we can make to a more stable world where economies can thrive. To do this we work with communities/ companies/governments/consumers/NGOs and we know there is much work to do to meet the challenges of building a sustainable energy future.
After the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, the energy industry rightly came under intense scrutiny. For Shell, safety remains our top priority. Our standards are rigorous. If things do not go as planned we respond decisively, and we investigate all incidents to learn and improve performance.
We prepare thoroughly to prevent incidents. This summer, we intend to start exploration drilling in waters off Alaska. We have worked closely with communities/coastguards /regulatory authorities to put the necessary safeguards in place. This collaborative effort has been invaluable. Shell was also a founding member of the UN Global Compact and we support its principles in human rights/labour/environment/anti corruption.
Hope this helps
Robert Winner 50+
Projects at "city" levels require funding and that means grants from the government in most cases. All cities are budget driven and will continue to be so.
Metro areas continue to expand without thought to water resources, food supply, waste disposal, etc ... Phoenix Arizona is suing for water from any resources available because they have exceeded their resources. Poor planning on their part does not constitute an emergency on my part.
The key, as always, is responsible government, concerned citizens, and advanced planning. The potential of cities rests with involvement at all levels. We can remain part of the problem or we can become part of the solution. We have currently lost faith in government and we need to restore that by holding office holders accountable.
All the best. Bob.
Nick Allen 100+
There is clearly a strong relationship between the development of a city, and the actions of its Federal government. What interests me are the examples where they are to a great extent in sync, at least at the strategy/intent level.
If you look a China, the Federal government knows that the success of its 5 Year Plan is to a great extent in the hands of its cities, as this is where much of the delivery will happen. This is true for the current 12th 5 Year Plan.
The Federal government set the priorities, overall targets and the menu of delivery options that can deliver these. Then targets are passed on to the municipal leaders, and they are then responsible for defining the priority initiatives for their city that will help deliver these targets.
Looking outside China there are also cases where the municipal leader is strong enough, and has sufficient budget to operate with a level of independence.
In summary, regulation that can enable the right solutions, and the availability of funding to deliver these solutions are so important. The two are linked - as regulation so often enables the creation of the market environment that promotes private funding, and a fully functioning Cap &Trade scheme is a good example f this.
Finally, the food-water-energy-waste point you make is bang on. As Norbert pointed out in an earlier entry, understanding these stresses in key locations is critical, as is the creation of solutions that start to optimise around these, as I mentioned earlier this week.
Tough stuff...
Kevin Jacobson
thomas le calvé
We produce high voltage electricity, not because we need it, but to be able to transport it.
Nearly all of our devices use 12V and must use a transformer tu use 110V or 220V.
A family boat or a camping car use a 12V battery.
99% or our energy "need" is a waste : it is used to make the whole energetic system possible = Pure tautology.
We work to sustain the work. That's nonsens. (or maybe I'm an idiot?)
thomas le calvé
Think of it : machines are smaller now, we may not need gigantic centralized production anymore.. We may not need to transport all this energy, food, goods etc..
I'd rather imagine a world where a city is a transitory project, when needed.
I'd rather imagine a world where where any human can move and live where he wants, having all the tools he needs to make electricity, desalinate water, farm, print objects, etc..
Nick Allen 100+
Decentralised energy and the ability to access some important requirements without now having to leave our homes (goods, work, education) means that we are less tied to the old structures of cities. Projecting forward (and probably a long way forward), the promise of the 3D printer may liberate us in so many other ways, and make us self sufficient in ways we can only now imagne.
This may lead to looser communities and migration out of cities by certain groups, however they'll still almost certainly pass at the city limits folks coming the other way, attracted by the things that in their personal circumstances are not available in rural communities.
As i fnish this, I am reminded of Logan's Run...but there I go showing my age!
thomas le calvé
My slightly provocative words are here because there is a huge unbalance in favor of cities now. I see many ideas that are technically inspiring, but given the actual political world we're in, I now they will just add to the unbalance..
Ex: I was watching a documentary the other day where an NGO was trying to learn to the slum people how to grow some vegetable for them to be able to eat.. That made me sick : all these people where autonomous before going to the city !
That is a constant in today's human construction : forgetting the "why?"..
Ex: mechanical transportation of people (cars, plane, boat, etc.). Those machines are here to let a human move faster, go farther.. But, only if this very human has the right to. Boundaries wont let him go where he wants, $€£¥ is mandatory, patent won't let him build his own car, driver license, insurance, etc.
The result is that if we were to compare to global speed of humanity now and a few centuries earlier, it has been reduced to nil! This is what we see now in Japan : many, if not all japanese people should just move away their land.. but they can't.
So, although I have been a science and techno enthusiast all my life, I think now it is time to focus on political and legal issue, before going farther..
3D printing is another exemple of this issue, which is imaginary BTW. The original FDM patent is 1983 I think. Without this patent, this technology, at least the cheap FDM could have been mainstream since 1990.. But we had to wait for the patent to become public domain in 2006. 22 years lost !
The bottom line is that if the human specie keeps the abstract system that holds all its real innovations, it will find itself stuck in a bottle neck, or a dead end..ø
You know that your projects, even some utopian ones, could be realized in a few years if you didn't have to "sell" them for a few $ ?
We daydream too much ø:)
Norbert Both 50+
Nick Allen 100+
It would be impossible to do justice to everything that was discussed...but here's a quick summary of the ideas that came out:
a) individual behaviour is deeply ingrained and we need to understand this better
b) understanding individual freedom of choice is key, amd especially how this fits with delivering an overall social benefit
c) urban planning is a big subject and one consideration is the development of smaller self contained cities within cities
d) in designing solutions we need to learn from how the Internet developed - creat the platform/standards to create Peer-to-peer connections/collaborations
e) we need to take advantage of the rapid growth In neuropsychology and behavioural economics to help better understand how people make choices in city transportation
f) cities are diverse and their needs/requirements are so contextually driven that the combination of solutions will be unique to each city (the needs of developing/developed markets are very different)
g) electric vehicles will play a role in some cities along with other solutions - need to be pragmatic in designing the infrastructure
h) the role of data and information technology to transform what's possible is potentially immense
I) players need to be open for collaborations - because collaboration will be critical to successful solutions
J) a radical idea of governments designing a system that lives within identified limits (ie: resources) then working out how we live/operate within that
h) moving goods can be redesigned/optimised...
Clearly, there are conflicts/contradictions here...but there sits the challenge...and the opportunity...
R H 20+
Greg Lavery
Is the problem just too big and broad to be funded?
Nick Allen 100+
My learning is that advancement will come through collaboration between the groups you mention - and a 'market place'/platform will help with this.
thomas le calvé
We (the people) are slowly understanding that no one really pays..
All buildings, from big infrastructure to the small tool are paid with the complex-looking financial system, which is just a simple virtual-cash machine :
World dept was $216 billion in 2011, but world GDP was only $79 billions...
World growth was 3.6%, but deficit 4.2%..
[source:CIA:https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html]
This is no magic : the banking system is allowed to create money, not the actual coins and bills (the M1 monetary mass is just $26 billions), but any virtual money you want if they trust you will pay them back. In fact they don't even need you to pay back, because if you can't, they can resell what you've bought/create with that "money".
The same system drive the business system, where the only thing that is relevant is IP (intellectual property). It doesn't mater if you have a good or stupid idea, until it do produce "money". And because 90% of money is dept, any idea that could make dept obsolete has very few support from institutions.
And this system, which is an insult to the human genious, is what drive the industry.. If we continue to trust that system, we're doomed.
But we can be very optimistic because that system is producing en exponential dept, and this is impossible because it means dept will soon be infinite ;-)
I don't know what system is emerging now, but ressource based economy looks promising, only if it is truely open to anyone, anywhere, at anytime..
The only thing that made it impossible is until now is imaginary. This thing has very ancient root, in religions mostly, and it is, I think, the belief that believing is mandatory for something to be true.
Somehow, humanity as a whole is just like someone plague with neurosis, doing all life long something that makes him suffer, without have a single clue of WHY.. Is sad or comical ?
griffin tucker 10+
if this is going to happen, the human population density will decrease, as the more popular power grids will be more expensive to live near to maintain house-hold power consumption, and as that happens, power output in remote areas will be potentially earning more energy and also potentially more money too, as homes output energy back into the grid as a energy:currency ratio.
i'm not too sure how well that will field in the social spectrum, though...
Debra Smith 200+
Nick Allen 100+
First, Catarina Mota's talk on 'open materials' - considering the importance of buildings and infrastructure for city development, where are the untapped opportunities for 'smart materials', and specifically Inks that conduct electricity and Walls that change colour as they heat up.
Second, Massimo Banzi's talk on radical openness, the 'makers forum/community', and specifically the power of the Arduino micro controller to enable more intelligent and intuitive cities.
For both, it begs the question, how do different stakeholders collaborate to understand the potential of these technologies?
R H 20+
Nick Allen 100+
I don't have a clever answer to the question, but here's a thought which came out of a lunchtime TED discussion on Monday on the integrated challenge of food-water-energy.
A potential starting point is for society/individuals to agree a sense of "...what is a good life". Sounds like a nebulous concept but it has the potential to give governments (local, national etc) the necessary permission to redistribute value and hence implement some of the rebalancing that you raise. I'm not saying that this is a pre-requisite but it may certainly help.
Other views?
R H 20+
Nick Pennell 10+
Adam Newton 50+
First China, then India, the across Asia and Africa...... The consequence of not acting quickly could be, I fear, to compound an already growing problem, the consequences of which in adaptation to climatic and environmental changes (not least in stressed cities) could be huge......
Adam Newton 50+
None of the technologies needed to manage that transformation require ingenious innovation. We have them all, whether it's anaerobic digestion for managing city waste and using it to feed power generation, or the smart systems which create huge operating efficiencies in mobility or communication.
Greg Lavery
But the potential is huge. While most companies rest on their laurels with a 10% saving, Toyota has achieved 70% reduction in its energy use (at good financial returns) and is striving for more.
It is disappointing that large energy companies and investors spend so much time and money on nifty renewable energy technologies while the potential of energy efficiency remains largely untapped - and it is the lowest cost and least environmentally impactful form of emissions reduction.
Imagine holding patents to technologies that can reduce vehicle fuel efficiency by 20%. That is equivalent (once the technologies are fully adopted) to providing 20% of the world's oil. Income would be from licence fees instead of selling oil - and there is no danger of spills, explosions or exhaustion of reserves.
That is what I call a sustainable business model.
Nick Allen 100+
I agree there is a lot that industry can learn from the auto manufacturers. What I see is that it is being baked into their DNA - improving the efficiency of their own operations and the fuel efficiency of the vehicles they sell.
Ali Mestassi
Erik Richardson 500+
a) large cities have economies of scale regarding energy, so they need less energy per capita as they grow, but
b) have the reverse with regard to waste, crime, etc.
The only way those can both hold is if he is not counting the energy required for solving b in his calculation of a. That seems inconsistent - especially with regard to waste. Certainly in biology we would expect to count the energy cost of waste disposal expended by the organism as part of its energy needs, as would the energy cost of damage repair [solving malfunctions in the system - like crime].
What gives?
Philip Crume
Second, in the same way that we put energy into extracting, processing, and shaping resources across the industrial spectrum, we need enough energy to close the resource utilization loop and to help these industries more efficiently use the resources we already have in circulation. Throwing away materials into landfills that could, with a little refining, otherwise be reused is the perhaps the single greatest cause of pollution in the world today. If you want to be friendly with the environmental movement (I'm in the Sierra Club), nudge the global economy towards economic sustainability by closing resource utilization loops. If we did that, we could actually increase the amount of consumption we have, accelerate economic exchange velocity, and increase wealth.
Third, it is imperative that we address climate change. We cannot stop using oil right now, we all know that. Our agricultural and transportation system, and therefore our survival, depends on it. But fossil fuel waste is creating an unplanned terraforming project that also undermines our survival. In the short term, if Shell could figure out a carbon sequestration system we can put on motor vehicles, that would be a step in the right direction. Better still is that in the long-term, it further develops solar. There's an average of 1366 W per sq. meter. There's also an awful lot of unused space on top of buildings. If Shell took the lead, it would earn far more than it would otherwise in the oil business.
Finally, we need taller and denser cities with buildings designed to tap into ambient energy and efficient embedded transportation systems to avoid automobiles altogether.
Profits goes to those who grab the initiative.
Nick Allen 100+
I personally believe the resource utilisation loop is key to the cities challenge - and within this the mind set of "integration" - integration of industries that can increase resource efficiency.
If I had to try to pin it down more specifically, I'd say some of the opportunities are around the smart use of energy in industrial parks through to co-location of appropriate industries, the role of waste-to-energy plants, the whole challenge of water efficiency (including waste-water treatment), and potentially cracking the food waste opportunity...but this is probably only scratching the surface.
Thats the "what". The "how" is at least as important - through collaboration and dialogue, between companies, institutions and city planners. In addition, the approach will be different for new builds vs. retro fits.
Philip Crume
I sense that not only is it more energy efficient, there's a market opportunity to introduce disruptive technologies and capture substantial market share. Extraction industries have to mine resources out of the ground (as you probably already know it's becoming more difficult to reach), which accompanies a lot of waste rock, while you'd have the opportunity to pull resources out of landfills which may have as much as 50-100x what's available in mines and all of which have gone in some shape or form into usable products. You could also capture post-industrial/agricultural/consumer wastes at the mouths of rivers. Imagine recapturing nitrates & phosphates and then endlessly selling them back to farms? That's just the tip of the iceberg.
R H 20+
Erik Richardson 500+
Bring on the bridges of Konigsburg problem, baby! :-D
Nick Allen 100+
Ali Mestassi
Kevin Jacobson
Ali Mestassi
Kevin Jacobson
Ali Mestassi