Moonshots with Peter Diamandis - EP #1 How to Save the World w/ Elon Musk

Episode Date: October 5, 2022

In this episode, Peter and Elon discuss what it will take to remove carbon from the atmosphere. You will learn about: How to solve climate change Can we save the planet? The impact of population collapse on society The next generation of world changers The ‘Carbon Removal’ X Prize Elon Musk is a businessman, founder, investor, and CEO. He co-founded PayPal, Neuralink, and OpenAI, founded SpaceX, and is the CEO of Tesla inc. Check out Elon’s XPRIZE: https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk Listen to Moonshots & Mindsets on: Diamandis.com/podcast   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sasquatch here. You know, I get a lot of attention wherever I go. Hey Sasquatch, over here! So, when I need a judgment-free zone, I go to Planet Fitness. Get started for $1 down and then only $15 a month. Offer ends April 12th. $49 annual fee applies. See Home Club for details. That's the sound of unaged whiskey transforming into Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey in Lynchburg, Tennessee. into Jack Daniel's Tennessee whiskey in Lynchburg, Tennessee. Around 1860, Nearest Green taught Jack Daniel how to filter whiskey through charcoal for a smoother taste,

one drop at a time. This is one of many sounds in Tennessee with a story to tell. To hear them in person, plan your trip at tnvacation.com. Tennessee sounds perfect. Yeah, Going to Mars reads like that ad book for Shackleton going to the Antarctic. You know, it's dangerous. It's uncomfortable. It's a long journey. You might not, you know, come back alive. But it's a glorious adventure and it'll be amazing, an amazing experience. And your name will go in history. Yes, you might die. it's gonna be a cookbook and we probably won't have good food and all these things you know and a massive transform to purpose is what you're telling the world it's like this is

who i am this is what i'm gonna do this is the dent i'm gonna make in the universe everybody i'd like to share with you a conversation I had with Elon Musk in spring of 21. When we were in Florida near Kennedy Space Center, it was the morning before SpaceX launch, and we were launching a $100 million gigaton carbon removal XPRIZE. If you don't know XPRIZE, it's an organization I started 28 years ago, where we challenged the world to solve the biggest problems on the planet. And there's no question that what's going on in the environment is one of our greatest

challenges. I had a conversation with Elon a few months earlier about putting forward a $100 million prize to address carbon removal on the atmosphere. And literally a week later, he said, yes, let's do it. So if you don't know XPRIZE, that's what we do. We put up grand challenges around the planet. You can check it out at XPRIZE.org. This is a challenge in which we've already gotten 1,200 teams from around the world, almost every country coming into this, student teams, professional teams. We've given away $5 million

of the $100 million prize to student teams already. We've given away $15 million to the top 15 teams and $1 million each. The remaining $80 million is on the table for the team that can actually demonstrate megaton carbon removal that can scale to gigaton carbon removal. Check out this conversation. I hope you like it. Please give it a thumbs up so others can hear about it and check out XPRIZE.org as well. Thanks. Welcome.

Welcome, everybody. Welcome to a special live stream on Earth Day. Here we are on Earth. On Earth in a beautiful nature preserve. Surrounded by nature. Yeah. Couldn't do it better for 21 Earth Day. Yeah.

Nature Preserve. Couldn't do it better for 21 Earth Day. Yeah. Here to talk about the launch of the largest prize ever, $100 million XPRIZE for carbon capture. And here with a very special guest, probably one of the greatest innovators and engineers of our time, the CEO of Tesla, of SpaceX, of a bunch of other companies, and someone I'm proud to call a friend. Elon. Hey, Peter. Good to see you. Good to see you. Yeah. It's the perfect setting for call a friend. Elon. Hey, Peter. Good to see you. Good to see you.

Yeah. It's the perfect setting for our conversation today. Yeah. We've known each other for a long time now. Yeah. 21 years, I think. It was like 2000? Yeah.

Whoa. I think it was 2000 in like Brazil. Brazil. It was actually a similarly nice sort of setting. Yeah. It was a day of his birthday. Yeah. In Florianopolis Yeah, Florianopolis. In Florianopolis.

Yeah, and you're trying to convince me not to start a rocket company. I was trying to convince you to fund the original X Prize before I met Anusha. Yes, but you also really advised me not to start a rocket company because I'd lose all my money, which I thought you were probably right. So I thought, you know, a 10% chance of success. But anyway, it seems to have worked out. I'm sure glad you didn't follow my advice. Yeah.

Oh, my God. So we're going to talk a little bit about the rules, try and encourage teams around the world to register for this thing. There's many innovators, students talking about it. Yeah, I mean, our goal is like basically to do something that, have it be sort of interesting, fun, and ultimately useful, and to spur creative ideas for what is actually the smartest way to take the trillions of tons of carbon that we've removed from the ground, and will remove from the ground,

from deep, deep underground, and we've placed that carbon in the atmosphere and oceans, which obviously changes the chemical constituency of the surface of the earth. And now I should sort of measure my statements in that I think we, the Earth, I don't think we're currently doomed, to be clear. This is very important, very importantly, you know, there are people on all parts of the spectrum from ranging from nothing to worry about,

CO2 just makes things better, to we're doomed and there's nothing we can do about it. I am somewhere in the middle. So my concern with the CO2 is not kind of where we are today or even the current rate of carbon generation, but really if carbon generation keeps accelerating and we keep getting that increase in the Keeling curve you

know the co2 possibility in the atmosphere and if we keep going and if we're complacent then I think we could there's some risk of of sort of non linear climate change so so you know that's why we have seen the CO2 possible be fairly linear on our timescale, although it looks very exponential on geologic timescale. There are certain potential nonlinear events, like if we raise the temperature to the point where we melt the Siberian traps or something like that. And methane escapes, yeah. Yeah, there's just a massive amount of sort of frozen dead plant and animal matter in Siberia.

There's potentially trapped gases deep in the ocean. If the ocean warms, that could be released. So these are just risks that are not wise to take. And since we know that long term, we're going to have to have renewable energy anyway, because we'll run out of oil and gas. It's not going to last forever. So we know where this ends up. This has to end up with renewable, sustainable energy.

It's tautological. It's really just a question of, do we try to get there sooner or later? And we should try to get there sooner. It's obvious. How long do you want to run this experiment? It's also true that even if we stopped CO2 production, that's probably still not enough,

that we do need mechanisms for extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere and the oceans that don't exist right now? You know, I said I am, people always think I'm sort of like, I'm kind of in the middle of the spectrum, you know. I think if we stopped CO2 production today, which obviously we could not do without civilization coming to a grinding halt and mass starvation and all sorts of terrible things happening. So we could not stop the CO2 generation today, but I think at the 400, possibly even 500 ppm level, I think it's probably okay. But if, as the world industrializes and we're at 8 billion people, get to 9 billion people, have a lot more industrial output per person, you can see what might be okay at 400 or 500 parts a million of CO2 in the atmosphere might become quite dire at 1,000.

And the trend is certainly in that direction if we don't do anything about it. So that's why I think it's just probably an unwise experiment to run. Even if you think that the... This is why I think it should be a compelling argument to even those who would assign a low probability to increased CO2 causing problems.

Like let's say you think it's 99.9% likely that adding all the CO2 to the ocean's atmosphere is going to be fine. So you're saying there's a 0.1% chance of disaster. Well, right now we only got one planet. Even a 0.1% chance of disaster, why run that risk? That's crazy. So I think what's likely to play out is that we will continue to add a lot more CO2 to the ocean's atmosphere. And also, ocean acidification is also an issue. You don't want to sort of add

carbonic acid to the oceans and change the pH level because it destroys reefs and all that. Which it's actively doing right now as we're watching. Yeah, yeah, exactly. I remember when I first met you, Elon, you had, it was about 2000, and I remember you had two

massively transformative missions. It was one making the making humanity multi interplanetary Yeah, and the second was bringing us to a sustainable economy. Yeah, it's a sustainable energy economy Right exactly, and I think he was done pretty damn good Are you are you happy with the progress you made? Yeah, I think it's it's hard. The outcome so far has been great. Although obviously we've not yet sent anyone to Mars and hopefully will in the future. In fact, just a few days ago, or late last week, I guess, NASA awarded SpaceX a contract. Awesome.

$2.9 billion for the next lunar lander. Yeah. So a SpaceX craft will be the next craft to put humans on the moon. I believe the first human will be a woman actually this time. This is great. This is great. Yeah. So, but of course, we have to actually do it.

And then tomorrow we've got our third astronaut have to actually do it. And then we've got, tomorrow we've got the, our third astronaut launch to the space station. Before we dive into the carbon removal rules and so forth. Yeah. I mean, it's obviously- You've got to be caught in me because our rockets do produce carbon, you know. Yeah, true.

And you're like, Carly, what a hypocrite. No, no, no, we got- He's obviously just in for the money. But let's talk about the Crew-2 mission. I feel like I should address this. I'm just being a hypocrite by launching rockets that produce carbon. The problem is right now there's really no way to get around the physics of a rocket. So I think it's important for the long-term preservation

and ultimately the expansion and extension of the scope and scale of consciousness and the long term probably survival of humanity and life as we know it, we must become a multi-planet species because there are all these risks that we can't control. Existential risks. There's all these existential risks. Asteroid strikes. Yeah, yeah. Super volcanoes.

We could have a World War III or something. I'm optimistic about the future, but you could also say, okay, well, so how long do you think civilization will last before there's a catastrophic event? If you say infinity, this is not correct. Yes. Okay? History does not suggest that.

History just suggests we do dumb things to civilizations all the time. You know, the ancient Egyptians, the Romans, ancient Romans, where are they now? Let's do the video series. Where are they now? The Babylonians, Sumerians, you name it. So there's been many civilizations that have risen and fallen. Anyway, we've got to preserve, we've got to become multi-planetary, and right now the only way to do that is with rockets that do burn fuel. We do have a long-term plan for sustainability of even rocket flights by generating propellant

using sustainable energy, wind and solar, to generate, starting first with liquid oxygen. And for our Starship vehicle, it's almost 80% liquid oxygen and 20% liquid methane. And the oxygen, it's obviously pretty easy to create that. You just use wind and solar electricity and you do air separatorator because you've got the oxygen already in the air, the plants are making the oxygen. So you can just use electricity, basically renewable electricity to create 80% of the propellant on the rocket. And then for

the remaining 20%, you can use the Sabatier process where you take CO2 out of the atmosphere and you combine that with water to create CH4 and more O2. Yep. And that's in fact what we would do on Mars to generate propellant. Sure. So there is a long-term plan for sustainable generation of propellant for the rockets. I do want to emphasize that. And if there's some other way to do that now, we certainly would.

But I'm just trying to sort of address this apparent inconsistency in, you know, if Darien carbon is bad, why are you doing that with rockets? And listen, I think it's a moral imperative for the human race to be able to move off Earth while we have the opportunity. Everything we know is right here. And just because it's like, it's not just one of the other, because it's like, oh, is this some escape hatch for rich people? No.

They think it's like... Going to Mars reads like that ad for Shackleton going to the Antarctic. It's dangerous. It's uncomfortable. It's a long journey. You might not come back alive. But it's a glorious adventure adventure and it'll be an amazing experience. And your name will go in history.

Yes, you might die. And you probably won't have good food. And all these things. If an arduous and dangerous journey where you may not come back alive but it's a glorious adventure, sounds appealing,

Mars is the place. And you still have thousands of volunteers if not millions of volunteers who would want to go yeah I mean honestly a bunch of people probably will die

in the beginning it's tough sledding over there we're an exploring species yeah yeah exactly not for everyone we don't want to make anyone go so it's like it's volunteers only

you have a you have a a dragon capsule on the pad, Crew 2 is nominally, you still go for launch tomorrow? Yeah. Awesome. You want to just spend two minutes talking about the Crew 2 mission? Yeah, we've got hopefully a great mission planned for tomorrow. This will be our third flight of people to the space station. We have the test mission with two astronauts, then the first sort of operational mission with four, the second operational mission with four.

It was an international crew, a great group. I was just looking online. They're sort of picking their sort of, hopefully not final meal, but they're going to pick whatever their favorite food is from their country. So I'm actually heading over there tonight just to wish them well. I was out at Pad 39A to see the stack yesterday. A couple of things. One, Pad 39A, historic.

Yeah, this is where people went to the moon. Yeah, Apollo 11. From that pad. From that pad. The first space shuttle launch back in 81, STS-1. And so it's a lot of karmic responsibility to be operating from there. Yeah, it's like Times Square, the Times Square of launch pads. It's amazing.

Yeah. Amazing. And the first stage has a beautiful patina on it. It does. Yeah, it's a reused stage. So when the stages come back, they kind of get scorched. So the black there, sometimes people think, is that soot or something? No, it got scorched from reentry.

Your team said they used to wipe it off to clean it, and then it's just like, why bother? It's kind of hard to wipe off. It doesn't wipe off easily. It's kind of like baked on there. You kind of have to repaint it, really. We were having a discussion about, is it safer to use a stage that's flown already versus a new stage. Yeah, so I think what we'd say is like flight proven. Flight proven, yes. Yeah. It's like a Lexus.

So I mean if this was an airplane, do you want to be on the first flight of that airplane when it comes out of the factory or do you want to be on a later flight? I'd say let somebody, let the test pilots do their thing before you you know if they fly a fly a plane so you flying a plane you want to see that plane has flown a few times before you get it i think yeah so i i think it should be on balance better um and then uh and then we'll also we'll also be reflying the start reflying the spacecraft as well. The Dragon, yeah. The Dragon spacecraft. Beautiful. So we're trying to get the...

Reusability is obviously very important in many arenas. Reusability is important. Reusability in rockets is important. I remember being in Hawthorne, seeing your Falcon 1 there, and it was just amazing. It's come such... There's some funny pictures of basically the sort of SpaceX as kind of like a kindergartener.

And me being like 20 years younger. And yeah, we're just in this tiny little warehouse in El Segundo. Yeah, I remember it well. Before we go to jump into the guidelines, one last question, update on Starship. Because that's what, I mean, Starship is taking us to the moon taking us to Mars It's it's the it is audacious. Can you compare it to the Compared to the Apollo vehicle the Saturn 5 for a comparison for a second for folks to know get a sense of it sure Well, I think the thing that's least obvious from when it's on the ground

If from the from the videos and pictures is the size of it. So it's going to be the largest flying object ever. So it'll be twice the thrust and weight of the Saturn V. Amazing. So that's just for a second and taller. So including the launch escape tower. So it's a very tall rocket. 120 meters tall. And because it's so very tall rocket, 120 meters tall.

And because it's so wide, the proportions obscure that fact, how big it is. Yeah, you can see in some of the pictures that have been released when it's landing on the moon, and the people look like ants. It's a big rocket. This rocket is capable of at least 100 tons and probably closer to 200 tons of useful payload to the surface of the Moon. So, we designed it to be far in excess of NASA's requirements. And so, it's really intended to be something that can enable a permanently occupied base on the Moon. So, we've got a permanently occupied base in Antarctica, and it would be great to have one on the moon as well.

And you can do a lot more research if you have the scientists actually there. And we could have some very powerful telescopes. No, the moon, you know, there's some great sayings from Robert Heinlein that said if God know, if God had wanted humanity to have spaceflight, they would have, you know, she would have given us a moon. Yeah, right. Exactly. It's a great staging place. Exactly. It's just off the coast. Mars is much, much, much, much further. Actually, more important than the size of Starship is the fact that it is intended to be fully and rapidly reusable. So this is the fact that it is intended to be fully and rapidly reusable.

So this is the fundamental holy grail breakthrough needed for access to space. To make humanity a true space-bearing civilization, we must have a fully and rapidly reusable rocket. Now we've made some progress in that direction with Falcon 9 where the booster is reusable in that direction with Falcon 9 where the booster is reusable and the Dragon spacecraft upper portion is reusable. But the second stage is not reusable and I would say right now, I would not say the Falcon booster spacecraft and fairing, they're not rapidly reusable. It takes a fair bit of effort less effort than the much less effort than the space shuttle took yeah um but uh but it doesn't turn around every year or so yeah yeah exactly that four and it took like a year to turn them around um you know we're getting it down to um a few months basically and soon i think probably

under a month uh to turn around a booster. But landing out to sea and then having to bring it back and then sort of taking a month or so to get it ready for launches still wouldn't call that rapid by aircraft standards. Whereas Starship is intended to be both fully and rapidly usable. So the booster comes right back to the launch pad, literally is caught by the launch tower. So it lands and is actually caught by the launch tower arms, that's aspirational. I mean, this should. Excitement guaranteed. So the booster gets, it comes back about six or seven minutes later. And it's caught, so it's right there and then caught by launch tower arms and placed right back onto the launch stand. Amazing.

And then the ship is, I actually want the ship also to be caught by the launch tower. Now the ship will take, it takes at least 90 minutes to orbit the Earth. Yeah. And we may take more than one, it may take three or four orbits to get the ground track realigned with the landing zone, depending on where you are. But the point is that the ship will come back and be right, land right by the tower and be placed right back on. And so... Like a 767, just refuel and go. It's intended to be such that the booster can be used, I don't know, a dozen times a day. And the ship could be, you know, basically every couple of hours.

And that's mostly about reloading propellant and mounting the ship. And then the ship could probably be used, you know, probably every, in theory, every three hours, if you can make the ground track match. But certainly every, say, six to nine hours, or call it twice a day for the ship. And we'll make more ships than there are boosters. And I think once we have the floating space platforms, we can position them such that the ship can come back in a single orbit. Amazing. So then it could be like, let's say if you get three ship launches per day,

that's 1,000 flights a year, each with 100 to 150 tons of orbit. Now we're talking a real space program. So, Elon, this is the largest prize ever, ever, largest incentive prize ever, and I would argue for one of the most largest civilization-scale challenges we have. Sure. And we can get into the rules in a second

so that folks who are looking at creating teams can understand why we created those rules. But why did you fund this? Let's start with the why there. Yeah, I think I wanted to spur ideas and thinking about the long-term need to capture carbon. And I think this is one of those things that's going to take a while to figure out what the right solution is, and especially to figure out what the best economics are for CO2 removal. And think through all the consequences. You don't want the cure to be worse than the disease. So sometimes people say, well, just plant a bunch of trees. I'm like,

that's not so easy, you know? A trillion trees. Sure, exactly. And then you've got to like, okay, well, you need a fertilizer, you're going to water them, where's the water going to come from? What habitat are you potentially destroying where the trees used to be? It's not just a no-brainer of just go plant a bunch. But it's not to say that's not a good viable option. We should plant some trees. I'm in favor of planting trees. It's go plant a bunch of trees. But it's not to say that's not a good, viable option. We should plant some trees. I'm in favor of planting trees. It's just not a question of, like, okay... You know, there are, like, vast sections of, like,

the Sahara Desert or, you know, some large, barren areas, very dry areas in the U.S., where you couldn't plant a lot of trees, but you're going to need a lot of water. Yeah. And you're going to have to cultivate them. It's not like they don't just throw some seeds in the ground. Or drop them from orbit.

Yeah. I think it would be good to frame the debate and understand, okay, what things are really going to move the needle? How much are they going to move the needle? How much are they going to move the needle? If we're talking about getting tens or hundreds of billions of tons of carbon, in what form will that carbon be? Will it be stable over time? And like I said, what is it going to cost humanity to do? However it's paid for, what is it going to cost? What's the thing that's going to be most affordable? I think there are a lot of open questions on this.

There are. Let me chunk the rules for those listening. And you and your team, an amazing team, and Marcus Extrevor and Zinia Tata and their team work really well together. So the first thing is that for a team to win this, and we'll talk about the prize amounts and so forth, they've got to actually build something that works and demonstrate something that can extract a thousand tons per year, a kiloton of carbon per year as a demo scale model. Yeah, I think, by the way, we're very much open to adjusting the rules to be clear to everyone.

Meaning, if things aren't working or for whatever reason, we need to adjust rules, we'll adjust rules. The fundamental goal is to have spent 100 million, and actually it'll be probably like 120 million or whatever with cost of managing the prize and everything. So it'll be, like 120 million or whatever with um you know cost of managing the prize and everything um so it'll be you know at the end of the day probably something like 120 million dollars spent um and uh hopefully that's spent well and usefully um and that what comes out of it is something that um uh matters to the future um so that that's the that's the

goal to be clear um and so if people have, you know, ideas for adjusting the rules. Yeah, we're going out as guidelines. And we're going to have, I think, till mid-May for get public feedback. Tell us if we miss something. We will turn them from guidelines to rules once we get really feedback. And we've gone out to so many of the amazing scientists out there. We've gone out to so many of the amazing climate scientists out there. Yeah.

And it's, yeah, unless the rules need to be valid for the four years of this prize duration. Yeah. So we're super open to critical feedback. Don't hesitate to, you know, yell and say, hey, this is how it should be different in some way or whatever. You know, the goal is just to, like, let's have it be a useful exercise and have people have a good time trying to figure out this problem. I think it's a fun problem to try to work on. We just want it to be useful at the end of the day and have it not be an academic exercise or something that never amounts to anything. I think one of the things that you've said and I've said is everything works on PowerPoint.

Everything works on PowerPoint. That's exactly. You can have a PowerPoint presentation for a teleportation system to the Andromeda Galaxy and even have a simulation of like, look, here we are. Boom. You're in the corner of the slide. You're now teleported to Andromeda. But it doesn't actually work.

So to win this prize, a team actually during the four years has to build something that can at minimum pull out a thousand tons of carbon per year so that they can show us that... Do they have to pull out a thousand tons or just show that the rate it works? No, they have to pull out... Like a literal thousand tons, we weigh it.

On a scale. We're going to maybe calculate it to be a thousand tons, but the rate at which, yes, they'll have to run it for a year to get a thousand tons out.

Maybe if they run it for a month, that's okay. Probably it's okay. Okay, okay. All right. I mean, in a month,

they have, you know, like a hundred tons. And it needs to fit on our weighing machine or something, you know, like,

I don't know, we're going to weigh it somehow. We'll use one of your ships. We'll go down the shipyard on that. And part of the actual physically doing it is that they have enough data to calculate costs, which are going to be important.

But we're not looking for theory. We're looking for practice. And you know how hard it is to make something real. It's very hard to make something real. In my view, prototypes are trivial and production is hard. And there's generally people

think it's the prototype that is the hard thing. Prototypes are well, I mean, obviously you're going to have that 1% of inspiration, but as the saying goes it's 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. Ideas are plentiful. Actually getting it done is very hard. You could say, for example, what about the idea of going to the moon? It's easy. Going to the moon is hard. So that's why it's not the idea, man. Yeah. There's plenty of ideas out there. It's execution.

All right. So the second thing... This was my idea to go to the moon. I've patented it. Okay, good. See you there. Yeah. The second thing is, and this is a term that you use first, is that the teams have to be able to calculate the fully considered costs of pulling out the CO2. Sure.

And what does that mean to you? Yeah, so I think fully considered cost actually just means that if there are, you want to look at both the benefits and the costs actually. So if in sequestering carbon or removing it from the atmosphere or oceans, it has some environmental impact, which might be small, but it's not negative. That certainly needs to be taken into account. And then by the same token, if what's done in extracting carbon is a useful product from which you can generate revenue, then that should count too.

So I'm just sort of saying for argument's sake, then that should count too. All right. So I don't know, I'm just sort of saying for argument's sake, like let's say you could create, you know, construction material. Like, you know. Cement. Cement.

Yeah, exactly. Which we just, I'll talk about that later. Cement or some kind of useful rocks that are useful or sand or I don't know. Yeah. Something that's useful for construction. Then you could say, okay, well, this is what we could sell it for, and just fully consider pros and cons and say, okay, this is what, if we need to pay to have it done in the future, which we probably will have to do, then what's the lowest net cost? Yeah.

And to be clear, the working teams, what they do has to be net negative, right? It's not a break even. It's not play out 1,000 tons and then emit 1,000 tons. And in fact, one of the things we talked about... No, no, absolutely. One of the things we talked about... Obviously. Yeah. One of the things we talked about is how long do you need to sequester the carbon for us?

We had a big debate. Do you want to share what you came up with there? What the team came up with? Well, the rate of carbon sequestering used to far exceed the rate at which it is potentially dissolving back into the atmosphere. So, you know, like, if, yeah. And so one of the

rules is that you have to sequester for at least 100 years, right? So we set a target, doesn't have to be forever, you know, a year is not long enough. So we said, you have to demonstrate that your methodology is going to contain the CO2 in some fashion for 100 years at least. Yeah, maybe there's a small amount that is lost. Maybe it's not perfect.

I think we probably don't want to set it to 100% for 100 years. But if it's like 90% for 100 years, that's probably okay. You know, so it just needs to be something that if we scaled it up, would it work? Yeah, and that's the third part. Obviously. That's the third part, which is...

It's a common sense test, really. Yes, and the hardest thing is that the winning team has to prove to our judges that their approach can actually scale to a gigaton level. Otherwise, it's not going to be useful. Exactly. It can't be niche. It can't be inherently niche.

And if anybody knows about scaling up, I think you do. Yeah, scaling is hard. Yeah, I don't know what the answer is here, really. But I think if a lot of smart people work on this, there could be some really creative solutions. Something generally useful for the world in that regard. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, and I think just to be clear,

like, we're looking for pragmatic solutions. It doesn't need to be perfect. You know, but it's got to be something that just fundamentally, if we scaled it up, would it work? Yeah, that's it. So let's talk about the prizes that are up for grabs. First place is going to be $50 million, which is significant.

Our hope is that it's going to attract enough cognitive surplus out there to focus in on this. $30 million split between sort of a second, third, and fourth place prize. And one of the things that you and your team put forward is maybe it might be split into different categories, right? Different approaches. Yeah, I mean, we want to reward people who have done great work. Yeah. Fundamentally.

I'm open to increasing the prize size, too, over time. So if it turns out, like, hey, somebody really kicked ass and somehow there's not a price for them, I'll add some more to the price. That's extraordinary. Yeah, absolutely. I don't want somebody to have spent massive blood, sweat, and tears, have done something useful and then get nothing for it.

That would be pretty bad. I think also somebody's going to probably get a company out of this, because I think this will be a need long term. So this is kind of like, you can also think of it as free venture money. Non-diluted venture capital. Yeah, free money for a company. And hopefully we're also creating a massive marketplace and proving to people that there's a there there here.

Yeah. So 50 million for the first 30 million split among second, third and fourth. In the next year, we're taking 15 million dollars and distributing a million dollars to the top 15 teams that appear to be making the most progress, the most real. Just give us some people some seed money, basically. Yeah. And then you've set aside $5 million for student teams, which is real important. You want to talk about student teams? I know you're passionate about that. Yeah, yeah. We've done a lot of student competitions,

for example, Hyperloop. Just trying to spur ideas in advanced transportation. And it's really just basically an electric car in a vacuum tube, to be precise. We've had several of them. The last Hyperloop competition, I actually got halfway to the speed of sound. It's pretty good. Yeah, it's pretty impressive.

The thing was you had to get to the fastest speed and then stop without crashing. It's kind of exciting. It's like, is this thing going to, you know, get what speed it's going to get up to? Are they going to slam the brakes on in time or is it going to hit the crash barrier at the end? So, it's pretty fun. And then we kind of got to, we put that on pause and now we're doing tunneling competitions. Oh, nice.

Change that, yeah, that technology has not changed that much in a century. No, honestly, I think we're, we're going to, you know, I mean, for, I don't know, five or seven years, for a long time, I was like, if you'll ask me what opportunities do you see, I said tunneling and they would think I was joking. But I think this is the way to solve traffic in congested cities. And almost every major city is congested. As autonomy gets better and better and you have robo-taxis and everything, the robo-taxis will be cheaper than a bus or subway. And it'll take you point to point, even when it's

raining and snow. So it's going to be better also, I think, from a public health standpoint, like if there's another pandemic, how do you get around? It's difficult to go into crowded spaces. Anyway, I think tunnels are going to be really important in the future for relieving congestion in cities. I hope others start tunneling companies and just improve tunneling technology. I hope others start tunneling companies and just improve tunneling technology. You can have, in fact, these wolf tunnels just going all the way through 3D,

multiple levels. We're the first operational one in Vegas. It's going to go into operation, I think, in a few months. We could sit here and talk about macaque monkeys playing Pong as well on Neuralink. That was amazing. That was awesome. Yeah, but I'm not going to go there. I'm going to focus still on our... I played Mind Pong against the monkey.

You did? Did it win? No, but it hadn't practiced as much yet. So now it might be able to beat me. Monkeys have very good agility. They've got to catch the branch. They can swing through the trees, and we cannot. Not very well, you know?

Yeah. So I think a monkey actually could play like a fast twitch video game really well that's great maybe better than a human you can sponsor a team yeah exactly esports it's just monkeys macaques yeah it's the best teams yeah monkeys actually love playing video games and uh and so do my nine-year-olds drinking smoothies no it's just like humans i mean basically humans love snacks and video games. And so do monkeys. That's awesome.

I just want to hit on, there are four categories that teams can put their approaches forward. First is direct air capture. Pull it out of the air. Any comment on that? Sure. Well, I mean, you can certainly pull it out. There's lots of ways to get carbon out of the air and you comment on that. I sure will I mean this you can certainly plot There's there's lots of ways to get carbon out of the air. Yeah It adds over many different ways. Yeah category two is oceans sort of algae kelp plankton A lot of co2 in the oceans people don't realize that

category three land Trees, I mean mark Benioffioff has been backing a trillion trees project. Where are they going to be planted? We'll find out. Okay. By the way, when people say that Earth is being overpopulated… That's not true. It's like, look out the window, and I know you and I have had this conversation that you're more worried about underpopulation of planet Earth.

Oh yeah, yeah. Earth is going to face a massive population collapse over the next 20, 30 years. Massive. Yeah. And this is definitely, you know, most civilization, you know, the question of like, is civilization going to die with a bang or a whimper? This would definitely be dying with a whimper. Yeah, we need… But the birth rate is very low. It's been dropping, right? It used to be five, six children per family. Globally it's like 2.4. In the US it's below replacement levels. I mean in most of Europe, Russia, Japan, Korea,

Singapore, you know, it's well below replacement. But I would still say, when we spoke last about this, you're still an abundance optimist that the world is getting better on many levels. Yeah, I think the world is generally getting better. I have some concerns about advanced AI. That's a risk. If I say existential risks, I'd say super advanced AI is one. Probably the second biggest risk after that is population collapse. Not asteroid impact? No. The population collapse. The thing about demographics and birth rates, you know what's going to happen in 20 years because you know the birth rate last year. It takes like 20 years for a person to grow up. We know what the adult population is going to be 20 years

from now because we know what kids were born last year. I think we have a serious issue with population collapse. That's far bigger than people realize. And, you know, the social networks and everything, I mean, the social support networks were not really set up for a high ratio of retirees to workers. So then... Well, thank God we got robots coming in. Yeah, the robots, exactly. We'll need those. We'll need those robots. But you don't want to have the youth effectively enslaved to take care of the elderly.

Yeah. You know, which is what would kind of happen if you have an upside down demographic pyramid. All right. We're going to go to some questions. Let's we have some over here. The first one is from Chuck Brady in Austin. Chuck is one of our innovation board members, one of the earliest funders

that did the background work in the climate. So I found this question super fascinating. So he says, if the bogey is 10 gigatons per year and the global economic output is $87 trillion, at least it has been the last year, then at $200 per ton to sequester cost sequestration is two trillion or about two percent of the global gdp so it seems like a reasonable drag on overall economy if we could stop reverse climate change the shortcoming right

now is we don't have a scalable way yet to capture and sequester co2 so that's the background that seems like a reasonable estimate. So here's this first question. Should competing teams prioritize scalability over cost? And what lessons from Tesla and SpaceX have you learned to help teams thinking about the design of their solutions? Well, I think it's not, unless the cost is affordable, it's not scalable. I mean, I thought the prior math was pretty sensible there. We could afford something perhaps which is 1 or 2% of GDP, but it would be extremely

painful if it was 20% of GDP. We'd start having to cut into healthcare and all sorts of social care programs. And if it's 200% of GDP, it's not happening at all. Chuck has a second question I also thought was really important. He says, while we want the lowest cost that will do a gigaton per year or more, inevitably there are going to be trade-offs between cost and scalability. No, actually, I think something's not scalable unless the cost is low. Yeah. So, or at least if the cost at scale is low. Yeah, I mean, I guess cost and scalability, you could say like I could plant a tree. Yeah, sure. Okay. Yeah, yeah, but we

just need to solve the problem and so both cost and scalability need to be addressed. It's like, is it going to remove enough carbon to matter? And can we afford it as a civilization? Yeah. Those are the two things that matter. Yeah. And then just obviously making sure that in sequestering the carbon, we're not at the same time creating some new environmental issue. I mean, that's an important point, right?

That we're not creating a new environmental issue at the same time that we are. Yeah. Or maybe it is, but it can only be... Basically, the cure's got to be much better than the disease, obviously. Yeah. So, you know, you take some medication, maybe there's like slight side effects, but you generally

want the medication to be much better than the disease. So, it's just got to make sense. Like, we can see a path to this,

to working at scale and solving the problem. It has to have some chance of that. Paresh Galani from Los Angeles, one of our Vision Circle members says,

who do you think should be paying for the cost of carbon capture? Is it government, oil industry, attacks across everyone? Do you have a sense about that? Well, generally the market system has worked very well when prices are accurate. And the problem we have right now is that we're not correctly pricing the cost per ton of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans.

And there are various attempts to try to get at this with subsidies and whatnot, but really the market systems work well if there is not a pricing error. And we have a pricing error in that we are not paying for this externality. In classical economics, it's just an unpriced externality. And we're not paying for our garbage removal. So then garbage piles up. And so the logical thing to do, and I think the vast majority of economists would agree,

is to put a tax on carbon. And then you can find ways with tax rebates and whatnot to make sure it's not a regressive tax, that it does not unfairly, disproportionately negatively affect people on low incomes with tax rebates and stuff. I think that's the thing that systemically I think is important to address it. If you correctly price something, the market system works. Prices are just information. Grab the wrong information.

Julio from Dublin says, do you expect the technologies coming out of this competition to have any use on Mars, for example? And P.S., thank you for what you're doing for humanity. Yeah, I think so. Interesting thing on Mars is that Mars is a primarily CO2 atmosphere, but also has some nitrogen and carbon and other trace elements. Nitrogen and argon, I should say, in addition to primarily CO2. So in order to produce propellant on Mars, we would take the CO2 from the atmosphere, combine that with water ice. Mars has a lot of ice under the dust.

It's amazing that 20 years ago that wasn't known. I mean, we're discovering it every place now. Yeah, yeah. Mars is just basically covered in ice. It's just got dust, too, so it's hard to see the ice under the dust. But I believe if you warmed Mars up, you'd have an ocean with an average depth, I think, of almost a mile or something like that on the northern part of the planet. It's like something like 40% of the planet would have an ocean potentially up to a mile deep or something like that. Extraordinary.

Like a bake. It wouldn't be like just a mile deep or something like that. Extraordinary. Like a big, it wouldn't be like just a little lake or something like that. So you take the water ice, H2O, and you combine that with the CO2 in the atmosphere, use something like the Sabatier process where you run it over a ruthenium catalyst and you get basically Methane. Yeah, you get methane, you get CH4 and O2 oxygen. And that's actually why we designed the Starship to use methane oxygen, is because we can actually create that and refuel on Mars. Yeah, in fact literally by pulling the CO2 out of the atmosphere, combining with water, and then using that as propellant. And so, actually, by its very nature,

Mars has to have a sustainable rocket propellant. Let's go to India. Rohan Kumar from Mumbai says, why don't you simply implement the available technologies on a larger scale? Like which technologies? Tree planting. I think there should be more trees. Let's do it. I think I would say that there currently does not exist

technologies that can scale to the gigaton level at a reasonable cost and that's the underlying purpose of this competition is to either demonstrate existing technologies can and teams can use whatever technologies they want or to really innovate and come up with new approaches. The thing is that generally if trees can grow somewhere, they usually do grow. They, you know, they, like unless they're generally… Yeah, there's no one there pulling them out other than humans and the Amazons.

Yeah, I mean, the Amazon is quite a thick, quite a big, big, thick jungle. I've flown over the Amazon many times and that is one hell of a jungle. In fact, like you would fly for long periods of time and see nothing, no lights, no fires, no nothing, just darkness. And then eventually fly over Brasilia, the capital, and out of nowhere there's a bunch of lights. But in order to have a big increase in tree biomass, in tree biomass,

we would have to irrigate and provide manure, you know, like basically fertilizer, and we'd have to cultivate. Make it hospitable for the trees to grow. Yes, and then you say, okay, well, what's the energy cost of the fertilizer and getting the fresh water there and, you know, just making it habitable for trees.

You've got to factor in the energy cost of the fertilizer and the energy cost of the water and all that. So it's like, okay, what's the actual net carbon result? It's not as good as people might think. Again, I'm not saying I'm anti-tree. I'm pro-tree. But it would just be very difficult to blanket the Sahara with trees. This is an important one here.

As teams are coming together, Grant in Washington, D.C. says, what is Elon's and Peter's process of building a strong team? And ultimately, I think the quality of your team is everything. Yeah, sure. Absolutely. That's how you get things done? How do you I mean when you start a new company like like neural link or boring

How do you recruit that first core team? You're like a boring are very small companies. It's like these are Tiny compared to SpaceX and Tesla, which means sure. Well, I will have a 90% of what I do is just SpaceX and Tesla so well over 90% of what I do is just SpaceX and Tesla so Neuralink and Warren Company are each just a few hundred people but how do you 80,000 people that's incredible dude

SpaceX is like over 8,000 people but how do you recruit your initial team to work on something do you put out word do you know somebody typically do you recruit your initial team to work on something? Do you put out word? Do you know somebody typically? Do you build around somebody else? You pull from your existing companies? It varies.

The first company way back in the day, Zip2, what I did was... I just wrote software. so I didn't have any money. So I came out to do grad studies at Stanford. I had $100,000 in student debt and one computer. And I was going to actually work on advanced capacitors for used electric vehicles. I remember that. You're saying that. Way back in the day. Yeah. So, and I spent a couple summers working on that in Silicon Valley before going to Stanford.

And then that summer I was like, well, the Internet's going to be something that really changes. It's going to be one of the biggest impacts on humanity. You know, it's like humanity, communication will go from being like osmosis to humanity having a nervous system where you get access any part of humanity's knowledge from anywhere, from any connection anywhere. You could be in the middle of the Amazon jungle and have access to all of humanity's information. More than if somebody was living in the Library of Congress.

So it's like, well, I want to be part of creating that. And so I just started writing software. I've been writing software for a long time, but I actually wrote the first maps and directions on the Internet, the first white pages, the first yellow pages, by myself. And then, you know, we hired a few interns, and then my brother joined, another friend of mine, Greg Curry, who's passed away.

And then we got some venture funding. I thought it was crazy that these guys were going to give us like, they gave us like $3 million. And I was like, this is insane. It's just us and some interns. And they're giving us $3 million. It was crazy.

They must be mad. I think what I'm hearing you say is if, you know, the first most critical part of the team is you as the founder and the passionate individuals. Yeah, it's got to do with useful things. For SpaceX, it was just literally like, okay, we should become a multi-planet species. These are long answers.

I think in general, if you want to recruit people that are really talented and driven, you have to state what's the mission, what's the problem we're trying to solve, and just be clearly willing to pour a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into it, and have a convincing argument for why it matters. There's three major things in terms of motivation. It's like, first of all, somebody's got to look forward to coming to work in the morning. If they're, are they enjoying the work itself intrinsically?

That's very important. And the right work environment can really make a big difference there. I think the ideal is that they also feel like that their rewards will receive fair financial compensation, like that the financial rewards are good and fair. And then third, for the best people in the world, they'll want to know, is what they're doing going to matter? Yeah.

Like, so if they spend 10 years doing this it will make a difference the world or you know what people notice what would matter you know least from San Diego says the XPRIZE just awarded 20 million in prize money related to carbon removal can you explain what the difference is between that and the musk foundations XPRIZE we had a 20 million dollar energy CoSIA prize for pulling CO2 out of the smokestack of a natural gas and coal plant and turning it into a product more profitable in the cost of extraction. And we just, the two teams that won that were creating concrete and they're up and scaling. So that's instead of just out of the plants right now,

and thank you to Wyoming for their support there, it's now, can we pull it on a global level? Nandan from India says, can a 17-year-old register given that I have the resources and ideas? I think so, sure. There's no age limit. We're in fact student teams are going to be important Oli from London says technology is a piece of the climate change solution But how do you change behavior and habits? What do you think about that? I think changing people's behavior and habits is tough Yeah, or basically if you're trying to convince people to make life more miserable for themselves, this is a hard argument to win. With Tesla, when we created Tesla, we're like, okay, look,

we've got to make a car that's exciting and fun and looks good. Then people don't have to... If you're trying to convince people that in order to save the environment, you have to wear a hair shirt and make life miserable and your food is going to be terrible. This is an uphill battle. At Tesla, we're like, we're just going to make electric cars that are better than gasoline cars. Faster, lower cost for maintenance. Yeah, they look beautiful, they're faster, and they have all this cool advanced technology, they're more fun. You don't have to go to gas stations which are nasty um and so you know but you gotta solve long distance problem with superchargers

so i think it is actually you know uh gonna be way more palatable to people if if if it's uh if whatever solution is removing carbon does not make their quality of life worse. One last question here from Godfrey in New York. I know Godfrey, he has got ALS and he is loving his fully self-driving Model S. Okay, well it's not fully self-driving yet. Yeah, I know, but it's getting there. It's getting there, it's getting there. And so he's, I mean for people who are disabled, it's extraordinary technology, it's coming and he's a brilliant, brilliant human being.

He says, hi, Elon. Big fan of your work. Massively and eternally grateful to you for being a powerful source of inspiration to me. Can you please share who and what inspires you and drives you to be so insanely productive at a superhuman level? Well, I don't know.

I think I was always kind of like a crazy kid, I suppose. I was just very curious about the world and how do we come to be here, what's the meaning of life and all that. And I always had a really intense desire to understand things and learn. I had an existential crisis when I was 11 or 12 or something, trying to figure out what it's all about.

Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that we don't really know the answer, but if we increase the scope and scale of civilization, then we have a much better chance of understanding the meaning of life and why we're here or even what are the right questions to ask. So therefore, we should strive to expand the scope and scale of consciousness to better understand the questions to ask about the answer that is the universe. Well, on behalf of the human race, on behalf of everybody watching, Elon, thank you for all that you do. I know you work 24-7 and driven by passion.

Thanks. Yeah. I'm just grateful for what you've done, and thank you for supporting and launching this XPRIZE. It's meaningful beyond belief, and hopefully now it's everybody else's turn to try and dig in and form teams. I hope we all have a good time and some productive stuff comes out of it. That would be great. That would be awesome. Elon, thanks.

My pleasure. Thank you.