New sensors can detect single protein molecules: Modified carbon nanotubes could be used to track protein production by individual cells.


mit-protein-detection_0MIT chemical engineers have developed arrays of carbon nanotube sensors that can detect single protein molecules as they are secreted from cells. Courtesy of the researchers

For the first time, MIT engineers have designed sensors that can detect single protein molecules as they are secreted by cells or even a single cell.

These sensors, which consist of chemically modified carbon nanotubes, could help scientists with any application that requires detecting very small amounts of protein, such as tracking viral infection, monitoring cells’ manufacturing of useful proteins, or revealing food contamination, the researchers say.

“We hope to use sensor arrays like this to look for the ‘needle in a haystack,’” says Michael Strano, the Carbon P. Dubbs Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT. “These arrays represent the most sensitive molecular sensing platforms that we have available to us technologically. You can functionalize them so you can see the stochastic fluctuations of single molecules binding to them.”

Strano is the senior author of a Jan. 23 Nature Nanotechnology paper describing the new sensors. The paper’s lead author is Markita Landry, a former MIT postdoc who is now an assistant professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

Other MIT authors are research scientist Hiroki Ando, former graduate student Allen Chen, postdocs Jicong Cao and Juyao Dong, and associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science Timothy Lu. Vishal Kottadiel of Harvard University and Linda Chio and Darwin Yang of the University of California at Berkeley are also authors.

No detection limit

Strano’s lab has previously developed sensors that can detect many types of molecules, all based on modifications of carbon nanotubes — hollow, nanometer-thick cylinders made of carbon that naturally fluoresce when exposed to laser light. To turn the nanotubes into sensors, Strano’s lab coats them with DNA, proteins, or other molecules that can bind to a specific target. When the target is bound, the nanotubes’ fluorescence changes in a measurable way.

In this case, the researchers used chains of DNA called aptamers to coat the carbon nanotubes. Previous efforts to use DNA aptamers have been stymied because of the difficulty of getting the aptamer to stick to the nanotube while maintaining the configuration it needs to bind to its target.

Landry overcame this challenge by adding a “spacer” sequence between the section of the aptamer that attaches to the nanotube and the section that binds to the target, allowing each region the freedom to perform its own function. The researchers successfully demonstrated sensors for a signaling protein called RAP1 and a viral protein called HIV1 integrase, and they believe the approach should work for many other proteins.

To monitor protein production of single cells, the researchers set up an array of the sensors on a microscope slide. When a single bacterial, human, or yeast cell is placed on the array, the sensors can detect whenever the cell secretes a molecule of the target protein.

“Nanosensor arrays like this have no detection limit,” Strano says. “They can see down to single molecules.”

However, there is a tradeoff — the fewer molecules there are, the longer it takes to sense them. As the molecule becomes more scarce, detection can take an infinite amount of time, Strano says.

“The new study by Strano and co-workers proposes an exciting new approach to detect proteins down to the single molecule level,” says Robert Hurt, a professor of engineering at Brown University who was not involved in the research. “The work pushes the forefront in single-protein detection and may allow researchers to see important, real-time molecular events at the single-cell level, such as protein release during cell division.”

Useful tools

The sensor arrays could be useful for many different applications, the researchers say.

“This platform will open a new path to detect trace amounts of proteins secreted by microorganisms,” Dong says. “It will advance biological research [on] the generation of signal molecules, as well as the biopharmaceutical industry’s [efforts to monitor] microorganism health and product quality.”

In the pharmaceutical realm, these sensors could be used to test cells engineered to help treat disease. Many researchers are now working on an approach where doctors would remove a patient’s own cells, engineer them to express a therapeutic protein, and place them back in the patient.

“We think these nanosensor arrays are going to be useful tools for measuring these precious cells and making sure that they’re performing the way that you want them to,” Strano says.

He says researchers could also use the arrays to study viral infection, neurotransmitter function, and a phenomenon called quorum sensing, which allows bacteria to communicate with each other to coordinate their gene expression.

Ohio State: Nano-Mesh Could Clean Oil Spills for Less than $1 per square Foot


Oil Spills Ohio State 150415090028-largeThe unassuming piece of stainless steel mesh in a lab at The Ohio State University doesn’t look like a very big deal, but it could make a big difference for future environmental cleanups.


In tests, researchers mixed water with oil and poured the mixture onto the mesh. The water filtered through the mesh to land in a beaker below. The oil collected on top of the mesh, and rolled off easily into a separate beaker when the mesh was tilted.

The mesh coating is among a suite of nature-inspired nanotechnologies under development at Ohio State and described in two papers in the journal Nature Scientific Reports. Potential applications range from cleaning oil spills to tracking oil deposits underground.

“If you scale this up, you could potentially catch an oil spill with a net,” said Bharat Bhushan, Ohio Eminent Scholar and Howard D. Winbigler Professor of mechanical engineering at Ohio State.

Oil Spills Ohio State 150415090028-large

This mesh captures oil (red) while water (blue) passes through.
Credit: Photo by Jo McCulty, courtesy of The Ohio State University

The work was partly inspired by lotus leaves, whose bumpy surfaces naturally repel water but not oil. To create a coating that did the opposite, Bhushan and postdoctoral researcher Philip Brown chose to cover a bumpy surface with a polymer embedded with molecules of surfactant — the stuff that gives cleaning power to soap and detergent.

They sprayed a fine dusting of silica nanoparticles onto the stainless steel mesh to create a randomly bumpy surface and layered the polymer and surfactant on top.

The silica, surfactant, polymer, and stainless steel are all non-toxic and relatively inexpensive, said Brown. He estimated that a larger mesh net could be created for less than a dollar per square foot.

Because the coating is only a few hundred nanometers (billionths of a meter) thick, it is mostly undetectable. To the touch, the coated mesh doesn’t feel any bumpier than uncoated mesh. The coated mesh is a little less shiny, though, because the coating is only 70 percent transparent.

The researchers chose silica in part because it is an ingredient in glass, and they wanted to explore this technology’s potential for creating smudge-free glass coatings. At 70 percent transparency, the coating could work for certain automotive glass applications, such as mirrors, but not most windows or smartphone surfaces.

“Our goal is to reach a transparency in the 90-percent range,” Bhushan said. “In all our coatings, different combinations of ingredients in the layers yield different properties. The trick is to select the right layers.”

He explained that certain combinations of layers yield nanoparticles that bind to oil instead of repelling it. Such particles could be used to detect oil underground or aid removal in the case of oil spills.

The shape of the nanostructures plays a role, as well. In another project, research assistant Dave Maharaj is investigating what happens when a surface is made of nanotubes. Rather than silica, he experiments with molybdenum disulfide nanotubes, which mix well with oil. The nanotubes are approximately a thousand times smaller than a human hair.

Maharaj measured the friction on the surface of the nanotubes, and compressed them to test how they would hold up under pressure.

“There are natural defects in the structure of the nanotubes,” he said. “And under high loads, the defects cause the layers of the tubes to peel apart and create a slippery surface, which greatly reduces friction.”

Bhushan envisions that the molybdenum compound’s compatibility with oil, coupled with its ability to reduce friction, would make it a good additive for liquid lubricants. In addition, for micro- and nanoscale devices, commercial oils may be too sticky to allow for their efficient operation. Here, he suspects that the molybdenum nanotubes alone could be used to reduce friction.

This work began more than 10 years ago, when Bhushan began building and patenting nano-structured coatings that mimic the texture of the lotus leaf. From there, he and his team have worked to amplify the effect and tailor it for different situations.

“We’ve studied so many natural surfaces, from leaves to butterfly wings and shark skin, to understand how nature solves certain problems,” Bhushan said. “Now we want to go beyond what nature does, in order to solve new problems.”

“Nature reaches a limit of what it can do,” agreed Brown. “To repel synthetic materials like oils, we need to bring in another level of chemistry that nature doesn’t have access to.”

This work was partly funded by the American Chemical Society Petroleum Research Fund, the National Science Foundation, and Dexerials Corporation (formerly a chemical division of Sony Corp.) in Japan.


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Ohio State University.

Light-Controlled Molecule Switching


Light Control Switching 0422 id39800Scientists at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR) and the University of Konstanz are working on storing and processing information on the level of single molecules to create the smallest possible components that will combine autonomously to form a circuit. As recently reported in the academic journal Advanced Science (“Light-Induced Switching of Tunable Single-Molecule Junctions”), the researchers can switch on the current flow through a single molecule for the first time with the help of light.
Dr. Artur Erbe, physicist at the HZDR, is convinced that in the future molecular electronics will open the door for novel and increasingly smaller – while also more energy efficient – components or sensors: “Single molecules are currently the smallest imaginable components capable of being integrated into a processor.” Scientists have yet to succeed in tailoring a molecule so that it can conduct an electrical current and that this current can be selectively turned on and off like an electrical switch.
molecule
Light on – molecule on. For the first time a light beam switches a single molecule to closed state (red atoms). At the ends of the diarylethene molecule gold electrodes are attached. This way, the molecule functions as an electrical switch. (Image: HZDR/Pfefferkorn )
This requires a molecule in which an otherwise strong bond between individual atoms dissolves in one location – and forms again precisely when energy is pumped into the structure. Dr. Jannic Wolf, chemist at the University of Konstanz, discovered through complex experiments that a particular diarylethene compound is an eligible candidate. The advantages of this molecule, approximately three nanometres in size, are that it rotates very little when a point in its structure opens and it possesses two nanowires that can be used as contacts. The diarylethene is an insulator when open and becomes a conductor when closed. It thus exhibits a different physical behaviour, a behaviour that the scientists from Konstanz and Dresden were able to demonstrate with certainty in numerous reproducible measurements for the first time in a single molecule.
A computer from a test-tube
A special feature of these molecular electronics is that they take place in a fluid within a test-tube, where the molecules are contacted within the solution. In order to ascertain what effects the solution conditions have on the switching process, it was therefore necessary to systematically test various solvents. The diarylethene needs to be attached at the end of the nanowires to electrodes so that the current can flow. “We developed a nanotechnology at the HZDR that relies on extremely thin tips made of very few gold atoms. We stretch the switchable diarylethene compound between them,” explains Dr. Erbe.
When a beam of light then hits the molecule, it switches from its open to its closed state, resulting in a flowing current. “For the first time ever we could switch on a single contacted molecule and prove that this precise molecule becomes a conductor on which we have used the light beam,” says Dr. Erbe, pleased with the results. “We have also characterized the molecular switching mechanism in extremely high detail, which is why I believe that we have succeeded in making an important step toward a genuine molecular electronic component.”
Switching off, however, does not yet work with the contacted diarylethene, but the physicist is confident: “Our colleagues from the HZDR theory group are computing how precisely the molecule must rotate so that the current is interrupted. Together with the chemists from Konstanz, we will be able to accordingly implement the design and synthesis for the molecule.” However, a great deal of patience is required because it’s a matter of basic research. The diarylethene molecule contact using electron-beam lithography and the subsequent measurements alone lasted three long years. Approximately ten years ago, a working group at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands had already managed to construct a switch that could interrupt the current. The off-switch also worked only in one direction, but what couldn’t be proven at the time with certainty was that the change in conductivity was bound to a single molecule.
Nano-electronics in Dresden
One area of research focus in Dresden is what is known as self-organization. “DNA molecules are, for instance, able to arrange themselves into structures without any outside assistance. If we succeed in constructing logical switches from self-organizing molecules, then computers of the future will come from test-tubes,” Dr. Erbe prophesizes. The enormous advantages of this new technology are obvious: billion-euro manufacturing plants that are necessary for manufacturing today’s microelectronics could be a thing of the past. The advantages lie not only in production but also in operating the new molecular components, as they both will require very little energy.
Source: Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf

Water is Our World: World Water Day 2015: Video


Surfer at Peahi Bay on Maui, HawaiiGENESIS NANOTECHNOLOGY, INC. (GNT™) is an innovative new model of NanoTechnology commercialization. Using our Proprietary Business and Technology Development Model, we harness the power of early stage NanoTechnology innovations and position them for market entry to make positive environmental and economic impacts.

Industry and Market Leaders have recognized (and are actively seeking) the competitive advantage, the superior performance properties, cost savings, flexible manufacturing platform and warranty-life advantages of nanomaterials, GNT exploits  both the technologies and the market needs to create successful commercialization models.

We are helping move Emerging Nanotechnologies to the commercialization phase by partnering and funding latter stages of research at universities across North America and Internationally.

At Genesis NanoTechnology we are developing some very exciting technologies that have the potential to be not only “commercially viable disruptive game changers” but will also create a better quality of our life on our planet.

Follow Our Blog ~ “Great Things from Small Things” at:

https://genesisnanotech.wordpress.com

Published on Mar 8, 2015

If you think about it, water links to almost everything in the world. Health. Nature. Urbanization. Industry. Energy. Food. Equality.

In 2015, the world will agree on how we want to shape our sustainable future. And for this future to happen we need water and sanitation. Learn more at http://www.worldwaterday.org

World Economic Forum: Can the U.S. Become ‘Mostly Green’?


Renewable Energy Pix*** Note To Readers: This a “Q & A” with Knowledge@Wharton and Mr. Reed Hundt, CEO of the nonprofit Coalition for Green Capital, former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission under President Bill Clinton, and a member of several corporate and nonprofit boards, including Intel’s.

Mr. Hundt’s assertion in his book, “Zero Hour: Time to Build the Clean Power Platform” he writes an interesting, provocative first sentence: “Modern life rests on two electromagnetic wave platforms – knowledge and power.

We at Team GNT™ would highlight the latter “power” and add one of our favorite quotes from Nobel Laureate, Dr. Richard Smalley, (Smalley Institute, Rice University)

Energy (using nanotechnology to harness abundant sources of renewable energy) may very well be the single most critical challenge facing humanity and by extension solving the problems associated with a growing world population, (Estimated 10 Billion by 2050) of having enough:

(1) Water and Food Resources

(2) Safe and Clean Environment

(3) Access to and enjoying good Health

Somehow, within the next few decades we must find a new energy source that can provide a minimum of 10 terawatts (TW) of clean power on a sustainable basis and do this cheaply.” (end quote)

Lastly, we would agree with Mr. Hundt with regard to the “financing” of ‘Green’. We find his vision of ‘Green Banks’ and the involvement of NGO’s and NPO’s into the ‘Clean, Renewable Energy’ equation … intriguing. We would however add that “technology” … specifically ‘Nanotechnology’ … will also ‘lever’ our abilities to create the kind of ‘Green World’ envisioned, with abundant, clean and renewable energy sources (Solar, Hydrogen, Energy Storage, Energy Conservation)

[Please see our Blog: “Great Things from Small Things” ~ for more timely information and articles: https://genesisnanotech.wordpress.com ]

Blog Search: Solar: https://genesisnanotech.wordpress.com/?s=solar

Blog Search: Renewable Energy: https://genesisnanotech.wordpress.com/?s=Renewable+Energy

We hope you find Mr. Hundt’s interview interesting. ~ Team GNT™

Sustainable-development_GM1EA580JDU01_suggested-image3-628x330

Can US energy Become Mostly Green?

A quiet revolution in alternative energy is underway that has the potential to wean the United States off most carbon-based fuels in just 10 years, says Reed Hundt, CEO of the nonprofit Coalition for Green Capital, former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission under President Bill Clinton, and a member of several corporate and nonprofit boards, including Intel’s.

The first key factor supporting this potential revolution is the plummeting cost of solar panels — down 80% over the last four years alone. The second key, says Hundt, will be setting up state-backed “green banks.”

As he explains, “If I went to anybody in the United States and said, ‘Could I just give you electricity that is cleaner?’ [They’re] going to say, ‘Yes, but is it going to cost more?’ Suppose I say, ‘It is cleaner and cheaper.’ Who is going to say no to this?”

In this Knowledge@Wharton interview, Hundt explains the nuts and bolts of green bank programs he claims could change the face of energy in the U.S. almost overnight. An edited transcript appears below.

Knowledge@Wharton: Let’s start with your e-book, which is titled Zero Hour: Time to Build the Clean Power Platform. You write an interesting, provocative first sentence: “Modern life rests on two electromagnetic wave platforms – knowledge and power. The power platform is where the knowledge platform was in 1993.” Are you are suggesting that where we were with computer technology back in the early 1990s is where we are with the power platform or green energy?

Hundt: That is exactly right. Let’s go on a little time travel trip, at least in our imaginations. Take with you on this trip your phone or your computer or your television set, and go back 20 years, and it will not work. That is because the communications platform of 20 years ago has been completely overhauled.

Knowledge@Wharton: Analog to digital.

Hundt: Everything that was analog is now digital. That is true for television. That is true for cellular phones — all the standards for all the communications equipment — everything is completely different. How did that happen? $1 trillion of investment in the U.S. in about 10 years — roughly 1995 to 2005. We completely rebuilt as an economy, and as a society, the knowledge platform.

Knowledge@Wharton: Who made those investments?

Hundt: Those investments were made by lots of different people. Some of them become very, very rich. Some of them lost all of their money. One thing we know is that that tremendous wave of investment increased the average income for every quintile in the American economy. It is the only decade since the 1950s in which every quintile in the American economic ladder has seen its income go up. So economically, it was a very good thing. And, of course, for productivity gains and for changing life, as we know it, it was very, very good. What I am saying is that we are at the exact same starting point with respect to the other electromagnetic waves — those that give us electricity.

Knowledge@Wharton: One of the key things that you talk about in the book, and one of the key ideas about how to get from here to there, is this idea of a “green bank.”

Hundt: Yes. You know, what is a bank? A bank takes deposits and it makes loans. A green bank would be a bank that gets money from somebody and then loans money out to clean energy projects.

Knowledge@Wharton: Who would that somebody be?

Hundt: Well, in the case of the states where our nonprofit is now working — Connecticut, New York, California, Vermont – the state is contributing capital or planning to contribute capital to a green bank. And then the money is being loaned out. In the state of New York, they just loaned out several hundred million dollars to private investors who are putting in even more money for a total of about a $1 billion of capital to go into clean energy markets.

Knowledge@Wharton: So the idea is that the state — which I guess could be on the federal level, but right now we are talking on the state level — would invest money, and it would either make money or break even in this bank presumably?

Hundt: That’s it.

Knowledge@Wharton: So there is, at least over the long-term, no cost to taxpayers — perhaps something initially, but that the money would be paid back?

Hundt: That’s exactly right.

Knowledge@Wharton: But why does it take the government to participate? Is it because there are no profits at first, and so there is no interest by existing financial institutions to do something like this?

Hundt: Not quite. But here are the reasons. Reason No. 1 is that most clean energy projects are unfamiliar to most commercial banks. They are not in the business already of loaning to people for putting solar panels on their roof. They are not in the business of loaning to a community to build a community solar farm that maybe is not very big but would serve a town or a small city.

Knowledge@Wharton: So they aren’t adept at evaluating what the risks might be?

Hundt: They … just do not have anyone on staff that does risk analysis. And, No. 2, since the Great Recession began … many banks have worried a great deal about their own balance sheets, and they have been averse to taking on risks in lending. So that has further inhibited their willingness to get into clean energy lending as a category.

A third problem is that many clean energy projects are kind of small. You want to put solar on your roof — that is a maybe a $20,000 project. A big commercial bank would say, “You know, that is a home improvement loan. That is not the kind of loan that we make. Go somewhere [that makes] home improvement loans.” But when you go [to a bank that makes] home improvement loans, they do not consider solar [panels] on the roof to be a home improvement.

All this can change. But if we want to get the clean energy markets growing quickly – and we do if we want to deal with climate change – then the state wants to step in and say, “Well, I will just kind of nudge it here at the beginning. But I am not going to do anything unless the private sector is going to join up with me and provide a lot of the money, too.” So think of the state or the government as being the leader, but not leading too much. Just basically getting in the water and saying to the commercial lenders that the water is fine, come on in.

That is what we have seen in Connecticut, which has the oldest state green bank. It is three years old. And we have found that for every $1 of state lending, we attract about $10 dollars of private sector lending.

Knowledge@Wharton: And how many dollars in projects have been committed so far?

Hundt: In Connecticut, which is not a very big state, it is almost $300 million. And that is for three million people in the state.

Knowledge@Wharton: And what kinds of projects is this green bank funding?

Hundt: Two things in particular. One is what we call the whole building overhaul. That might be a strip mall where they put solar on the roof and they exchange single-paned windows for double-paned windows. And maybe there is a fuel oil boiler that is replaced in some central location…. And then that lending is put on the tax bill by a provision in the state statute and, as I said, the Connecticut green bank will make the initial loan, but later, the private sector will come in and be part of the lending structure. So the building becomes more valuable and the occupants pay a lower amount for electricity, and eventually, the taxpayers are made whole.

Knowledge@Wharton: What is the break-even on something like that – when you pay back the loan and then after that you are actually making money by saving money on energy?

Hundt: The Connecticut green bank does not make any loan unless the net present value of the savings is greater than the amount of money invested. Everybody at Wharton knows what that means. It means you have a net present value positive number at the very beginning. Otherwise we do not put the money in. The payback will vary between four and seven years, meaning the cash out will have come back in that time period. And then after that time period, it is all gravy. I think that is a financial term – gravy. You asked me what projects. That is probably our No. 1 example. But the No. 2 example is distributed solar on residential rooftops.

Knowledge@Wharton: Were other efforts taken to promote solar on rooftops? I am familiar with complaints about in the U.S. in general — compared to Germany, for example — that there is a lot of regulation here that slows down the ability to get these things rolling fast, which is what you are trying to do with the funding. Did they do anything about regulations in Connecticut?

Hundt: Yes. We have been trying to slim down the permitting process, which can take a long time and can cost a lot of money. And we do that through a project called Solarize. The Connecticut green bank goes to a town and it says to the mayor, “If you promise that you will expedite the permitting process, then we will loan money in bulk to everybody in your town.” And then the mayor says, “That sounds like a pretty good deal. If I cut the red tape, I get some of the green?” And we say that is absolutely right.

Knowledge@Wharton: In Germany, getting a permit can take two or three days, I think, and in the U.S. the average is months.

Hundt: Germany was ahead of the United States and pretty much every other country in the Western world in terms of expediting permitting. But Germany made – and I say this with respect for their motives – Germany made a big mistake in solar, which is that they decided that the way to grow a solar industry was to have a guaranteed price that was very, very high – called a feed-in tariff.

The problem with that is the government is buying the electricity and then giving it to the consumer at a lower price than the government is paying. That is a “buy high, sell low” strategy. That is … in governments and in business, a way to eventually go out of business. So that is not what we are talking about in Connecticut. We are talking about in Connecticut – and in the other states – what you said earlier: making the taxpayer whole, having the consumer getting cleaner and cheaper electricity.

Knowledge@Wharton: So this is innovative financing in the positive sense.

Hundt: That is right. But it is not unusual. Governments play a big role in financing roads and bridges, and public schools, and a host of other facilities in the social landscape. So having governments extend their role to a modest degree into changing the energy platform of the United States from carbon and expensive to clean and cheaper, I do not think it is asking governments to do something unheard of.

Knowledge@Wharton: I cannot help noticing the parallel between what happened in the IT world, which is that it was actually the government that “invented” the Internet and provided the basic research that led to the Internet — as it does in lots of areas like medical research, pharmaceuticals, and all that. A lot of the basic research is paid for by the government, and then companies come in and figure out how to commercialize it.

Hundt: In the IT world, I would say that you can credit or blame the government for two big things. No. 1, as you said, the initial research into the technologies that ultimately gave birth to the Internet as a commercial phenomenon — that initial research was paid for by the taxpayer a long time ago.

Knowledge@Wharton: That was funded through the Defense Department, wasn’t it?

Hundt: Yes. And when the taxpayer was paying for that research, the taxpayer – you, me and everybody else – we did not really have any idea what would happen. And neither did the experimenters who were doing the work. That is the first of two things.

The second thing was done during the Clinton administration, and here is what it was: The government decided that the Internet could borrow the existing infrastructure – the telephone network – for free. And so the early days were that you would unplug your telephone line from the back of the device called the telephone and you would plug it into your computer at no charge. There were a bunch of other regulatory measures like that, but the collective decision in the Clinton administration was, let’s let the existing infrastructure be used by the usurpatious, revolutionary change-oriented new technology. That is what we need to do in energy. We need to have the grid be borrowed for free by the distributed solar people and the other new technologies.

Knowledge@Wharton: Let’s say we did that. You talked initially about how much change has happened in 20 years [in IT]. So let’s fast forward 10 or 20 or 30 years ahead. With clean energy, what percentage of U.S. energy do you think could be delivered via green methods – whether it is wind, solar, water or whatever it might be.

Hundt: Okay, well, hold on to your hat, because actually I have spent a lot of time crunching the numbers with people. If … distributed solar industry today is about 1% market share of energy, it is reasonable to think that that can double every 12 months Twitter . Doubling every twelve months gets you to a very big number in 10 or 20 years – a very, very big number. It is also reasonable that the wind sector in the United States can be ultimately about 20% to 25% of the total energy sector. You put those two things together and the majority of all electricity in the United States can be made by the sun and the wind.

Knowledge@Wharton: And that is within how many years?

Hundt: It depends on how fast-growing you actually [achieve]….

Knowledge@Wharton: Let’s say a mid-level scenario.

Hundt: I would say a decade.

Knowledge@Wharton: In a decade, [wind and solar] could make the majority of electricity?

Hundt: Right.

Knowledge@Wharton: And electricity provides what percentage of our power?

Hundt: Well, a good way to think about it is that transportation … [consumes] about a third, and all the rest is electricity used in some particular way. So, for example, electricity is used in industrial processes or it is used in lighting or it is used in some cases in heating. So there are lots of ways that electricity sneaks into the usage patterns, but more or less transportation … [uses] a third or 40% percent [of U.S. energy] and the rest is driven by electricity. [In 2013, about two-thirds of electricity generated in the U.S. came from fossil fuels, including 39% of the total from coal].

Knowledge@Wharton: And even transportation could become largely electric, right?

Hundt: If we really wanted to tell an optimistic story about electricity, which I think we should want to do, then the way to think about it is that in about two and a half years, when the electric vehicles that come into the market will be priced at around $40,000, then you will see a tremendous increase in the percentage of annual vehicle sales that is attributable to electric cars.

Knowledge@Wharton: This seems so much more optimistic than the numbers that you usually hear.

Hundt: It is time to be optimistic. A lot of things have changed in the last three or four years that have given rise to optimism. One is an 80% drop in the cost of solar panels. That should give rise to optimism. The other thing is the innovative business models [being used] by solar installers and by other clean energy companies. I do want to say this: There is one fundamental obstacle, which is, the existing energy industry is carbon-based and the existing energy industry is not going to be a big huge winner if the clean energy industry substitutes for its role in the economy. That is what happens in business. Somebody wins and somebody’s place is taken.

Knowledge@Wharton: How would advocates of green energy overcome that huge obstacle?

Hundt: There are two ways to overcome it. One is you get the government to tell everybody that they must buy clean energy. If we have to, to deal with climate change, I guess we might have to imagine that. But there is an easier way in a market-driven economy. You delight the consumer. You please the consumer. You make the consumer clamor for the better deal. If I went to anybody in the United States and said, “Could I just give you electricity that is cleaner?” [They’re] going to say, “Yeah, but is it going to cost more?” So suppose I say, “It is cleaner and cheaper.” Who is going to say no to this?

Knowledge@Wharton: And this is very doable — you are saying — even on a large scale?

Hundt: It is totally doable on a large scale. It is the secret of Solar City just to give you an example of a company.

Knowledge@Wharton: Solar City – could you just give us a brief sketch?

Hundt: Solar City is the rocket ship story of solar installers, but it is being emulated by other companies all across the country. Like a lot of other Americans, I opened up an envelope at home just last week and it said, would you like to meet somebody from Solar City, because if you have a high enough credit score we will give you clean electricity … and it will be cheaper than you are paying from the grid. This is not a bad offer.

Knowledge@Wharton: Could you tell us briefly what you thought about the U.S./China climate agreement.

Hundt: It is an historic agreement and there are two reasons. Reason No. 1, when the President of the United States and the leader of China – President Obama and Xi Jinping — have a handshake understanding about reducing carbon emissions by huge, huge numbers … in about a decade — when that happens … the two economies that are responsible for 40% of all global emissions have taken a step further toward the necessary clean-energy future than any other country or any other region of the world, that is a really big deal. Now, we are leaders with China, and everybody else should step up in every other country and match our promises. That is reason No. 1.

Reason No. 2: What the President said in Beijing is that the United States would increase its goal of cutting emissions by 50% over the previous stated goal. In other words, he is now saying that in just 11 years, we will reduce emissions by 27%, approximately. It is a very, very big number. It puts us down a very ambitious path, but one in which it actually is possible for Americans to have cheaper and cleaner electricity.

This article is published in collaboration with Knowledge Wharton. Publication does not imply endorsement of views by the World Economic Forum.

To keep up with Forum:Agenda subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

Author: Reed Hundt is the CEO of the nonprofit Coalition for Green Capital.

Image: Power-generating windmill turbines are seen near Port Saint Louis du Rhone, near Marseille, May 7, 2014. REUTERS/Jean-Paul Pelissier.