 Well, I think we have someone next who is equally a visionary. Franklin Sylvain Shriver. The floor is yours. Thank you. I'm going to ask for the clicker. Yeah, sure. Thanks. And I had a presentation too. Thank you for being here. I'm Franklin Sylvain Shriver. I'm the co-founder and president of Transmutex. It's a Swiss-based company. It's a spin-off of CERN. And I'm here to discuss the important role of nuclear energy and then to give you a small idea of what we do. So where we are today is a fossil against renewable. Should be better said, carbon against carbon free. But the gap is enormous and it hasn't really changed. I looked at the statistics from 1979 to today and basically gas replaced coal. But renewables are almost nowhere to be seen except for hydroelectric power. I just want to state that today in Switzerland nuclear is producing more energy than hydroelectric in winter and nuclear is producing more electricity today than wind in Germany for all the talk about wind today in winter. Not every day. If we want to understand the power of scalability for nuclear, this is what you have. You have a beautiful experiment in France versus Germany. France in the 70s and 80s over a tenure period invested approximately the same amount as Germany did over the last 10 years in renewables. Same amount of money, same amount of time. And the end result is two times more carbon free energy for France that will last 60 to 80 years when you have to reinstall solar panels or wind turbines every 25 years. This is the power of nuclear and in the summer of last year, and I didn't do it this year because it would be very unfavorable to Germany. So this is a favorable number for Germany. This was on the summer solstice of last year where you had as much sun in France and Germany. You could see that for all the renewables that were installed in Germany for the last 10 years, you had six times more CO2 per kilowatt hour in Germany than in France. So what do we want? Energy security, of course, but also reducing CO2. It is very clear that for energy security, nuclear is more scalable. And for CO2 reduction, nuclear is more scalable. There is no contest. And just to make it very clear, we went from medieval times to industrial times with a 2x gain in energy density from wood to coal. Wood, coal, 2x, wind and solar are 10 times less energy dense, less energy dense than coal. Nuclear is 3 million times more energy dense than coal. So I would like to go back to Frank. Let's stop talking about 2050, which is whatever goal it is. What's important is the future of our civilization and nuclear is the last frontier. It's the California of energy. We have to make it work. This is what we have to make it work. Let's not be afraid. Let's be engaged. We want to have a future for generation upon generation, not just until 2050. One of the things that you may not understand is that the energy transition is about heat. It's not about electricity. Electricity is the least important part of the consumption of energy. Here in the United Arab Emirates, it's about air conditioning. And that's pretty good because electricity can make air conditioning. But still, even in the United Arab Emirates with all the sun, they have two nuclear plants, two nuclear reactors that were started. They have two more. And therefore, if the United Arab Emirates need nuclear, then we have to ask, what should Germany do because they don't have the sun that they have here? And you may notice that there is transport here 30%. And this is what I believe hydrogen is going to be so important. Hydrogen is probably the, to me, the most promising vector of energy that is going to be tradable. Electricity has a problem. It needs to be hardwired. You cannot trade electricity except for a very specific case of interconnected grid. For hydrogen is like, oh, you can transport it. You can transform it. You can do many things with it. And nuclear is the best for hydrogen to make low-cost hydrogen because nuclear works all the time. All the time. So if you buy a $10 million electrolyzer, you want it to work all the time. You don't want it to work just 20% or 30% of the time with wind. Okay. So nuclear is great. I convinced you in 10 minutes, not even five minutes. But of course, we have safety and waste. And we shouldn't put it under the carpet. This is the problem. We have to face the problem. The problem is waste to me. Major problem. Safety in the end, when you look at safety, nuclear has been spectacular accident, but very little death compared. The worst actually technology in terms of death per kilowatt hour is hydroelectricity. Unfortunately, because in Bangladesh, one dam broke and killed 200,000 people. So the default solution for waste is to bury it. And this is to scale. I'm not sure if you can see the humans. But you're trying to build tunnels that are five meters high in diameter, one kilometers down in the ground. This is a major engineering feat. And it's going to be finite. You're not going to make 30 of them. You're going to make one because it's really going to be incredibly expensive. In fact, it is incredibly expensive. And the UK this year doubled its estimate of the cost. It's going to be for them to bury the waste in England. And just for the numbers, England has 10 nuclear reactors. So it's going to be $60 billion to bury the waste. Lost money. Just to bury the waste. It's going to be there for 300,000 years. And, you know, it might threaten the water supply of future generations. In fact, nuclear waste is hopefully underfunded. You can see that Switzerland, which is probably the best case for funding, which with the money in the bank already, has five reactors. Whereas America has 93. It's actually 100, but some are closed. So you can see that America has 20 times the reactors than Switzerland, but only twice the amount of money. And it's not in the bank. It's just a line on the general budget. The nuclear industry in my mind is bankrupt already from the get-go, if we don't deal with the waste. The liability for the waste in America, it's going to be maybe $500 billion. In France, it's not going to be $30. It's probably going to be $90. The Cour des Comtes in France said they don't know. They have no idea how much it's going to cost. So if we don't deal with the waste, we will miss out on the opportunity of our civilization to harness the best clean energy we, the world, the universe, provides us. And the UN states that if we want to reach net zero by 2050, basically we have to have five times more nuclear, five times more nuclear. This is a 2018 report. So how are we going to do five times more nuclear if we don't know how to deal with the waste? And it's already too expensive. This is the question I had. This led me to meet some amazing scientists at CERN in Switzerland, which had a completely different approach, totally outside of the nuclear industry, completely different approach to how we should run a nuclear reactor, combining a particle accelerator, which you can see on the left, together with a reactor and thorium, which is a very common fuel. I'm not going to explain in detail, but the principle is that if you stop the accelerator, then the reactor stops in two milliseconds, two milliseconds. This is not a paper. This is actually demonstrated. And we can reduce the amount of nuclear waste by 99%. I'm not saying it's going to be easy. I'm not saying it's totally solved, but it has been demonstrated, scientifically evaluated, credible. And we have the worldwide partnerships to do it, because if climate change is going to be solved, it's going to be solved together. Let's not do it as just one company. So we reach out. We reach out to everybody to come to collaborate with us. And we have some of the most prestigious laboratories in the world. And we are reaching out to more industries now to make this effort. So this is it. And I would like to leave you with this beautiful quote from the noble laureate, Gérard Moreau, in France, who never gives quote, but allowed me to state his marvelous thing, which is this is scientifically proven, credible, and led by an exceptional team. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you very much. Adjust a couple of quick questions, Franklin. In England at the moment, in Britain, there's a big dispute about whether wind farms should be onshore or kept offshore. But from what you're saying, basically wind turbines, it's a false promise. It's not going to work. Well, it's a useful technology, but it is really a transition technology in my mind. And you can see there is a study in Germany that the wind turbine offshore, are much more efficient than the wind turbine onshore. It's 30% compared to 10%. So it's really quite useless in my mind to build onshore. You should build offshore. Second question. This looks very attractive, this thorium reactor, I guess you call it. How, what's your time scale? And the same question I asked Frank. If we were at war, which in many ways I think we are, we would be five years. Right now it looks like 2032. Right. Okay. Well, fingers crossed, that's only 10 years away. And there's a war in the meantime, which is an actual war. So really our fingers crossed.