 Stanford University. Good morning everyone. Welcome to the panel discussion on industrial decarbonization. I'm Steve Eglash. I'm director of the Applied Energy Division at Slack National Accelerator Lab and Interim Chief Research Officer. And I'm your moderator today. The industrial and transportation sectors are difficult to decarbonize. Steelmaking, concrete production, oil and gas production, the chemical industry, food, forestry, and paper are all using large amounts of heat that's typically produced today using fossil fuels. In many cases, these industries also employ chemical reactions that produce carbon emissions. As we heard this morning, the state of California and the federal government have aggressive decarbonization goals. The Department of Energy's industrial heat energy earth shot aims to develop cost competitive industrial decarbonization technologies with 85% lower greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. Industrial heating's a major component. Heat's used to remove moisture, separate chemicals, create steam, treat metal, and melt plastics. One approach is to shift from fossil fuels to clean electricity. Carbon emissions are an intrinsic part of the process in some manufacturing operations, particularly concrete, steel, and chemicals. New processes, reaction pathways, and reactor designs can reduce or eliminate these direct carbon emissions. Another DOE energy earth shot, the clean fuels and products earth shot aims to decarbonize the fuel and chemical industry through alternative cost effective sources of carbon with 85% lower greenhouse gas emissions by 2035. The goal there is to produce fuels and carbon based products for sectors that are difficult to fully decarbonize, like heavy duty transportation in the chemical industries. Our quality of life depends on successful industrial decarbonization. What does successful industrial decarbonization look like? It reduces greenhouse gas emissions by employing new industrial processes and clean energy. It maintains or lowers the cost of manufacturing so we can continue to produce the goods needed to reduce world poverty, help marginalized communities, and support a high standard of living for increasing numbers of people. The California Energy Commission, US Department of Energy, other federal agencies and international organizations are investing in industrial decarbonization. Researchers are turning that investment into innovations and solutions. This is an international effort and we can learn from partners in other countries. This panel will explore these topics in depth. Let's meet our panelists. And let me even try to do it in order. I'm first pleased to introduce Klaus Ekman. Klaus is energy attaché for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. Klaus has a PhD from the University of Copenhagen and did a postdoc at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Physics, followed by a second postdoc at the Danish National Laboratory for Sustainability. He worked for several years for the Danish government and he worked at the OECD, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in International Intergovernmental Agency. Klaus, would you like to tell us a little bit about you and your organization? Absolutely. And thanks a lot for the invitation. I think it's been a really exciting morning. A lot of good discussions and insights just to highlight a bit about what we're doing and what we call the government to government energy program of Denmark. So it's a program that's run in cooperation between the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Danish Energy Agency. We have partnership countries, 24 around the world. And the main idea is really to advance the green transition, have the dialogue with other countries, how do we do the best regulation, how do we learn from new technologies. We're focusing, of course, a lot in the topics where we have experience both on the regulatory side but also on technical side. So it's offshore wind, energy efficiency, district heating, and energy modeling and scenarios. We work a lot in the developing countries but we also engage with countries like the US. We have a small team in Washington and we have a small team out here at the consulate in Palo Alto. We have a very close collaboration with our partner here, California Energy Commission where we exchange knowledge and ideas about offshore wind, energy efficiency in buildings and the topic of today, energy efficiency in industry. And I'm looking forward to the discussion. Thank you, Klaus. I'm pleased to introduce Leora Dresselhaus-Maray. Leora is assistant professor of material science and engineering here at Stanford. Leora studies how modern methods can update old school materials processing and manufacturing for sustainability, focusing on processes like extraction forming and functional properties of metallic materials with particular attention to steel making and metal 3D printing. In addition to Leora's appointment in the department of material science and engineering, she also has appointments in mechanical engineering and photon science at Slack. She has a PhD from MIT and she was a Lawrence fellow at Lawrence Livermore National Lab. Leora, please tell us a little bit about how you approach your research. Thanks for that great introduction, Steve. And thanks to all of you guys for coming here. I'm really honored and humbled to be part of this discussion and panel. So I'll be talking today about the really technical research that we do and the needs to be done in these fields to be able to enable these really deep industry decarbonization problems. So in my group, we develop and use the cutting edge of characterization and computational tools to be able to shed light on important problems that need to be solved in these really deep industrial sectors. So I think most of what I'll be representing today is in the area of steel making, although I can answer some questions in other areas. So this slide kind of summarizes the work that we do in my group in steel making science, looking at understanding the really, really deep fundamental science of steel and how we make it, and then looking towards how we can use those insights to re-engineer the current leading processes and to develop new ones. So I'll be happy to represent this as we have the conversation. Thank you. Thanks, Leora. And I'm pleased to introduce Avi Schultz, Avi is director of the US Department of Energy, Industrial Efficiency and Decarbonization Office, IEDO. At IEDO, Avi leads their strategy to accelerate the innovation and adoption of cost effective technologies that eliminate industrial greenhouse gases. Avi has been at the DOE since 2013. Before joining AIDO, he was part of the Solar Energy Technologies Office. He has his PhD in chemistry from Northwestern University and was a postdoc at the University of Amsterdam. Well, thank you anyway for the introduction, Steve. While we work on getting the slides back up, I can start to just talk a little bit about our office and give a little bit of background. And again, thanks for the invitation to the organizers and thank you all here for coming and listening to this discussion on the industrial sector. So our office, IEDO, is the key central office in the US government, really focused on developing the technical strategies to reduce to zero by 2050 the greenhouse gas emissions from the industrial sector. We work on, we're a relatively new office. So just created out of some previous offices, particularly the advanced manufacturing office in DOE about a year and a half ago. And fortunately, we have done quite a bit of work in that time to really stand up a full office with a full leadership team presented on this slide. And really the way we execute our mission is through three technical programs that I'll just say a quick word about just to help orient folks towards what we do. We just give a sense of scale. So our budget last year was about $270 million. We expect to have similar amount this year, although we don't have final budget numbers yet unfortunately from Congress for 2024. Our three technical sub-programs. The first is a research development demonstration program that we call our energy and emissions intensive industries program led by Paul Maistrick that's really focused on the system level approaches required to address the highest energy and emissions intensive industry. So really the five up on this screen that represent a majority, but only about 65% of emissions from the industrial sector. So these are the most important ones to address but they're not the entire story. If you move to the next slide, our second our D&D focused team led by Isaac Chan is our cross sector technologies team. This is looking at really as the name addresses those cross cutting technologies that are gonna be a little bit more widely used by a lot of that long tail of manufacturing industrial process but by those highly energy intensive industries as well. And in particular what we're really focused on in this team is thermal processes and systems. So process heat electrification, improved thermal efficiency and waste heat recovery, low carbon fuels, feedstocks and energy sources. So how do we utilize appropriately low carbon fuels? Emerging efficiency, so some grid integration challenges, smart manufacturing, digital manufacturing as well as our wastewater and wastewater treatment portfolio as part of this team as well. And then if you go to the last slide here, our third team so is not focused a little bit less on developing novel technologies but as our technical assistance workforce development team that really utilizes the technical expertise and network of experts that we've developed and have access to to engage directly with existing commercial companies and help develop the analysis, the tools, the training resources, the general stakeholder engagement support to enable them to make near term decisions as rigorously as possible to accelerate their deployment of commercially available efficiency and decarbonization technologies. Great, thank you very much, Avi. We have a few topics that we're gonna touch on first and then we'll turn to all of you for your questions. So please be thinking about what questions are on your mind. To get to the discussion going, let's try to lay a foundation for industrial decarbonization. What some of the challenges and complexity looks like? What are some of the industries that have the biggest carbon footprint and why do we refer to industrial decarbonization as a hard to abate or hard to decarbonize sector of the economy? Who'd like to take a shot at beginning that discussion? Avi? I'm happy to start that. So I think there are two things that I would point to when we talk about the challenges in the industrial sector, especially as compared to the other sectors that we're talking about in this summit and generally. The first is the level of investment and attention and therefore technology development. So unlike I think the transportation and electricity sectors where I think there's a lot of agreement on what the technical solutions are and what they need to be. Although obviously there's lots of deployment challenges. There is in fact somewhat of a consensus that we do not have at least certainly not affordable and commercially available right now all of the solutions we need for the sectors. There are a number of studies out there. All of them interestingly kind of coalesce around the same number, which is about 60% of emissions from the industrial sector are not abatable with currently commercially available cost effective technologies. Again changes a little bit from study to study but there's actually some remarkable consistency there. The second challenge when you talk about the industrial sector that really is the most important one is the fragmentation and that's the fragmentation of the sectors. So again we're not really talking about one sector. We're talking about lots and lots and lots of sectors with a long, long tail of different kinds of processes. So again that those five sectors that I showed on that first slide that only accounts for about 65% of emissions from the industrial sector with the biggest one, chemicals and if you include refining in there is about 37% I think of emissions. Each the next one's about 10% and then you've got that long tail. So lots and lots of different kinds of products that therefore are being manufactured and many of those products, energy is not necessarily the main cost contributor to their business model. So how do we think about reducing their energy usage without necessarily harming their economic competitiveness which in many of these cases are extremely competitive commodity markets. But then even if you don't necessarily look at it as sectors and products, if you just break it down in terms of unit processes, there's still a huge amount of fragmentation. So about half of energy demand in the industrial sector is for thermal processing, which makes it sound like okay, that's kind of the big one you wanna focus on. But if you break that down, that's anywhere from temperatures below 100 degrees C to temperatures above 1500 degrees C. And it's actually a pretty even distribution throughout that entire range from 100 degrees C to 1500 degrees C of what temperature demands you are gonna need. So it's not the same technology is obviously to say something extremely obvious that's not the same technologies you're gonna develop to deliver 100 degrees C C and 1500 degrees C. So we talked to you there because I think that's a great transition to some of the things Liora wanted to mention. Yeah, so I would say that's absolutely something that we see in the steel industry, that steel is one of those many industrial sectors that doesn't have an established decarbonization pathway that today we could just take to the bank and invest in as a company. So there's a plethora of different directions and I always get asked, what is the one that's gonna emerge? And the answer actually is that we don't have time to ask that question. We have to invest in all of them because we have to believe that something is gonna work in time to be able to move this forward in time for climate change. So there's a lot of discussions about building engagements with communities so that we can make sure that we have local solutions that are going to be viable in the appropriate time scales and with the appropriate support of the community to be able to make that happen. But it's absolutely something that is not a one-size-fits-all that you need to invest in a really, really versatile economy far beyond what has been perfected for 2,000 years in the iron-making industry. So it's a big push and a push that the industry is making great strides on moving forward in. Did you wanna comment on this topic, Klaus? No, I totally agree. I mean, cost and fragmentation obviously is two of the main barriers. I think if I should add a third one, I would say thinking about the whole system, thinking beyond the industrial processes and see what are the products we're actually producing and how are we using them. I went to Denmark last year in the summer break and I visited an old medieval castle and it had the walls at the lower levels were very thick and they are thinner and thinner. The higher you go up in the building, it was just very difficult to get the materials at that point and they had to do it like that because that was the most efficient way. Today we build a concrete building, we prefabricate a standard wall, a standard element that can sustain the weight of the old building and then we just stack them on top. So there's a normal potential enormous potential for optimizing the way we use cement and it's just so many different aspects where we need to think beyond what's actually going on at the plant and think about how we use the products and think about smarter ways to use products and develop products in the future. And I think that's an important part of industrial decarbonization. Thank you. I wanna talk about electricity for a moment. Let's think about the role of a 100% clean electric grid. We don't have it yet, but as a nation and world we're making good progress toward 100% clean grid. What's the role of that clean grid in industrial decarbonization? How much of the problem can that solve? And what other technologies like clean hydrogen are also relevant? And where we'll go with that in a minute I think is as we add more industrial processes to the grid, processes that are currently using fossil fuels, how can we avoid trading one problem for another potentially bigger problem? Who'd like to get us started on electricity? Maybe I'll go first. So that's a really important question and it's a question that a lot of us, especially the people in industry, are really scratching their heads about because these are really, really energy intensive industries already without trying to electrify everything. And I did a calculation at some point and if every step in steel making was 100% efficient, which of course it isn't by a long shot, in fact that would be a pretty significant amount of the global grid. So when we ask ourselves about equity and energy and in dispensaries, this question of can we shift this to a distributed system, that just doesn't work for most of these industries. So we have to rethink how we're going to design microgrids and things like that to enable electrification in some of these industries and to a large extent, we also have to think more creatively about how we can use alternative fuel stocks, including things like concentrated solar and other types of really different ways of using and harnessing energy sources. Did you want to comment on that class? No, I just remember what David Hochschild said earlier today, right, electrification of almost everything and I think it goes for the industrial sector also. When you do electrification, the system just becomes much more efficient. Electric motors are more efficient, heat pumps are so much more efficient. That's an enormous potential and I would actually believe that it will also be cheaper at the end of the day if we manage to build out the grid and let the industrial complex be an active part of the grid, setting up incentives so that they actually participate in the grid. And there are some really exciting things going on there. Heat storage was also mentioned earlier. We have high temperature heat storage coming in to the industrial sector in Denmark. I think that those are some of the solutions we need to look at in order to decarbonize and electrify as much as possible of the industrial sector. But at the end of the day, it's almost everything. We will still have something we need to find other solutions to. I hope we'll get around to talking about some scientific research in this area before we run out of time today but let me just jump for a moment to you, Leora, if I can, because I know you're also thinking about new processes that are intrinsically more energy efficient, less carbon generating or perhaps that take advantage of some of the, what would we say, Klaus, the finesse that electricity offers. Do you wanna say a word about the role of research and science in changing the way we do these things? Sure, yeah. So there's definitely an important area here to think about how we can use electricity and use these alternative light from the sky, things like that to be able to redesign these processes. And that's something where industry today doesn't do it that way. I go to steel making conferences and I get almost laughed off the stage when I bring these things up. But that's not the way that we need to think about these things. We have to push the envelope on what fundamental science really can actually do because I was chatting with people at a synchrotron lately and they were saying, oh yeah, we reduce iron oxides with just vacuum all the time and why isn't a steel making person thinking about that, right? So we need to think about how we can translate some of these really fundamental science things that have been known for centuries back to the industrial sector to be able to make a difference. In my group we're looking at this from the perspective of using light and photochemistry to be able to redesign iron ore extraction and we have some new projects looking at using electricity to do that in other areas, in other mining and extraction sectors. So I think there's a lot of opportunities for fundamental research here but it's important to think at every scale and to think towards how it would be applied as well. I was gonna move on and ask some questions about energy justice and energy equity and obviously if it's okay with you I was gonna start with you because the Department of Energy and the current administration has made that an important part of their approach. Energy justice and energy equity need to be critical parts of our industrial decarbonization plan. I wanna focus on a couple aspects of that. We certainly want to be sensitive to the conditions of the people who live and work near or in these plants that we're moving to decarbonize. Industrial decarbonization may provide opportunities to improve the environment that they live and work in. But we just heard about the additional stress on the electric system. So an additional consideration is that we don't wanna make things worse for people who already struggle from inadequate access to inexpensive, clean and ample electricity. The term of art today has become procedural equity. The idea is to not have someone sitting in Sacramento or Washington or Palo Alto arrogantly imagine what people in disadvantaged communities need but to make sure that people from all communities are fully engaged as participants in the planning and execution of things like industrial decarbonization. With that as background, perhaps you can tell us a little bit about how you think about this and how you'd like all of us to think about this. Absolutely, and I'll note before getting into it as well that like in Aido, not just, well, in DOE, of course we're thinking about this in energy overall and the important, exactly as Steve was saying, the really important context for energy environmental justice that we need to keep in mind for the entire energy sector. But in Aido, we approach this with the full recognition that the industrial sector has been the worst offender of this historically. We're not, I mean, yes, there are all the emissions challenges of natural gas combustion, but when you look at the chemical sector, you look at the environmental pollution that has occurred in places like Louisiana and other parts of the country with extreme contamination of the environment, it is essential that as we think about our greenhouse gas goals in Aido, we are not thinking about them separately from the broader environmental contamination goals. So that's the first thing, as we approach this, to the extent that we're doing analysis strategic direction for greenhouse gas emissions reduction, the additional pollutant emissions are not an afterthought. We are doing, they are incorporated in all of our analysis, they are incorporated in all of our strategies, particularly for example, in the chemical sector again, we've been a leader within the federal government in developing principles around sustainable chemistry. We actually just helped contribute to a report that was released out of OSTP recently on sustainable chemistry and how the federal government can further those goals. So in our decision-making, in our quantitative decision-making for what projects we select, what technologies we support, those additional pollutants of interest are very much part of our guideposts. On a more practical level, one of the ways in which we implement this decision-making throughout all of our work, both in Aido as well as in a lot of the more recent deployment, demonstration deployment focused efforts in DOE, like through the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, is what we call our community benefits plans. And what this is, is it's a process by which we are institutionalizing within all of our funding and efforts, all of these energy and environmental justice principles and what I mean by institutionalizing them is it's not just saying, okay, you gotta give us a plan and we'll 10% of your score in your application as we review these, we'll contribute, which we do do. But what it means is that as part of your statement of work and as go-no-go decision-making milestones, we will ask you to propose, negotiate with you and then hold you to these community benefits plans which involve again, not just, not just, not that it's not important, but not just kind of this level of analysis of okay, what are the broader environmental implications. It involves, well okay, how many people from the communities in which you're actually working, how many are you gonna employ as interns? How are you gonna support diverse workforce pipelines for the companies that you're developing? So if we're investing in you as a company at DOE, you need to commit to us that you're gonna work with these communities and you're gonna get not just come in, drop down a plant, wave goodbye as you go back to your home, but how are you actually gonna create a pipeline to these communities for employment? How are you going to engage with them, meaningfully, in stakeholder processes to get their input on the technology that you're developing and how you're gonna engage with these communities and a number of these other issues. So we are at DOE very much trying to again, put meat on the bone and holding companies to these goals as a condition of our funding. Thank you, Avi, and I hope everyone here who writes and submits proposals realize that you just got suggestions on how to write proposals that have a greater chance of getting funded by the DOE. Anyone else wanna comment on the subject? I could comment a little bit. I take my hat off to what you guys are doing at AIDO. It's been really inspirational to see, and I think that we as researchers learn a lot from being held to requirements to do life cycle analysis on the research as we're starting it up, so that we can evaluate, will this actually negatively impact the societies that are around it, the actual communities? And towards that, I think that also as we're thinking towards what are the new technologies, we also have to think towards what are the workforces that we need to hire to be able to make these types of technologies work. And so we've had a lot of discussions with startup companies in Oakland in one of the regional hubs where they have a lot of incubators. And having that discussion about how do you train the community to be able to do things that require some knowledge of AI to be able to get started? Well, you need to figure out how to work with the educational systems, the communities, and things so that it's not a, let's figure out how to do it in hindsight, but let's figure out how to set up the infrastructure to do this over the longer term. Thank you. Klaus, let me start with you with a question about international perspectives and regulation and policy. Almost for certain, the best technology, the best science, and even acceptable economics aren't gonna be enough to get us where we wanna go. Almost for sure, there's a role for regulation and policy as well. And so I'd like to spend a few minutes there. Additionally, we can learn some things from other countries and from Klaus, we can hear a bit about how Denmark has approached things and the successes they've had. Yes, yeah, no, I think it's my job to have this international collaboration and a knowledge exchange on policies. And of course, I think it's super important. I mean, we've done industrial decalculation policies in so many different countries for so many years. We need to learn from each other and pick out the best practices from around the world and see how we can implement it. And I'm just grateful to have this job and have this dialogue with you. And we're grateful to have you here in Palo Alto with us. I wouldn't claim that we've solved the issue in Denmark. We still have a lot of industries that are based on fossil fuels. We still have a lot of emissions. I can tell you a bit about some of the basic philosophies that we've used to implement decalculation efforts in industry and it's really basically acknowledging that one type of regulation is not enough. We need to pull and push the industries from different sides. It's a super complex problem because industries, or many of the Danish industries are in fierce competition with industries around the world. And so we need to think very well about how to do this. And we've, I wanna mention four types of basic regulation that we've implemented. The first one is economic. Of course, we need to have some kind of tax. We have the European emission trading system now that's giving an economic push to the industries. We have a positive economic pull in terms of subsidies and support schemes for industrial decarbonization and efficiency. So those were the economic. We have normative regulation where we set standards for appliances. We set standards on limits not to the CO2. That's difficult, but to the air pollution and it's linked to the CO2. We have what we call information regulation, really trying to make sure that the industries are aware of how much energy they waste. We've implemented energy management back in the 90s and linked it up to a tax credit, which was super efficient. Industries came back to us five, 10 years later, and said, thank you. We actually saved a lot of money because now we realize that we could actually do things in a much smarter way. Sometimes you have the tendency just to focus on your production and the main core of your business and forget that you could actually install a heat pump here and save a lot of money. So it's been a big success. I think Danish industry today is among the most energy efficient in Europe and it's a competitive advantage. We have had over the last couple of years very high energy prices and it's just good for business at the end of the day. So information and finally, of course, supporting the new technologies as we talked about fundamental change needs fundamental research, I would believe, that we need to continue to support basic research but also demonstration and early support for new technologies to get them out and working in society. So those are the things we've done. Denmark, we are far from there yet, but we are moving on and I'm happy to share the experience and also learn from your experiences. We don't have a lot of dialogue around low income communities and how industrial decarbonization affects that. We have a strong welfare state. We have progressive tax systems but we haven't been able and we don't even discuss it really honestly how we integrate these two sets of policies and super inspirations to be here and listen to those discussions. That's great, thank you very much. Anyone else wanna comment on the subject? Maybe I can comment on some things I've seen in my short time in steel. So I think legislation is really important from a few different perspectives on kind of enabling things that are seemingly obvious opportunities. So I'll give an example. We actually saw in the field, we went to a factory somewhere I won't say where for political reasons, but we chatted with one of our colleagues and said, this seems like a really rich opportunity to gather some of the waste heat off of your 1500 degree Celsius reactors so that you can make some renewable energy that you can use in your really energy intensive process. And they said, that sounds like a great idea except that because of the local legislation, if we were to do that, we would actually have to sell it back to the state and then buy it back from the state because we're not allowed to produce energy that we don't sell to the state. So this is a really great example of a case where a piece of legislation that absolutely has helped to shift the grid in that state to renewables ultimately has some unintended consequences. And so I think we need to work carefully with policymakers as well to make sure that the legislature that we pass has the intended applications and impacts on the communities. Very good. Do we have any questions from the audience at this point? And do we still have the microphones available? They were, we do have. And let's use the microphones because I believe this is being recorded. There's one question here. Okay, you go there first and then we'll go there and then there. Sorry. Thank you very much. I'm not from April. Excellent session. Thank you. Couple of questions. One is we always know that this country progresses with small and medium sector businesses, small companies. You know, many of the small companies don't even have an energy manager to manage their energy. What strategies are we to use that the DOE is doing to address decarbonizations in real small companies that have very few workers, but I mean, don't know what to do. And same to you too, Klaus, if you can expand on that in what mechanisms are there in Denmark. Thank you, Amit. Why don't we go with one question so we can get to a lot of things? Yeah, maybe I can start. And maybe let me start by appreciating what you said, Klaus, about energy management systems. We in AIDO and our predecessor offices have been working to advance energy management as a discipline in the U.S. for a while now without the regulatory tools. I think that Denmark has had to push it so it's been a little bit more of a voluntary effort, primarily through our efforts to advance and accelerate the adoption of ISO 5001 and help develop tools for organizations to get there. That as we, as our mission has shifted in decarbonization, that's the kind of model that we're looking for to help advance decarbonization tools as well. The challenge, of course, of that approach, as I'm sure you're aware, Amit, is that since it is voluntary, we know that the best in class companies take advantage of that, but by definition they're best in class and don't reflect the entire sector. That's changing a little bit with some of the new regulatory tools we have, like with some of the new tax credits, like 48C, that we're hoping are gonna help to accelerate some of that adoption. But we are looking for, there are definitely other tools that we're looking to exploit to advance this. So one strategy, for example, that we've been having some success with, so we've got some flagship technical assistance programs like our Better Plants partnership that finds voluntary organizations to voluntarily raise their hand and commit to a energy or emissions reduction goal, and then we provide them with resources. One of the resources that we've had some success working with, with major companies like, for example, Ford and GM, I believe, is to work with them to develop the tools to push their energy management practices back down to their supply chain. So essentially explicitly working with them, okay, well, you guys have your energy management or control, can we apply these same principles to your scope through your emissions to all of your supply chain? And we've had a lot of success working with that, that's an active area of engagement, but that's maybe the interest time, I won't go further than that, but that's one of the strategies that we see to help propagate these practices throughout the entire sector. Thank you, Avi. Klaus, I think Ami was hoping you'd comment as well. Yeah, super relevant question. I think it's a lot about information because these small companies, I mean, it takes some effort to get the information to know what to do. In Denmark, we worked with energy management, but we also introduced what we call energy management light that was made so that it's a bit easier and maybe more accessible for smaller companies. And then we worked with the organized, most of these companies are organized, so we worked with the organizations and tried to see if they can push different solutions and push information out there and see if we can get it that way and then we text them. You're next. Hi, this is Ray Jean with BSF. So we're a major chemical company, so decompromization is of course important. So we talk about technology, how do we support the new technology to drive this? I'm just wondering for Avi's comment, from DOE side, there are offices already supporting some clean tech. For example, hydrogen fuel cells, how does your office work with other offices supporting these technologies or maybe you're focusing on a different area? Thank you, Ray. Yeah, so we work, I mean, that's a great question and it really does emphasize the point that there are a lot of different technologies that we need to bring to bear on these challenges and a lot of those technologies, the experts are not necessarily the folks in our office, but in other parts of DOE. So, I mean, that comes through in a lot of different ways. So in the hydrogen example, we work really closely. So there's a hydrogen and fuel cells technology office. We work very closely with them. They, you've got a portion out responsibility somehow. So they work on the fuel cell manufacturing, fuel cell technology development and the hydrogen production technologies. Where our expertise comes in is the industrial utilization of that. So what we focus on is the industrial utilization of hydrogen. And so what does that look like if you're combusting hydrogen? What are those? We all know there's a lot of technology development needs to happen there. There's a lot of ancillary equipment that needs to be developed, practices that need to be developed and similar for other technologies like for example, low carbon thermal energy. So electrification is certainly one avenue towards that, but we know there are other low carbon thermal technologies out there. As Steve said, I came from the solar office where I work closely, carefully on concentrating solar thermal power. We know geothermal power is an option that can be applied here. And so we work really closely with that. For one model for what that looks like for example, is that we just, so last summer we announced and just a couple of weeks ago actually kicked off and started operation of what we call our onsite taps, our onsite energy technical assistance partnerships. And what this is is a regional group of technical assistance partnership networks that engage directly with industrial facilities and other large energy consumers in their regions and provides a central clearinghouse of technical as well as policy expertise to how these facilities can deploy onsite on facility energy resources for their applications. So that is all the above, whether that is electrified technologies, batteries, heat pumps, geothermal, solar thermal, PV, onsite wind, et cetera, et cetera. And so where we're really focused on is in bringing all of these technologies together and providing both the input for the technology developers as well as the output for the industrial facilities to be able to engage with this ecosystem of technologies. Thank you. I see a couple of questions there but we have a couple queued up here first and I see you, but I think there was one waiting in the back. Who was that who had put up their hand earlier? Okay, let's go there. Let's go there, then there, and then we'll move over there. Okay, hello. Thank you for the panel and the discussion. My name is Sneha Igari and I work at the Green Lightning Institute. So we are a policy advocacy organization working with previously red line communities. So I'm really excited to hear more about the community benefits agreements. And one question that I was curious is are the go, no go milestones that you were mentioning is that something that is open to the public? So groups that are in an area where there's a new facility or a plant can be aware of those and kind of contribute to that process? Yeah, unfortunately, I mean, those statements of work are inherently confidential, right? I mean, they involve, in order for them to be meaningful, they include quantitative targets that generally are business sensitive, that are proprietary information. That being said, we often, again, we take seriously our role as stewards of taxpayer funding and wherever possible, we have a strong push within our programs to push our wordies and our funding recipients to disseminate information as publicly as possible. That's both on their technical achievements, so right? We certainly, a disaster for us, right? It would be a fund a company that develops technology, goes bankrupt as companies do all the time and then all that technical knowledge is just completely lost. So we do everything in our power to really push on dissemination. That's just as true for those community engagement points, right? And what's the point of community engagement if nobody knows you're doing it, right? And so certainly when we have those milestones around stakeholder engagement and community engagement, we absolutely do, kind of the publicity of that and the public engagement part of that is very much something that we push, but we don't directly publicize the contractual milestones that we do. It's an interesting question though, and I think the idea that in the future, perhaps these community benefits plans should have a mandatory public reporting component of them is an interesting idea we're thinking about. I do wanna say that this part of what the federal government, particularly the DOE is doing, is really remarkable and underappreciated. Avi's told us about community benefits plans, there are also justice 40 plans, there are also DEIA plans. All of us who are in the business of writing and reviewing proposals know that these are a major part of the work that goes into writing a proposal. The people writing the most successful proposals try to engage with community organizations, people doing economic development regionally in the development of their proposals. And so this has just been a remarkable shift in federal funding for R&D and the energy space in recent years. I think we're going here next. Thank you, Sara Saltzer, managing director of the Stanford Center for Carbon Storage. So one technology that is often talked about around industrial decarbonization is point source carbon capture with either utilization or storage. Interestingly, it has not been discussed at all this morning or in this panel. So first of all, why? And what do you see as to how it could fit in? Thanks, Sara. Anyone want to talk about point source carbon capture? I'm happy to start. So I completely agree with you on its relevance to the industrial sector. And one thing I haven't had time to get into, of course, just because of the limited scope here. So we, some folks may be aware, we released an industrial decarbonization roadmap about a year and a half ago and that laid out four primary pillars of technology development or technologies that we need to apply in order to achieve a fully decarbonized sector. Those pillars are industrial efficiency, energy efficiency, low carbon fuels, feedstocks and energy sources, electrification and carbon capture utilization and storage. So we absolutely see that as a key strategy, both for processes that inherently reduce CO2 like existing cement manufacture or residual fuel usage that's gonna remain in industry or some other sources of carbon emissions. One of the reasons I didn't quite emphasize it in my discussion of the office is because that's another one of those areas where we work really closely with other offices in DOE. So the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management in DOE really is the center point of technology development for carbon capture and sequestration technologies. We work very, very closely with them. In fact, we just, so I should note, so just last week we announced a new funding opportunity, $83 million funding opportunity for our energy emissions intensive industries team. That includes a topic that we are funding jointly with the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management and the Office of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technologies on pre-feed studies for engineering designs of industrially integrated hydrogen and or carbon capture projects for industry. So yes, it is a critical strategy that we're looking at. And Leora. So I might add, you bring up a really important point, which is that absolutely carbon capture has to be part of the solution. And figuring out how to either do the utilization or the storage is a really important point for the scalability and understanding how it fits into the business structures. The reason why I think it often ends up getting stressed a little bit less at workshops like this is because that's typically at least what I've found, the one that's easier to sell, because it's the one that requires the least redesign of the entire infrastructure. And at least in the steel industry, and I would say concrete is kind of like this as well, the scale is so massive, you know, 3.5 megaton or sorry, gigatons per year of carbon dioxide, that's just from one industry. It makes its own problem and you know, even 5% that doesn't get captured is still a huge emission. And so we have to be thinking both about carbon capture for the things that can't be decarbonized, but also pushing really hard at the full redesign because the redesign is much harder to implement. Let's try and experiment together. We have five minutes and a lot more people who wanna ask questions. Let's try the 10 second question and the 30 second answer. The answer is allowed to make one point with no elaboration and we'll see if we can get to as many questions as possible, you're up first. Yeah, mine maybe is a little bit longer than 10 seconds. Sorry, but I wanna keep up with one point about the circle three supply chain aspect. So I'm Jerry, I'm the founder of a startup called CarbonSins where we do energy and carbon management system for factories. And one huge problem is even on the same table, the American standard and the European standard and the Chinese standard when it comes to life cycle assessment is not standardized. So I'm really curious, you know, what's your take on this? What's gonna be the future? And the second thing is. Nope, one thing. Okay, thank you. You're next, someone answer the question. I would say life cycle analysis has notoriously large error bars and that's something that, you know, as we prioritize these life cycle analyses, we really need to find opportunities to standardize and build a community for. Thank you. And to be continued over lunch, I'm sure. You're next. James Ted from Group Beyond and I'll keep it to 10 seconds. The, we've heard about electrifying everything, almost everything, becoming a good citizen. The key part of that is using that electricity at the right time, flexibility. We haven't heard much about that. Are you able to build that in to the designs of the electrified industrial decarbonization? Ah, one of our favorite questions. Lior, I think we need to give you a shot at that, don't we? Absolutely. So that's something that we think about quite a bit of, you know, these industries that are really historically, you know, continuous consistent flows, that we need to completely redesign how we think about the solutions because the strategies you should use are completely different. And that's where cross-pollination between these different fields, bringing together someone from the grid management with somebody from, you know, steel design or iron making, sorry, or concrete making, you know, it's required to completely change how we think about this. A really great point. And an active area of research. Klaus, you wanted to? Yeah, no, this is a topic that takes up a lot of attention in Denmark. And we are actually progressing very rapidly these days with a lot of activity in the industrial sector on demand response. And I think the main reason for that is the market framework that we put up around it. So industries have the opportunity to participate, not only in the spot market price of power, they have dynamic tariffs, but they can also feed into ancillary services and actually make a lot of money there. So this is something that's super important. And I think the main answer to that question is implement the right market framework, get competition and innovation out in that space, and it will happen very, very quickly. Thank you. Next, here. Spencer Jackson, Entrepreneur in Residence at Nostere Ventures, question for Liora. Steel manufacturing, and people talk about hydrogen and whether it's useful, actually useful or harmful because of the material science aspect of hydrogen embrulment. That's a common question. Above 600 Celsius, hydrogen embrulment is not a problem, and steel making is done at 1,000 degrees, usually minimum. So there has been a fair amount of work actually very recently demonstrating that hydrogen based steel just as effective, just as good. Next question here. Thanks, Cody Taylor, CEC. I'm curious for what you see as the biggest white space in where we should be having more connection between the R&D side and the deployment policy side. Okay, we can relax the 32nd requirement for the CEC question. I mean, I'll start with that. And I think I can actually be pretty quick with my answer to that. And I think the answer for me, no question, is grid integration. I think just from the level of some of the comments you've already heard and the challenges of electrification, there is a, I mean, the extent to which we have really addressed the challenges of what large industrial electric loads that are actually responsive looks like is just wildly unaddressed. Essentially right now, industrial loads are not responsive at all. So no matter how many challenges you've thought about, demand response in the buildings, residential and commercial, it's not even close to as unresponsive as industrial loads right conventionally are. So this is just a huge untapped challenge in the extent to which it's even thought about in most industrial sectors for all the reasons that we've kind of been touching on. There's just I think a gigantic untapped resource there. And if I understand what you're getting at, Avi, there's a huge opportunity if we get this right to reduce the negative impact of industrial electrification on the grid. Alternatively, if we get this wrong, we can really screw up the grid. Yep, absolutely, that is exactly right, yes. Did someone else wanna address the CEC's question about white space and what else we need to be doing? I might add. So one of the things that I've been starting to think about a lot more lately is, are there opportunities for us instead of thinking of this about electrification of, let's create power and electrons so that we can then use those electrons? Are there ways of cutting out the middle man and basically saying let's generate the electricity where we need it, when we need it? So that we don't have to go through these possibly inefficient pathways and distribution challenges. Concentrated solar power is a great example of this. You take the sun and focus the sunlight directly onto what you need to heat. I mean, that's such a great opportunity and there are some companies that are starting to explore that now. I'm so excited to see it, but I think that that's a really white space that needs to be tapped. Thank all of you for your excellent questions. Please join me in thanking our panelists. Thank you.