 So we're going to broaden out, we're going to talk about hydrogen, but we're going to talk about other fuels and chemicals as well. And I want to introduce you or reintroduce you to the Suncat Center for Interface Science and Catalysis. This week is all about energy at Stanford in Slack. And this is one of the few organizations Suncat is that actually has about equal footing on both sites. So we have labs up there, we got lots of personnel up there, we got labs down here, lots of personnel here. You can see some of the senior folks on the Stanford faculty side that are contributing directly towards this effort. Very close collaborators, Slack staff, scientists, and really this is how we work. We think about, we employ theory a lot. The center is about 50-50 theory and experiment. So if you're interested in computational work, we do a lot of computational work. We have a lot of senior folks who focus on that. They generally provide insights based on understanding their, understanding catalysis from their perspective, the computational perspective. It really helps guide the synthesis and design of materials. So we go about synthesizing all kinds of different materials, different forms, nanoparticles, nanowires, etc. We characterize them using a suite of very advanced tools to understand what we made and how we made them and how they might function. We do the catalyst evaluation to see how they performed and ultimately feed that right back into theory. And then we go around this loop and now at the heart of this loop where we have a really strong data science effort that's using machine learning in various aspects to also accelerate this process. So the whole goal here is how do you design and develop catalyst materials to execute the chemical transformations that you're after in the most effective manner you can. Before I dive into all of that and how we do what we do, I'll show you lots of examples of that. But I just thought, let's zoom out for a second and continue this thread about fossil fuels that we were talking about earlier. And I just want you to consider petroleum as an example. Obviously there's three big fossil fuels, as oil, as coal, and natural gas. And let's bear in mind that there's a lot of really good properties in fossil fuels. So first of all, it's a massive worldwide resource. It's very abundant. People wonder, are we going to run out? And there's all these questions. But lest we forget, we're consuming as humans on average 18 kW worth of power on average when you go across all sectors. And just petroleum alone accounts for about a third of that, which is spectacular. It's got a huge energy density. We can drive a car. I can fill up my car and drive to Los Angeles with my entire family. You can fly a jet halfway around the Earth, SFO to London, SFO to Shanghai. And the energy in a car's gas tank is just a simple Honda Accord, let's say. It's equal to about 55,000 iPhone X batteries, just for argument's sake. Yet it's also very high power density. It's got a massive energy density. You can also deliver that power when you need it. You can fly aircraft, you can move shipping vessels across the Pacific, et cetera. You're sitting there looking bored at the pump. You just got your hand on the pump and you just couldn't be more bored. That's about 5 megawatts of power flowing through your fingertips. A nuclear reactor is one gigawatt. So you have 200 people looking bored with their Toyota Camrys and Honda Accords and Ford Focus. And those 200 people are actually the equivalent of a nuclear-sized facility making power. Yet despite all this, it's very chemically stable, right? We don't worry. When we hop into a car or a bus, it's easy to store and transport. There's about 100,000 miles of gasoline pipeline in the U.S. And for all this, how much do we pay? Right now, the U.S. average is about $2.60 a gallon. Here in California, it's a little north of three. But goodness gracious, what else can you buy for $3 a gallon? A bottle of water, okay? Barely. A gallon of milk, probably more expensive. How about a gallon of oranges? A half gallon of oranges can cost you four bucks, right? It's really amazing. And then there's the convenience. As Arun was pointing out, you got these filling stations across the United States. Super convenient. Has anyone ever timed themselves at a gasoline station when they're filling a car? Raise your hand if you've ever timed yourself. I do this for fun. It takes about two and a half minutes. Two and a half minutes. I can fill in 15 gallons of gas in two and a half minutes. So I can take this totally empty gas tank, put my entire family in there, and in two and a half minutes, I can drive from here to L.A. nonstop. If you're in an airport and your battery has died on the first flight and you're making a connection and you only have two and a half minutes to plug in, can you even boot your phone in two and a half minutes? Right. I'm doing this stuff. And so any future energy technology needs to compete with these attributes, okay? And I just focused on petroleum to make these very specific examples. We could have had exactly the same slide for natural gas, exactly the same slide for coal. They're all fundamentally the same types of molecules. And this really leads into what I think is one of the greatest successes of humankind. And that's developing this modern fuels and chemicals industry. It's actually spectacular that we can deliver these products, these molecules, like hydrogen. We talked about the 60 or so billion kilos a year. Again, this is almost all coming from fossil fuels, and almost all of that is from steam methane reforming. So natural gas, thank you very much. Why do we make this hydrogen to make fertilizer, as Arun pointed out? Now, this we're making fertilizer, which is predominantly ammonia, 180 billion kilograms a year. That's more than 20 kilos per person per year on average. These Haber-Bosch facilities, there's a few hundred of them around the earth. They are loaded up with these iron nanoparticles. That iron nanoparticles job is to take nitrogen that came from air, plus the hydrogen that came mostly from methane to make that ammonia, to make fertilizer. So that fertilizer goes into crops, the crops uptake it, and then we either eat the vegetables or we eat the grains. If you had cereal this morning, or if you had a steak for dinner last night, that grain was fed to an animal, if it was pork or what have you. And so in your bodies right now, half the fixed nitrogen in your bodies touched one of these iron nanoparticles sitting inside one of these facilities. Thank you to the modern fields of chemical industry. Many, many scientists and engineers over the past several centuries that ultimately led to this tech. We put all of that hydrogen into upgrading petroleum. This is a crude stuff that's been sitting underground for millions of years. We do all kinds of treating processes there to upgrade that, to actually make it into usable products like jet fuel or diesel or gasoline. If you put jet fuel in your car, it's not going to be very happy, so we have to refine these and make them the molecules we want. And of course the plastics industry as well. I used to actually work on the Houston Ship Channel. That's what we're looking at here at one of these acrylic acid facilities, cranking that out by the megaton. So this is really important stuff that we use today. The question is, what's the future? And might we want to do something differently moving ahead? And I think this is one of the game changers why we're even thinking about that is the dropping prices in electricity. So these are life cycle assessments on the cost of wind, the levelized cost of electricity, the photovoltaics, levelized cost of electricity. And the long and the short of it is that it, even just 10 years ago, it was really high and it has been dropping and dropping. This is getting down, the units here is dollars per megawatt hour. And if you convert that into cents per kilowatt hour, if you guys are living off campus, you'll be paying electricity bills and you'll be paying attention hopefully to how many cents per kilowatt hour you're paying and this is extremely low. This, you know, my home here in Menlo Park is about 20 cents a kilowatt hour. This is four cents a kilowatt hour is what that's coming out to. So these prices are dropping. Can we use this renewable electricity to do something differently? So this is ultimately the question I have for all of you, is how do we create a new paradigm? If we want a new paradigm, how do we go about creating it? You got to compete against the economics. If you cannot sell your product at the same or lower price, it's really tough to get people to buy from you. So the production cost dollars per kilogram is a function of two things, the capital expenditures plus the operational expenditures, so CAPEX and OPEX. And so these are the four targets I'm going to post to you that if we hit these four values, it's very aggressive, but if we can get there and this is why we need R&D in each of these four buckets, if we can get there, we can completely change the paradigm. Renewable electricity instead of four cents a kilowatt hour, can we get it down to one cent a kilowatt hour? Energy storage, the gigafactories that Arun was talking about, they crank out batteries at about $150 to $200 a kilowatt hour. If you really want to make a big impact at the global grid scale, long-term energy storage, you need to be down to closer to $10 a kilowatt hour. It's very aggressive. If you want to make a carbon-based product and you don't want to get it from the ground, you got to get it from somewhere else. How about grabbing it from the air? I'm really worried about 400 parts per million CO2 and climbing. My gosh, that number keeps climbing and climbing and climbing, and I'm a separations engineer. I'm like, what? It's only 400 parts per million? You're asking me to separate out 400 PPM of stuff and hand it to you? Well, that's tough. It's really tough. So you got to get the prices down to about what I think are $30 a ton of CO2. Very aggressive. Target, and finally, you want to feed it into some box. If you want to use that renewable electricity, and that's the theme of what I'm focusing on today, is electricity conversion to fuels and chemicals. You got to feed the electricity and the CO2 and water in the box, do all these conversions to make the products that you want at, say, 20 cents per kilogram cap-axe. And so you add up these numbers. Basically, you can get to production costs of around 50 cents to a dollar per kilogram, and that's where you need to be, because thanks to that wonderful modern chemical industry that we talked about that does all this stuff at scale and gets it out to billions of people on Earth, they can get these really low costs that we all enjoy, and that's why we only pay $3 at the pump. So those are tough targets. That's why we have a challenge, and that's why I'm enthusiastic about everybody in this room who's thinking about energy and interested in energy, because we need as many smart people as we can to work on these. So many ways to contribute. So the big picture is what do we need? We need transportation. We need chemicals. We need materials. We need food to feed people. We need lots of molecules to make that happen. Broadly in our research group, we focus on electron-driven chemistry, photon-driven chemistry if you want to use the sunlight directly. We also work a lot on the thermal heterogeneous catalysis, which is predominantly how the modern chemical industry works. And so the idea is you take feedstocks here, and you want to convert them into precursors using as much renewables as you can that you can either use these products directly as a fuel or directly as the product, or it could be the precursor that goes into other processes that we already have in place, and then you make the product that you want. So lots to contribute. This is just a subset of possibilities for the future. I do not want to limit your thinking to what's on the slide. My goodness, this represents 0.01% of probably what we need to make this happen overall across the globe. So I'm going to focus on the electro-catalytic pathways if we want to use electricity directly. And one of the common misconceptions is that people think that electron-driven chemistry or electrochemistry does not scale well, because temperature pressure-driven chemistry certainly do. I just showed you on the Haber-Bosch process and all these other large-scale processes. But that's actually a misconception. If you ever pick up a can of soda, it's probably made of aluminum, and that aluminum is made by electrochemical processes. So we crank out across the globe about 15 billion kilograms a year of aluminum. It comes from ore from the earth. It's an oxide that we use electricity to reduce it into its aluminum metallic state. That's 27 gigawatts worth of electricity, so 27 nuclear reactors equivalent. It's usually run by hydro or so inexpensive forms of electricity. The chloralkylides, another one, sodium hydroxide and chlorine are massively important big-ticket items. Again, this is 60 billion kilograms a year, so we're at the scale of the chemicals we've been talking about before. This is very important. These are precursors that are used in tons of things, whether it's soap, detergents, PVC piping, et cetera, et cetera. So this is another example of a scaled-up process electrochemical. And even water splitting and water electrolysis has been practiced for 100 years commercially. This is Norsk Hydro, now known as NEL. And banks of these really large electrolyzers, again, running on hydro to make hydrogen. Actually, they were doing this in Norway to make the hydrogen to feed into Haverbosch to make the ammonia. So they were making the ammonia in a much more sustainable way. And then this kind of fell out of fashion as the prices of fuels and fossils were decreasing. And so that came out of mode, but now they're looking at this all over again with the new tech today. So lots of exciting. These are some examples of some large-scale processes. Now, what does this cost? So here's some techno-economics that came from a company called Proton Onsite that was more recently acquired by NEL that I was just describing. They costed this out. And here's a bank of electrolyzers. One of these electrolyzers is about one megawatt size. And so there's about a 100 megawatt facility. This 100 megawatt facility produces 50,000 kilos a day or 50 tons a day of hydrogen. And they estimate if they do achieve all their goals in research and development over the years in economies of scale, et cetera, they can get this down to about 50 to 60 cents per kilo of hydrogen, which is really attractive because the market price here in the United States right now is about $1.20. So if you give this plant free electricity 24-7365 from wind or solar, you can compete. But there's no place on earth where you're going to get free electricity sustainably produced 24-7365. So you have to add the cost of the electricity and then that currently is still too expensive. So there's lots of effort. We need to drop the price of electricity. We need to drop the capital cost of this whole system. Most of this system, you don't just need the electrolyzers. You need power supplies. You need water management, hydrogen management. The biggest slice of the pie is actually the electrolyzers. And so we put a lot of work in trying to decrease the cost of those electrolyzer stacks. Of the many things that we need to do to accomplish that, one of them is to go into cheaper catalysts. There's platinum and iridium that are loaded in these things. And so thanks to working with this amazing team of researchers over the past number of years in my research group upstairs, we've been working to get rid of precious metals for making hydrogen. And a lot of this actually we learned from biology. So catalysis is a very broad field, right? If you talk to a biologist, a catalyst is an enzyme. We all have catalysts right now that are probably still processing our breakfast or food or drink from the coffee break. Nitrogenase and hydrogenase are two enzymes in nature really good at making hydrogen, basically as good as platinum, but there's no precious metals in sight. And so without going into the gory details, some calculations done by Jens Norskow and Baird Hineman some years ago pointed as to how these things work. And then that pointed us in the direction of a material called molybdenum sulfide, which is actually used in oil refineries around the world to do hydro-treating processes, these upgrading processes. And we said, hey, these might be really good catalysts for hydrogen evolution. So when I was a post-doc in Denmark for a couple of years, I worked in a team with Ipe Corkendorf and others to synthesize these really well-defined nanotrangles of molybdenum sulfide. The theory suggested that only the edges of this material should be good, not the top or the bottom. And we found that, yes, they are very active catalysts and the catalyst activity scales with the edges, not with the surface area of the catalyst. It was just how much edge length you have. And then when I started my research group here, I worked with Jebo and Yakob, which are two early-stage researchers, and synthesizing all kinds of different formulations of molybdenum sulfide. And we were able to get really high performance just by knowing that we need more edge sites. So you go to different morphologies. You know, once you go to nanowires, you get more edges. Nanoporous material is even more edges. These small molecular clusters just chalk full of edges. We can get higher and higher activity catalysts. We said, okay, let's start getting this out into some real tech. There was a guy named Desmond who then went about taking a lot of these formulations and making inks that were, you could now process and make what we call a membrane electrode assembly. That's the heart and soul of these, the new advanced designs of water electrolyzers all use this construct. And so he showed, now we can get one amp per square centimeter out of these things. They're not as good as the platinum-based system, because you can see you need less voltage to get the one amp per square centimeter than you do if you replace the platinum with nonprecious metal systems. But hey, they work. You do pay a 0.2 volt penalty, but that's because nobody on Earth has ever found a way to make a catalyst that's as good as platinum without precious metal. So that still remains a challenge. This caught the attention of one of our friends over at Proton Onsite that I was talking about earlier, and Nell, Kathy Ayer, she's the VP of R&D there. She said, oh, we've got to work together. You guys are making some catalysts that we think might have some opportunity here. So we got funded on a project by the U.S. Navy that cares a lot about water electrolysis, not because they care about the hydrogen. I'm guessing if you're in a submarine, submerged for a while, you probably care more about the oxygen. And guess what? Every U.S. naval sub has a portable nuclear reactor on it, which means you just crank. It's free electricity. You want to crank it up a little. It's all in the sunk cost. They paid the money to build the nuclear reactor. They want more electricity. The Navy doesn't care about the cost of electricity. It's already sunk in. They just care about the cost of the electrolysis. They put out a call for proposals to work on this. So here's Mackenzie and Laurie, who went about synthesizing some of our catalysts in a scaled-up fashion, shipping it over to Connecticut. This is a small-scale electrolyzer, but a commercial one. They literally sell this, and they swapped out the platinum, put in the catalysts made by Mackenzie and Laurie, and true to form, you know, it works. Not as well as platinum, because we didn't expect it to work any better than platinum, certainly. It performed as well as we had hoped, and it was stable. We ran this thing for 1,800 hours almost, and it was their electrolyzer and their facility when the Department of Defense funding stopped. They said, okay, we're going to stop the experiment. We're like, no, please don't, but we had no control. It wasn't our electrolyzer to stop, so we're curious how long it would have gone, but the point is it was very active. It's very stable. It's non-precious. It's a cheaper catalyst, and it's working in a true commercial platform under the real reaction conditions, 1.8 amps per square centimeter, 86 square centimeter system, 400 PSI output pressure, and at operating temperatures. So this we see is like the flagship of getting this technology forward. Now we're trying to apply the same thinking towards other reactions. CO2 electrocatalyst says, how do we feed CO2 to an electrolyzer and make carbon-based fuels and chemicals? Many, many people. Part of this project, Dr. Chris Han is a staff scientist at Slack and at Suncat has been central to everything I'll show you here. Some of our early stage students, Kendra, Atasha, David, Toru, Kendra and Atasha in particular were the first two who started on this, and they started a company called Opus 12 located in East Bay. They're commercializing CO2 electrolysis. Some technical economics, I won't dive into the details here. If you're curious, you can find all the stuff published. Bottom line is that we do see a path to profitability of feeding in CO2 in water. Cheap electricity is key. The cheaper the electricity is, the easier it is to find yourself in a profitable region to make say carbon monoxide or ethylene or other important products. What can we make? A lot of things. You basically take a bottle of San Pellegrino Perrier. Depends where you want to get your water from. Bubbled CO2 in water is really the point. You just stick it in a copper electrode, give it some electricity and look at all these amazing molecules that you can produce. A lot of these are big ticket molecules on these like tens of billions of kilograms a year scale. So we can do it, but the problem is selectivity. How do you steer the chemistry to any one of these without making the others? And that remains a big challenge. So there's a lot to say there. I'll just point out that we've been thinking a lot about the reaction mechanisms. I don't expect you to be able to read through all these possibilities. It is really, really complex. We're making progress in that direction. There are many big challenges. We're trying to suppress hydrogen. We're trying to figure out how do we favor CC coupled products versus products that only have one carbon? How do we favor oxygenated carbon products that we think are higher market value? We know our higher market value may be an easier entry point than hydrocarbons. And then ultimately want to produce a single product and not this whole mix. So there's a lot of questions on what is the mechanism? How do you design a catalyst to favor the particular pathway you want? And just to give you some examples, the copper I was showing you before made these 16 different products and they were like a big mess to separate. It's not worth commercializing that. But we're making progress in understanding the chemistry well enough that now say this catalyst, it's also a copper based system with this interesting flower like morphology. I just want to point out that we can make, now we can get down to three oxygenated products, ethanol, acetate, and acetaldehyde, making almost no hydrogen and just a sliver of ethylene. So we went from 16 products down to these three and those three are all oxygenated carbon-carbon coupled products which are really exciting from a market perspective. So we think that's an interesting entry point, still a long way to go in pushing this tech forward. I'll wrap up with some thoughts on ammonia, this catalyst that hopefully you're all familiar with now since your body's literally touched that catalyst at some point or another, those proteins in your body, those amino acids. And one of the big challenges with Howard Rabash, as much as I love that process and I really am so excited that we have it at our disposal because you cannot feed 7.5 billion people on Earth without it. So I'm very thankful for that, but it is fraught with some challenge. The challenge is that because it requires these very high pressures and temperatures, making it in a centralized fashion is the only way to go. And that's great if you happen to live near one of these facilities or you're in a country like the U.S. where you can move this stuff around with relative ease, but in Central Africa, they pay six times what we pay in Illinois for fertilizer. And we want to change that. We have the whole globe, like I was saying earlier, that we need to cover and we need solutions for all. We've been working in another big team, not just here at Stanford, but also at the Technical University of Denmark, working with Ipkorkendorf and a number of other faculty, Jens Narsko as well and our students. And this is the dream system, as you want a system you can put some solar cells up on your farm, no matter where you are on the earth. We're all breathing 78% nitrogen. You want a system that's just breathing that nitrogen and when there's water and sunshine present, you make the electricity and you can do the chemistry and make your ammonia, you size your system just right so that during the growing season, when the sun is strongest, you can make your ammonia when you need it. Nobody has ever made a good catalyst for this extremely tough chemistry and I won't go into all the physics as to why that is, but just to say that here we've developed a process that we can actually, it's not a catalytic group, but a cyclic process of a step one to step two, step three, where we basically, we can go around the cycle, you give me inexpensive renewable electricity, I can plate lithium metal from lithium hydroxide, I expose that lithium metal to nitrogen, I make lithium nitride, I dump the lithium nitride in water, you hydrolyze it to release NH3 and lithium hydroxide and you put it right back into step one. And we've shown that we can do this process in a cyclical fashion, 90% of the electrons actually go into making ammonia. What would this look like on a real farm? So if you take a hectare of farmland, 10,000 square meters, so 100 meters by 100 meters, you need 5 square meters of solar cells to power all the needs of this agricultural field to make your 100 kilos of ammonia per hectare per year. So if you're a farmer, that's the amount of land you need to consume to drive this process. So we're still a long ways to go on the tech side, but there's some promise. So some summary and conclusions on this. So hydrogen, I view that as the flagship, that's where we're kind of furthest ahead on the technology, trying to translate that to the CO2 world to make carbon based products, and then of course ammonia, which is the most challenging of them all, but even there we're getting some traction. So I thank the many students and postdocs and co-workers who've, collaborators who've contributed to these big efforts, these are really tough problems. We need lots of brain power. I thank you guys for your attention and I'll take any questions and leave you with this thought. Thank you once again. Questions, anybody? And also I have a question. Has anybody else seen the other mic? There's a mic right here. There's got to be a question. Hi, thanks for the talk. The process where you described electrolyzing CO2 to form hydrocarbon. You mentioned that the feed stock to that process is CO2 bubbled in water? Yeah. Or CO2 and water. And you can bubble it or you can come up with other devices? Sure. Does that work in the scale of CO2 and PPMs in water? Or are we looking at more carbonated water? So actually I think the real, the ultimate commercial application will not be bubbling CO2 in water. We do that in our lab to do fundamental studies, but really I think the devices, at least first gen will be more like what a fuel cell looks like or commercial water electrolyzers look like, PEM electrolyzers, you have a membrane electrode assembly and the beauty of the membrane electrode assembly is that it's designed to get really high mass transport of gases. So you want to do electrochemistry and you need water around, but if you're in an aqueous environment, a true bulk water environment, then when you're bubbling things like CO2, you're limited to 30 parts per million, which is a really low concentration of your reactant. And so what's a better system is if you could just shove the gas right at the electrode directly, but if you have no liquid around, you don't have an electrochemical cell. And so that's the beauty of that engineering is it's a triple phase boundary of gas, solid and liquid, and done so in a way that you can get amps per square centimeter. There's a little tiny thing you can get, drive several amps out of and so that's where I think the future of that tech will ultimately be. Could you see this potentially being in a flue gas stack where CO2 could be like 20% of the... So that's a great question. So where do you want to get your CO2? So I think water is a lot more accessible to us. We can purify water. If you drink it out of a tap, it's not 100.000% water. It has other things in there, but it's 99. whatever water. And so do you want to get... Ultimately, we'd love to get the CO2 from the atmosphere because that's where everyone has access to. But if you don't have that, you could go to, say, a power plant. The problem with power plants is actually the CO2 output is very low. It's just a few percent, like sell at 5%. And there are other sources, point sources that might make more sense. One example is biorefineries. Making ethanol. Ethanol is obviously... In the United States, we produce 14 billion gallons a year of ethanol and that's used in transportation to burn. So it's 10% of any gas station around here is actually ethanol that came from fermentation. And so those biorefineries actually have a very, very pure output of CO2, much nicer than that of a smokestack. So I think those are kind of... The way I see the technology rolling out is you pick the point sources that are easiest, the low hanging fruit and then as the tech develops and you can go ultimately, we'd love it to get it from the atmosphere. But that will be the biggest challenge of all. Thank you. Yeah, you got it. Excellent. More questions. Carbon tool conversion. Yeah, it's... We don't have everything we'd like to know about that. But what I will say is that we just... This paper that Stephanie and Tobi... So a former colleague of yours that you never met because she was effectively in this room a few years ago. She just graduated with her doctorate. And she led this effort on... She first authored this amazing 60 page review paper that provides all the mechanistic understanding that we know today, which is not enough to design the catalyst. But it helps us and I'll think about a lot of things. So we have a lot to flesh out here. But I would definitely encourage you... I don't have a simple response to your question, but the simplest one I can tell you is that that's a very recent publication that captures the state of knowledge in the field as best we could. What are some of the technical limitations to creating very active ammonia synthesis catalyst? A great question. So why is it so tough? Thermodynamics and kinetics are always the best place to start. And it turns out that this reaction here, N2 plus 3H2 goes to 2NH3, at standard temperature and pressure, is thermodynamically downhill. But we've never been able to make a catalyst. So a catalyst can never change the thermodynamics of the reaction, right? All it can change is the kinetics. And nobody has ever made a catalyst that can do that at room temperature and room pressure. So what do you do to speed up the reaction? You crank up the temperature, yay. So you go up to several hundred degrees C, call it 500 degrees C, but when you do that, you change the thermodynamics of the reaction because you got four moles of gas on this side and two moles on that side. So now you've got an uphill process and so great, your catalyst works, but thermodynamically, it'll never make more than 0.1% of your product. That's what the equilibrium will tell you. So what do you do to change that? You dial up the pressure. And that's why ammonia processes involve even much higher than that, 200 bar, 300 bar pressure. And that is what makes it a requirement to do it centralized because you just can't imagine these small things operating at 300 bar all over the earth. That's just, that's really not cost effective. We just don't have a way to do that. You can do that if you centralized the facility and you have a facility that cranks out a megaton per year, then with economies of scale, you can handle high pressures. They predict that there's been a quarter million different catalysts that have been examined for this reaction. And it involves three Nobel prizes for whatever that's worth. It's, Howard won it in the 19, around 1920 for developing the chemistry Bosch for the scale up and more recently Gerhard Erdle, surface scientist about a decade ago in the surface chemistry of this reaction because it literally feeds the earth. Arguably the most important reaction because one out of five human beings wouldn't exist if not for this process. Just couldn't get the nutrition to them. With that, maybe we should conclude. I thank you all once again. Good luck on your future adventures. Thank you.