 Greetings and welcome. My name is Bruce Kane, and I'm the director of Stanford's Bill Lane Center for the American West. And I'm also a professor of political science and a pre-core fellow. Thank you for joining us today. Today's virtual briefing will highlight key findings from a new joint study by researchers at the Stanford Pre-core Institute and MIT's Center for the Abdul Latif Jamul Food and Water Systems Lab at MIT that reassesses the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant's potential value in helping California meet its increasing challenges of climate change by providing clean, safe, and reliable electricity, water, and hydrogen fuel for Californians. To put the topic of Diablo Canyon in a broader context of transitioning to a clean energy future, we've asked two distinguished scientists from Stanford, who both served in the Obama administration, to make some brief remarks first before moving to the report itself. So first, please join me in welcoming Stanford Professor of Physics and former US Secretary of Energy, Stephen Chu. Stephen? Yeah, thank you. I think my remarks can be very brief. We are not in a position in the near term future to go to 100% renewable energy. And there will be times when the wind doesn't blow, the sun doesn't shine. And we will need some power that we can actually turn on dispatch at will. And that leaves two choices, either fossil fuel or nuclear. And if you use fossil fuel, then you need to capture as much of 1,900% of the carbon and sequestered. And also, you have nuclear. And so I believe that nuclear presents a very good option, especially nuclear power plants that have been built. The CAPEX has been invested. And in particular, Diablo Canyon, a lot of the upgrades were made in anticipation for applying for a 20-year extension, which the Nuclear Regulatory Agency gave every belief that they would look favorably upon an application. The distressing thing is in 2018, PG&E pulled the application. When that happened, I called up people at PG&E, and they just said that the community attitude was that it was not they were being pressured to turn off the nuclear power plant. In addition, there were other things, for example, water intake, new regulations, and other things, heat cooling that they said looked too hard, and they were just going to close it down. And this new report says that you can have use other things for the nuclear reactors desalinization, things of that nature, that shed new light on the economic viability of this. But also, I just want to conclude by saying in the examples of countries that have turned off the nuclear power with perhaps the hope of some that you would just go to more renewable energy, clean energy, like solar and wind, the experience in Japan, the experience in Germany is that's not what happened. They built more fossil fuel plants, and there were more carbon emissions. And so we should take note of the earlier examples of other countries doing this and consider again very strongly in order to come back, climate change in the best possible way. I think nuclear power for the next extension period is something that we should really consider and ask PG&E to reconsider. So with that, I'll stop. Again, next, we turn to Arun Majundar, who is a professor in the engineering school and was undersecretary of energy in the Obama administration. Well, thank you, Bruce. And first of all, let me congratulate the authors, both at MIT as well as at Stanford, for putting this report together. And I just want to place this, and I want to build on what Steve said. And also want to place this report on a broader context of nuclear. We are seeing that nuclear, the current plans of nuclear plants are under threat because of what is called a business model of nuclear, because of the fact that the electricity prices of the wholesale market are reducing because of renewables being integrated, cheap natural gas, et cetera. And thereby it is difficult to sustain nuclear. Well, that's the argument. I think this report, first of all, talks about nuclear as an electricity source itself and says that this is a viable approach to doing so. But it also provides the broader business model context of can it be used to do other things? And it shows that you can potentially produce hydrogen at $2 a kilogram and potentially cheaper in the future. And also look at desalination and address water needs, which as California and many other places around the world are going to face. And it also does a kind of a combination of things and optimize it. And I would really encourage people who are interested in the subject to read this report. I just think that this is, while that is fantastic, it also lays out the challenges, et cetera, but also lays out the opportunities. And I think it's very important to look at those opportunities, especially as Steve mentioned, there's a sunken cost already there as opposed to building new things and that has its own time scale, et cetera. I want to point out one more opportunity that perhaps could be considered in the future by the team and by others. If you're putting this, placing this in the context of decarbonizing the economy, which as the report correctly pointed out in California, that goal is 2045. It is more than electricity. The most difficult thing to decarbonize is industrial heat, process heat. And nuclear in its conversion from heat to electricity takes a hit about, the efficiency is about 30 to 35%. So if the electricity is $40 a megawatt hour, the heat is much cheaper. And I think it's very important to use the heat for other things. And in the report, it's pointed out, but there are other applications of industrial heat which cannot be forgotten. For example, if you look at the industry of steel and cement making, yes, you require high temperature heat, but if the low temperature heat can be provided by nuclear, it reduces a tremendous amount of fossil fuel use if you have to, and thereby reduces the burden of carbon capture. One of the most difficult things and we are now realizing that you cannot get to net zero economy without negative emissions. And if you look at the negative emissions technology of capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, 90% of the energy that you have is heat. And if you have a low carbon, zero carbon source of heat and use it for direct air capture atmospheric removal of CO2, and those plans can be placed anywhere, I think that's a huge opportunity that should not be missed out. And so if California is thinking of trying to make a net zero economy and it has plans and it can be the leader of CO2, atmospheric removal of CO2, this is the opportunity to do that. So let me also place that in the context of the broader context, what the United States needs and what the war needs. Thank you very much. And I just again, wanna congratulate the authors of the report for laying it out in both the challenges as well as the opportunities. Thank you very much, Arun. So next we want to turn to the study itself. And we have four speakers. We will start with Yacobo Bonjono. And he will hand it off to E.J. Bake and MIT professor of water, John Leanhard. And then finally, a senior consultant, a lucid catalyst, Justin Aborn. So Yacobo, it's your turn. Thank you, Bruce. I hope everybody can hear me receiving clearly. Yacobo Bonjono, professor of nuclear science and engineering and MIT also director of the Center for Events and Appearances study systems, excuse me, and one of the co-PI's of the principal investigators of this time. I wanna start by thanking the Freakort Center and professors H.O. and Mejumdar for hosting our presentation today. My team at MIT and Stanford is passionate about energy, technology, and environment. And we can't think of a better, of a better way to present the findings of our study. The study itself started a little bit over a year ago at the initiative of myself, professor of cell advancement at Stanford University. And we decided to title an assessment of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant for zero-carb electricity, salination, and hydrogen production. We're gonna share the screen so you can see the slides that I will use to guide the discussion. So all right, so first a few words about background motivation for the study if you're attending this webinar, most likely you're familiar with the history of Diablo Canyon, but it's useful for recap. So in January 2018, the California Public Utilities Commission approved a multi-party settlement, shut down Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant upon expiration of the operating license of the second unit, which is in 2025, first unit license expires in 2024. At the moment, Diablo Canyon provides about 8% of California's in-state electricity production that translates to 15% of its carbon-free electricity production. In its decision, back in 2018, the commission stated that the plant was not cost-effective to continue in operation, that it was not needed for system reliability and that its value for using greenhouse gas emissions wasn't clear. So this is back 2018, now fast forward greenhouse fears and things have changed. There have been some new opportunities and some new challenges. In aggregate, it is these opportunities and these challenges that have led the team Stanford University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology to re-examine the potential value of Diablo Canyon in addressing some of the important challenges that California is facing in the coming decades. So what has changed since 2018? Several things. First and foremost, the properly aggressive decarbonization targets that the state of California has set for itself over the next few decades. These are embodied by Senate Bill 100 and executive order B-5518. There has also been a variety of studies including a few at MIT and Stanford offering the need for clean, firm, dispatchable, zero-carbon energy capacity of the type that can be provided by the power plants like Diablo Canyon. The intention of course is to help in the decarbonization of the electricity grid. There have been some reliability challenges in Kaizong service here and California on electric grid as exemplified with Brownhouse in 2020 and other occurrences. There is a long, prolonged, I should say, severe drought that is putting a lot of areas in the state with a short the job of fresh water. There is also a desire to preserve public land for future generations. This is embodied by the 30 by 30 executive order. And last but not least, after a very long review and examination of the seismic hazards at the Diablo Canyon, the U.S. took their regular quality commission concluded that Diablo Canyon can stand even the most severe earthquakes that can occur at that particular site. One thing I wanna point out that is a very important piece of information and background is the funding for the study was all from Colonel University resources and donations. We did not seek or accept any money from the industry from the study. So this is for one independent MIT that stands for university. Okay, so a few words about my team. I already mentioned Professor Sally Benson. She's Professor of Energy Resources Engineering at Stanford. She currently has a position in the Obama, excuse me, in the Environment Administration. And so she cannot be without year working with Sally and exceptionally talented PhD student, E.J. Bay who is gonna present her findings in a few minutes. On the MIT side, along with myself, Professor John Liener, the Abdul Latif Jamil, Professor of Water and Mechanical Engineering is our water desalination expert. Dr. John Parsons, a senior lecturer in the MIT Sloan School of Management is our go-to person for finances and then two very capable PhD students working primarily with Professor Liener for water desalination at Rivoma and Quantum Way. And on the specific question of hydrogen generation at Diablo Canyon, we were joined by Justi Habermas, a senior consultant at U of C campus. All right, so I'm gonna spend a few minutes first tell you what was the scope of the study and then focusing on high level findings from the study. So we looked at essentially four product streams or revenue streams. I think about this as four different modes of operation for Diablo Canyon. The first is the most obvious is what Diablo Canyon has been doing for the past 35 years essentially producing low-carbon dispatchable electricity for the grid. The question here is what would be the potential contribution of Diablo Canyon to that mission if it was allowed to operate beyond the 2025 deadline? The second question was about the potential for Diablo Canyon to produce low-cost, zero-carbon freshwater and a desalination plant that would be co-located with the plant itself. So one way to produce fresh water from seawater is a so-called reverse osmosis process which essentially pushes seawater from emberants and separates salinity from the water that is used. That process requires electricity, which of course Diablo Canyon can provide it. That electricity is carbon-free then the freshwater that is produced is also carbon-free. The third product stream is hydrogen. As California seeks to decarbonize its transportation sector, there are essentially two options. Either the transportation sector is electrified, in which case there's gonna be a need for a much higher capacity or power capacity on the grid or you can go with fuel cell vehicles. And those fuel cells require hydrogen. As fuel, hydrogen is not a primary energy source, it has to be produced on something else. One way to do it is to electrolyze water to break the molecule of H2O and get hydrogen that way. That process, which is called electrolysis can be assisted by heat, but primarily requires electricity. Again, if that electricity input is carbon-free, then the hydrogen that is produced is also carbon-free. And then last, what we call polygeneration, which is think about it as basically a mixture of the above modes. In this scenario, Diablo Canyon would operate always at full power and the power output of the plant would be triaged effectively, would be diverted at different times of the day or a different time of the years or sometimes for electricity, sometimes after generation and sometimes water deceleration. In all these analysis or all these different scenarios, my team looked at or accounted for the operation maintenance and fuel costs associated with the daily operation of Diablo Canyon, as well as the additional capital costs required to meet the California regulations for protection of marine life that mostly translates to the installment of a new intake structure that would serve the nuclear power plant and the desalination plant and hydro plant should those plants also be co-located aside, as well as the cost modifications to the plant and other facilities needed for the production of hydrogen and desalinated water. So we think that we have accounted for essentially all the costs associated with what we're about to present here. That's the scope of work. I'm going to give you some top-line conclusions and my colleagues will jump in with their own slide a little bit more detail about the assumptions and methodologies and also the interpretation of the data and the results that I'm simply going to finish here. So the first top-line conclusion is about electricity. If Diablo Canyon license was extended 10 years or from 2025 to 2035, it would result in a reduction of California power sector carbon emissions by more than 10% annually with respect to 2017 levels. And that mostly would come from their reduced reliance on natural gas, which would be part of the generation mix that would replace Diablo Canyon if it was shut down. Now the analysis that we do also allows for quantification of the savings in terms of power system costs associated with different scenarios. And scenario where Diablo Canyon is contained in operation we basically realized or there are $2.6 billion in savings in power system costs between 2025 and 2035. And because it is firm capacity, dispatchable capacity would bolster the system ability to mitigate brownouts. And we had sort of an example in August, 2020, not just the brownouts, but also the ability of Diablo Canyon to operate reliably throughout that many times. If the license was extended for Diablo Canyon was extended additional 10 years. So from 2025 to 2045, then the value of Diablo Canyon becomes even higher. That's because it's during that second decade that the drive towards decarbonization makes clean, firm dispatchable capacity even more valuable. So our analysis suggests that during that period Diablo Canyon saved up to $21 billion in power system costs. And importantly, spare 90,000 acres of land from use for generation production, primarily solar portable tape panels while meeting coastal protection requirements. That's the intake question that we're gonna have. The second pipeline conclusion is about decalination. We look at four different sizes of decalination plants that could be co-located at the Diablo Canyon site using part or whole of the power output from the power plant. The smallest size, it's actually a fairly large decalination plant size in absolute terms. It's comparable to the existing decalination plant in operation at Cal's bed further down the coast. And that would produce a volume of water that would be sufficient to alleviate some of the water shortages that you see, particularly in the central coast. If you were to go to a much, much larger decalination plant, one of the options that we looked at that would use the whole power output of Diablo Canyon, then the amount of water produced would be truly enormous and it would actually exceed the volume that is expected from the proposed the Delta Conveyance Project, but that is significantly lower in decalination costs than Professor Maynard will give you about this particular analysis. Popline conclusion about hydrogen, a co-located hydrogen plant would have significant synergies with Diablo plant in terms of water feed as well as cheap electricity, which is supplied directly by the nuclear power plant. It would use heat assisted electrolysis and it would produce a very, very large amount of hydrogen of more than 110,000 tons per year, which is a significant fraction of the projected California demand for hydrogen. And it would do so at a significantly lower cost, roughly half of the alternative, which would be hydrogen produced from solar and wind power grown from the grid. And last but not least, the polygeneration approach. In this case, as I said earlier, it's sort of a mix and match of the above product streams and revenue stream. And in this case, we were able to quantify the effective value of Diablo Canyon in terms of dollars per megawatt hour of electricity generator. And this polygeneration mode X is a little bit of a multiplier. So we estimate that when it's done properly, this sort of triaging of electricity for the three different product streams, it could actually increase the value of Diablo Canyon in terms of dollars per megawatt hour by over 50%. Now, important point I wanna make here before passing the platform to my colleagues here is, while this is not intended to be a definitive study, the conclusions from all these analysis in our opinion warrant further consideration on extending the life of Diablo Canyon plant beyond 2025, we seek here to sort of start the debate, not to end the debate. But again, our analysis are pretty, pretty compelling in our opinion. So with that, let me stop. And EJ, I think you are next. Thank you, Giacopo. Next slide, please. Great. So for the analysis for the electricity sector, we utilize a very detailed capacity and expansion, sorry, capacity expansion and dispatch model called ERVS. And this is a model that has previously been utilized to model California energy policy. For those of you who may not be as familiar, a detailed capacity expansion and dispatch model try to find the lowest cost system while taking into consideration California's future policy goals, future load growth, as well as developing technology prices. And it's very much similar to the model that's utilized for California's long-term integrated resource planning process. And I wanna emphasize that when I say system costs today, it's not only taking into consideration the investment costs that's needed to invest in and build capacity, but also the corresponding annual operating costs. And this model in particular, ERVS, we actually simulate all 8,760 hours in a given year to ensure that whatever system is designed and built maintains reliability for that model dear. So it's quite a robust model that we're working with. And so with this model, we modeled California's future energy systems through 2030. And I wanna mention again, that Senate Bill 100 mandates a 60% renewable portfolio standard in California in 2030. And that's reflected in the model runs here. And what we find is that even assuming rapid and unconstrained build out of renewable energy, particularly PV resources, we find that the continued operation of Diablo Canyon has the potential to significantly reduce California's use of natural gas for electricity production by approximately 10 terawatt hours per year. And just to provide some context, that's more than the output of the state's older gas peaker and once do cooling units that operated in 2018. And of course, by reducing the reliance on natural gas within the state, maintaining Diablo Canyon in the near term can reduce the California carbon emissions by an average of 7 million tons of CO2 per year, which is approximately an 11% reduction from the electricity sector relative to 2017. Next slide, please. And so with that, we find that maintaining Diablo Canyon can actually save total system costs of approximately $2.6 billion and the decadal period between 2025 and 2035. And I really want to emphasize this has been brought up by Arun, Steve and Yakapo before, really the importance of clean firm electric capacity and its value, especially during electric reliability events such as that happened in August of 2020. And to provide some context, in August 2020, the shortage of the state experience was on the order of approximately a gigawatt. And if Diablo Canyon weren't online, that would have grown to more than three gigawatts. So it's quite a significant capacity of clean firm dispatchable resource that we're discussing today. Next slide, please. Finally, we also modeled a more long-term scenario that assumed that California would reach a net zero carbon grid by 2045, consistent with SB 100 and the executive order B5518. And what we find is that even assuming really that the setting of new renewable resources was unconstrained by any land use considerations, we find that keeping Diablo Canyon saves the state a total of approximately 15 to $16 billion between 2025 and 2050. And we also find that the system with Diablo Canyon would avoid the need for 18 gigawatts of solar PV to ensure reliable electricity generation. And that 18 gigawatts of solar PV could spare about 90,000 acres of land. And on the right side, what we've done is shown 90,000 acres of land relative to the Bay Area here today. So it's quite a large amount of land that we'd be saving. Now I wanna make sure to mention that within the report, we also consider a wide range of other sensitivity. So please feel free to go into there for more details, but I just wanna share one more scenario here. And that is if siting of new PV were constrained by land use considerations to approximately 60 gigawatts, which is consistent with historic annual deployment rates, the savings from Diablo Canyon would of course increase to up to $21 billion. And with that, I'll pass it on to John. So we looked at desalination at Diablo Canyon because there are ample supplies of both electricity and intake water capacity. The plant is on the coast. We found that Diablo Canyon could be a powerful driver of low-cost desalination, potentially serving not simply urban users, but industrial and agricultural users as well. In particular, we found that a plant situated at Diablo Canyon would potentially have costs that are about half as much as a comparable plant, such as Carlsbad, which is standalone and taking power from the grid using its own infrastructure. In fact, you can build much larger plants in Carlsbad if you use all of the capacity, the electrical capacity of the plant. And so we modeled four different sizes, one that was Carlsbad scale, two that were 10 to 20 times that size and another that was up to 100 times the size of the Carlsbad plant. The charts on the right-hand side of the screen show our calculations in blue. These are water capacities and acre feet per year. So the Diablo Canyon option one is the Carlsbad size plant in the upper frame. We're comparing that here, that productivity, to the annual shortfall in the coastal branch of the California aqueduct. In fact, it's a bit larger. And we're also comparing it to the central coast annual groundwater overdraft, which is comparable in size. In the lower frame, you can see the full range of plants that we've been looking at. Option one, two, three and four. Four is a mega plant. It would be about 20 times the size of the largest plant that currently exists in the world. And these are compared to the Central Valley projects annual shortfall, the state water projects annual shortfall, San Joaquin Valley annual overdraft. And you can see that plants of varying sizes built at Diablo Canyon could have a very significant impact on offsetting these shortfalls. In addition, you can see in the magenta column, the proposed Delta conveyance project, the high volume scenario. And what we observe is that the Diablo Canyon plant could provide comparable volumes of water. In fact, at about half the investment cost and without the associated disruption to the Sacramento River Delta. Next slide. Our cost savings arise principally from two factors. At smaller scales, we expect a cheaper price of electricity because we do not have the transmission charges. We are right at the plant. You don't have to send the electricity out over the grid. Secondly, because we would be sharing, taking advantage of the intake and outfall of the existing power plant, those capital costs would not have to be laid onto the desalination plant. And so we think that we have savings in both domains. You can see that large scale at Diablo Canyon and the second column in the table comes out with a water price of about 1200 per acre foot. Using the same cost estimates, the same methodology, the Carlsbad plant would have a price of 2,200 per acre foot. And if we want to mega scale at Diablo Canyon, the price could be even lower, perhaps less than $1,000 an acre foot. This is very competitive when the water market is highly stressed in California. So we think that the large plants may have additional economies of scale. They are so large that it takes some effort to actually figure out what those numbers would look like. But one thing that's very important to stress is that this desalination technology is effectively off the shelf. Plants of this type exist in California already. They exist all around the world. The largest desalination plants in the world, many of the largest ones take advantage of this technology. So it is very well-established and well-known. And I will hand it off to the next speaker. Hi, this is Justin Aborn. I've worked on the hydrogen and polygeneration sections of this report. We analyzed hydrogen production at Diablo Canyon. Hydrogen, a very valuable energy commodity. And the size of the plant we analyzed was based on two things. One, the forecast of the California Energy Commission hydrogen consumption forecast and the 110 million kilogram per year plant that we selected is either 3% or to 10% of the projected consumption, depending on whether you use a high or a low forecast for the hydrogen consumption in California. And as has been mentioned earlier in this presentation, the production of hydrogen is with a companion nuclear power plant and desalination plant is especially helpful because of the water is the core source of the hydrogen and electricity is the primary expense of producing hydrogen by electrolysis. And as well, the heat steam available in the nuclear steam heat also improves hydrogen production. And we find that the cost can range between two to two and a half dollars a kilogram which is a very competitive price. On the graph at right this, we compare the Diablo Canyon projections, the range from two to two and a half dollars is in the center. And on the left that compares with steam methane reformation with carbons sequestration and that's the price range on the left and on the right is hydrogen produced using purely renewable sources with a 30% capacity factor which actually makes that electricity fairly expensive. Why don't we go ahead to the next slide and this discusses the polygeneration mode of operating the three elements of Diablo Canyon electricity, hydrogen and desalination. And the analysis divided up the electricity produced by Diablo Canyon in approximately 60% being sold as electricity or ancillary services, 20% being sold as water and 20% being sold as hydrogen. And we found that just looking at the revenue that would be accessed by selling those commodities, we find that $70 per megawatt hour is the sort of earnings and a very significant fraction of that was water sales. But that $70 per megawatt hour of revenue compares very favorably to the projected cost per megawatt hour of $54 per megawatt hour. And depending on how prices for water and hydrogen evolve the earnings per megawatt hour at Diablo Canyon could be much higher than that $70 and $82 to $100 a megawatt hour is within the range of believability. And with that, I will pass on to the next presenter, which I think is Jacopo. I think it's back to me, yes. Okay, so a major issue in the process that led the decision to shut down Diablo Canyon was the ability of the plant to cope with California water quality control policy. Any industrial installation that uses sea water or cooling or other purposes is expected in California to effectively reduce drastically the destruction of marine life in the form of fish eggs and larvae by 93%. There are two fundamentally two approaches here. Either one reduces the intake for a by 93% and that for a power plant like Diablo Canyon might mean switching from one stroke cooling to, for example, cooling power. That approach was looked at in 2014, the G&E permission was studied by Bechtel that looked at the cost of visibility of those cooling powers and concluded it would be very, very expensive and the environmental impact of the cooling powers would be otherwise high. That's approach number one. Approach number two is to come up with a maintaining the same flow rate of sea water to the plant but reduce the destruction of marine life by reducing entrainment and impingement or impingement of marine life for the intake itself. So as part of our study, we spent a great deal of time in identifying and examining alternative technologies that could accomplish that objective. And the one that we focus on is shown here and essentially it's a mechanical brush clean wet fire screen that would be located offshore and then connected to the condenser with a power plant with an underground panel. The screens are such that they rotate and they rotate against some mechanical, some brushes that essentially keep them clean. And this is absolutely crucial because you want to maintain the passages or the slits where the water goes through free of any obstruction. So that the velocity of the water would basically remain nice and low. And just to get quantitative, the size of the mesh that we selected here is of the order of one millimeter and the slit velocity is of the order of 0.5 feet per second and those are consistently the expectations of the regulations in California. This particular technology is actually not new. It's been used widely in the United States for both freshwater and sea water applications. It's currently being considered for hunting beach desalination plant which is not in operation yet and it's currently being tested for the cows bad desalination plant that was mentioned a few minutes ago also along the coast of California. If this technology was adopted for Diablo Canyon there would need to be a test done of the effectiveness of this technology in the particular marine environment at the Diablo Canyon site. We work with a California based company that actually commercializes the technology and together we did a techno economic feasibility study and obtain a quote that is accounted for is integrating in our cost assessment. So we think bottom line, there is a solution to the intake problem and it's a solution that is affordable and effective consistent with California regulations. All right, so let me take this to the finish line here. We have focused primarily on the value of Diablo Canyon. There is no shortage of points of challenges if in fact decision is made to extend the license of the plant. First, the nuclear regulatory commission has to issue that license extension. The NRC typically takes between year and a half and two years to do that review. It's become a pretty routine. All but Diablo Canyon, the correctors in the United States have obtained actually a license extension for 46 years. Some are going from 60 to 80 years. But that process has to take place again for Diablo Canyon. And we think reasonably, realistically the application for the license extension ought to be resubmitted before mid of 2023 for the NRC to be able to complete in time. The good news is that NRC allows the plant to operate pending review of the application. The second challenge of course is to obtain approval for any engineered water intake system that I just described, as well as for the licensing of the brine discharge from the desalination process, if a new outfall is warranted or for the different size desalination plants. Number three, approval for construction, obligation or distributed desalination plants and hydrogen electrolysis facilities that we've discussed, including the associated pipes transmission-wise. We know very well the climate in California around nuclear is highly controversial. So there will be stakeholders or park hosts that will settle into a closure of the plant that we need to hear engaged. And there is sort of environmental opposition in principle among some of the, some to the use of nuclear energy in any form for any purpose. A very interesting and important question is what will be the ownership and operation of the plant going forward? We did not spend a lot of time on this in our study. There are a few options that seem obvious, but it continues to be the owner and operator or the subcontractor, different company to run it or the state could even take on ownership and subcontract the company to run it. Once again, this study was not intended to be and should not be considered a definitive analysis of the benefits and trade-offs that we have that we have discussed so far. We want to start a debate, but once again, the findings are sufficiently compelling in our opinion to warrant that debate to actually start. And so we basically offer this information to the important stakeholders in California and we hope that that debate will be amongst that also I'm sure as long as I can post, it's back to you. Yeah, well, we have a few minutes. We finished a little early. Congratulations to the MIT team for being so succinct. But Yacobo, I think maybe we could take a few minutes to do something that I know you've analyzed which is the safety considerations of the nuclear plant given where it's located. And perhaps you could shed some light on that in our extra time here. Well, thanks for asking that question. And I'm gonna use a, maybe a backup slide here, here again. So the safety record of devil can is actually very, very strong over the past three decades. The key safety related question for this particular plant is the seismic hazard. We know that the devil can, first of all, California in general is a highly sizing equation. The devil can in particular is built relatively close to certain fault lines. So in the wake of the Fukushima accident in 2011, the accident that took place in Japan, the NRC reviewed the devil can is ability to withstand external events. That's jargon that we use to indicate things like earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, tornadoes, wildfires, hurricanes as well as terrorist attacks of exceptional rare and severe magnitude. Now the NRC spent literally at this point nine years with their state-of-the-art seismic methodologies. And the devil can was subject to a series of new evaluations, both generic which means really similar to all other of the power plants in the United States and some specific specific devil can in cycle. So for example, you mentioned devil can is close to various, various faults. And at the same time, devil can is a very high elevation. So for example, the concerns related to floods are greatly indicated. So at the end of that long process, the NRC conclusion, which is embodied by a letter issued just a little bit over a year ago, is that the existing seismic capacity or effective block protection of devil can will address the unbounded evaluated hazards. And that's sort of technical language that says devil was basically designed and built to stand even the rarest and strongest earthquakes that are physically possible at the site. And further, the staff confirmed that the conclusions in the various staff assessments continue to support the determination that no further regulatory actions are required for the application. In other words, there is no need for additional retrofits and design modifications to address the seismic hazard. That's on the prevention side. In terms of mitigation, as an additional level of protection, all nuclear plants in the United States that were came included have been actually retrofitted with special equipment and procedures that are called FLEX. So FLEX is a set of equipment and procedures that are meant to ensure effectively reliable cooling of the reactor core, which is one of the key nuclear safety functions and all the spin fuel pool under hypothetical scenario in which all the engineer safety systems have been disabled by a severe external event. And the last one, at least, of course, like all other nuclear power plants, devil's compliance with his post-futuristic rules is subject to continuous monitoring by the NRC and what they call the reactor of the site process. So in a nutshell, we think that both the safety record as well as the newly conducted evaluations for Yavlokadion are both very positive. Thanks for answering those questions. Yacobo, let me ask you one other because I think we still have a few minutes. I think the concept of polygeneration is not something that you hear frequently in the discussion. So when you think of this facility, it already has, does it not, a desal plant that's attached to it? Could you do all three things? Is it when we think of polygeneration and we thinking of it as providing power to the grid, power or hydrogen facility and also a desal or are we thinking that you have to choose a couple of these out of the three? I'm going to like Justin answer this one since it began out. And the notion that we analyzed is the idea of operating all three at once. And that is the analysis that the revenue section of the report took up there. And as I mentioned about 60%, the production of Diablo Canyon is divided up according to the electricity production is capable of. So you take the total number of megawatt hours that the plant can produce. And approximately 60% of that production is allocated to electricity products, whether it be energy or ancillary services for the grid. And the next 22 sets of 20%, 20% approximately to producing hydrogen and 20% approximately to producing hydrogen. Water, yes. So 20% of the electricity driving drive of the desalination plant. It's that allocation and the model and that what the report presents is a steady allocation between those three products throughout an entire year. And the 20% of water goes to which of the different scenarios, how much water would that produce? And the 20% figure reflects option two of the four different options of desalination plant outline. Okay, well, very good. As we in California know, the issues of water are very severe on the central coast. So it can either go to the central valley or the central coast, but the central coast is actually cut off from some of the state water projects. So it definitely would be valuable. Well, I think at this point, we've had a very good report. Let me just remind people that there is a media Q&A that starts at 130, but more importantly, any people who are interested in the report ought to download it. They were only given a short period of time to present a very detailed report with very thoughtful suggestions in it. So we really recommend that if you're interested in this, that you download the report and take a look at it. In the meantime, we certainly want to thank all the people that helped to put this together, the various institutes and our speakers, and certainly to Arun and Steve for taking time out in their busy schedules to put this very important issue into the context. And so with that, I will close off the meeting and we will prepare for the media Q&A that we'll follow in a few minutes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.