 I would now like to introduce Arun Majumdar, the J.P. pre-court Boasheel chair, professor at Stanford University, a faculty member in the departments of mechanical engineering and material science and engineering. Arun will facilitate our session on director captures and introduce the two speakers. Over to you Arun. First of all, I just want to acknowledge Sarah's help in putting this whole workshop together. And yesterday, as Sarah mentioned, we had a day on setting the stage. Today we're going to get into the nuts and bolts on director capture engineered and hybrid solutions, etc. And we have two terrific speakers, Eric Toon, who is the breakthrough energy ventures who is looking into it very deeply and intently and cloud, let her know who is the CEO of Savanti was actually doing carbon capture. And we'll get to hear from them then we get into Q&A. But before we get there, I just want to do a little bit of state setting as well. Let me share my slides, and I'll, and I'll be very quick. I know we are time limited. But let me just offer this. So we, this is from a national academies report, we all know that these are complimentary things negative emissions at the gigaton scale is complimentary to mitigation of emissions. I also want to point out something something that you know I've been learning in the recent past is the issue about on the natural level. We all think of Amazonian and African tropical forests as carbon sinks these are there and many other climate models. The top of the data over here is showing whether the the actual net carbon sink values at spot measurements done in both Amazon and Africa. And what they're showing is that the Amazonian forest may actually become sources of CO2 and not sinks whereas the African ones are stable. On the other hand, the data at the bottom is from the NASA satellite measurements that measures CO2 around and it covers the earth. Very sparsely though but over time it captures the CO2. And what they are confirming is not only that the yellow part in Amazon is the source of CO2. But they're also finding that the African forest may may also be a source of CO2 comparable in size to China. The reason I'm showing this is that is to say that things are not exactly what we have thought they would be, but it also underscores the need for other solutions where we may have to pull out CO2 from the atmosphere. So the question is, what is the state of the art? Where are we today? In director capture there are really two broad categories of techniques. One is to use CO2 to bind with an alkaline solution like sodium hydroxide into and forming to carbonate and then you got to heat it to bring the CO2 out in a pure form. And that's called a high temperature process because you need high exergy to do this. On the other hand, you have a low temperature process largely using amines and that requires low temperature but also has water vapor that can compete with binding with CO2 but water vapor could be used as well. So there are opportunities to further develop that. I just wanted to give you an assessment of the energy needs and approximate cost today. If you look at both the techniques, the rough energy use that is needed to separate CO2 at 400 ppm from the atmosphere, the electricity needs are anywhere from 200 to 300 kilowatt hours per ton of CO2. Most of the energy that is used is for heat, which is the disorption that is needed, and that's anywhere from 1600, call it about 2000 kilowatt hours per ton of CO2. And the total is about 2800 to 2600, call it about eight gigajoules per ton of CO2, roughly in that order magnitude. Now that's a big number and it is a big number because if you were to pull out a giga ton of CO2, which is what the National Academy's report suggested, you would need about anywhere about eight exajoules of energy. And eight exajoules is comparable in fact a little bit higher than all the carbon free electricity the United States produced in 2018, which is about 5.8 exajoules. So this requires a lot of energy, it has to be carbon free, but the way where we are today, while it is wonderful, it needs to be the energy efficiency needs to be improved. So the question is how far we do we need to go. What is the thermodynamic limit. The thermodynamic limit is roughly about half a gigajoules per ton of CO2. And the question is, you know, we are at about eight gigajoules, eight or nine gigajoules per ton of CO2. Can we get to about two or three gigajoules per ton, because you don't want to be at the thermodynamic limit, because then you don't have any rates. But can we get to roughly about four or five times the thermodynamic limit so that we are in the optimal in terms of reduction of energy but also enough rates so they can minimize the cost. And the cost target is if you can get to about $100 a ton or lower, if you can beat the $100 a ton limit, this is actually a wonderful opportunity to really introduce and use leverage direct air capture. So what we're going to hear from the speakers is where are we today, what's the roadmap ahead, and just to sort of frame the issues, what really matters in we are need to be eventually at the giga ton of CO2 per year scale and rate matters cost carbon-free energy in terms of exajoules are needed, which means you need infrastructure to supply the feedstock and manage the CO2. We need financing, there's land and natural resources requirements, there's measurement and verification, which is a little bit easier for director capture than for natural climate solution. There could be co-benefits of what you do with the CO2, there could be unintended consequences, there's anything at the giga ton scale, there could be unintended consequences that we need to be addressing upfront. And of course at the end of the day, there needs to be public acceptance. So I just want to set the stage, and I'd like to introduce and bring Eric Tune to this forum and Eric, the floor is yours. Thanks very much Arun, it's wonderful to be here today and have an opportunity to tell you a little bit about how we at Breakthrough are thinking about the challenges and opportunities. So I just wanted to talk a little bit about the perspective or the lens through which we look at the topic of carbon capture. We absolutely believe that carbon capture is going to be a necessary component of addressing the climate challenges associated with the production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases over the coming years. Our focus has primarily been on air capture rather than on point source capture. I'd be happy to talk about our reasons for making that decision and how that may be evolving. But so remember that Breakthrough grew out of mission innovation, right, 2015 when the leaders of the OECD world and others announced a very ambitious plan to double their country's clean tech expenditures by the end of the decade by 2020. At the same time and on the same stage, Bill Gates announced the formation of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a group of about 35 of the world's wealthiest and most influential individuals and designed to be a private sector counterpart to the public sector mission innovation. A year later Breakthrough Energy Ventures, the first activity of the group was announced, a $1 billion fund. That fund now is fully committed and the second fund has been raised and we're in the process of playing that out. The whole, the larger breakthrough energy ecosystem continues to grow and the Ventures component fits within other activities like the Fellows program and the Catalyst program that I'm sure folks have heard about recently. But what I do want to absolutely make clear is that Breakthrough Energy Ventures, while we invest in technologies that we believe have entitlement to mitigate at least half a gigaton per year of greenhouse gases is about making money. Right, it's not a double bottom line fund. Any of those kinds of things. Our focus is about making money, and that's the lens that we have to view all of this through. If we're going to think about air capture, we have to think about the other components that we're going to have to be selective among, right? Remember, CO2 is 0.04% of air. And so the species that are present in larger abundance things like nitrogen, oxygen, water and even argon are things that you're going to have to be selective for. In almost all instances today, people have gone after the characteristic of CO2, the nucleophilic carbon as a result of the quadrupole moment of CO2 and that distinguishes it from those other components. Really, as Arun alluded to, that means you've got a relatively limited set of solutions that you can go after, right? So you're going to be taking nucleophiles to react with the electrophilic carbon. They have to be nucleophiles that are cheap enough that we can deploy them at very large scale. And as a result, almost all approaches today utilize one of two nucleophiles, either hydroxide, that's the high temperature aqueous solution, shown all the way to the left, and then a whole bunch of variants of using amines in one form or another in liquid form or immobilized. This slide is out of literature and obviously it's out of date. There's been consolidation among these companies, but really very broad brush strokes. There's only a couple of approaches. And so you can look at those approaches and what's available today and what might be invested in. So if we think about immobilized immune contactors, there are a couple of opportunities out there, Climeworks and global thermostat. And you can sort of compare and contrast. Again, slide out of the literature almost certainly out of date. And what we show here is a couple of things. First of all, the second law efficiency, as Arun pointed out, is at about 5%, somewhere between 5% and 10% of the thermodynamic minimum. Costs, Climeworks at the time this slide was created was about $500 a ton. They're already under that. I believe they have ultimate entitlement to at least $200 a ton, perhaps below that. Global thermostat believes that their technology is already below $100 a ton. The other approach that we referenced and that Arun pointed out is that typified by carbon engineering using hydroxide as a nucleophilic component to capture CO2, converting it to the carbonate. And ultimately an insoluble carbonate, which is then converted back to calcium oxide and ultimately the hydroxide nucleophile through a calciner. That calciner has two issues. First of all, it uses a significant amount of energy. And so you see the second law efficiency is again below 10% of the thermodynamic minimum. It also produces, since at least at the current time, that calciner has to be run with natural gas produces about half a ton of CO2 for every ton that it captures. David, of course, I think did the community a tremendous service by sort of, you know, doing a show your work exercise and jewel that I'm sure everyone in this audience has read, where they believe that they have a cost entitlement of somewhere between 100 and $200 a ton. There are other companies out there that are employing a variety of approaches. Those are all considerably earlier in development than are the ones that we've shown here. And so some of those that we haven't invested in. But remember that the name of the game here is to make money. The name of the game here is to make money. I absolutely believe that there's going to have to be an effort to remove CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere if we're going to achieve the climate targets that we're all interested in achieving. And direct air capture is one approach. And you can see that at least now, I think it's fair to imagine that we're going to have a variety of approaches that get added below $100 a ton. And there are there are a host of other opportunities and those range from planting trees on marginal farmland. That obviously is limited. There's there's only a limited amount of farmland, but that's a relatively low cost solution, all the way down to things like dissolving all the vine in oceans and using sort of Le Chatelier's principle to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. And those have challenges. All of these approaches have challenges that are ruined pointed out with with measurement and verification issues like that. But the point is that some of those approaches are very, very, very cheap dumping all of our non beaches and watching it disappear. I would probably give you a cost entitlement of blow $10 a ton. And so the challenge that you have here is we end up with two curves. And this curve, this figure comes out of a Julio Friedman article and I think really very nicely illustrates the problem we have. So we have two curves here, we have a black curve that shows the marginal cost of abatement of taking the technologies that we have today and replacing them with an alternative technology that mitigates the production of carbon. For example, we have a company called pivot bio that uses a microorganism that fix nitrogen to produce ammonia for four plants that obviates the need for the production of paper Bosch fertilizer, which of course is responsible for about 2% of global emissions that is a negative cost solution to produce that microorganism, then it is to buy ammonia. Okay, and, and we can run along the curve and we see that different technologies mitigate different amounts of carbon at different prices. At the same time, we have the blue curve and the blue curve is the cost of doing carbon capture. And there are a host of different approaches as we've seen on the previous slide and earlier remarks that have different costs and are have different approaches in terms of quantity. And what we're going to do is whatever is the lowest curve so before to the left to where those curves cross abatement is the way to go because that's the cheapest way to mitigate the production of carbon. At some point, the blue curve, the capture curve crosses the black curve, and that becomes the cheapest approach to abatement and so that is the approach that we'll take for those technologies beyond that. The problem that we have here and the huge challenge that we have as we think about making investments is there are first of all large error bars on both of those curves and second of all, both of those curves are moving all the time as new technologies are developed. So we're talking about technologies that are going to cost billions, probably trillions of dollars to deploy, take timelines of, you know, 10 to 20 years to deploy impactful scales, and everything is moving and everything is moving in real time. And so this is one of the real challenges that we have as we think about technologies that we might be interested in deploying. I said that the goal of breakthrough energy is to make money and I want to be 1000% clear about that the goal of breakthrough energy is to make money. But the, the motivation, the ethos that went behind the creation of that fund is to mitigate the production of carbon. And, you know, there's a challenge so a room mentioned unintended consequences and I would argue that that there is nothing that we are going to do at this scale that isn't going to have massive unintended consequences. But there's a potentially I think a moral hazard unintended consequence. As the cost of carbon capture and sequestration comes down. All of a sudden the business as usual case becomes more and more attractive. So at $100 a ton, which I think many of us feel is going to, you know, is where we're going to get with with carbon capture. Let's think about the cost of doing carbon capture against gasoline $100 a ton adds about 87 cents a gallon to the cost of gasoline. So as carbon capture goes below $100 a ton, perhaps just the cheapest way of doing transportation especially given the deployed infrastructure that exists today is going to be to continue to drill stuff out of the ground and do post combustion air capture. And that really rode that we want to head down. And so I would argue that driving the price of carbon capture down, absolutely something we want to do opens up a new set of new can of worms that we're going to have to think about. Thanks for not only presenting the technical part but also the, the unintended consequences of reducing the cost of carbon capture too much and you know we all should do that but there are consequences for that. So thank you very much. And I'm very pleased to be here and honored to be in this such a panel. So, let me give you a bit of perspective first about Zvante so company was named after a scientist, a Swedish scientist called Zvante Arrhenius, who about 125 years ago. The Nobel Prize was one of the few scientists that identified the cause of the temperature CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature rise so it's an honor of his name that we created as one day. We are a pure plate company in carbon capture so CO2 capture from nitrogen separation. We focus primarily on industrial emissions so art to obey industries such as cement and blue hydrogen and some natural gas boiler. But we also have a technology that it can be tailored to be used in direct air capture so I will share with you my perspective as a as a technology provider with some real hardware in the field today running and give you the perspective of why we can get the cost down from an air capture system. So we have we're focusing on solid Sorbonne so you saw earlier that there's liquid based system and solid system so we are purely in a solid Sorbonne base. We there's two types of Sorbonne available to do CO2 capture CO2 nitrogen separation and depending on the source of CO2 that you have industrial application will be typically in the range of about 14% 12 to 14% up to 20%. That's what you typically would see from a cement factory and the hydrogen production factory. And when you go to the other spectrum which is air or direct air capture you're then dealing with 0.04% CO2 so very diluted and natural gas combined cycle is in the range of 2% to the 3% so at the low end of it. So we have right now a family of Sorbonne to address all application. We currently have developed and commercialize a metallic organic framework material called a MOF that is basically much stable to oxidation and we're able to use it in the range of about 12% up and as you can see on the black curve the MOF's capacity of CO2 of that material is surpassing the one from aiming the system, but the major reason is that it has oxidation stability. The other material that's been used widely by the air capture players is an aiming the system it could be an aiming inside a support, or it could be a near porous aiming itself, but it's the aiming the the chemie absorption that does the job, and that's the red curve and you can see it as much higher uptake in the lower concentration so that's the reason why today, people are using aiming based system for it but the drawback is that it has a lower oxidation stability. So therefore the lifetime of the Sorbonne is much lower. So what we're doing now is we're working and trying to take our MOF chemistry and trying to push the performance of it toward the aiming based system. So having optimized the aiming based system we have a few tricks that we're working on. So in terms of the contactor itself. You saw earlier that global tumor stat is one of the player. They have what we call an honeycomb contactor so it's basically a catalytic converter that you see. It's a ceramic based material, and because you want to do an impregnation of any mean it's very difficult to do it so people coat in aluminum oxide inside the pores and then the aiming can then stick to it so it has a very fixed geometry with some limitation of of the size of the honeycomb, but in terms of giving ice surface area it is a good contactor. It has a totally different approach with more degree of freedom to optimize the property of that filter. So we are using a coating process to coat the solvent material, either an aiming system or a MOF material, and we're coating it on a on a very thin film carbon fibers and that coating can then be cut and stack and we then create a gap that we can control so the spacing between the sheets that we stack can be controlled and and the depth of the bed as well can be controlled to minimize pressure drop so as you can see there's a lot of flexibility and it's a process designed for gigaton scale where you could do we call this sorbent on a roll and then cut it and shape it in the way you you you need depending on the way you do your contactor. So what's the path to $100 per ton for direct air capture so this is the perspective of somebody that's working on industrial point source so I'm sharing with you here the the cost we're we're working on today. $50 US all in costs to do point source on a capacity of about 20% CO2 concentration so the amount of gas we need to move through is less than air capture because we're working with a 20% so the the overall $50 is broken down between two major components so the capital costs we recall the capital cost recovery so you take the full investment. You depreciated over 20 years and you apply about a 10% return investment, and that gives you about $25 per ton for the capital cost recovery. The second component is operating costs and there's three major components. The sorbent material, in our case as a lifetime of five years so when you take the cost of that filter and you you have a five year replacement, we end up with a few dollar per ton for the cost of the Sorbent. And because we do rapid temperature swing, we then have a very small inventory of that Sorbent material. The second component is electricity and that's primarily half of it is to move the flue gas to the system and and then the other 25% is to take the CO2 product and compress the CO2 to pipeline grade so somebody can store the CO2 safely, and the rest is just a parasitic load around the system. So, the steam itself is where we spend also quite a bit of energy to remove the CO2 from the the physician the process, and that's taking up about the same amount as the electricity in the range of about three giga drill per ton of CO2. So, Arun was referring, can we get to two to three? We are doing it today on a high concentration feed. So, it'd be a challenge to do it on an air capture with much more diluted system. So, if I take now the DAC system and using a conventional pack bed as opposed to the rapid TSA that we do, price projection are in the range of about $245 per ton. You have a high capital investment because of the large amount of fans that you need to move the CO2. The cost of the Sorbent because the cycle time is about hours as opposed to minutes or seconds. It takes a great deal of cost. So, the Sorbent life also is quite limited in the range of a year, a year and a half because of its oxidation issue. So, therefore, you're looking at about the same amount of dollar for the material, the Sorbent material. The other aspect is the electricity and because you're moving quite a bit of a flue gas at very low concentration, you need a lot of big fans, a lot of electricity to do so. And the steam ratio required to do the system also is probably three times what you would see on a conventional point source. So, the first step that we've done to approach this is to say, let's apply our rapid temperature swing direct steam approach where we minimize the inventory of it by cycling this thing in seconds as opposed to hours and utilize some tricks we've developed on improving the lifetime in the three-year range. If you do so, right what you see here is that the first item you reduce is primarily the cost of the Sorbent material. And it's quite drastic, the reduction that you see. It also carries with it a lower capital investment because of your less inventory of Sorbent material. So, that's how you get from about $245 to $150 per ton of CO2. Now, the question is how do you get to $100? So, first of all, the approach we're taking in our case is to try to leverage some of the work that we do on industrial capture. Many of the facility we built an industrial point source requires that you have a limited amount of cooling water available on these sites, and we have to use what we call air coolers fan to provide cooling for the temperature swing system. We have lots of coolers and lots of air coolers. So, this is a theoretical projection, but if somebody was to utilize the air coolers that we have for air capture and use it for moving the air into a DAC system, I guess the maximum you would spend in electricity would be the work you've already done on your system, on the point source. So, that's the line that you see there. And then if you further improve the lifetime, you would reduce the CAPEX and some of the material costs. So, that's what we see as being an integrated approach of point source and direct air capture together to be able to do something in a range of $100 per ton. But both application, air capture, as well as industrial point source, need a carbon free energy to be able to drive the electricity or the steam required for this. And the key to all of this deployment is to find location where you have access to this carbon free steam and electricity at very, very low cost. The price we assume here in these things is less than four cents per kilowatt hour for the cost of electricity. Thank you. Thanks, Claude. Let's bring also Eric into the picture now. We have terrific presentations. Let me start by asking you there's a question from the audience from Richard Randall, who was a student here on how much better is the second generation DAC compared to the first generation I think Claude you just answered that in your, in your slides. Well, let me ask you, yesterday there was a lot of discussion on where should we should be by 2030. And the 2030 goal and the 20, you know, 35 2040 goal, etc. At that point of view, given the urgency of climate change given the developments that are going in to reducing the cost. Where do you think realistically, we could be in 2030 in terms of the cost per ton, and also the capacity deployed. Well, my perspective is I'm looking at the challenges of deploying point source at a price point of about $50 per ton. And the challenge is to monetize the CO2 and get all of the ecosystem to support that kind of pricing. So yes, we do have 45 Q we do LCFS so but nevertheless it's a challenge so scaling up the manufacturing to make the filters is a key aspect of it in our mind so nobody makes these filter around the world I cannot go and knock on the door of large chemical companies and says I need a filter with Sorbonne. It doesn't exist so what we're doing as a company is we've raised $100 million in the last couple of months and us and the intent is to carve out $25 million to build a first commercial plan to make these filters. In Vancouver that will have a capacity of three plants of a million done a year coming out of that factory. So that's the scale up that we're currently doing waiting for basically project to be able to be deployed. If I want to do direct air capture with the same filter manufacturing plant, I need four times the capacity for a million done. So this one would be, I would say probably three million three three plants a year divided by probably four and that's the capacity I can get for filter so I think they honestly if we can deploy in the point source side of it with solid Sorbonne five or six or seven of these plants in the next 10 years and then we can do one or two one million ton per year plan. We've done pretty good to advance the reduction of the cost and the demonstration. I think that's a, I think that is a pretty sober and a pretty realistic assessment of what we're talking about here. You know this stuff doesn't scale the way the tech does this is real steel in the ground right and remember that capturing 20% of current global emissions by that implies an industry three times larger than the global petrochemical industry. You're talking about trillions of dollars a capital that have to be mobilized and so I think clothes assessment is probably spot on it's, it's sobering but that I think that's realistic. So Eric let me ask you you mentioned very clearly, and you said 1000% that breakthrough energy needs to make wants to make and needs to make money. How are you going to make money from direct care capture and what government policy and the levels of policy help that you need for your companies that you investing into make money and what should be the roadmap for that. Yeah, no, I think that that's a that's a really great point or and there are as everybody knows some early stage markets that'll allow you to help drive things down cost curves but those don't go to any significant scale. You know it is going to it's going to require policy I mean it is really just going to require policy. It's going to require international policy right the OECD world achieve the levels of prosperity that we have by burning fossil fuels and I think it's difficult to turn to the emerging and developing world and tell them that that we're going to not allow you the same the same and so the challenges here are beyond just the challenges of addressing problems within national borders of the developed world but it's going to take international agreement so the challenges are enormous. Yeah and I would compliment that you need what I call both the carrot and the stick. The United States took the approach of having a carrot with 45 Q and LCFS other countries like Canada decided to have a bigger stick $170 per ton for the CO2. So I think I think all of it will translate in my mind into a voluntary market created by the carrot and stick in the range of about 50 to $150 per ton depending on the source of CO2. But you know the cost of carbon for society is at least 150 to $200 per ton. So it is a matter of where to collect the money to funnel it into these projects. And if I take the case for example of a cement factory, it is very difficult for them to double up the price of cement at the factory level to be able to accommodate carbon capture. Let's say that's $50 per ton. But if you take blue hydrogen, you can premium the blue hydrogen from $1.50 per kilogram to maybe $2 because the alternative today is green hydrogen at $3 to $6. So they have a mean of monetizing the extra cost of capturing the CO2. So when you funnel these things in, I think eventually you will have a balance system where the voluntary market will kick in in probably five, six years from now. And that will counterbalance the incentive given by government, but government has to be there to deploy CO2 OBS because everyone has gigaton scale challenges of storing the CO2 massively if you want to rapidly address climate change. And those infrastructure have to be used and multi user, not just one project at a time. I don't think we'll be able to make it one pipeline and one storage project at a time we won't have to be done through CO2 OBS. So there's a question in the chat box about the use of carbon free energy and we all know that we need we need energy to execute on this. And we need carbon free energy and of course right now it's all about renewable energy. And the question is should the renewable energy, and how should it be used I mean there are options out here, you could use it for DAC, or you use it for displacing carbon of fossil fuel based energy production and use and other things. So if you want to think about DAC and what, you know, and how, so how would you address the competition for renewable energy in the future. Eric. I think it's it's bang for the buck it's it's going back to Julio's curves and seeing where those curves cross I think that you're going to use. You're going to use that zero carbon energy, where it has the biggest impact in terms of, you know, quantity of CO2 per per per quantity of energy so I think that that a question is what's that carbon free energy. Displacing if it's displacing coal. That's clearly more valuable than then displacing natural gas right so I think you have to go through that exercise of, I'm saying, what is the greatest impact in terms of CO2 reduction of that unit of energy. In our case, renewable as a friend, because we're trying to be net zero at the project level in the way we do things so we need to have access to renewable power. So the next particular order is achievable on solar. And the problem is that you have solar for less than five hours a day so and these plants are very capital intensive so you have to have a utilization factor of these factories, you know, 24 seven 300 days a year so that's what we're here for you right now we are using an oversized PV that basically will give you the the benefit of a full renewable over 24 hours, even though you only operates six and you get, you get thermal power from the PPA from an arrangement that's because we haven't penetrated yet enough renewable compared to to fossil fuels so that's a short term solution to me the longer term is we need to be able to generate electricity, either from geo terminal, which brings site location issues to provide both the energy and the power, or find a way of converting hydrocarbon with common capture that will give you basically the power you need in the steam unit to be able to drive 24 seven carbon free electricity. So that brings up a point and maybe I'll ask you first plug on this and this is a question by a tool area in the, in the q amp a, and I'm going to reformulate his question a little bit because the first one was, can that be lower than CCS and given the concentrations that's unlikely, but if you can bring the cost of DAC down the cost of point source capture will also come down I mean they're the technologies there are, you know, other effects of that which is good. But the question about infrastructure comes in and I think you alluded to that in terms of, you know, pipelines in a smaller footprint can you do a distributed way in places where you can so give us an idea. If you were to go at scale by 2030 2035. What would you tell be telling the government now in terms of infrastructure and what would be telling the investors in this. That's a tricky question so. I would tell the government that they need to go and spend money in developing pipelines highway see with two highways. Major trunk with multiple user and and take ownership of developing also storage site. Because remember everybody wants to make a business out of it so right now the elephant in the room is the cost of piping and storing today in United States is in the $50 per range, $20 to $50. There's no money left with 45 q today to pay for the storage and the pipeline. So, because people want to make a business out of it, in terms of using their asset to source you to so this has to come down to five to $10 for piping and storage and capture in the range of 40 to 50. You can do this. You can apply the same exercise to air capture, where they're starting a capture plant of 100 and 150 and add to it another 50 for storage so this is where we need to spend time on the infrastructure. Great. And I see Sarah of the Eric, you have the last word but you have only 30 seconds go for it. I think the other piece of that pulling the lens back a little bit further is we need to figure out how we're going to deal with the storage piece of this are we going to allow underground storage, install caverns and things like that or are we going to insist on mineralization. What's verification, all of those sorts of issues. I think that's got to get sorted out because that's going to define where the infrastructure needs to be built. Thank you for the discussion. Thank you for doing this, both Eric and cloud, and this session is over and over to Sarah.