 Okay, well good morning. This is so great to see the room packed. This is really the definition of a full house. We started this in 2011 and we had so much fun doing it and we thought it was such a great success that we have continued it ever since. And anyway, we think you'll enjoy the next four days. We know that we certainly will and we're so excited to have our new class to energy at Stanford and Slack. So I just wanted to let you know a little bit more about who you are, which I think is always fascinating. So the biggest cohort is from the business school. So who's from the business school? Okay, good. All right, next we have mechanical engineering. Okay, all right. We have a slight segregation of the room. The engineers are over there. The engineers are on the right and the business. Anyway, sorry, no political comment. Mentor at all, that was like that. Oh, okay, all right. Next, moving on, material science and mineral engineering. Who's from there? Yeah, okay. Oh, and you're in the middle, okay. All right, wow, that's fascinating. And a couple of other big ones, energy resources engineering. Okay, you're all over the place, sort of. And then one more, civil and environmental engineering. There's another big group of you. Okay, all right, well, fantastic. So you see this really is a mix. I like to look at a couple of other ones that I think music. Who's from the music department? That is so awesome. I don't know what you do in music, but my dream has always been to make a mass, like a traditional mass, you know, that style of music about climate change performed by the students of Stanford University, who also basically write the, write that, so write the mass. So if you wanna work on that project, I would love to talk with you. And there are faculty over in the music school, who when I occasionally bring this idea up, they go, oh, that's a cool idea. Okay, let me see. Who else did we have? We have statistics. I think we have two people from statistics. Where are you guys? Okay, all right. So are you like machine learning kind of people or what kind of stuff do you guys like to do? Yeah, okay. All right, yeah. And you too, you don't know yet. Oh, in fisheries. Oh, cool, okay, yeah. Yeah, we have another program we do that we went to the Northwest and looked at a lot of fisheries in the Northwest and the interaction between energy and fisheries and agriculture and that kind of stuff. Anyway, so you can see very diverse class. And again, we're thrilled to have all of you here. And I just wanna say one thing. So once you start your academic, your classwork and once you get involved with your research groups, you will probably find that you spend most of your time with your fellow students in your own programs. And so our hope is that by having this engagement early before your time has just sucked up and you're working so hard that you make a bunch of friends, you establish a set of relationships. And so as you go forward for your entire time at Stanford, you have this very broad network that will continue to expand your horizons, give you other voices to balance ideas and often so forth. So we really deliberately do this to have a very broad group. So that was the first thing. Welcome. Second thing is congratulations. And I have three things that I was thinking about. One is for picking to choose to study this topic that energy and energy is really one of the existential challenges of the 21st century. So it's a really extremely important problem to work on. People's wellbeing depends upon it. Economies depend upon it. The environment depends upon it. And no matter how you look at this, whether you're motivated by making a lot of money in a job, there's a ton of money and energy, whether you're motivated by doing well for the planet or doing good for the planet, there's certainly huge opportunities there. If you wanna work in government, if you wanna work in law, if you wanna work in business, energy, there's something for everybody there. So there's no shortage of opportunities. Second, deciding to come to Stanford, I'm sure many of you had choices about where you wanted to go. And I think if you're interested in these topics, and maybe you're not even sure yet that you're interested in energy, I hope that we can encourage you to be. But Stanford is really one of the very best places in the world to study these topics. The breadth and depth of opportunities to learn and engage are so enormous. So I hope you'll all take advantage of those. I'm from the Precourt Institute, and we offer many programs for students to become engaged with. And we will let you know over the course of the year what these are, but take advantage of them because that's the added bonus. On top of all the academics and so forth, really the opportunity to broaden what you learn while you're here is so important. And then finally, congratulations for deciding to enroll at Energy in Stanford and Slack. I think, and I think that this will help get your time here off to a wonderful start. So the plan for this is to have a discussion about sort of some of the issues around energy and people and environment and economy just to get you thinking. So you're gonna immerse yourself this week in a whole bunch of different topics. You're gonna hear from faculty and researchers about all these topics, but I just thought we'd kind of get you going to start thinking about these things. So the first idea that I just wanna start off with is that energy use is woven really into the entire fabric of modern life for food, water, shelter, heating, cooling, communication, transportation, industry, everything. And by and large, we take it for granted, at least if we live in the United States or Europe or major cities in China and so forth. So it's just ubiquitous. So I thought the next thing we would do is just to kind of start, you're back in school, right? So what do we do? We do quizzes, right? So we're gonna start getting some views from you and there aren't right answers to some of the questions, some of them there are, but just kind of to get your curiosity going. Okay, so the first pop quiz is what is your biggest use of energy? And this is on an annual basis. So just think about your life over a year and what you need to do is kind of guess what is the biggest use? So you have five choices here, flying in airplanes, food, the food you eat and all the energy it takes to make that, especially meat, I'm sure you've heard a lot about that, driving in cars, fuel to power those cars, the stuff you buy, things like clothes, newspapers, shoes, blankets, whatever, or heating and cooling, okay? And of course this will depend on where you live because climates are different and stuff. Okay, so now you're gonna vote and all you have to do is raise your hand if you wanna vote for this and don't be shy because everybody needs to vote. We have sensors in every chair that when it moves, oh no, okay. So okay, flying in airplanes, how many of you think that's your biggest one? Okay, maybe, maybe like 10% or so? Okay, food, the food you eat. Okay, a lot of you think food. Okay, that's a big one there. Okay, how about driving in cars? Not very many of you. Okay, all right, even less than planes. Okay, that's interesting. The stuff you buy, like clothes and shoes and stuff. Oh, very, very few of you think that. Okay, and then heating and cooling. That's gotta be the other big one. Okay, so your guess is we're heating and cooling and food. Okay, so now what I'm going to do is show you the energy use for a typical person. This is a typical person in the UK. I've done this in my class and I've done it with many, many groups of students over this year and this isn't bad. Okay, so let's take a look. Okay, so the number one thing is stuff. All the stuff you buy, you don't even think about it but there's so much energy, like all the fabric, everything I'm wearing, really energy intensive. My computer really energy intensive. The carpets, just all the stuff that surrounds us. So that's number one. Now maybe not for you because you still aren't spending that much money on stuff but your parents maybe. Okay, stuff number one. Number two is actually interesting cars. Okay, now for you guys that's not true. You ride bicycles and all of that but for your parents or certainly, well depends on where you live. But in sort of a Northern or European or North American lifestyle cars. Next one comes down heating and cooling. Okay, another big one, 19%. What do you think, this is just a quick question, for the typical residential customer in Palo Alto, we have a pretty warm climate. What do you think the number one use of energy is? Any guesses for their home in their residence? Well I'll tell you, it's heating, right? Who would have guessed, right? So heating and cooling if you live in any of the sort of equatorial regions, so very large and very, very invisible by and large. Okay, next one, planes, okay, 15%. So this corresponds to like two round trips to, I think this was like one trip to Hawaii, so one vacation and one trip home, wherever you're from. And that ends up being 15%, so really, really big. Even though that's just two trips. For me, by far, flying on airplanes is my biggest energy use. Okay, so anyway, just by way of introduction, sort of understanding a little bit more about that. So the other thing that's so important and why this topic was going to be so enduring is that energy is related to so many other important things in our society. And here are four of them that people are typically identified with. One is protecting the environment. That could be from pollution, air pollution. That could be from carbon dioxide emissions. It could be from polluting water by spilling oil or whatever. So that's protecting the environment. Another one is meeting basic human needs. So for getting access to water, being able to have lighting so that you can see at night, being able to cook food in a way that is not harmful to your health and so forth. Being able to get to a hospital when you're having a baby or something. So that's another dimension. Energy is very important to those things at the very foundation of well-being. Another one is economic prosperity. Obviously if you're an oil producing nation and the revenues that your country generates and your government gets from those are extremely important. Also countries that have access to inexpensive energy be it hydropower or whatever, they have a leg up for manufacturing because energy is one of the biggest inputs to manufacturing. So it's very important for economic prosperity. And then finally there's a national security dimension, right? If you don't have fuel for your planes, if you don't have fuel for your ships, if you don't have world-class reliable communications and so forth, your national security is a threat by perhaps uncertain access to energy. Okay, so now we're gonna go to puff quiz number two. Okay, so the question here, and again there's no right or wrong to this. What do you think is the biggest challenge for energy today? Which of these sort of societal dimensions of energy are most important? Is it environment? Is it meeting basic human energy needs? Is it economic prosperity or national defense? And you get to only vote for one. Okay, so who wants to vote for environment? Okay, lots of you. All right, meeting basic human needs. Oh, also lots of you. Okay, that's great. Okay, how about economic prosperity? Okay, not very many of you think that. Okay, how about national defense? A couple people, all right. Okay, yeah, so that's really interesting. So the reason I put this up is that for those of you who for example are interested in environment, you might often feel so frustrated. It's like, why is it that we can't make progress on these issues? We have new technology. We can operate our cars more efficiently and more cleanly. We can do this. What's wrong? Why don't people see that we can just solve this? And on the other hand, people who are interested or people from Africa or some places in Southeast Asia, really the imperative is to get more energy for their people. So yes, environment is important, but it's sort of second to getting more energy. And for certain countries, in particular, oil producing nations, that economic prosperity, it's so important it's an existential threat to those countries, the idea that nobody wants their products. So there are very strongly held views and opinions about each of these topics. And so when we try to come to some kind of consensus, what we have to realize is we're sitting in a room with people who don't necessarily share our perspective and legitimately don't share that perspective. And so if we wanna find solutions to the energy challenge, we need to check all these boxes. We need to find solutions that work for everybody or we're gonna continue to be in this very slow kind of herkijirky progress towards resolution of the many aspects of meeting our energy needs. So I thought I'd just show a little bit of data that sort of backs this up. So this is a chart, this is my country, Saudi Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, Algeria, Brunei, Kuwait, and so forth down the list. We've got Russia down there, we've got Norway down there on this list. And this is countries and there are 20 of them where over 50% of all of the income they generate from exports is actually from oil. So you can believe that all of these countries have a huge vested interest in making sure that their products can continue to be valuable where they're gonna be in quite difficult times. And just a little bit more about energy access. So globally there are about 1.1 billion people who don't have access to electricity. When you look at sort of reliable electricity, meaning both it's cost effective and it works 24 seven and so forth, it's easily double or triple that. So even though we sit here and we take for granted that we have all this electricity and all the comforts that provides 1.1 billion people don't. And about half of them are in Africa. And you can see if you look at this map that there are many places, everything that's over this dark color of red or this medium color of red, more than 50% of the people in the country don't have access to electricity. And another really important dimension of energy access is heating and cooking, cooking in particular. And people use biomass for cooking. It could be wood, it could be charcoal, it could be animal dung that's made into little pellets and so forth. And the problem with that is number one, it takes a huge amount of time to just get those products and it typically goes to women and children to do that kind of work. Second is these products are burned indoors which creates smoke indoors which causes respiratory problems, eyesight problems and heart problems. And there are millions and millions of deaths every year due to exposure to air pollutants. And finally, for all of these countries, it's very hard to imagine a strategy for economic growth when you don't have energy to support a manufacturing industry, to support your agricultural industry. So again, these are very, very legitimate concerns on the part of these different entities who all have their own perspective on what needs to be addressed as we solve these questions. And just a little bit more that if we look out over between now and 2040, we expect about a 25% increase in energy will be needed to meet people's needs. Again, it's very easy to sit in Europe or in North America and say, oh gosh, we just need to be way more efficient. Let's just use way less energy. Well, yeah, that's true for us, but it's not true for most people. So whatever we do to address these multiplicity of challenges is we need to take into account that more energy is going to be required. Okay, quiz number three. Okay, so what is the largest source of energy used today? Okay, and you've got the four choices, natural gas, coal, oil, or hydropower. Okay, who wants to say natural gas? Okay, maybe 8% or something. Coal, who wants to say coal? Well, at least more than 50% of you. Who wants to say oil? Okay, quite a lot of you, maybe like 30% and hydropower. Oh, we've got one of you. Where are you from? Oh. Oh. Oh. Well, there are a lot of countries where hydropower is the dominant source of electric, like parts of Latin America, that's true, parts of Canada, so that's not a bad answer. And about 20 years ago in many places that especially developing countries, hydropower was the biggest single source. Okay, so coal won, and so we can go to the answer and it is oil. Okay, yeah. I think that the reason that everybody says, and I've done this with so many groups around the world and everybody says coal. And I honestly think it's because coal is just in the news so much. All you ever hear is coal, coal, coal, coal, coal. But actually it's oil. And so here's data from 2018, so this is very recent. So here you see coal, it's a little bit over 20%, we've got oil, it's about 33%, natural gas, nuclear and renewables on the top. Okay, but taking aside the details of is it oil, gas, coal, the bottom line is over 80% of the energy we provide for humanity to use for all the purposes for energy is from fossil fuels, okay? And that brings us to the climate issue in that if we think about all of these different hydrocarbons, they have different amounts of carbon and hydrogen, different ratios, but basically all of them to work the same way is that you have a CH compounds, you react them with oxygen and a combustion reaction and they produce CO2. So fundamentally 80% of the energy that we use puts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which we'll get to more in a minute. So just a little more data to that I think you'll find interesting on this. So this is coal, okay? So, and this is data from 2000 to 2016, okay? So you see very rapid increase in coal. This was largely China and it really underpinned the economic boom and prosperity and amazing China story that's taken place really even during your lifetimes. It's quite remarkable. But one thing interesting you'll see is over the last say five years that coal use has actually gotten flat and may even be going down. A large part of this is driven by pollution, air quality issues, not CO2. But anyway, so that's where we are with coal. If you see oil continues to go up at a little over 1% a year if you look at natural gas going up significantly faster. So a couple of you said that natural gas was the single largest source of energy. If we wait another 10 years or so, that may be true. So gas is growing very quickly because it produces electricity very efficiently. It can be used for industry. It can be used for residential uses. It can be used for transportation. And it's significantly less polluting than coal. And it's a little bit less polluting than oil for all those same kind of applications. Nuclear, very flat, hydro going up sort of steadily. But there's limited potential for that globally. And then the renewables, other renewables beside hydro increasing very rapidly, certainly largest percentage wise. So that's our energy use today. Okay, and I said 80% comes from fossil fuel. So and that produces carbon dioxide. So if we look here's from 1990 to now we see a steady increase in the carbon dioxide concentrations or carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. A little bit of a stabilization period here which was related to a couple of things quite a bit due to the economic downturn that began in the 2008 and some due to switching from coal to gas and some due to renewables. So here are our emissions. Okay, so now we're using fossil fuels. They're emitting CO2 to the atmosphere. So now we're gonna get to a discussion about climate. And again, this is just a teaser but I thought that we could ask the question is when did scientists first discover the basic concept behind the greenhouse gas effect that's responsible for climate change? Okay, when did we kind of get it that this would be important? And again, four choices. The 1920s, 1960s, 1980s, and 1990s. Okay, so who wants to vote for the 1920s? Okay, quite a few of you. Okay, who wants to vote for the 1960s? Okay, lots of you. Okay, how about the 1820s? Oh, quite a lot of you. Okay, and then the 1990s. Okay, just a few of you. Okay, you know, actually all of these time periods were incredibly important for the long story that began in the 1820s. So yeah, I'm really impressed. I think this group of people had the highest fraction of people who understood it was in the 1820s. So go class. That's really good. But again, all of these are very important times and Katherine Mock will talk to you much more about climate. But just to go back to, well, what was it this sort of fundamental discovery? First of all, it was Joseph Fourier, who many, how many people love Joseph Fourier? How many people hate Joseph Fourier? Okay, so we're almost equally divided on that. And back then, scholars got to sit around and ask really cool questions like, why is the earth the temperature it is? I wish I could do that, you know? I think that would be really fun. And so by then they sort of knew the basics of black body radiation. And so if you pose a simple problem that you have the sun, that it's radiating to the earth and you look at the amount of heat that is incident upon the earth and then you assume that's at steady state, you can calculate how hot the earth should be. And when you make this calculation, it's like, oops, the earth is too hot. Okay, so then you say, oh, I left the term out of the equation. The earth is also a black body. It's gonna radiate into space. So that's radiating out. So now you have a little more complicated model. But oh, now the earth's too cold, still wrong. So, and you can't see this very well, but there's this stuff around the planet. And Joseph Aurier invoked the idea that you had to have something that was trapping a certain amount of the outgoing radiation. And if you once you put this atmosphere here, that you could tweak your model and get sort of a just right temperature. So that was the basic discovery that something had to be trapping heat. He didn't know what it was, but he said something has had to do that. And many scientists over the next 150 years or so worked on trying to sort out exactly what that is. And we continue to learn more about this complicated system. But the basic idea has been known for a long time. And I point this out to make the point this is not a liberal conspiracy, which is one of the things, or it's not something that the Chinese have made up to undermine the U.S. economy or vice versa, whatever it is. This is some pretty basic, basic stuff. So there are huge teams of scientists from around the world who've been trying to understand the consequences of global warming. And they've made this what's called a flame diagram as some time described, where it tries to understand the impacts of climate change. And there are five different sort of categories. There are unique and threatened systems. And glaciers would be a good example. There's extreme weather events, which is pretty straightforward. There's the distribution of impacts, meaning some places might actually do better, a little warmer climate, maybe a little more moisture, they'll do better. Certain places might do a lot worse. So you'll start to have those kind of impacts. Then there are global aggregate impacts that the GDP, a global GDP, for example, might start being impacted that we simply can't grow because we're having to deal with all these complications. And then there's finally these large scale singular events like melting of the Greenland ice sheet or the release of large amounts of methane from permafrost, which sort of set off a runaway climate. And so policy makers and Catherine Mock, who'll speak to you next actually has sat in the room with people grappling with these issues when confronted with this idea, basically with the idea that the warmer it gets, the more risk we're taking in every single one of these categories. So they decided that two degrees C would be a reasonable target that could prevent the worst impact of climate change. It doesn't say there'll be no climate change. We actually know there's a ton of climate change because we live with it every day now. But in particular, these global aggregate impacts and these large scale singular events, the risks of these are only moderate if we choose two degrees C as a target to limit warming. Okay, so now we're here. So we kind of have a sense of that. So question now is how much do we need to reduce CO2 emissions by by the year 2100 to avoid increasing global temperature by more than two degrees C, okay? So how much of our current emissions do we need to get rid of to be able to achieve this? And again, four categories, 25%, 50%, 80% or 100%. And don't read too much into this because there's a lot of, you can make these more complicated than they're intended to be. Okay, so who wants to vote for 25%, a couple of people? Okay, who wants to vote for 50%, okay? A little few more people, 80%, okay, quite a lot. And who wants to vote for 100%, okay, fewer. Okay, so there's a bell curve around 50 to 80%. Okay, it's 100%, right? That's a shocking big number. And a lot of people go, oh, that's just totally impossible. It's hard, no doubt. And actually there are many people who suggest that by the year 2100, we actually need to have negative emissions, meaning that we're starting to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. So we have a lot of work to do. So just by way of super quick explanation of this, because I've got a little bit more I wanna cover. So the IPCC in its assessment report five produced this diagram. And basically what this says is that if you look at the cumulative emissions of anthropogenic CO2 from the year 1870, the pre-industrial time, okay? So if you add up all the emissions we've ever done, that there's a nearly linear relationship with the amount of temperature change that you would expect to see, okay? So if we want to limit the warming to two degrees C, we can imagine a straight line through here and we can extrapolate that down to here and make the conclusion that we can emit about 1,000 gigatons carbon or 3,600 billion tons of carbon dioxide, okay? And if we emit more, if we move up this curve, so if we're not down to this zero, we're just gonna get warmer and warmer even if it happens slowly. So that's why, and again, Catherine will give you a much more nuanced version of this but it does say that you can kind of think of it like a bathtub, right? Once the bathtub fills up, it just starts spilling over. And here we are. And so we've got about 20, if we had capped our emissions at the level that it is at today, we would have about 20 years. So not very long. So when you talk about urgency, it's this kind of argument that says that, we don't have time to wait, we have to get everybody to participate. So stepping back now for the big picture is that if you look out to the year 2100, we're probably gonna have 11 plus billion people on the planet, then maybe we don't but even if we have nine billion, that's sort of the most smallest number of people are anticipating. But anyway, many more people than the seven and a half billion today. If you say everybody ends up living with the energy intensity of a typical Italian, then we're gonna need two times more energy, okay? You say why an Italian? The Italians, the average Italian uses about a quarter of the energy that we do in the United States, okay? And they've got a pretty good economy. They're pretty, you know, they're struggling but you know, they're doing pretty well compared to a lot of other people. So I think this is a ballpark reasonable estimate of what we need. And so the question is, you know, where are we gonna get all this energy and how do we provide it without damaging the life support systems that we rely on for healthy ecosystems, clean water, clean air and stable climate. So when you think about, well, how are we going to do this? Certainly technology plays an incredibly important role in this. And, you know, you're at Stanford University in the center of Silicon Valley with an incredibly capable engineering school and physics programs and so forth. So technology, you'll hear a lot about technology while you were here, including from many of the speakers. And we've been working over the past five years or so with former Secretary George Schultz on this idea of technology game changers, you know, energy technology game changers and they're things that are here now. Things like wind turbines, photovoltaics for generating electricity, natural gas is a cleaner fuel than coal. We have things that are coming soon, much more capable electric grid that allows flexibility in both the demand for electricity as well as the supply, electric vehicles, large scale battery storage to help manage the intermittency of renewable energy on the grid, carbon capture and storage for those emissions that are difficult to eliminate elsewhere. And then there are, you know, long-term things that will really, truly be game changers and things like being able to make fuels from carbon dioxide, water and clean electricity. Okay, so many faculty are working on this here at Stanford. It's a long way away. Other ideas of using radiative cooling, we talked about how the earth radiates energy from the surface back into space. Well, if we can do that, we can actually cool things using radiative energy if we can find a way to do that. And then finally, things like small scale nuclear reactors which would overcome many of the challenges and these are just partial lists but again, technology will be crucial to solving these things. So I think one of the things that you'll hear here over and over again is that there's no magic bullet. There's, you know, there's no single solution and that if we're going to be able to make progress to get to zero emissions while potentially doubling the global energy supply, we need a comprehensive plan that involves conserving more energy, particularly in economies that are already using large amounts of energy, improving energy efficiency in everything we can do from cars to heating and so forth. Next one is switching from cold to natural gas. It emits about half the CO2 for every amount of unit of electricity that you produce. It's also less polluting and it's also significantly more efficient. The best natural gas plant can be about 50% more efficient than the very best coal plant that we can build today. And then of course, there's switching to renewable energy, which I think people often gravitate to, this is the main solution. If we have to rely only on that, we're not going to be able to move fast enough. Switching to electric vehicles, they're both more efficient. And if you have a clean electric grid can reduce carbon, carbon capture and storage, nuclear and there's going to be a lot of other technologies we need as well. And I think many of you will end up working on these. But again, it's not just about technology. We need the enabling infrastructure. We need a more modern grid. We need electric vehicle charging. We need excellent decision support tools, systems models that allow us to understand interdependencies between transportation and electricity and manufacturing and so forth. And policy and finance. This is really the accelerator for all of these things. If we don't have the right policies and if you can't get money into these new technologies to scale them, it's too difficult. And then finally, behavior and public opinion. Actually, if I had to pick number one thing for places like North America and Europe, it would be behavior and public opinion, get more people on board with the idea that we have to work hard on all of these things. So again, key ideas, a portfolio of solutions, everyone contributes. I personally believe the oil and gas industry have a lot to contribute to solving the climate problem. I know it's very popular to just say out with the old and with the new. Again, we can't get the speed and scale unless we can get them to contribute. And then finally, it's not only technology but finance and policy innovation. And here we go. Okay, so just briefly, all of these areas that you've heard about, there are researchers and faculty and students at Stanford working on all of these. Sometimes it's hard to figure out where they are. If you talk to me or Arun Majumdar, the co-director of the Precourt Institute, he just arrived, talk to him, talk to anybody. There's a big network of people who can help point you towards all these things. I just wanna briefly mention the Precourt Institute for Energy. We are the host of this activity. We are a campus-wide institute that we work with all seven schools. And our goal is to try to catalyze effective interactions that will enable us to do game-changing research, accelerate the solutions by creating industry and government partnerships and partnerships with NGOs. And then finally, to provide educational offerings that are above and beyond, that would be found within the schools and departments and so forth. One more thing I just wanna say, and then I think I've got one more slide here. So the other remarkable thing about Stanford is that we have really put our money where our mouth is. About five years ago, we decided to close down our natural gas power plant, completely redo the campus energy system with 100%, well, nearly 100% electric heating and cooling with very large-scale thermal storage. It's really a one-of-a-kind system in the world. They're also very friendly to working with students to do research using these facilities. And Joe Stagner will be meeting with you later today and your dinner will actually be over at this facility. So it's really exciting. It's allowed emission reductions of about 70% over the baseline values, which is quite extraordinary. And it's been done cost-effectively. So just to wrap up here, so what can you expect from this week? You have your packets, but I'll give you sort of my Cliff Notes version of this. You'll hear lots of topical lectures by faculty and research staff. You'll have conversations with deans and campus sustainability leaders, national laboratory director, former cabinet members, all members of our community. And when they're here, ask them lots of questions. Make them feel welcome, right? You think that it's their job to make you feel welcome. Well, but it's also your job to make them understand you wanna hear from them. And so please engage with them. You'll also have master classes. We'll do deep dives. You get to pick your topics. We also have a group activity, which I think is gonna be really fun. It's going to be around negotiation and how framing of a topic affects outcomes in terms of negotiation. We will provide you an introduction to four specialized courses that I mentioned that the Precourt Institute sponsors at the university that may be of interest to you. We'll have the campus energy system tour. On Friday, you have the option to go to Slack National Accelerator Laboratory. This is a world-class facility for all kinds of material science, characterization and so forth. And then finally, half of the goal of this is to really have great food, have fun, make friends, and have a set of really stimulating conversations that will help shape your time here at Stanford. So that is the end of my remarks. Welcome, really thrilled to have you.