 We're going to the next session that we have planned, about 20 minutes or so, and we're asking, we've asked Jenny Milne to lead this discussion. And we're asking for feedback. And most of what we've done during this meeting so far is we've had our panels and had our talks, and then we've asked for questions, but this is an opportunity for you, the audience, to sort of give us feedback on what you think, you know, some of your ideas to give them to us as we take this to the next level. And I'm going to let Jenny lead that discussion. So Jenny, do you want to start this? Wonderful. Thank you, Richard. And thank you everybody over these last couple of days for your insights into this massive problem that we have the pleasure to begin trying to address the challenges and solve the problem. So with that, this is a session for you all, participants in the workshop to give us your feedback. So we've put these questions together. We'd like you to think about these and give us your thoughts. So do that by going to the reaction button at the bottom and raising your hand. And I'll call on you to unmute yourself and say what you'd like to say to us. You don't have to stick to these questions, but we are very interested in hearing what you think are the key insights that you have gained from this workshop regarding opportunities and challenges and technology gaps in the area, with particular focus on trying to electrify industrial processes. And of course, we've heard that it's not quite as straightforward as that. There's probably a need for a CCS and hydrogen at some parts of these processes. So just give us your thoughts on that. And also, what did we not cover that is important? And I know there's probably policies, a big aspect of this as well, carbon prices and all these other factors, but just some of your thoughts that come to the forefront on that. And then what R&D directions would you recommend at Stanford and more broadly the academic community try to address to develop solutions? So with that, I'll give you a little time for that. And I'll just touch on some of the next steps that we are planning or thinking about. So this is a big workshop, a lot of efforts gone into this, Richard and I and our industry friends and academics have put our heads together over the last three months to come up with this agenda. So what do we do with the output from this workshop? Well, we'll have the presentations and slides on the website for everyone to look at. Eventually we might well write a report, but in the more near term, it's likely that we will write a request for proposals. And so that's my job, that's kind of where I fit in the pre-court institute, I run the advanced research projects. And under that, there's various opportunities for faculty to respond to request for proposals and get their research ideas funded. And you can see some of them on the slide here, the C grants, that's for faculty who may not have worked in energy before to test new ideas, there are small grants maybe for a student or a post-doc for a year or two. And then CERC, some of you may be familiar with CERC that stands for the Strategic Energy Research Consortium and it's under the SEA, so it's under the Strategic Energy Alliance. So those are some of the sponsors you've heard from today and we had a targeted call for proposals, on that I think it was two years ago. And that's a substantial amount of funding for faculty to address the challenges that we set in an RFP in topics that are fundamental science but are on pathways to industrially relevant technologies or problems. So in the middle here is what I wanna bring your attention to. This is what we launched last year under the new director Eishwe, the pre-court pioneering projects. And we started this because we saw a gap in the opportunities that faculty have in terms of getting their research ideas supported. And this is to bring together teams of faculty two to four faculty members and the funding is in between the SEA grants and the CERC funding is for two years. And the hope is that what we're doing with that is doing targeted calls in specific areas that we've identified. And it's one such area would be this topic that comes out of this workshop. And we'll craft the research for the request for proposals based on things we identify as being maybe the most challenging or the areas that academic research could have the most impact. And so the hope is that those topics once we give funding to those professors in that area brings together people at Stanford. And we also do this in collaboration with some other centers at Stanford. So last year we had four, five RFPs in different areas. One was in plastics. We did that with the Woods Institute for the Environment. The first one we did was on AI. So artificial intelligence to solve energy and climate problems. And we did that in collaboration with HGI at Stanford, that's human centered AI and with Slack and with bits and watts as well. So there's many opportunities there. We hope that those projects then grow that area and then go on to attract more funding from other places and externally and maybe even internally. So how does that work in the whole ecosystem at Stanford? Well, some of these we've used targeted calls to help launch initiatives. So for example, we have the new carbon removal initiative at Stanford and one of the calls we did last year was on carbon removal. And we actually funded a project in the natural climate solutions area for that. So that will help that initiative to gain interest from other parties and hopefully grow and grow the research that they can do there. Also we're doing one on hydrogen currently, hydrogen for decarbonization. And Jimmy Chan and others, Fritz Prince and Charlie Jang are leading and Naomi Bones are leading this launch of the hydrogen initiative at Stanford. So with that, if anyone has any comments or okay, one hand, awesome, well done Mark, would you like to kick us off with your thoughts? Never ever shy. Mark Neckadam with the Western States Petroleum Association and just by context, former regulator under Jerry Brown, the oil and gas industry and an advisor to the Secretary of Agriculture in the United States on climate issues for many years. One of the things that's really striking about the last three days and consistent theme is the scale issue. There is such a gap between the, if you'll pardon me being very frank here, the magical thinking and policy, particularly here in California, if I may be a little bit edgy with the Air Board and the legislature. I think the biggest message that I will certainly be carrying in our work here but I would really encourage many of you to think of ways to make these scale issues manageable and pithy. We have a lot of people making very critical decisions, putting things into statute, like definitions of urban neutrality, worrying about CCS being viable and any number of issues here that are in some ways almost defy the other message, which is we have a climate crisis, we have an emissions crisis, we have a carbon loading and cycling crisis. And so just the issue of scale, things like the slides from an earlier panel on just the sheer number of terawatts of generating capacity that would have to be used to decarbonize the industrial or chemical sector. Those are the kinds of things that most of the people making the critical decisions that will set the pathway forward do not understand quite simply. And we really need your help, they need your help. I'm a happy facilitator and have for years, my former role as a federal scientist bridged the gap between what's going on in research and how to communicate that to policy people, but we're not doing that sufficiently well. And it's reflected in some of the analysis at the Air Resources Board, even under the scoping plan. It's certainly reflected in a statute that's being proposed in California, Washington, Oregon and other places. So just if there's anything that we can take away from this and put in their heads, it's just the vast gap between the scale of the problem and the solutions. Thank you, Jim. I appreciate the opportunity to weigh it. Thanks, Mark. Now that's great. I just, if you have any thoughts on how we could do that. So one of the mechanisms is of course to send professors to Washington and to chat with folks there and to do reports. And is there an additional way that you can think of or do we need to start also just proposing new ways to insert ourselves and be able to close that gap? Well, I have a great respect for, and having come from academia myself, a great respect for the fierce defense of academic independence and not entering lightly into what may appear to be lobbying. So it's critical to both maintain that position but also communicate why that's important. You have credible voices from across the world and you've brought a lot of credible voices together here but we're not really asking you to become lobbyists. We're asking you to help us take the 50 to a thousand page and of research and report and help us to distill it into the one and two pager. And I know that's a huge challenge and we all know that the world that we're talking about here is incredibly complex. Who knew it was so complicated? But we also just to, if for no other reason, introduce a little bit of caution into the policy discussion. And for example, the rush to electrification of the transportation sector that's currently driving the Newsom administration and the Air Resources Board and also effecting, I mean, being a major influence in other states, including recently Washington and Reagan, making sure that we have opportunities for people who are going to be voting on critical legislation or voting on a scoping plan and regulatory process, whether it's advanced clean fleet or the series of rule makings that will come out of the scoping plan, helping them to understand, again, this scale issue, the technology maturity options, the adoption of technology challenges, the valley of death problem between R&D and commercialization, helping to educate the people who by necessity have to make these decisions and making it possible for them to enter without necessarily feeling like they're being beat up or threatened by academics. It's terribly important for them to understand that they need to be much more cautious and much more thoughtful about the implication of their decisions. So sort of repeated myself, but it really is. I mean, I'm watching it up close here. In fact, my office window works right out over the Capitol right now and it's alarming, it's truly alarming. So the degree to which we can get help from our academic institutions on national labs in these pithy little one and two page, hold on, let's make sure you understand you're talking about gigatons of carbon. We're not talking about boutique forest resources. I spent years doing forest and carbon and stuff. So it's really terribly important for people to understand that they have a much larger job to do than maybe they do. Yeah, that's an excellent point, Mark, thank you. I think solving the technology issues that we have and those challenges is a big part of it, but that's an equally large part, right? And so yeah, point well taken, thank you. So, Drew, would you like to say something? I mean, this is, so first of all, my insight from the soft course is that it's a very big challenge. It's a very big challenge and we have to deal with it and it requires a lot of effort as well. My thought is around the resourcing, training of the next gen and not being reactive to the demand actually of electrification coming, but anticipating that and then having a whole, I would say, army of engineers and innovators who are conscious of this electrification as well. So really coming around, training them so that they can be the workforce of this electrification that is going to happen in the next few decades or it's already happening. So that is one, which is really around the training part that we have not discussed here of how it would be able to resource this electrification journey. The second one was talked about by many people which is of a great upgrade and then it goes back to the policy as well, but in the whole commercialization of the processes that we have right now, energy availability or electricity is considered as something that you take for granted and that is something which is going to change and because it is taken for granted, the way the structure is arranged is that the grid will find it difficult to adapt to all the demand that is going to come in. Yes, we can do demand response as well. Yes, we can chip in to slowly increase and increase the capacity of that grid, but eventually a fundamental change has to be made where more investment needs to go into that grid and the way the grid is structured right now, the grid companies need to be, the participating companies, utility companies and the operators and so on, they all need to be able to adapt to that investment and take that innovation. So it has to be synced with what the industrial needs are to how the electricity can be generated and that interface. So those three parts need to be really synced well. Thank you, Drew. Yeah, that's absolutely right. We need, you know, in some ways, there's lots of things will happen all at the same time, but it seems to me there's an awful lot that needs to happen very quickly and so, you know, how are we going to manage that amount of evolution, revolution? You know, I heard, you know, some of the terms that Leora used, I thought was really, really cool and I think it can be applied across the whole system. Steve Living. Yeah, thanks, Jennifer. I really like the comments that Mark and Drew made. I think they hit along a lot of things that my thoughts as well. One thing I just want to add on, I want to tie it right back to Arun's opening comment. When we think about things that we should be working on, the forgotten one is efficiency because it's not exciting, it's not always cutting edge and sexy, but efficiency is a huge deal and just about all these things we've talked about over the past few days and being able to speak out 5% and 10% and 2% here and there are actually quite significant and we shouldn't neglect that when we think about opportunities in this space. Thanks, Steve. Yeah, you know, absolutely right. I agree. I've been looking at this book I have here. I used it to optimize my workstation and then admitted the efficient use of steam. I don't know if you can see that, but it's a book from the 1950s and it's really interesting. It does say that, you know, it's like every new knowledge will bring another decimal point each generation. That's another decimal place to, you know, improving the properties of the use of steam over the years. And so, I mean, I'd like to see that efficiency gains that we are able to do them because, you know, I think that reducing our consumption from the beginning is really, you know, at that point is the first thing we need to do and so absolutely agree. So we have about two minutes left if anyone has any final thoughts. I just want to remind you, actually I didn't say it, so I won't remind you. I'll tell you that we have a survey. I think a survey will be sent out to everybody who attended or registered here and it's similar three questions and so we'd love if you have additional thoughts or those who are too shy or quiet to speak up just now, please respond to that survey. We will look at those and we will synthesize that and take that on board as we go forward with our next steps.