 Welcome back to Think Tech. I'm Jay Fidel. This is Hawaii, the state of clean energy. And we are going to talk about comparing Hawaii and comparing notes on clean energy around the country and the world. What should Hawaii know about what is going on? We have to stay current on things that are happening. And for this discussion, we have Guillermo Saba Jay. He joins us from Virginia. And he is with HSI and he is the host of a show that we call Perspectives in Energy, which takes place other times during the week. And we are delighted to have him here to be able to compare notes. Welcome Guillermo. Well, thank you, Jay. I'd be glad to be here. And thank you so much for the invitation. We haven't done a show together in a while. So it's certainly great to be back and add it again and do some dynamic dual. Yeah. Great, great to have you here. And it's also, you know, I want to say that your show Energy Perspectives is really, really good. It's an important member of our lineup that raises the bar. Thank you for that. Thank you. Thank you so much. Well, thank you for the platformer, the opportunity. We really appreciate it. So how are we doing? When I say we, I mean, I find that people use the word we very loosely. So when I say we, I always define it. How are we doing? That is the United States of America. How are we doing? Well, when you say we, it depends where you're at in the country. Where are you geographically, where are you regionally? And in what region, when I say region, meaning are you in the WAC, which is a Western Nectar? Are you at ERCA, which is a Texas area? Or are you in the Eastern Interconnection? Those are the major three interconnections. And funny enough, I think I believe it or not, Texas is far ahead of everybody else when it comes to wind and solar and renewable energy. And oddly enough, you know, they don't export power outside of ERCA, or ERCA really is mostly Texas. Tell us what ERCA is. ERCA is the, it is a reliability entity in Texas that encompasses taxes a little bit outside of Texas. And really what it is, the most of these regions, whether it's the, it's, it's the Eastern Interconnection, which takes from Florida all the way up to like parts of Canada. And as far as west does the Midwest somewhere, then there's WAC, which is a Western ERCA Connection. That one is basically everything west of the Midwest that excludes Texas. And that includes California, all states, all the way up up to Seattle, Washington state and a little bit of Canada. So, so those areas are not interconnected with each other. They have what they call DC ties, where they have a limited amount of exchange where they can flow power back and forth. Long ago, there was a project called the three amigas, three friends that never, never quite made it, but they were going to interconnect all three regions together, finally make one giant region. And I would have been great, but it just never, they, they, they got started, but they just never quite really got out of their way. So. I thought it was a singing, I thought it was a singing, possibly a movie. Anyway, it seems to me, isn't that where ultimately we're going to have to go? You know, I'll tell you what makes me say that I was looking at our sounds system here in the house, and I noticed something I never noticed before. And that is one of the various resources for radio. Okay, I had a list of every radio station you could think of. So I started rolling through the list. And I realized on my cell phone, I realized that there were virtually hundreds and hundreds of radio stations captured on this program. And I realized that the country is bound together on radio stations. You can get any radio station anywhere on your cell phone. And so it seems to me that it's better for the country to be bound together on energy. Wouldn't it be the right thing to do, especially for, you know, nationwide energy security to have these three regions connecting? Aren't we going there? Is there an initiative to make us go there? I don't think at this time there is. There was one at a one point, there was a lot of resources put into that, but it was tough to get all of that coordinated between WACC and the Eastern Interconnection and ERCOT. And we shall see, it wouldn't be a bad idea to look into that again and see how that would work. One of the main concerns that we have, I imagine, will be to have the adequate ties. And what I say ties is those connection points, right? That you will need to formulate between those different areas, you know, East and West and then ERCOT together. And it would require quite a bit of study. Wouldn't it be impossible, but it would require quite a bit of study, perhaps quite a bit of investment in additional lines, additional substations, the additional infrastructure to make that happen. Additional legislation? Possibly an legislation, but really a lot of investment. And you have to remember that a lot of these, like probably the only utilities can't do it all on their own, a lot of them together working on these projects. And usually when these large, large projects go on their way, there's like a shared ownership of a lot of it. So there's 500 KVA, 500,000 lines, 750,000, 750,000 lines likely will be the ones that will be used for that. That requires an extra type of easement right away, real estate to build these lines actually interconnect all that. So that's a likelihood, for example, just a footprint for that one site that never came to be, that three Amiga site was really, really like over like a square mile actually of a war of actual like substation equipment. So that was a sizeable project that would have been great that has seen a function. But again, that would have been a problem because it would have been a single-point failure when you think about it, right? Yeah, we know I was thinking there's a downside to all of that. If a bad actor wanted to destroy our grant and our national resilience, if we had an integrated grid like that, a bad actor could destroy it all in one shot. If we had different modes, modules around the country, it's more difficult. Well, it's interesting you say that because as it is now within these different regions, right? You have protection systems that have schemes that will figure out a way to separate depending on what happens. So I imagine they would do the same thing in that case. But the problem is, if you have one station that you're relying heavily on to flow power through, it's only a matter of time before that area becomes congested. And then you limit how much power you can send through it while we're the other. And that's really one of the liberty factors in a lot of these cases, right? Ultimately, the idea is for reliability. So each area can support each other. But at the same time, we also want the whole center behind that is not just reliability. You want to enter like a whole market option where you can buy and sell power from different regions. And that, of course, take advantage of the fact that you'll have different time zones, which means you have four or five hours of additional daylight or additional night time. And that, of course, spreads what they call that lighting peak or that boarding peak load across the country. So that whole idea about peak hours changes. And maybe that's a benefit to have it changed and sweep across the country. You spoke of Texas, you know, and I remember that Texas got in trouble about not being interacting with other states and other grids and other states. And that when I asked you about, you know, what with legislation would be helpful, I think I was thinking about Texas, because Texas doesn't want to play. And we have this initiative, we want to get Texas to play, we want every state to play. And that may require legislation. It may be to remember also that the different states have to agree to actually get a borderless and the states that are affected may not want to do it. The states that are at the actual borders may not want to do it. So it may require quite a lot of consensus, but really, the way we really do it is by really incentivizing it. What's the major incentive of getting this done? And a lot of times Texas doesn't want to do it, because in Texas, for example, has, they don't want to be the actual entity where power flows through eight or out, which is likely that that's what would happen, right? So you see power coming from the east for the each other connection through them, it's whack. And that's one of the reasons I think that they may have discussed in the past, but they wanted to remain independent. Now they are connected, right? They are interconnected, they have what they call DC ties. And those DC ties, for example, are not affected by changes in frequency or different disturbances. So they're able to convert AC to DC, and then they're able to ship it through those lines, they get converted on the other side. And maybe that's that's the resource we need, right? More DC ties to interconnect our regions. And I think will be the nice little thread the needle type of solution that will work best in this particular case or for incentive. Yeah. Yeah. So what about, what about how the industry is doing, how the government is, you know, interacting and helping or not. And where we're focusing with a country or the 33 sections of the country are focusing on clean energy. And could you also talk about the hijack, a hijacking phenomenon that we see between government and industry? Well, glad you mentioned that because for any time, whenever we talked about, let me go further back, most utilities, when they want to deliver power to customers, they don't care how that power is generated. They want to have power that's reliable at a good price and safe. They don't care if it's, if it's, if it's renewable, they don't care of a casual call because if they're no generators, they just want to buy power and be able to deliver to their customers, get those meters turning and keep it reliable, right? And so they're really sourcing last night. So the problem problem with a lot of renewables is that they're, they're often touted as okay, this is clean, this is new, and they, they give you, we have this much capacity, but in reality, a capacity is not always guaranteed from day to day or hour to hour. And that's one of the challenges. So, so in a lot of cases, what would happen is you'd have a lot of activism that would drive policy, but then those policy makers were greatly influenced by these drivers or the activists that a lot of times were not really stakeholders in the actual grid operation and grid design. They, for the, for a large part, and I've noticed this part a few times, they really are out there to sell really over energy equipment, right? Whether it's solar, panels or windforms and to some extent even batteries, but the batteries are coming up on demand as a solution to the problems that a lot of these renewables have caused. So whenever I see that whole CEO activism, right, I always want to ask a few things, okay, so in their pitch, are they talking about reliability? If they don't once mention the word reliability, I usually, that to me is a red flag because then, because they're not concerned with how their particular resource impacts the grid, right? Especially when you have a lot of solar or wind that cannot pivot quickly, depending on what changes in demands or they themselves can not control their output. The other issue that I always notice is when they claim that their solution is the one solution that'll save everything. And rather than saying, hey, we are an important part of a bigger portfolio, right? And that's where the big difference lies, right? If they're trying to sell you their particular solution, then that's usually to be a suspect. And then in a lot of times, I gotta tell you, it's not that being an engineer is your own regards or anything, but there's something about STEM where you have somebody from the STEM field talking about how the grid works versus somebody that, and we need them, they're very well versed on environmental sciences, but they don't exactly know how grid dynamics, grid physics actually operate. And a lot of times, they're very passionate, they really believe in what they're doing, but they don't really get a good understanding of how these things tie together. And that's one of the things that for me, I think it's, first, it's separating these CEO activists that are trying to drive policy for the wrong reasons, but then the second prime is to actually finally educate everybody who's not in the industry. So to give everybody a common language and common understanding so they can make better decisions. And we've had a few good examples of successes where we've managed to provide training to some of the aid and advisors for some of the legislators. And whenever they get into some of these committees, you see the ones that took the training, you see the ones that did it, and those took the training are asking you far better questions, at least people that are there trying to either push a policy for what's for the wrong reason, or they're there for a mid-genomic employer, and they'll get something done. So training, to be really efficient, you have to coordinate the education, you have to coordinate the policy, and you have to have leadership, call it energy leadership. On how do you do that on a national scale? Are we doing a good job? What what institutions and officers could do better? So in the industry of its leisure utilities, you have the Department of Energy, you have FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and then you have NERC, which is FERC has delegated the North America Electrical Reliability Corporation. And that, for example, NERC sets all the rules for the utilities. Now major, a lot of that is peer is peer driven, so peers watch each other, but at the end of the day, NERC can fine you a million dollars per infraction per day if you don't follow the rules. And those rules are mainly driven for reliability, right? Reliability is what they really go after. So that NERC has that coverage, NERC is there to make sure we don't black out, right? And the FERC has other policies that they FERC has a lot of, for example, market reliability, but also a lot of market fairness. You know, like I explained it, right? It is a federal agency that the Department of Energy has delegated, for example, to operate in that capacity. Now the Department of Energy, of course, looks at the utilities, but they also look at everything else as a whole, not just electricity in generation, but everything else. So there's different levels of government involved here. Well, one of the things I appreciate is the fact that they issue some pretty helpful legislation when it comes to driving certain initiatives and investments. One of the things I get concerned with sometimes, as I can see it, is I think they've over committed on some of the solar and wind, and they haven't committed enough on some of the hydrogen and some of the, especially nuclear. We have not invested enough in nuclear, and even in this new infrastructure bill, we still haven't done enough. It was like 15 billion versus 80 or 90 billion, right? Nuclear versus solar and wind. So let's dwell on that for a minute. You know, I would like to talk about the international picture for a minute, but first, you know, how have we done in terms of developing a national portfolio that favors clean energy? Are we moving in the right direction, moving fast enough? What are we favoring, wind and solar? Is that it? You're right. I mean, we need to look at all kinds of alternatives, including nuclear. And are we doing that sufficiently to build a future? Well, one of the main concerns that I've seen, it's we're moving in the direction that I'm sure it's, yes, we're moving towards a carbon free direction problem is the way we're going there. I don't think it's often right. We are retiring a lot of baseload generation that we still need for reliability. We're forcing early retirements on coal plants that we need to operate reliably, and then we're replacing that capacity with a wind and solar. The problem with the solar is they may say you may have had 100 megawatt coal plant replaced by 100 megawatts of solar wind, but you can't kill on that capacity to be available any time of the day, any season. And that's the main concern that we're seeing. And the batteries are not quite there yet. And one of the problems that I've noticed is the fact that that's all driven by policy, which has been driven by the activism and by the CEO activism, which is concerning. So finally, we're at a stage where now the conversation of reliability, and baseload generation, and even national security is finally part of, you know, the different actors in the conversation. And the people that are, that always been in charge of that particular part of the industry are at the table, key stakeholders, whether it's the grid operators, you know, the engineers behind that, then the physics, all those finally, they're fairly, they've always been involved, but now they're actually at the table where they, where they help with the decision-making processes of these projects. Now, where are we? We are definitely seeing some challenges when it comes to the amount of renewables from the grid. So much so that Merck, on the direction of FERC, has changed the threshold of one of these like solar facilities. So for the longest time, there was a threshold of 75 megawatts of higher, or 100 KV or higher. If you're, if you cross either one of those thresholds or both, you're now subject to those steep NERC regulations. And if you, if you, if you buy any of those, you could really pay a steep penalty for those, those, those issues. So for the longest time, we saw facilities go up at 74.5, 74 megawatts, 70, and then of course, they're, they're operating either under the radar because it was subject to that. What's happened recently is that they lowered that threshold from 75-20, uh, nape plate rating of these devices, and then they lowered the voltage from 100 to like, and I've been into 60. So now that has really wrapped up a lot of different, um, uh, independent facilities that were solar and wind, that weren't part of it before. So now they're, they're worried about, okay, so can we continue doing business this way? Well, if you're doing all the right things, you have nothing to worry about. But if you're, if you're missing, you know, uh, some of the things that dirt requires, then, you know, the, yeah, then you definitely have some work to do. So for that, they've been considering that I want to stay in business or they're, they're, they're starting off exhausted. So this may change. But the reason is what came about was because of all disturbances that these facilities are causing a big grid and really impacting reliability. So, so, so I'm glad the rules finally changed and they're finally capturing the accurate cost of adding all of these different renewable resources onto the actual grid. But you know, uh, maybe the most efficient, uh, energy source of all is nuclear. And, uh, as you mentioned before the show, there are still a number of nuclear reactors in the country generating electricity and overseas too. Uh, and just despite, uh, you know, the, the problem at Fukushima, um, and, and that there's a move to include these small modular reactors, uh, interestingly enough, some of them are made in Japan. Um, and so the question is that, is that, is that an active possibility? How do you feel about it? Well, I have been a proponent for a long time of small modular reactors. And what a small modular reactor is, anything that's between five, 10 megawatts all the way up to maybe a hundred megawatts, you know, roughly, and they vary. And these are small enough that they are the size of a 24 shipping container or 24 shipping container. And they can be placed anywhere and they can run for, for decades. And then when the fuel runs out, they just pull out the container, put in a new one and that, that actual, though the whole thing is contained, goes somewhere else for processing. And they do something with that fuel where they, they use it for another purpose, right? So it's not exactly waste that's stored away forever, because the process is different. The actual reaction is also different. So it's not quite like, for example, these large nuclear facilities that we've all grown accustomed to seeing, those giant eyesores, right? That we see out there, it's no longer the same reparation. It's not like a Chernobyl or Fukushima anymore. There's something quite small. Now, how far away are we? There were quite a few companies that were here trying to get that done and the new scale was one of them. And they, they had a setback where it's just a funding is so expensive to bring it to, to bring into fruition. So the Department of Energy, along with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have got ahead and gotten moved forward with standardizing of design. And why is that important is because if you standardize the design that everybody can use as optimal at least in this country or at least in the Western world, it'll streamline the whole supply chain issue because building the first one's expensive. But if you build the second one, it'll cost way less than the first one. And everyone else for that is a lot cheaper. So right now there's one company in Sweden that is basically building these SMRs that I, they said they were about six to eight months away from going commercial with a whole fleet of them. And they are about, again, the same size we talked about, but this, this, they can deploy on barges. So these barges go out there and then, and then, you know, they're, they're trucked off and then they're, they're installed in place. And they are, they are like, can be left somewhere unattended because they're buried, right? They're secure, can really get to them and they have a perimeter protect. But we may see a lot of those already. This company, I think, did a lot of like maritime with proportion. And I just remember the name right now, but they, they're definitely going to be one of the ones that are perhaps leading this effort. It's another company in Korea that's also building them and another company in Japan's got, I think it's like Mitsubishi's or what is actually working on it. And then of course, we have one here as being worked on by Idaho National Labs and the Department of Energy. They've got a couple of, a couple of reactions to what you said, you know, this could be revolutionary as far as the marine industry is concerned. I mean, we have reactors on U.S. carriers and all that, and submarines, but why not put reactors on large, merchant marine ships? They could, they could go forever on a single, you know, a single dose of uranium. And the other thing that comes to mind is, is that the people we, we spoke about a little while ago about the industry members who would like to hijack advances in favor of their own products, those guys, they would be in opposition to nuclear, right? Nuclear is a highly political initiative, and they would be on the opposition, wouldn't they? Well, they would often cite the, you know, the, the, the environmental risk that goes along with that without really understanding the difference in the technology, right? So right right now they have like a, like a mold and salt reactor, which on its own, it's a passive control system, meaning that if anything fails, it'll just melt upon itself with the salt and then it'll contain itself. It's not, it's not like there's other sites that require custom homes and water and reactor cooling. So that, right. So, so you're absolutely right in that case, right? There will be detractors and so that technology be, you know, being brought to a commercial level where it's all being used everywhere. But if we want to get to the point where we want to have reliable, affordable, clean energy, right, that, that has a long stateability, nuclear is going to be an important part of that portfolio. And I'm not saying we can rely entirely on nuclear, because remember, you still have to find that or you have to refine it and you have to find where those sources are at. So not every country has that red uranium source, right? So that's part of that partnership that goes along with the supply chain issue. But again, it'll be in it, that will be completely replaced, I think fossil fuels to that degree, where we can replace them with a megawatt for megawatt and have the same type of like dispatchable reliability. So all that considered Guillermo, how how are we again, this time I mean, the national economy, the national industry, how are we doing this against Europe and against Asia? Okay, so right now, we're still a little behind France and nuclear, right? France has been ahead ahead of the game in nuclear. And you could tell how well they did during this whole Ukraine-Russia conflict, right, compared to Germany. Germany shut off on its coal, most of its coal, and then they shut off like all its nuclear and then with these what went south, they have to restart some of their coal. Whereas France, for them, it was pretty much I mean, they had their issue with Africa, because that's where they source a lot of their uranium ore. But for them, it's like they basically almost almost business as usual. In fact, they were selling power to Germany and the rest of Europe. So in that respect, we'll be like Korea, for example, has pretty developed as a nuclear technology pretty well. China has made a lot of investments in nuclear. They're definitely, I'm not sure they're ahead of us that far, but they're definitely have so some advantage to Russia that they've explored different avenues. And then of course, Russia has quite a bit of like refined nuclear fuel into their stores. So a lot of like, for example, the nuclear energy industry really relies on Russian stores. So that's another challenge that we see. For us, we are a little bit behind. And I'm not going to show you what we have to work to do. Let me turn to Hawaii for a minute. As you know, for a long time, for at least a decade, we were saying maybe diluting ourselves into thinking that Hawaii was a leader in clean energy. And we had a lot of solar and we had some wind. I'm not sure our wind has kept up with the solar because of the NIMBY problem and we have limited areas of land and so forth. And then there was this conference maybe five years ago, where LNG was in play. And next era was trying to merge up with Hawaiian Electric. And it was talking about LNG as the bridge dual choice to move from fossil fuels to clean energy. And Governor David E. Gay appeared at the conference without any preliminaries and he said, A, I oppose next era's acquisition or merger and B, I oppose LNG. Well, he's a powerful guy as the governor and PS, there was no merger. And PS, there was no LNG. Was he right? Shouldn't we have done the next era deal seemed to me a very positive deal. Good for Hawaii next year is a very good company. Tell me if you agree or disagree with all this and LNG would have been a good and manageable bridge fuel. What do you think? Well, I have to agree with the fact that the energy would have been a great manageable bridge fuel, especially given the portfolio of energy, right? And the really important asset, capital asset that the next era energy would have brought to the islands would have been the submarine cable. I mean, it all brings your reliability, right? You're able to interconnect everybody together. In fact, you have the ability to then have generation sites away from your urban centers or from your natural wonders really. And then you can actually move that power or anywhere you need it at the islands. So two different things, right? So then energy would have been a great bridge fuel. It creates a lot less emissions of diesel, bonkers fuel because I know some of your facilities burn bonkers fuel or oil and it's very dirty fuel, right? So replace it with that and you would have been a lot better off as a transitional. The other issue of course is you have the capability for a lot of like geothermal on the islands as well. So that's another resource that that you have remains untapped, but in order to make that a viable project, you would need those emergency cables to be able to interconnect them. And their reliability means, of course, you have a lot less outages and then everything functions better, cost goes down. And even a certain degree, for example, where you it's so there's there's different standards, right? For vegetation management, what do you have? What do you have that sort of infrastructure in place? So trees being trimmed by a certain clearance by certain transmission lines are regulated by NERC. Whereas, for example, distribution, which I think some of the fires you had in the island recently, a lot of those distribution fires, for example, there's there's that could have been approved by that sort of a connection in there because of the fight that you would have been able to feed them from from another side. And it wouldn't be a radial feed with a lot of these distribution circuits that are impacted by these fires. So so so yeah, it's a real shame that that that that deal would just didn't go through. I used to work for next era years ago. And I was part of some of the studies that I can tell you that there was a they really want to want to make Hawaii a shiny example of what could be possible. It's a shame that you know, and that didn't happen. So I agree. And I agree with you about the cable. And to me, the cable would have put all the islands on a better footing, it would have reduced cost in some of the neighbor islands, which were costs are 40 or 50 cents a kilowatt hour, which is really, you know, that that is the kind of thing that constrains economies, what it does, one other thing. And I would go for I would go for that, you know, the cable for for all the islands. And unfortunately, because it was so political, and people were posing it and some of those activists were posing it. And some of them were corporate activists, just as you described. You know, it's radioactive. I don't mean that term in terms of energy, it's politically radioactive. And so it's not coming at coming back anytime. So, well, you know, from this discussion here, well, it seems to me that Hawaii should be very interested in the in the modular, the modular nuclear system. And I wonder how that would work here, because, you know, people would oppose enlarged nuclear plant, such as you see driving down the road in France, you know, see huge plants, and they're great. And they and they haven't had incidents or anything. They've been they've been fine for France, but query whether people here would tolerate it because we have small limited land. So the modular would be very appealing. How would you deploy that system in Hawaii? So these are a great question. So these systems, going back to the regulatory requirements and Hawaii, I think they're written into your laws where you can't store, you can't store waste. And they have to have a certain other requirement that I think these modular reactors address at the same time. So one is the whole day can be pulled out and removed and taken somewhere else. And the other one is there has to be like a certain size limitation or a certain aspect of the way it's set up where by the nature of the actual container itself, right, that also addresses that issue. So so the way they would be deployed, I think it's really these SMRs would be the best and like the war remote communities. And that anywhere you need, for example, a source, right? That's where you could have to buy every substation. You could have it there because don't forget, not only are you providing power, you're also supporting voltage, you're supporting frequency. And that is just as important as power. You have a voltage side, you're going to destroy equipment. So whether you do it on the transmission side, which is the high voltage equipment, or you do it on the distribution side, that all depends on what you need. And a lot of these items, right, you it's they can easily deploy those on the distribution side to give, for example, that a customer of the end of the line some power and then they begin to feed power back, like if you had a separate little part of the end of the power. The other interesting aspect of that really is is SMRs would solve a huge problem in the end when it comes to generating base generation that's dispatchable by the utilities, right? But at the same time is everybody's storing rooftop solar and dollar houses, I'm sure. But nobody's putting in storage. Nobody's buying a little battery break. Nobody's getting a Tesla. And that's the other thing I think that will be a critical go from a consumer to a pro consumer, where you're producing power, but you're also storing it. And the way I see it is, is that is SMRs on one side, and then the customer side you have, for example, distributor energy resources, DERs, that is going to be the answer to a lot of the problems where the actual customer themselves are working in partnership with the utility, and even getting paid by the utility to be just be available for dispatch, which, you know, will make the money and the utility stays money, but I haven't built so much influence for it. So that will be your way to actually Just looking at our conversation here, which I find very, very valuable. Seems to me that to the extent that Hawaii was excited about clean energy 10 or 15 years ago, it's not as excited anymore. It's not as excited, for example, about electric vehicles. There used to be a state incentive about, you know, our credit. That's no war, and hasn't been resurrected. And so, you know, you don't have the same kind of the government loves this kind of feeling about it. And, and then at the same time, you know, that, of course, the national effort is largely political, but it's moving somewhere and it has the ability to move in large strokes consumably. And the U.S. and maybe a little behind Europe and Asia, just the way things work. But Hawaii, it seems to me, you could argue, is behind the mainland. And with all of that, if Hawaii, well, for that matter, the we, meaning the national clean energy effort, don't don't move ahead quickly enough. What happens? What happens to energy? What happens to our communities? What happens to our economy? How, how, how substantial, how emerge it just the pressure to move ahead with clean energy? Well, it is certainly we can't keep on business as usual, right? The problem is that, that, that there's other nations out there that are weaponizing this environment against our enemies or against our adversaries are. And, and some of them are weaponizing it. Others are just, they just don't care because for example, we have emerging economies that are just spreading fossil fuel, great, I mean, for every plant, coal plant in the mainland that we shut down, that they just four or five of brand new ones that sprang up in Latin America and China. So a lot of them are in Latin America. So, so it's acting locally to help a global problem, but you just can't do it by yourself, right? So, so yet very important, but the whole world really has to like take part of this. And the problem being is that, is that, you know, is it, are we dabbing up rivers or are we just burning coal? Do you know, we wouldn't know when, but in places like Hawaii, for example, right, you can still make a difference by making it clean, but also making it like reliable, sustainable and economic. And SMRs really, I think are a perfect solution to that particular environment. A little bit of hydro as well. You have the, you have the facilities to be able to make some up storage hydro sites and some of your geothermal, but in reality, it's a self point you may need to use some of those submarine cables. But if there's resistance to that, then I think you can get away with not using cables. If you have those SLRs in the right places, because maybe they're small and you can just deploy what you need in small locations. It's just a matter of having them there when they're available. And then of course getting approval or having there, because now you're talking about nuclear is a little bit different, but they're so small that who knows how that will work regarding legislation or even if they get around current laws. So, but again, you got to worry with the detractors and how they'll try to stop that. So yeah, and that's leadership back to leadership. But there's no room for complacency here. We have to keep on moving forward if we want our society to work well and our economy to work well. And we have to follow the technology and and find and use and deploy the technology. All of what you've said is really resonant for me. Well, thank you very much Guillermo Sabatier of HSI in Virginia, who has been the host of our energy perspective show for quite some time. And we really appreciate you coming on Hawaii, the state of clean energy here on a Wednesday. And we really appreciate your thoughts. We really appreciate being here and thank you again for inviting me as a guest. I always want to work with you, Jay. And it's been a fun show today. The same. Let's do it again. Sure. Well, thank you Guillermo.