 Thanks, Yi, and thanks everyone that was, as you said, it was a great presentation really. I think it's going to spur a lot of discussion during the meeting today. Thank you. And so let me just share my screen for a moment and let me tell you what's coming up now. So next up is a panel. It's going to be moderated by John Wyant and it's going to address the challenge that we face. I think I want to set this up very well. We have five panelists and I'm going to turn it over to John to introduce the panel, introduce the panelists, and get us started. So John, it's over to you now. Great. Thanks very much, Richard. It's a real honor to be involved in this workshop. I would say in the progression due to the excellent planning by the organizers, I think what we just saw from Yi, Elizabeth, and especially Arun is kind of a geolocation of the stage on which the workshop will progress over the next three days. You can see in the auditorium spotlights kind of wandering through the audience and slowly coalescing on a big stage with many already many challenges and opportunities presented at a high level. In this panel on the challenge, we will try to go the next step and the five panelists will discuss broad challenges associated with finding decarbonization solutions in industry through electrification or other means. Arun's already started on that and at the same time, we will try to further set the stage, set that stage that's already started to be illuminated for the subsequent of sectoral deep dives, if I could call them that over the next three days. So what I'm going to do is quickly introduce myself and the panel, and then we're going to have each panelist further introduce themselves, but also give a five-minute presentation on presenting their own individual perspectives on the challenges of de-electrifying and decarbonizing the industrial sector. And after that, I will try to ask some cross-panel discussion questions for a bit of time, maybe 20, 25 minutes, and then we'll have maybe 15, 20 minutes for Q&A with audience questions and then a quick summary at the end. So my name is John Wyatt. For those of you don't know me, I'm a professor of management science and engineering here at Stanford, a senior fellow at the pre-court institute since the beginning of the pre-court institute and perhaps best known as the director of the energy modeling forum, which, oh by the way, has been either directly or indirectly involved in producing about two-thirds-ish of the IPCC scenarios. The IPCC work of three, perhaps most relevant work report for this workshop, as you probably saw, was just released yesterday. So our five panelists are Jeff Risman, the industry program and head of modeling at Energy Innovation, which is a non-partisan energy and environmental policy firm who is well known in the modeling community as the individual who's done the most detailed modeling. In fact, you already saw in Arun's slide deck, one of his slides on essentially the gigaton challenge. And then we have three excellent industry experts, three strategic alliance company representatives, and they are Eric Duchain, the senior vice president for technical lines, the total energies, Jeremy Pierce, the industrial education technology program manager at Shell, and last but certainly not least, Vijay Swarap, the director of technology at ExxonMobil. And to wrap up, we actually do have with us a IPCC author who's hopefully not too exhausted from finishing that report to wrap things up on our panel today, who's professor and chair of sustainability science for emerging technologies at UC Santa Barbara, also having taught at Northwestern University and in key research groups in this area at least one, if not two or three of our very excellent DOE national laboratories here in the U.S. So with that said, I'd like to start with Jeff Risman and ask him to make his five minute set of introductory comments and give any further introduction to him that he so desires, Jeff. Thank you, Professor Wyant. I appreciate it, and I'll share my screen now because I have slides. So all right, so to not take too much time, I'm going to jump right into it. So I'm the first speaker here, so I'm giving some high-level background in the emissions. There are different ways you can categorize industrial emissions. The way on the left here has the emissions from the purchased electricity and heat that is steam assigned to each sector that purchased it. If you do it that way, you can see that industry is responsible for about a third of emissions, not counting fugitive emissions up there near the top from the leakage from natural gas and so forth, as well as emissions from waste. On the right, if you separate out electricity, you still have 20% ish from industry or about a quarter, if you count the fugitive emissions from the oil and gas industry as part industry. This is the figure Professor Manjumdar showed. It's from the paper I wrote with a number of co-authors looking at some high-level breakdown of the emissions from different industries. This is to give a sense both of which industries are most important, as well as the types of emissions since we have in the dark brown is the direct energy-related emissions. That's from the combustion and use of fossil fuels by that industry. Then CO2 process emissions are emissions from the use of energy or the breakdown of limestone to make clinker, in the case of cement, for non-energy purposes. The feedstocks and limestone breakdown. In orange, you have non-CO2 process emissions that would be methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Then in yellow is indirect energy-related emissions, which means from the purchase of electricity primarily and also heat. Let's look at what these fuels are actually used for. This is going to help provide a perspective on what technologies we need to decarbonize it. You can break it down into three different types of uses. Feedstocks, which are the materials that go into making up the output products. For example, the natural gas that goes into making fertilizers or the petroleum that goes into making plastics that is not burned for energy would be feedstock fuels. Then of the fossil fuels that are burned for energy, most of them are used to create heat for industrial processes, either operating boilers on the left there or other process heating in dark gray, just to its right. If we're thinking about direct electrification of industry, then the main question is how to produce heat from electricity. Indirect electrification is necessary if you're going to decarbonize the feedstocks. Then you get into the technologies we saw earlier, for example, electrolytic hydrogen, which can then be used to make many of those same materials that today are made from fossil fuels. I'm going to focus more on the heat component right now, since electrification is one of the foci of this workshop, but I agree with Professor Majanar's comments that all different options are needed to decarbonize all the aspects of industry at the scale we're talking about. Let's look at heat a little more closely. This is a breakdown of heat demand by temperature range and by industry. This is from the EU, but within each industry it should be broadly similar wherever that industry is located. The all industries total will vary a bit depending on how what the intensity of each industry within a given geography. One important takeaway from this is that at the medium to low temperature heat, let's say up to 200 degrees Celsius is more than a third of industrial heat demand. Then you get a band in the 200 to 500 Celsius range, the middle temperatures, and then higher temperatures, which are concentrated in a few industries, iron and steel, non-metallic minerals is dominated by cement, the component of concrete, chemicals making, which includes the steam crackers. We heard about the ethylene steam crackers and other processes and then non-ferrous metals, primarily aluminum. Different technologies are useful for decarbonizing different heat ranges. Heat pumps are useful up to about 150 Celsius today, and then the others are listed here. I won't read them off given the short on time. Some of these are capable of extremely high temperatures such as induction or electric arcs, which can get to be higher than fossil fuel combustion temperatures. There are options to electrify high temperature heat, but it requires a good bit of electricity. There's also heat storage, and there are in some cases ways to replace heat with electricity, either via electrolysis or UV light. For example, you can replace some thermally cured resins with UV cured resins. The last slide here for me is to remember that we'll need policies to help drive this transformation and accelerate the decarbonization of industry. Those include support for R&D, financial tools like subsidies, tax credits, rebates. Then you can have a green public procurement program, which uses the buying power of government to purchase lower carbon materials and create a starter market, then emission standards, and finally carbon pricing. In the interest of time, I won't discuss these too deeply right now, but thank you for the opportunity to share this with all of you. Yeah, thank you for that great introductory start for our session here. Next I'd like to call on Dr. Usheyne, the Senior Vice President for Technical Alliance at Total Energies. Yeah. Thank you, John. I hope that you're hearing me well. No slide, because well, it might be quite long for me to be able to dismiss them, and not that. You look good and sound good, sir. Okay, so what I was willing really to say is that, well, since 2015, there has been efforts already to reduce CO2 emissions. But what it's all about, I would say, optimizations and a project that can lead to maybe something like 20, 30% of decrease. And as it was pointed out before by previous speakers, we definitely need to have technologies changes, new technologies coming into play to get to net zero. It won't be just by, I would say, optimizing day after day the performance of our assets. And I will try to give you some figures in the coming minutes. So the first one is that at Total Energies, SCOP 1 and SCOP 2, it's about, well, it was about 45 million tons of CO2. And we have a target of reducing it by 30% by 2030, and then 40%, sorry, and then to be net zero by 2015 or before. And the SCOP 3, SCOP 3 for Total Energies is in the range of 400 million tons. And in Europe, we'll decrease by 2030 by 30% as well. It was also mentioned that methane was referred to and definitely, I would say, when we talk about decarbonization, it's actually, it's about climate change and climate change. We've got methane emissions. And as methane, we have also been in first quartile already, we've got targets to reduce by 50% by 2025 and 80% 2030. And how do we do that? It's because now we have developed with universities, we have a tool. So we have drones, we've got very sensitive sensors, we've got software, and we can pinpoint where are the leaks of methane. And then after that, we can take it to the operations team. This is where you have to intervene to reduce the leaks. And thanks to Zeus technology developments that may appear not that complicated. Actually, we are able to make a great, great improvement. One point that was not mentioned that we'll see later on, but hydrogen, it was about hydrogen. I'm sure there will be also later on in the, in the decades and discussion about fugitive emissions of hydrogen, which is super fugitive, because it's a really small molecule and the, the impact on the, on global warming. So I don't have data so I'm not going to develop it. And CO2. So CO2, it's the, it's the, it's the big one, very well known, very well identified. Well, we've got four, four means, I would say to, to, to fight CO2 emissions. The first one is really to avoid them. And I, Elizabeth mentioned LNG instead of coal. And what's happening right now in Eastern Europe is what we see, we are seeing coal, I would say coal boilers popping up again. There's the circular economy with polymers. Definitely we are seeing now a new chemical recycling plants. We've got mechanical recycling, but we've got chemical recycling is developing. We, we have already decided to, to go to two, to two plants and we'll do some more and 30% of our, of our polymers will be of a recycled technology origin. We've got biofuels, of course. And then there's the reduce, the reduce is the energy efficiency. We've got a lot of projects. But it is about, well, I won't say marginal 10, saving 10, 20% is not marginal, but that's not the game changer. The, the non-routine flaring is also something that we will delete on all assets on the oil and gas. And that's also something pretty big. Electrification will be mentioned. It has to be green electricity. It's a, well, it can be, it's, it's, it's a no-brainer. It has to be green electricity. And, and we can electrify small furnaces with steam cracker for the very large one. When we are talking of 100, 122 megawatts, well, you need to, to revisit your grid as well. And, well, on the plant, you've got six to eight very large furnaces. So it's straight for one gigawatt electricity. That's not that easy. And you will need, one would need also to address the, well, the storage, the power, the electricity storage, which is another big, big line of effort for R&D. It's very clear there. Capture, capture. For instance, we are going to, by 2050, we'll have CCS. CCS, it's about, for us, it will be in between 50 and 100 million tons a year of CO2 sequestration. And we have, and I would say the oil and gas companies, they have something to, to play there because they have the underground knowledge. They've got pipelines. And the reuse, the reuse is of much, much importance. It's brand new. A lot of effort to be done. It will, but, but I'm a strong believer in a route to, to, to methanol, for instance, that could, that could really play a very big role. We will need green, green hydrogen. It could be blue with a bit CCS, but it has to be, there are plenty of colors now for hydrogen, but it has to be of that, of that nature, definitely. And the, and, well, some are talking about electroconversion as well. That's a new area, electroconversion of CO2 to go to to ethylene and then to be able to oligomerize and, and produce a lot of various chemicals. I think that's also a topic where R&D, where, where researchers will have to, to bring, to bring improvement and breakthrough. And I won't be, I won't be much longer than that because it's time flies. Jeffrey was mentioning policies. I think that what is important on top of it is that it is long lasting policies because, you know, if policies are regulations are changing every two or three years, it is much faster than our investment time. We need, we need five years, five, seven years to develop a project and invest billions of dollars. So if it, if everything changed every two or three years, we, we, it's getting more difficult and certainties is something that we dislike. But I want to, to stop there because in the interest of time. Great. Thanks very much, Eric, for adding some new elements and for your perspective, which I do, as you indicated, I think we'll come back to you in this session and later in the workshop. Next, I'd like to introduce our next panelist, Jeremy Pierce, the industrial electrification technology program manager at Shell. Jeremy. Thank you. Good morning. Really honored and excited to be a part of this distinguished panel and really appreciate Sanford University for hosting this workshop and leveraging its strengths as a, a premier of a research and academic institute. And it's good to see us bringing academia and industry together because I think to address these challenges, it's going to require a lot of collaboration. So you little background myself, I'm the industrial electrification technology manager. My background, I've been in, in technology for most of my career. I, I, I worked in upstream technology. I've worked in the unconventional business connected to our, our formal, formerly the permian asset that we owned that we sold to Chevron last year. I was a part of that, part of that team. And then most recently joined our, our power technology organization, looking at developing and, and deploying industrial electrification technology solutions. I think the group has really highlighted a lot of the case for decarbonization and electrification. I think everyone is aware of the Paris climate goals of limiting warming to one and a half degrees. You shall, as Elizabeth mentioned earlier in the talk, that Shell unveiled its powering progress strategy last year to accelerate the transition to become net zero by 2050. And I think, you know, for us to achieve these goals, it is going to really take a strong collaboration across public and private sectors. I, I'm really excited about the topic of industrial electrification as a vehicle to, to decarbonization. It is not, obviously not the only tool that we have in our toolkits that can address the challenge of decarbonization. But I do think it is a very credible pathway. There's, there's, one of the things that I really like about electrification is it's a means for preventing the CO2 molecule from being generated in the first place. So if you can avoid the emissions on the front end using renewable power to me, that's a, that's a great, that's a great win. And there's, there's a number of trends that, that give me encouragement around the greater role that electrification could play in our decarbonization future. You know, you first, you see the increasing role of electricity is poised to play in our energy system and in use consumption. You know, I think in the next coming decades, you'll see it become the dominant source of energy use. I think we look at the high efficiency of using electricity to convert to other forms of energy. You know, we know how to turn heat, electricity into heat. You know, it can be 90, 95 plus percentage efficient. It's easy to convert to mechanical energy. So I think there's, there's a lot, you know, energy is a, electricity as an energy platform provides a pure form of energy that we can use for, for different means. And then you see the cost improvements of renewables. Some of the charts and data that I've seen is, is that the cost of renewable generation decreasing on order magnitude roughly every 15 years. And you see in many instances today that it's actually cheaper to generate electricity with renewables than it is with, with natural gas. And then, you know, if you look at, look at industry as a whole, a third of global energy demand is through industry. 90% of that is that demand is currently sourced by fossil fuels. And, you know, of that, of that demand, 70% is for heat, 30% is for electricity. So lots of opportunities for electrification to play a role to help decarbonize the, the industry. I see, I see a number of challenges to, to, to achieve that. And, and Arun talked a lot about the scale of the transformation required. And I think any decarbonization tool that you look at is going to require orders of magnitude of change. You know, he mentioned steel and, and you know, even that would take 16,000 terawatt hours of type of, of capacity. You know, CCS, I've seen numbers that by 2040, we'll need something on the order of, of 4,000 megatons per year of capacity. And right now, I think we're sitting roughly at 40 and maybe have 100, 100 megatons in, in, in projects. So, you know, again, orders of magnitude type scale hydrogen the same way. And so I think that scale piece is a, is, is a great challenge, but not one that we should shy away from. And, but what, you know, one of the challenges, there's no, not one entity that controls this, this transformation is going to really require the collective efforts of industry and policy. The other thing I think it's, it's also worth noting this, this is truly an energy transition and that word transition is key. I think we all know where we want to end up. I know we want to, you know, we want to limit the climate change to one and a half degrees C. We want to, you know, be negative emissions. I think that, that point B is, is, is really clear, but how we get there is not, is not apparently obvious. And I think one of the challenges I see as we engage our assets around their electrification journey and their decarbonization journey is, you know, they're wrestling with, you know, existing assets that are, are, are optimally designed to, to work on the current energy system. And so how do you take, take an asset that's, that's, that's purely optimized, it has this really strong process balance and have them take, you know, significant and meaningful steps, but measured steps towards decarbonization. You know, especially when you think about the capacity that needs to be built, the power and power generation storage costs may not be there. Even the grid, the, if you electrify now and you're relying on the grid, the grid emissions may not be better than you doing coaching at the site. So I think a lot of those are true dilemmas, and I think there is really an opportunity for a lot of transition technologies to help assets take, take those steps to, to, to become decarbonized. That may not get us to the end solution, but, but, but drive innovation in other areas that will ultimately get us there. And then I think the third challenge is the technology risk. You know, I think when you, you look at, you know, we've been, we've always been an industry that's sometimes reluctant to embrace technology. And one, have things proven out, particularly at the scale that we're, that we're looking at. And so we need, but we need, I think, and we've been in the mindset that I think the last, so years in terms of reduce our costs under projects and, and replicate technology where possible. But I think with this energy transition, there's a mind shift that needs to change where we are, you know, really looking at the next, the next wave of technology, building that manufacturing site of the future. Because if we're, if we're not doing that, I think it's, you know, we're going to be obsolete before we can get started. So I think that being more, have a bigger appetite for risk around technology is really key. But I think, I think as you, you know, to close, you know, we're, I think we're working towards a brighter future. I think there's some things that we need to come together. I think others mentioned policy, that's obviously really key. I think collaboration is really important, you know, across, across different industries, as customers, suppliers, you know, government, private sector partnerships. I think all of those things can, can play a role. Innovation, you know, is going to be really key. And I think one thing that gives me promise, I think we look a lot of times as a, as decarbonization as, as a cost, but I do think that there's going to be a lot of innovation and manufacturing is going to look a lot different in the next 20 years. And, and you'll see plants operate significantly different than the way they do now. You'll see different adjacent products made in the same sites. And, and I think there's going to be a lot of business opportunity that will come out of that inefficiencies that game that we probably haven't even dreamed, jumped up yet. And then I think the other thing that's really important is speed, you know, 2050 is around the corner, you know, the, the turning point that needs to happen around emissions is, is here. And all of these, these solutions that we talked about, like I said, they require orders of magnitude changes and scales. And we can't, we probably can't move fast enough in this space. And so I think there, there is a need for, for, for us to, to work together, work faster, make the investments necessary to, to, to move this forward. So looking forward to being a part of the panel, and I'll hand it back over to you, John. Oh, great. Thanks for me, in particular for further pushing on the scale of what is required, in particular, the timing that comes up in various dimensions and the need to kind of synchronize the timing as things unfold. So our last industry rep on this panel is Vijay Swarap, the director of technology at ExxonMobil, Vijay, take it away. Thank you, John. So you can hear me and I'm going to share my screen if that's okay. If it works, it looks like it's working on my end. Can you just, I'm asked for it to go to full screen. Are you good, John? Thumbs up. Okay, perfect. Well, listen, John, Jeff, Jeremy, Eric, Eric, it's an honor to be on a panel with you and Richard, Maxine, Yi. Thank you very much for inviting me to participate in this. It's truly an honor to be here and much like the room said, I look forward to doing these three dimensions in the future. It's hard to go third. I think Jeremy and Eric have done a phenomenal job of talking about this and framing the challenge. I want to come in a bit a little different and I want to start by just saying, you know, we're talking about developing our energy future, but I think it's sometimes important to take a step back and think about how far we've come. And quite frankly, the way we prosecute energy today, I'm not sure I would have imagined 30 plus years ago when I joined the industry. So this industry is amazing. It's a combination of every technology, of every engineering, and of every science discipline together. And just as a proof point to that, I want to look back for just a moment and talk about the innovations that we now take for granted, but the innovations that this industry has undergone over the past hundred or so years. And this slide talks about a lot of the innovations that ExxonMobil had a major role to play in, but these are things that you're all very familiar with in this audience. So everything from going back to the thirties and forties around synthetic rubber, hyacinth gasoline that came out of fluid catalytic cracking. We often forget that the catalysts we're using today, the synthetic catalysts were actually invented to do the conversions that we want to do in our industry. Digital simulation, the intersection of IT and energy go all the way back to the 1950s around thinking about how to simulate reservoirs using digital technology instead of hand calculation, things like that. Synthetic lubricants and plastic. The very discussion that Jeremy and others have talked about today about how do you do plastic? Well, think about the advantages of plastic frames, the light weighting, the clothing. Think of just, if you just take a step back and think about this conference and the energy required and the types of energy required to just pull off this virtual conference. As you get into the seventies, the lithium battery, which obviously is talked a lot about today, but the invention goes back 50 years ago and it just recently won the Nobel Prize, everyone knows. And then you can look to the right and you can see the things we're doing today. You get closer and closer today around the cracking and the extended reach drilling and the specialty plastics and taking plastics and lubricants and fuels and getting, getting more and more and more efficient. Point here is this is a technology industry and it is the intersection and the integration of every science and every engineering discipline. And the things that we do today, quite frankly, were unimaginable 30 years ago. And that's, that gives you optimism that there is science and there is technology, but we need to be balanced because if we think about the challenge that's ahead of us and you think about what is, what the society is wanting in terms of how they want to execute energy, you can see that this IEA report that's 34 of the 40 technologies are needed are not on track. That is a technology gap. And so we must talk about how do we close these technology gaps? And I think Jeremy and, and Jeff and others have talked about, Eric had talked about different ways to close the gap. And so we can leave that for the discussion, whether it's hydrogen or whether it's CCS or et cetera. The point is, is we need to accelerate. We need to get on with it. And the science community is a technology community. We think about, well, how do you accelerate technology? Because it's very hard to accelerate invention. It's very hard to say invent something by Friday. However, we want to accelerate technology. And let's talk about how we do that. So let's first talk about what Exxon is doing in terms of working towards a net zero future. And like my peers have talked about what their companies are doing, you can see what we have here, we have a net zero ambition, as you can read on the left. And on the right, you can talk, we talk about the components. And I, and in recent, we published an advancing climate solutions document, which you can see on our web. We put out various other documents, but let's think about what needs to happen. Because this really summarizes what was already talked about from equipment upgrading to technology, electrification, renewable power, policy and technology go together, policy technology infrastructure go together. And then while we have 2050 targets, we need to make sure we have steps that we take on the journey to 2050, which includes 2030 emission reduction plans. So much like my colleagues, we have plans, we have in place that we want to prosecute, but we want to accelerate. And so how do we go about the acceleration? And our, our thesis here is we need to collaborate. And when you think about different types of collaboration. So if you think about how you go about innovation, it goes from discovery to deployment to scale. And Arun talked about the challenge of scale, John talked about the challenge of scale. And what I'm talking, what we're shown here on this slide is the different roles that universities, national labs, small companies, followed by large corporation like ours that have the capital and the project expertise to do it. How do we go from doing things in series to doing things in parallel? How do we change the collaboration model to do that? And how do companies like ours that have the ability to participate in all four legs of this, of this chain from discovery to development to deployment to deployment to scale? How do we start influencing this in a format of accelerating? So the key here is recognizing that this is a technology industry, recognizing that we must have plans in place to provide energy while decarbonizing and then thinking about ways to collaborate in order to accelerate the energy transition. So with that, John, I will turn it back over to you and thank you again for allowing me to participate. Thanks very much VGA for your historical reminder on the extraordinary technology innovation that's occurred in your industry and other related industries. As you point out, the distinction between the oil and gas industry and the same digital IT industries was never really that big and as things have progressed, they're getting much closer together. And then too on your reminder that the purpose of this workshop is all about collaboration and not to forget about what's worked and what hasn't worked and what might be useful. We're moving forward. I assume we'll come back to that both in this session and in subsequent sessions. So to wrap us up for the initial comments, I'd like to call on Eric Messonette from UC Santa Barbara. Eric. Well, thank you to the organizers for the invitation to participate. I'm really honored to be here and really looking forward to the discussions. I'd like to start by, you know, one of the risks of coming last is that a lot of great points by these wonderful experts have already been made. So I'll do my best to reinforce key points and maybe even plant some seeds for the coming discussion. But I'd first like to acknowledge a point that VGA made and John just reinforced and that is as someone who started his career in the manufacturing sector and was work with the manufacturing sector and studied it for about 20 years. I think we have to acknowledge that industry has made great strides in terms of reducing its energy footprints over the years. So for example, it takes a lot less energy to produce a ton of cement or a ton of steel today than it did, you know, decades ago. However, some of those technologies are starting to reach their practical limit. And we all know that we're entering a new world, right? So we're probably all aware that the latest data have come out on the current CO2 emissions. The IEA reports that in 2021, global CO2 emissions rebounded to their highest level in history, which poses a big challenge, not just for the industrial sector, but for all sectors of the economy. And when we look at the industrial sector, just to reinforce some of the data that Jeff has shown, moving forward to 2050, these are data from the IEA's stated policy scenario, looking out to 2050, understated policies, including NDCs and other stated policies. We're looking at a plateau in global greenhouse gas emissions. And if we look at direct emissions, it looks like the challenge is pretty evenly divided between transport, industry and the power sector. However, when we take a more lifecycle view and we think about all the heat and power consumed by the industrial sector, this is where the industrial sector rises to the top. And one of the reasons it does is that the world demands lots of materials. So in the United States, there's a lot of talk about material demand reductions. I'll talk about that a bit more. But we also need to deploy a lot of materials for infrastructure and buildings and energy systems in developing countries to raise decent living standards, the standard of living to decent living standards for billions of people in the world. And what that means is that at present, the forecasts are for more cement, more steel, more chemicals, every energy intensive material you see here. So this is the dual challenge for industry, decarbonizing while at the same time meeting growing demand for services from the industrial sector. And there's no one size fits all solution. This point has been made already by several speakers. These are some results from the IEA's most recent scenario. They're net zero by 2050 scenario. And the reason I pointed out is for two reasons, essentially. The first is that by 2050, there could be quite a rise in greenhouse gas emissions under the sort of business as usual scenario to meet all the material demands of a growing world population. And if we look at some of the technology solutions that the IEA has laid out for getting to net zero, it's clear that there's no one size fits all right, we're going to need some CCS, we're going to need more energy efficiency, electrification will become important, hydrogen materials efficiency. So we need a multi pronged approach to solving the industrial decarbonization problem. And it's a big part of it is technology, but another big part of it is deployment and other part of it is policy and incentives. Some of it is changing behavior among the consumers of industrial products. This graph I just revealed on the right hand side breaks down the same decarbonization space, but by the level of technology maturity as estimated by the IEA. And what we can see here is roughly half of the decarbonization needed has to come from technologies that are only at the demonstration phase now, or even in the prototype phase. However, that doesn't relieve, you know, that does that's not to de stress the importance of investing in existing technologies, ones that are already on the market and proven and ones that just need a boost to increase their market uptake. But we need a multi pronged approach to rolling out and adopting all of these technologies. It's a very heterogeneous and difficult problem to solve for this sector. And when we think about industrial electrification, what I'm showing here is sort of a matrix of available technologies reinforcing some of the technologies that that Jeff mentioned in his presentation. And I want to stress two key points here. So electrification no doubt has a big role to play for decarbonizing industry, we know that it also has to be coupled with green electricity on the supply side. But it's a heterogeneous problem. So we tend to think of electrification as kind of, you know, a straightforward decarbonization, you know, class of technologies, right? The truth is, is that there's a range of difficulty, even in existing electrification technologies, which we have today. So there are some technologies like electric boilers, which you see here as being important to nearly every industrial sector. As long as we're replacing a standalone boiler, these are more or less drop in solutions. However, and there perhaps, you know, deployment incentives, you know, cost incentives can help move the needle on on those drop in solutions. But there are other forms of electrification, which require a lot more engineering to get right in a typical industrial plant. So I'm pointing here to radio frequency baking drying in the food industry. We can replace natural gas fire dryers with electrified dryers. But there's also a lot of engineering that has to go into that deployment to make sure that we're getting the same product quality. It's not as simple as just, you know, plugging buying in and plugging it in. And this implies a lot more technical assistance and other policy support for rolling out some of these electrified technologies, even though we have them today. And clearly, there's a need for, you know, really big advancements for electrified counts, hydrogen and chemicals, all the things we see out here. We don't have these in place yet, as Arun mentioned, there's a large challenge to accelerating the R&D on these technologies so we can move them closer to today, but also demonstrating these technologies, building pilot plans, funding public-private partnerships to sort of de-risk the investment, because it takes a long time for emerging technologies to gain acceptance and to have uptake. And we don't really have that time. I do want to maybe plant another seed that I think is really important. And that relates to good old energy efficiency. So what I'm showing you here is a wonderful, some graph from a wonderful new study by my colleague, Scale Boyd and Ern Swirl. They constructed what they're calling the deep decarbonization of manufacturing scenario, or DDM, as you see in this graph. And what you're seeing are the various pillars they propose for decarbonizing the U.S. manufacturing sector. So a couple of observations here. The first is energy efficiency still rises to the top, at least in the U.S., as a strategy for decarbonization. And for those of you who follow the energy efficiency space, I've got a quote here from Amory Lovens. He's been a champion of energy efficiency for decades. He points out what has been pointed out for many years. Efficiency is generally the largest, cheapest, safest, cleanest, and fastest way to reduce energy use and, therefore, emissions. The IEA calls efficiency its first fuel. It's better to save energy than it is to deploy new capacity. But it's something we really can overlook, because we have the technologies today. And for every technology we deploy that reduces the demand for energy, we save on fossil fuels. If we're saving energy in electrical and use systems, we're reducing pressure on the grid, therefore freeing up capacity for maybe more electrification elsewhere. And the other thing is that technology learning is really critically important. So the more of these technologies we deploy, the more installations we have, the cheaper they become, the less the risk is to other adopters. The other key point here is that in the U.S. especially, we can't ignore light industry. So a lot of focus is on emerging long-range technologies for the heavy industries. Those are critical, no doubt. But we also have a pretty big base of light industry all around the world and here in the U.S. that mostly use technologies that are fairly easy to decarbonize through a green grid and energy efficiency, as you see here. That's an opportunity for near-term savings that we shouldn't ignore while we wait for the more advanced technologies to come for heavy industries. How can we do this? How can we accelerate? Vijay mentioned that we need to accelerate. I've got some ideas here that we can discuss later. But for a lot of these existing technologies, there are knowledge barriers to overcome. A lot of especially smaller plants aren't aware of the opportunities or how to install them. Case studies, technical resources, deployment incentives can help here. Reducing perceived risk through pilot projects, demonstrations, new case studies. And there's also a big opportunity to really quantify and sell the co-benefits of a lot of these clean technologies. So I'm using an example here on the right of electrode boilers. Clearly we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That's a big incentive. But a lot of these technologies come along with a lot of co-benefits that also impact the bottom line. Reduced floor area, reduced onsite pollution abatement costs, faster ramp-up, and so forth. So quantifying, measuring, communicating, and incentivizing these co-benefits could be really crucial for reducing their costs, the so-called green premium that you've heard about. The last point I'd like to make reinforces one of the key points that Arun made, which is that historically we've approached the industrial sector by focusing on the production side. Let's decarbonize material production. And what you're seeing here are some results from a recent study on decarbonizing the cement sector in the United States. But the study took a life cycle approach. So if we just focus on the supply side, the studies tell us we do have the existing technologies, or sorry, and emerging technologies to decarbonize cement by mid-century. But it's going to require a lot of CCS and advancement of emerging technologies. However, if we look at the demand side, opportunities for reducing the demand for cement in the first place through more material efficient buildings, material substitution, what happens is two things. First, we spread the decarbonization challenge out among more technologies. So we open up the opportunity space. The second thing that we do is we empower more stakeholders. So I'm showing the same results here, but now in kind of a radar plot, where you can see sort of the production approach to decarbonizing concentrates the challenge and the burden among concrete producers, cement producers, material scientists. We still need clearly the stakeholders involved in decarbonization. But by focusing on the more opportunities on the demand side, material substitution in buildings, more material efficient designs, we spread the decarbonization opportunity over many more stakeholders and empower them to make changes, architects, construction engineers, governments, and so forth. And by doing so, we can hopefully accelerate decarbonization. So I also want to plant the seed for the demand side that Arun stressed as being so important. And with that, I'll wrap up my comments and looking forward to the discussions that follow. Great. Thanks very much, Eric. And you did indeed really set the stage for some interesting questions and the subsequent portions of this panel. Now, for the audience, remember to submit your questions through the chat box. I only see one or two in there so far. So as we get into some cross cutting questions for the panel, please think about and submit any additional questions you may have. So I'd actually like, since we still have Eric on screen and kind of following on his storyline that he was going quite quickly through some interesting material that was a little bit too detailed to follow completely. I'd like to ask him and then we can have the rest of the panel perhaps add their reactions to this question. What are some examples of energy efficient technologies that could be rolled out very quickly in many industrial plants? So things that could be done quickly. And let's put the Majumdar challenge in there. Maybe they don't have to be gigaton-ish, but significant fractions of gigatons. I think it would be interesting to see how the industry folks and Jeff Risman react to what you put forward as your talk, say three or four in that category. So it's kind of that column on your timing of the transition table that you could think of it as what some people would call low-hanging fruit type things that we, you know, only a fool would not do it. We always hear from Amory that they are fools for not doing these things. That's usually true, not all the time, but usually true. So what is your set of three or four, you know, can do, must do, if we can't do this in the short run, we're going to have trouble in the long run type options. Yeah, thanks, John. And apologies for going so quickly. So energy efficiency, you know, in industrial plants, most of the opportunities relate to what we call cross-cutting opportunities. So most industrial plants have steam systems. They have motor systems. They have process heating systems. And efficiency upgrades to those systems are generally very low cost. They have quick payback periods. The reason they haven't been adopted, like you say, economists say only a fool wouldn't adopt them. They all look good on paper, but there are some real-world barriers to their adoption, such as, you know, lack of financial incentives, lack of knowledge, you know, sometimes for these industries, energy isn't a large chunk of their overall cost structure. So it's often ignored. But, you know, simple things like increasing control, you know, installing new controls, improving insulation, waste heat recovery that Jeff may reinforce is a big one through heat pumps. More efficient motors can save a lot of electricity in most plants. These are known technology improvements. And, you know, we need to accelerate them. Not just double down, but triple down, because for every unit of energy we save, the rest of the challenge becomes a bit easier. And often we might get technology learning and cost reductions through more deployments. Great. Thanks, Eric. Do any of the other panelists want to comment on this portion of what the kind of most urgent things to do to kind of demonstrate and learn and so on, as Eric put it, particularly the industry folks? So let's go, VJ, I see VJ, Eric, you're saying? Yeah. Hey, John, thank you. And Eric, that was a great lead. And let me talk about things that are maybe tangential, but are also critical. So let's talk about some of the things that we're doing as a company around how do you start to address the emissions challenge. And of course, we're doing that today with methane. As you know, methane is a powerful, has a high greenhouse gas warming potential. And so if we can eliminate huge of methane, and if we can get ahead of that, particularly as we're producing natural gas, that's important. And so we have very, very aggressive targets on reducing methane. That is a form of efficiency. But that helps. And I think to Eric's point, it is also about making sure you have all the integration opportunities around heat management, things like that. But I think we have to look at the entire value change on everywhere from extraction all the way to consumption. And in each one of those, look at where you do have things you can do today. So again, I'm talking about methane, talking about process heat integration, et cetera, lighting weight plastics, lighting weight materials for end users to reduce their emissions. And then the final thing I would say that Eric touched on a little bit is that integration of digital and opportunities. Because the more we can do with big data and the more we can do with analytics around detection and mitigation, I think the faster we can go to implement solutions. I think I next, thank you, Vijay. I think next, Eric, you're shamed with his hand up, Eric. Yeah, I think that to complement what Vijay just said, it's about definitely integration and the art of integration. And it's also not just to integrate within the boundaries of an asset, but for instance, also to provide low temperature heat to central heating of nearby cities. That's something that we have not been doing. And now we are starting to see networks coming closer. I would say local authorities are ready to build these networks and then we can provide them it. And that's, for instance, something we are working on several locations. Of course, we can always replace what I would say steam turbines by large motors. But it's also a matter of reliability, because if you trip a steam cracker and then it takes three days and you flare at 40 tons an hour during three days, then you will emit a lot of CO2 during those three days. So reliability of solutions is of critical essence. I think that also one thing that has not been mentioned, but that may appear is that we are going to burn hydrogen. I think that at some stage we are going to burn hydrogen in large furnaces. And the hydrogen could be the one produced by the ethan cracking, for instance, or it could be the one that will be, well, it might be on purpose hydrogen. And well, overall, it will means a lot of energy being used. And I like the heat and mass balance that displayed by Aaron to say that it will be massive in terms of energy production because there will be, well, to produce hydrogen, well, the yields are not outstanding right now. It will improve thanks to technology, but it's not outstanding. And there are some thermodynamics limits. But I do believe we will burn hydrogen. And on the cracker, for instance, you can reduce, you can almost divide by two, almost immediately on an ethan cracker, the emission and reduced by half a million tons, for instance, burning hydrogen. Great. Jeremy or Jeff Rusman, do you want to comment on this one or read for later questions? Yeah, sure. No, I'm happy to add in. I do think, you know, a lot, you know, it's sort of like the initials, I mean, there's a lot of interest, obviously, the high temperature range of heat, but there's a lot of low hanging fruit at the low in, you know, where heat pumps are a very good solution or, you know, driver electrification, which does, it has the benefit of forcing sites to invest in their grid infrastructure and their electrical capacity, but maybe not at a massive step that it would take to electrify the high heat. And I think a lot of those interim solutions or examples where you do a bit of hybrid electric gas heat is another example where you can sort of take advantage of arbitrage in the market to where you have the availability of green electrons and burn that. But when you're on the grid, which may be not as green, you could use gas. I think a lot of those opportunities are really there. And I think definitely should focus on this in the short term, because I think those can be quick wins while we work up to bigger steps. But I think the process balance piece is key because, you know, I mean, anytime you displace a hydrogen carbon stream with an electric stream, you have to do something with the gas, right? You know, if it's a fuel gas, you have to work it into your stream. And I find that that to be a bit of a challenge as we work with assets as they make those steps, you know, how do they deal with those distress process streams? Because, you know, those are not always simple answers to that. Great. Actually, I think I'll call an audible and rather than ask Jeff Rissman this question, go back because several people have come back to this. The idea of technologies being at different levels, I think Eric's slide calls it readiness, kind of readiness, almost everybody, I think everybody is actually talked about. So I want to go back to what Jeff showed on this last slide again, as he was writing at a time, a little bit too quickly. And in that slide, he talked about the different challenges at the different levels of technology maturity. And we fit in audience question we've gotten so far from Mark Necodome, sorry if I mispronounce your name. And that is at the end of that chart, what role do you see for publicly funded R&D as many of the technologies we now enjoy were pump primed, set up, set the stage for engineering development and entrepreneurship through federally funded R&D, say through DOE in general, or RPE, as they kind of go between the lab to the VC stage of the technology development ecosystem. So Jeff, do you want to talk about that slide, put that slide up or go through maybe I'll give a few examples of what you think is most important at the different stages of technology readiness. Sure. So my last slide was about different policies and how they how different policies can support technologies at different levels of readiness. I hadn't categorized which technology was at which level of readiness on my slide, but I think Eric Messonnier had had on his. So I'll just go through them verbally. So I put them in order, sort of number one was supporting for research and development. And that gets the Marx question from the chat box. Government support for R&D is incredibly important. It has been fundamental to the development, particularly the early stage development of many technologies that are important today, power generation through solar or wind, say, or the internet and many other examples. So there are mechanisms, this is a, there are mechanisms government can use ranging from leading public private partnerships, having national labs cooperate with private firms to in on on research projects, direct funding, so contract research and grants and so on, as well as incentives like R&D tax credits and creating an enabling environment by things like ensuring that businesses have access to the science, technology, engineering and math talent they need to succeed. And and that's important. Really R&D is important at all stages of technology lifecycle because you need further R&D to develop, to scale up and drive down costs, but it's particularly like the government role is particularly acute in the earlier stages. The second one was subsidies, tax credits, equipment rebates, that's useful when it's pretty early, it's possible now, it's reaching the market, you can buy it, but it's more expensive and it's smaller user base. So it's affordable for the government to use subsidies to help promote the the uptake of the equipment, since it's still at small scale, and that can help it achieve cost parity. The third was green public procurement, which is sort of the next step where government is a major buyer of many of these industrial materials. So for roads there's the there's a lot of cement and concrete needed and steel for infrastructure, bridges, as well as vehicles and equipment that the government buys. So if government is willing to prioritize the lower carbon materials in its procurement, that's a way to give a sort of protected starter market. Government hasn't high enough demand that you need to be able to meet these quantities demanded, which is why it requires a little bit higher technological maturity than some of the earlier tools. But it's still so that's sort of a middle stage. Then I had emissions standards, which are good. Once you have more efficient options, they're often very inefficient and low performing options will persist on the market. Standards can help to drive them off. That's good because there are information barriers and other non market barriers that can inhibit certain actors will be very cost sensitive and will move right away. Others will have various challenges and so standards can help overcome the non-price barriers. My last item there, policy support, was carbon pricing, which is for the most mature technologies. That's because you want to use carbon pricing when you can switch to a cleaner option. If the cleaner option is not mature and commercially available, people will just pay the carbon price instead of switching. While that might lower emissions a little bit through reduced demand, that's not the powerful effect you want to achieve. The powerful effect you really want is to switch from the high-emissions production to the low-emissions production methods. That's why carbon pricing is a good fit when there are commercialized low-emissions options that people can switch to. That's what I was trying to get at with different policies that are best suited for different levels of technological maturity. Do any of the other panelists want to talk about that? One thing that occurs to me is almost all the panelists have talked about if you're going to do government policies. It's important from the private sector perspective to have some stability and continuity in that, where you don't have one set of incentives and they go away. I do have my own question regarding this, the way the world has evolved, particularly and including the peristeele, and how that actually came together and the aftermath of that is, to one extent, can large corporations and philanthropic organizations, if I could call them that, and I would include not just fossil fuel industries, which are front and center, but also the financial industry and similar, what I would call stakeholders. How much can you, on an outside of government, when government has trouble maintaining commitments from, say, one administration to the next to set it up? To me, it's kind of exciting to see what has happened in all the organization. Ultimately, I think government needs to be a kind of non-trivial player in it, but I wonder how people on the corporate side feel about if we can't get the governments to do the right thing, gosh darn it, we're going to band together and start doing it just on our own. Eric, to Shane. Yeah. I think that the way to answer it is actually, well, first need to have a vision and need to have, I would say, a CO setting where we have to go and then by when. And then after that, it's to apply the rule of commodity business. We are, well, we are in a commodity business. We have to consider that, and therefore we have to be very good at the cost controlling the capital expenditure, the cost of our project, the operational cost, the fixed cost, all those basics that I would say we have been through, for instance, in the refining industry, which is, well, you save dime after dime. And I think that this is, well, we will need hydrogen, we will need power, green power, so we will be part of it as total energy and we'll build large plants, we'll negotiate hard on cost, all those standard recipes will have to be applied and then of course we will have to make choices because we cannot diversify to the infinite. And once you have the choice, you apply the rule, you go big, massive, and you control your cost and you try to be fast. Great, John, let me, John, like it, if I could roll, that question within another form of asking something that I try to talk about, which is, well, how are we going to change how we collaborate? And I recognize that we're at Stanford, even though we're all very different places right now, we're all virtually at Stanford today. And let's talk about the various roles that can be played because universities play a major role. The question talked about the role that the national labs have played. Universities play a huge role in understanding fundamentals and coming up with a lot of the ideas, a lot of the inventions that we then take to scale. National labs play a huge role because of the equipment they bring and the expertise they bring to do some accelerated testing. Small companies that do the first deployment play a critical role. And then finally, it is about scale. And so the folks you have on this panel today, we really do focus on scale. But the more we can collaborate and do things in parallel instead of in series, the more we have opportunities to accelerate. So John, I mean, one of the themes of this panel is collaboration to acceleration. Because as Arun pointed out, it is about getting to gigatons and gigawatts and giga everything. And that's what we need to be thinking about. So I think Stanford in places like the universities play a huge role in this. So therefore, given that we're here at Stanford, at least virtually at this point, I'm going to ask you to even stretch your stretchy vision beyond what I can even comprehend. What role do you see research partnerships like the ones that we've established here at Stanford, thanks to folks like you all? What role do you think they have to play in accelerating decarbonization efforts? Is the current membership of the strategic alliance agreement here broad enough? Do you need other players in here, either formally or informally? How can the companies collaborate with each other? How can the corporate leaders collaborate more productively with people, et cetera? I know we have a panel at the end of this workshop on that, but I think it's probably not a bad idea to start floating some ideas even at this point in the program. Vijay, do you want to start on that? Thanks John. Let's talk about that for just a minute because let's, Stanford started this with GSEP. So the very first, if you will, energy center was GSEP. And I think to Stanford's credit, just as many of our companies and many of the panels here and then, is it's an evolution. And so for instance, we just started a company. One of our three business units now is a low carbon solutions company, which is focusing on deploying these types of technologies. Stanford with the Stanford energy alliance is bringing together to melting pot. Universities are melting pots. You have a new school of sustainability. So these movements are going to be enablers to drive collaboration. Remember, energy is the integration of every science, every technology, huge policy play, huge infrastructure play. And therefore, what the Stanford energy alliance allows is this congregation of skills to come together. And with companies like ours that are transitioning and putting more emphasis on these low carbon solutions, every one of the, every one of the panelists is doing that, it becomes a natural intersection between what the universities are focused on and what industry is focusing on. And to my last point on that, John, would be if you think about universities to companies like ours, that is the ultimate challenge. How do you go from lab to scale? And the more we can collaborate and the more we can talk about it, the more we can influence the fundamentals with the pathway to scale. And the more you can enlighten us on things you're working on, that could be game changing technologies if we can figure out how to take them from lab to scale. Great. Thank you, Jay. Any other other panelists want to comment on this subject? You're all directly or indirectly. Eric, you say, and then Eric. Maybe just, yeah, just maybe one additional contribution of Stanford would be to ensure and to make people fond of our industries and willing to join our industries because we need talents. We can have, what I would say, great ideas. I've seen, well, what about the values of this? Well, we need people willing to take an idea from the lab and to put it into a plan to make it a live story. And I think that universities have a great, great role to educate, to develop and really to send us talents. And then after that, it will be our job to retain them. It's not that easy, but we need that. And things like, after that, when you do CCS, for instance, it's not just about drilling a hole and putting a pump and injecting CO2. It's a bit more sophisticated. You need modeling. And we need also a lot of research and science into that. So there's a lot to be done. But what I, most probably we cannot describe it. At least I cannot describe it. More young people can mostly do that. But that's, that's something you should not worry about. There's a lot to be done, much more than ten years ago. Yeah, obviously in the IT sector, we often have students trained through either government or collaborative funding that doesn't go out and do startups that are then, their companies are bought to do kind of what you might call internal venturing and become part of big IT companies. I don't see any reason that couldn't be true of the energy industries. Eric Messonette. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, John. Just very quickly. So in addition to universities playing a huge role in technology invention, innovation and deployment, there's also a role for modeling and analysis, you know, producing credible numbers, what if scenarios to kind of understand the technology opportunity space that policymakers rely on, investors rely on and so forth. And I see that as a critical role of universities moving forward. So the industrial sector has historically been one that's really tough to model, especially new emerging technologies because they're generally developed in private. We don't have a lot of great data on their performance. But, you know, developing these roadmaps to get the net zero really requires a lot of data analysis and modeling. As you well know, John, from running EMF for so many years, that this is another set of skills that universities can bring to bear to help accelerate technologies by producing the credible numbers, the assessments, the cost targets, what if this technology was deployed instead of that one, that information is really needed to make more sound decisions about where the policy should go. The transparency and traceable accounts that you get through a kind of open public analytic framework is quite invaluable. For those of you who know me, you know, I've spent my whole life asking people, what's the biggest advantage of doing this kind of modeling? And I won't impugn anybody, but several of them have Nobel Prize winners or CEOs of big companies nowadays. They weren't back when I first asked this question. The answer is generally not to optimize anything, but to get us meeting both the policy side and the corporate strategy side to not do really counterproductive things. It's impugn since there's not many policy developers here, let's impugn the policy people. So some corporate people say we have the same problem occasionally on ourselves. Anybody else want to talk about this? I find this all, for me, very exciting. It really does set the way forward for both this workshop and this part of the Strategic Energy Alliance. I would say one thing that I observed in GCEP is even as brilliant as Stanford is, there are people in academia and corporate people that we don't do. So as you probably, Richard, the students probably got the number, but a large share of the resources put into GCEP was actually put into sponsoring cutting-edge energy technology projects at other universities and labs. I don't know if that's in the cards. These can either be formally or in formally linked in. Any other comments on this subject? Cheryl, I'll add something. I mean, you asked earlier around the role of government as well. When you look at Shell's power and progress strategy, I think Shell wants to position itself a leader in the transition, probably likely like Total and Exxon. But I think what our caveat is, we do it in step of society. So if the customers are not demanding lower carbon products, it's really unlikely that industry is going to be incentivized to do that. But obviously, I think what we're seeing in the trend is that society is demanding outside of government regulations to lower carbon products. You saw Larry Fink's letter to CEOs a few years back about talking about climate risk is investment risk. And so you see an investment community pulling back on that and larger other IT tech companies wanting to have green power and be net zero. So I think industry will go down the decarbonization path without government support. But I think government can help really accelerate that much, much faster. And I think you need government support if you actually do want to achieve the Paris climate goals. Because as a private company, we are somewhat limited on what our demands from our customers are. And at the end of the day, people want to have a reliable source of energy. And that's always going to be a trade off to the decarbonization. So I think government can really help that through some of the policy pieces. And I think the role that Stanford can play, this transition is basically a disruption of the entire energy industry. This transition is transforming our entire energy system. I think we need entrepreneurs. We need people to develop those businesses of the future to help us come up with commercial approaches to help accelerate this transition. And I think Stanford could play a role not just in the technology space, but also fostering entrepreneurs to help bring these new ideas to market. Great points. I think tying two of those things together. Another group that might be interesting to engage in, as I'm not even sure if they're on the program, is the Sustainable Finance Initiative, another Strategic Energy Alliance initiative. And in that space, this is actually just echoing what Jeremy just said. There's a big desire to use public financing to leverage private financing. So I wonder if getting the kind of finance industry people together with the government people, and this kind of group that has been organized here. So since I've been told we're going to turn into a pumpkin at 10 minutes after the hour, which is about two or three minutes from now, I think I'll offer Mark Necodem and Amit Sarkar just a minute. So Mark has a follow-up question regarding how to avoid the Valley of Death problem, which I think, in a way, has been implicitly addressed by this panel. And Amit asked, maybe we'll start with this because I think it's easier to answer, what can we expect in industrial demonstration or deployment stage in five to seven years if you can actually give a forecast, the industry folks, what things that are not easy to do or in the kind of work stream for implementation now, do you expect we'll be in the development stage in five to seven years? Anything spring to mind? Well, I think, John, it's all three of us to talk it on. I'll go real quick, Eric, and then turn it over to you. But I think we're at the initiation. Think about this in terms of an organic chemistry reaction. You start with initiation and then you go to propagation. And so I think in five to seven years, we're going to be in the propagation phase and we're going to be in the propagation phase across three critical technologies that certainly we're focused on, carbon capture, hydrogen, and biofuels. And I think if we can get those three into the propagation phase in the next five to seven years, we'll be in a very different place than we are today. And that's what I think we're headed towards. Terrific. Eric, you're saying last word. Yeah. Just to add that, I think that in seven years, we start to see large plants utilizing CO2 to make chemicals and to make large chemicals that whose usage is large and not something that is a tiny niche. Great. Super. Sorry, I didn't leave enough time for me to summarize, but I think the panel just did a great summary of the session. I really appreciate that. So with that said, given that we're at the butchering hour for this session, I'd like to turn the control of this. Thank you to all the panelists and the two questioners from the audience that we actually saw for great presentations, discussion, and questions. Thank you one and all.