 I would now like to introduce Jennifer Milne. Jennifer is the senior research program officer for the Precourt Institute for Energy and the Strategic Energy Alliance at Stanford University. Jennifer will facilitate our session on bio inspired solutions for carbon and introduce the two speakers over to you Jennifer. Thank you. You know this workshops about hybrid solutions and engineered solutions. And as you'll see the biochar David's going to talk about is quite clearly in the hybrid because it has an engineered component to it. But one of the most important aspects that underlines a lot of these hybrid solutions we talk about our soils. But without being able to measure or monitor or verify the amount of carbon that we actually sequester and that stays there, implementing soils on a global scale for carbon management. It's not really going to be one of the things we can do with integrity without those. So Pete is going to talk about almost everything else except for biochar to do with soils. And he's going to talk about one of the most important aspects which is monitoring and reporting and verifying the carbon that we can actually sequester in these soils and he's going to give some real world examples. Now with David's talk he's going to touch on a platform that he that actually exists on bioenergy and biochar so as most of you will probably know biochar can be used to supplement soils to increase carbon in some some instances. He's going to talk about some of the details there and talk about some of the products that we can get with that some of the energy products. So with that, I'll introduce David. He's a professor. David Laird is a professor in the Department of Agronomy and Environmental Science at Iowa State University. He's his research interests are mainly in the use of pyrolysis and today he'll talk about fast pyrolysis to process biomass into bioenergy and biochar and co-products. And also talk about biochar amendments to soil and what that can do for soil quality. And I'll also just introduce Pete just now so that we have a smooth transition going between the speakers. So Pete Smith is a professor at Aberdeen University in Scotland. He his main expertise is in modeling greenhouse gas and carbon mitigation, bioenergy, biological carbon sequestration and global food systems modeling and greenhouse gas removal technologies so you can see their full bios on on the website but these are at the top of their fields and really the best folks to talk to us today about these subjects so with that David, do you want to start sharing your slides. Thank you Jennifer. First of all, I want to thank everyone for the opportunity to be part of this workshop and really exciting the last couple of days. And secondly, I want to acknowledge my collaborators in this effort, Robert Brown, who's Professor of mechanical engineering and expert in fast pyrolysis technology and Mark Wright, who's also mechanical engineering and is an expert in techno economic analysis. Yesterday, one of the biggest challenges we have to decarbonizing our economy are liquid transportation fuels, and in particular jet marine diesel fuels which cannot be easily displaced with electricity. There are relatively few options for obtaining these, one of which is biomass and the other of which of course is electric chemical production of CO2. And second point I want to make is the overall role of soil carbon in this system. There is as much carbon in the soils as there is in the biosphere atmosphere and upper ocean combined. On an annual basis, around 120 gigatons of carbon removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis and another 120 returned to the atmosphere through combined effects of plant respiration and soil microbial respiration. So in any system to address climate change to remove carbon, we need to think about whether carbon is exiting or exiting the soil or entering the soil to address this challenge. This takes me to what's called the paralysis biochar bioenergy platform, which is somewhat analogous to BEX. It's envisioned as a broadly distributed network of relatively small pyrolysis, using a bio crude, which can then be sent to a refinery for production of liquid transportation fuels, and a biochar co product, which would be returned locally to the soils, ideally from which the biomass is harvested. And in so doing would recycle plant nutrients potassium calcium magnesium phosphorus that are harvested with the biomass, and at the same time provide a highly calcitrate carbon to build and enhance soil quality. This has the potential to initiate a positive feedback system in which we enhance soil carbon sequestration at the same time generating a liquid fuels which are critically needed. The enabling technology is known as auto thermal fast. Fast pyrolysis has certainly been around for a long time. But two new innovations have made this move this to the forefront. First of which is auto thermal operation, which means titrating in just enough oxygen to make the reaction exothermic. This solves the transfer problem and allows a seven X scale up of the biomass throughput the feedstock without any change in the size of the reactor. The second advancement involves various stage fractionation technologies, which allows the physical isolation of a sugar fraction predominantly liberal Gulkasson, which can be in first generation plants for meted to make ethanol and later generation plants can be used to make polymers solvents and other products. A phenolic oil fraction, which in first generation plants can be used directly for the production of bio asphalt, and in second generation plants can be stabilized by hydrogenation and then shipped to a existing oil refinery and turned into drop in jet marine and diesel fuels. There is also an acetate fraction, which is relatively low value, but does have some potential applications either is generating thermal energy or production of other products. And finally, of course, there's the biochar fraction, which I mentioned before, and which is critical in making the overall harvesting of biomass sustainable. Techno economic analysis by Mark Wright suggests that a 250 ton per day plant can reach about a break even cost of production when the knowledge oil is selling for around $500 per megagram, which is in the mid range of current prices for So the technology David, David, I'm sorry to step in. This is Evan, your audio is cutting in and out. Could I get you Oh, I see. Okay, yeah, could I get you to just help still. Yeah, it'll probably help, but it's fine still loose cable. So, so just try not to knock the cable too much. Okay, sorry about that. Thank you so no sorry. The, the economic analysis does not include a significantly more economical. 250 ton a day plant is also what all of these plants would be highly carbon negative, because they are thermic reactions so they're not requiring any fuel. The biochar itself gets a high long term credit. If you're making a bio asphalt there's at least potential for carbon credit for that if the phenolic fraction is turned into diesel or jet than that zeroes out. And briefly the reason we're looking at a 250 ton per day scale is because of the, well certainly economies of scale that increase with plant size, but at the same time there is a negative cost associated with biomass harvest storage transport logistics. So about a 250 ton per day plant is about where those two lines cross for at least corn stover in the Midwest, it will vary by feedstock. Turning to biochar. There is a first point is that there has been an enormous growth in literature with over 17,000 publications in the last 15 years. And emerging from this is a broad consensus that half life in excess of 100 years. It also enhances soil quality soil health in the physical sense by addressing bulk density soil porosity water retention chemical sense by recycling nutrients harvested with biomass and functioning as a liming agent. This has an impact on the biological properties of soil increasing nutrient cycling. There are of course a large number of gaps and I've just mentioned a few of them here. One of the key is the value proposition for farmers, many times, particularly in temperate regions there's little or no yield increase and tropical regions there's often more obvious yield increase. There are also management systems for very diverse soil climate crop systems, defining and greeting biochar system level LCA's and the last two priming and modeling, I will address in the next two slides. The second is the concept of getting a synergism here. This is an example study in which 7.25 mega grams of carbon biochar carbon were applied in 2011 came back 2017, and the total soil carbon had increased to about 14 mega grams. This 7.25 that was applied was essentially still there, and an additional 6.75 mega grams of carbon and accrued. And this is the result of a priming or negative priming phenomena, the fact that biochar functions to catalyze formation and stabilization of new soil organic matter. This means in a sense, the potential to almost double the carbon credit associated with the biochar. However, there's a question mark here and this is because the literature is not at all consistent. We've seen positive negative and other types of reactions and net zero reactions. So more basic research is needed. Secondly, I want to mention modeling first generation models are now available. In this example, predicting the probability of a crop yield increase across crop lands in the United States. However, the need is for a second generation modeling capability, in which we can start advising individual farmers with individual crops management systems on the optimum management process for biochar. This will be to summary. First of all that the paroluses biochar can provide critical jet marine and diesel fuels dropping. Secondly, this technology can be scaled to address the very serious logistics problems. Regarding biomass harvest storage and transport. Thirdly, and perhaps, most important is the fact that biochar has the potential, if done correctly to initiate a positive feedback system, what you sequester carbon in the soil, which enhances soil quality, which increases crop productivity increases carbon input to soil, which sequesters more carbon in the soil. This positive feedback has potential to increase the amount of biomass that can be sustainably harvested, going from maybe 50% crop residue to 75% crop residue being harvested. And at the same time can have an impact on food security food production by decreasing or perhaps better to say, slowing the increase in the amount of land area needed for food production. And of course, this is intrinsically located in rural communities and therefore has the potential to create jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities in those communities with that I thank you. Pete, are you ready to take it away. So you can see that full screen. What I'll be talking about today is soil carbon sequestration, the technology challenges. But as Jenny outlined in the, in the introduction at the beginning I'm not going to be talking about carbon sequestration per se. I'm talking mainly about some of the technology challenges for monitoring reporting and verification, which is the thing that's really preventing market penetration for soil carbon sequestration at the moment. So if we have a look at the technical potential, the reason we're looking at soils is because there's a large potential out there. So the technical potential for soil carbon sequestration is about 1.3 gigatons of carbon equivalence per year that's carbon not CO2. And the economic potential, if we just look at what's economic for between about 20, 100 US dollars per tonne of CO2 equivalence. It's around about 0.4 to 0.7 gigatons of carbon equivalence per year. And as you can see on this graph, which I've shown at the bottom, we've got some options that one over on the right, and the bottom, the bottom right hand corner is restoring histosol. So that's restoring peatlands. You get a very big bang for your buck there. There's a lot of carbon that you can avoid emissions and also sequester up to about 50 tons of carbon per hectare per year, but relatively small areas. So on the Y axis, you can see is the area of the practice that in millions of hectares that it could be applied to. So you got a few big ticket items, but available on fairly small areas. And then you over on the right over on the left hand side of the graph, you can see those that can be applied to very wide areas. But they have a lower mitigation potential per hectare. So this is where biochar application grazing land management, cropland management and those sorts of things fit in. So the technology is very mature in terms of knowing how to manage the soil and knowing what will increase the soil carbon. But the thing that's holding us up at the minute, as I'll explain in a moment, is mainly the MRV, the monitoring, reporting and verification. So in a paper on climate, climate smart soils, which came out in 2016 by Keith Paustian and colleagues. We looked at the what you can do to restore soil carbon. And we developed this decision tree, which basically you start at the top, have you got degraded or marginal land, you can restore it to perennial vegetation. If not, have you got drained cropped histosols? If not, if you have, you can restore wetland. If not, you go to look at your nutrient deficiency and so on and so forth. Most of these options are to do with increasing the carbon input to the soil or reducing the carbon losses through reducing the intensity of tillage and increasing the carbon inputs through things like improved crop rotations and deeper rooted species. So those, those are the sort of techniques that I'll not be talking about today. I'm now going to move on to the reason why it's not currently happening at the scale that it could be. There are a number of issues. So the first one is saturation. So as, as you, as you change your management practice from a low soil carbon level. For the first time step, say that's five or 10 years, you get a large increase in carbon stock. So that's quite a large removal of CO2 from the atmosphere every year. So the same same time step, so that's five or 10 years, you get gradually less and gradually less for the next time step until you reach a new equilibrium position. That could be between 20 and 100 years depending on the soil type and the climatic conditions. Basically it means, unlike carbon capture and storage where you can store the carbon for a long time, but you can just continue doing it and every year you store more carbon with all biological sinks and soils included and vegetation is the same. When you, sorry, when you increase the soil carbon, it will eventually reach new equilibrium position or saturation, whereby after that time, you no longer get an increase in soil carbon and you no longer get a net annual removal. The second issue is to do with non permanence or reversibility. Just a couple of examples here, a manure treatment on arable field and a woodland establishment. You can see them shown here in different colors. But this is what happens when it turns into low input cropland. This is from a long term experiment at Rothamstead, and you see the soil carbon plummets and drops down to close to its original level. We have a very strong reversibility issue there, which could either occur through management and not continuing management practice, or could occur through natural climate extremes and natural disasters. And the last thing is to do with leakage and displacement. So in these two examples, we're taking manure from a field which contains manure and mineral and we're moving it over to the field on the on the left. We're putting more manure on that field. So we increase the soil carbon sequestration in the left hand side, but we decrease the amount of carbon that's going on in the right hand side. The effect over the whole landscape is zero. So it's to do with just to do with making sure that we account for the whole land surface that we're not claiming credits where they don't exist. So all of these issues, saturation, permanence and liquid leakage and displacement, affects the effects of the confidence in soil carbon sequestration as a greenhouse gas removal technology or greenhouse gas removal option. So we have to find ways to show that the soil carbon is increasing and we have to find ways to verify that this is happening over large areas. So in a paper in 2020, in global change biology, we put together a list of what would be what would be the perfect soil verification system. In a couple of minutes walking through this, it's a complex diagram, but the most important thing is that all of these different components exist already. It's just that they don't exist everywhere in the world. They're not distributed equally in the world, and they don't all exist in the same place and they've not been pulled together. So what gives me heart from this is knowing that all this all these components are together is that we could pull these together into a monitoring verification reporting and verification platform. So the first the first component number one is the long term experiments of benchmark sites. We have several hundred of these around the world long term agronomic experiments, which look at the impact of a management change on soil carbon, and have real measurements over many decades up to 150 years in some cases of long term change nested within those number two are short term experiments which measure things like fluxes of carbon, and they investigate the processes and they're good for developing tools and calibrating models. Which brings us to the soil organic carbon and greenhouse gas models, which are good for monitoring and reporting. We've got that developed using all these two data sets that I've just gone through. They can either be used to develop tier two emission factors, or they can be used directly in a tier three method to directly model changes in soil carbon. We have all data to drive those models so data on climate soils and land cover and those will exist globally at quite fine spatial resolution and quite fine temporal resolution. So those are available. We need activity data. So that's just information about what the farmers are doing on the soil, what in the field and when. So activity data tends to be collected through agricultural statistics. And in the developed world in Europe and in North America, we tend to have really good statistics which are available spatially, which we can use but in the developing world. These are much more sparse. We also have soil sampling and resampling that goes on a grid, which can be used as an independent verification method to check that what we're looking at and what we what we what we think will change in the soil carbon are actually changing. So basically we have the remote sensing component, although you can't detect soil carbon directly from space, you can verify activity data, and you can calculate estimates of above ground biomass. So calculate the inputs to the soils to run your soil models. I said all of this information exists all of these components exist, but they're not yet brought together in a global system or even nationally in a national system to allow confident monitoring reporting and verification of soil carbon change. So at the time we were writing this paper, my friend and colleague Keith Paustian was writing exactly the same paper coming up with exactly the same conclusions, suggesting a modeling activity measurement data platform. And he comes up with a much prettier conceptualization and a much nicer diagram, but effectively we're saying very similar things. And this was entirely independent. They were published relatively close together and we found out about each other's work after after it being published. But are there any other technology challenges. So, there are a few things that are going on. So, for example, there are handhelds devices that are now being developed that use spectral methods to determine soil organic carbon. So organic carbon is difficult to measure because you've got a very large background and a small change in soil carbon. So you need to take an awful lot of samples to detect a change and it can take many years to detect that change. What yardstick have done is they're using spectral methods so that's mid infrared and near infrared spectroscopy, which is mounted mounted in the end of the probe, which is shown here just connected to a normal DIY drill. That drills down into the soil, and it takes measurements of the of the spectra, which are then compared to spectral libraries, and they use to estimate soil carbon. And I've looked at this, and the technology at the moment is not accurate enough to detect soil carbon change, but the hope is that you can take so many samples it's so easy to take samples and to get readings that you make up for the lack of discrimination in the tool by just taking huge numbers of samples all over the field. So this is being trialed against some destructive sampling dry combustion methods to test soil carbon by the startup, which is called yardstick I've given the links here. And it's an interesting thing that may develop into something useful. And some other techniques that are available, for example, used in gamma radiation that's naturally emitted from soil to map the soil and the soil properties. You still have to take soil samples. And you can then relate the soil samples to the rest of the soil properties. So you this doesn't get around the problem of having to take soil samples and measure the soil carbon, but it may by combining with these sort of remotely sensed machinery mounted techniques to map the soil properties. It could have some use in the future, it could have some use if combined with automatic sampling of soils, which are then tested back in the lab. So we've got some exciting developments taking place. We've got all of the techniques available. But as I mentioned earlier, there are some difficulties in developing countries in maintaining in obtaining the data that you need for some of this verification. So in order to address this the food and agricultural organization of the UN, that's the FAO have started this project called rec soil, which is stands for recarbonization recarbonization of soils. And they've established an MRV platform which relies on modeling and collects together a bunch of data sets which can be used in developing countries across the world. And this is a bottom up suggest as a suggestion to do this bottom up so that developing countries opt into the scheme, and they follow the this MRV protocol, and they assess what soil carbon can be requested and the hope is to attract some payments that can be then pay the land managers that are changing their soil carbon using this globally, this global assessment, but which is done by the individual countries. So just summarized by saying there's a great potential for carbon sequestration, especially in croplands but also integrated pastures. There are some co benefits associated with it so we should be doing it anyway. But in order to get there we have to overcome these problems of demonstrating confidence that the soil carbon sequestration is is real and stable. And there is sink saturation reversibly and leakage issues need to be overcome by robust monitoring. So that remains one of their biggest challenges, the MRV, but all components of it exists to some extent, but it's uneven globally, and they haven't been integrated into the system yet. But FAO's rec soil program is an opportunity that brings these things together, especially in developing countries. And as I mentioned, there are some new non destructive measurement techniques that are in development. They're not quite there yet, but we need to watch this space to see how they develop and monitor progress because they could be a game changer in terms of making monitoring reporting and verification of soil carbon possible. Thanks for your attention. I'll leave it there. It's lovely thank you Pete. Yeah, that was that's quite an overview quite a good reality check for us but a lot of inspiring things to think about to so welcome David back again and I'll just go through we have a few questions and from the audience so after about five so a few minutes of discussion I'll turn to those questions. So, David, if I can ask you, you know, I'd like to dig in a little bit deeper to the biochar platform that you have there and you notice quite a quite impressive potential for stabilization of soil organic carbon and soil organic matter Is there, are there any circumstances in which that works better than others so I guess I'm getting at you know the composition of the biochar and the composition of the soils that you're applying it to what's what's the optimum and what's if you can get there also the potential, not just in the US that was a beautiful map you showed the potential to do it there but do you have an idea of like in the world, you know, other other parts of the world that could apply your kind of model there. Well, thank you. First of all, there's a lot of diversity globally, and in general biochar seems to have a more positive effect on crop yields in tropical soils acidic soils, depleted soils, whereas in temperate region soils molossals. Often there is little or no crop yield increase with regards to the first part of your question which was about the positive feedback or the synergism. First of all, let me emphasize that again that the literature on that is not yet consistent, and no consensus has been developed. However, my observation is that we are see tend to see this. When we tend to see a negative priming effect when there is a biogenic carbon input when there's manure when there's crop residue root residues are added with the biochar on an annual basis, and we see positive priming in fallow systems almost inevitably. So a clear balance is needed that biogenic carbon will, as Pete has pointed out, be subject to more ephemeral nature it can be built up and it can be degraded depending on changes in management climate etc, whereas the biochar carbon is intrinsically or stable. Thanks David. So, Pete, you know you, you did allude to these, some of these issues with saturation of the soils. And also some of the measurement techniques so I guess they'll be part of understanding this is being able to measure and monitor and see what happens over time. If we just step down to the kind of the ground level as it were and think about those the techniques that you mentioned the rod in the soil you need a lot of samples with and then the sensor on it look like a tractor there. So, who would do those measurements and you know which are more likely to be implemented which in your, your mind would be more valuable at this point in time or do we need all of them. And you know is there a cost factor and an incentive factor to these and yeah, we'll start with that. Yeah, sure. So the reason we're not doing destructive sampling going and taking hundreds of soil samples and sending them to the lab is because the cost of doing that would be far greater than any carbon credits that you get from the carbon stored. So anything that we do to reduce that cost by non destructive sampling, ideally with sampling in the soil would help us a great deal. So I'm, I'm, you know, I'm really interested in these technologies as I said they're not yet they're not yet not there yet. But it's great that they're in development because we know that technology can advance very quickly and we learn by doing. So that could be the real game changer I think something that could be done in the field at the moment these are being done by people who know how to use them. Imagine in the future you could just have something mounted on a on a small ATV or on some farm machinery that would take these measurements automatically as the tractor drives over the field. In the same way as we have precision agriculture maps which map out how much fertilizer we need on the field, we could be also be measuring soil carbon. And if we don't get there even if we don't get to that anytime soon. We know, as I say it's a fairly mature science we know what activities cause increases in soil carbon. So we can you could imagine a sort of a carbon carbon payment system, which allowed carbon payments to be made based on just doing the activity which you can detect from space or could be self reported, or anybody can see what you're doing tillage or not. And the carbon payments could be adjusted after say five or 10 years, based on some real measurements. So I think there are ways forward and there are clever ways to incentivize soil carbon soil carbon practices, but I just I don't want to I don't want to over emphasize how simple it is. The reason it's not happening yet is because of because of these issues. So these are the issues that we need to need to address. Right, and so we'll get to what I want to press on that a little further later, but go back to David again. You know we had a, I want to bring in one of the questions from from the audience, because they were talking about some of the limitations for the feedstocks and the scalability and the water content and all of those things. Can you can you speak to some of the challenges with with your the technology that you proposed, and maybe how some of those challenges could be overcome. Sure. The with the technology itself paralysis is relatively agnostic about the type of feedstock that you're putting in, but the quality and quantity of the products that come out or not. You can put almost anything in a pyrolyzer but the lignin content, the cellulose content are varying the water content varies obviously if you put a high moisture feedstock in the energy to remove that water could could dramatically influence it. So, one of the key limitations is you need to be able to sundry the biomass feedstock. And secondly, one of the issues is particle size, particle size needs to be reduced to maximize the yield of the phenolic fraction and other liquid products, otherwise it increases the biochar so there's a trade off there, depending on the value of the biochar as it's and for the most part we're seeing the greatest value coming from the phenolic fraction which can be turned into liquid transportation fuels. Another key limitation is that the phenolic fraction. Just heated up it's very reactive and it will auto polymerize and basically turn into a hockey puck, essentially equivalent higher heating value of anthracite with very low ash make a great coking material and steel production. However, to use it as a bio crude. It's required that this be hydro treated so you're going to have to co locate a source of hydrogen presumably from electrolysis of water, and that will derate the energy value. Electricity can come from a zero carbon source but it is a necessity. The other key issue that I already alluded to during the talk are the logistics of biomass harvest storage and transport. And the bigger the plant gets, then farther you have to hold that biomass the more likely you're to have problems with supply with degradation of quality of your feedstock at a depot with fire to pot built a tried to build a cellulosic ethanol plant nearby and and they had multiple feedstock fires. These are very serious issues by keeping it small and widely distributed. We can end up with just in time delivery of that biomass and reduce the costs of that so there is a trade off in those economies of scales and the logistic problems. That's great. So just one last quick question. This we're, we've got more questions than we have time to answer, which is a good place to be in. So are the markets there right now, David for the products that you were talking about. And, you know, I think you, I think before I learned that you can switch, you know, you can vary the products that you get out depending on that. So what's the situation right now the other markets there and or is there just something need to happen to make sure those markets. Sure, there are there are economies here. No existing oil refinery is going to take a single truckload of of phenolic oil. And train load delivered every week. And this means the system has to scale up to be able to provide it and no one small plant like I'm talking about could do that it's going to have to be an aggregate of plants working together to fill that contract. And through that scale up. There are some first generation products I mentioned the bio asphalt, which can be used directly without hydro treating of the bio of the phenolic oil. Other products sugar fraction certainly can be fermented to produce ethanol. And that's fairly easy now it can be blended with other sources of sugar. So the biofraction relatively few markets for that and that will have to be developed with time. The biochar. Clearly, we, in our techno economic analysis, estimated a value to the biochar of $50 a ton. It's going to vary depending on the crop the soils, the climate, and, you know, the farmer has to see a crop yield increase under the current economic situation to have a value on that biochar. David so I hopefully we have 30 seconds left. We have so many questions for you from the audience. And I guess that you know one of them is about the acceptance of the various carbon credits registries for their approach that you talked about for the MRV system. So, this person Ross, but Brickle Meyer says that they understand registries require soil sampling more frequently than every 10 years to meet their MRV requirements. Can you just very quickly comment on that. There are, there are obviously different levels of monitoring verification that acceptable to different registries. But I think carbon director I do a little work for is coming up with a sort of a what would make a perfect project for all of the verticals in fact all of the different removal technologies so watch this space or watch carbon direct space I should say, because we're going to be saying this is a this is the what would make the perfect project and how frequently you'd have to measure and monitor, but that varies there are some pretty crappy projects out there that have been funded which only have very poor verification, as well as some really good ones so the quality isn't, isn't equivalent across all projects yet. And that needs to change there needs to be more standardization across across different registries. Thank you so thank you both very much Pete and David I think we could do this for half a day at least more. I see Sarah has appeared so thanks again that was great. Yeah, thank you. Thank you to Jennifer Pete and David for an excellent session. And I'd also like to thank the audience for coming today I hope you learned about the state of the art in these very important carbon removal technology areas, as well as their So, please be sure to come and join us tomorrow for a day three of the workshop, and we'll be discussing mechanisms for overcoming barriers, including issues such as scale, global commitment technology diffusion and deployment behavior and environmental justice and financing. So have a great day and see you tomorrow at 8am Pacific time.