Feel the (Nuclear) Energy!

On our season 4 finale, “In Orbit” is going nuclear — in a good way! Experts agree that to achieve the sustainable energy system of the future, nuclear power is an absolute must-have. In this episode, we’re joined by Scott Davis, advanced nuclear fission and fusion consultant with Frazer-Nash Consultancy, a company in the KBR family. Scott explains how different kinds of nuclear reactions work, why nuclear energy isn’t scary, and the challenges and opportunities specifically on the horizon for nuclear fusion.

Transcript

IN ORBIT: A KBR PODCAST

Season 4, Episode 14

Feel the (Nuclear) Energy!

INTRODUCTION

John Arnold

Hello, I'm John and this is In Orbit. Welcome to the podcast, one and all, the final episode for us in 2024. As we bid this year adieu and get ready to welcome what we hope will be a peaceful and prosperous 2025. Wherever you are in the world, whether you're a new or regular listener, we're just glad you're with us and staying in our orbit. We've got a great episode for you today.

In recent news, the incoming U.S. administration has been talking about the virtue of fossil fuels. And while fossil fuels are undeniably still a huge part of our global energy mix, it's been interesting and even encouraging to see that many large energy companies like ExxonMobil and others are still calling for cooperation in hitting emissions targets. Now, even with everyone on board, that's a tough task. Global energy demand is only rising thanks to growing populations, increased urbanization, technological development, and so on.

And at the heart of the conundrum is something we've talked about on the podcast before. The global energy trilemma. That's the intersection of successfully meeting global energy demand, but doing it securely, affordably, and sustainably. Now, to solve the trilemma, companies and countries around the world are racing to improve and increase efficiency and global grids, and of course, we hear more and more all the time about the expansion of renewable energy production in various parts of the world. Here on the podcast, we've talked about the possibilities that ammonia and hydrogen have to play. But something you might not be as aware of is increased interest in an adoption of nuclear energy.

According to the World Nuclear Association, nuclear energy is the second-largest source of low carbon electricity production globally just behind hydropower. I didn't know that. And most reports on future energy supply suggest that an expanded role for nuclear power is required to achieve a sustainable future energy system. But what does that look like? What even is nuclear energy? What are the different kinds of nuclear reactions? And what are the opportunities and challenges for ramping up nuclear energy production so that one day there might be the equivalent of a tiny sun on your street corner keeping your lights on and your food cold.

TRANSTION

And with us here today to talk about it is Scott Davis. Scott is an advanced nuclear fission and fusion consultant with Frazer-Nash Consultancy, a company in the KBR family. Welcome to the podcast, Scott.

Scott Davis

Thank you, John. Happy to be here.

John Arnold

We were just talking about, it's cold where you are, it's cold where I am. It's the perfect moment right now to talk about nuclear energy.

Scott Davis

Absolutely. It will warm us up nicely.

John Arnold

So before we get started, I wonder if you just tell us about yourself, your career, and how you got interested in nuclear energy.

Scott Davis

Sure, absolutely. So I did end up in the nuclear power industry by accident really. I studied a master's degree in physics at university and joined the industry straight after as a nuclear analyst, was the job description, and it sounded like something I'd be interested in. All of the key things was the niche technical challenges and a really exciting industry to be part of.

When I joined, that was as part of a role to keep the old gas-cooled reactors in the U.K. running for as long as possible as they've been happily chugging away and generating power for us in the U.K. for a good few decades now. As my career has developed, I moved more into the innovative advanced nuclear side joining the advanced fission and fusion team. That focus has been on developing the new generation of reactors, enabling nuclear to be safer, cheaper, and more flexible, is the idea at least. And more recently, I've become the fusion technology lead going into more the energy generation techniques of the future at least, which we'll talk about more today of nuclear fusion.

John Arnold

Looking forward to it. Before we really dive in, I know that people hear the word nuclear and there might be an adverse reaction to it in the context of nuclear reactions, especially as a term. People either might either think nuclear reactor meltdown like we saw at Fukushima or Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, or they think weapons of mass destruction, which is really unfortunate because there are a lot of positives to nuclear energy. Before we get more in-depth on fusion specifically, would you mind telling us about nuclear energy in general? Perhaps what the different types of reactions are and how energy is produced from them?

Scott Davis

Sure. Yeah. So I guess I'd like to take this question in two parts.

John Arnold

Absolutely. Yeah.

Scott Davis

Yeah. The first of which, I guess, is, “What are the positives?” And I would argue there are far more positive applications for nuclear energy than negative. And those applications are only going to become more important over the next few years and decades as we try to transition into a more carbon-neutral world. The challenge we have of decarbonizing our world is not only replacing the existing fossil fuel power plants, your oil and gas, but also we've got to greatly increase the energy generation, which we have available at the same time.

The decarbonization is sometimes referred to as electrification, where we're taking industries where we typically burn fossil fuels and electrifying them so we can generate that electricity cleanly, whether that be through renewables or nuclear itself. A key example would be having more electric cars to reduce the amount of petrol which we're burning just because that is a direct replacement with electricity, which can either be generated cleanly or uncleanly. So we just need to make sure that the supply is clean. There are plenty of other industries as well, which do burn fossil fuels, which can't be electrified. We just can't necessarily get to the same temperatures or the same conditions which are needed, in which case we need alternative fuels and green alternatives to fossil fuels. A key example being with hydrogen.

For a future carbon-neutral society, there is going to be a vastly increased energy demand with current estimates saying there would need to double the global generation by 2050 if we're going to be net-zero, which is absolutely a challenge. With a caveat that, that is to keep the same standard of life, which we are enjoying at the moment. We have a choice between clean energy abundance or a global energy poverty. And I think hopefully we can go more towards the abundance and that isn't even including new demands for power like AI and data centers and progressing even further in developing these new tools which are energy hungry again.

We know that there is a huge demand. The question is how we are going to go about it. And once we get very clear, I think renewables are great. We need renewables as much as possible. But unfortunately the sun isn't always shining and the wind isn't always blowing. So they do need a base load of power to chug around in the background. And nuclear is great in combination with renewables for that load balancing as they call it. Another key one is power density and the amount of work and labor, which we need to put into generate that power and nuclear is incredibly power dense. For example, in the U.K., to take and replace all the oil which the U.K. currently uses and replace that with hydrogen, which can be generated cleanly, it would need an offshore wind farm about the same size as England …

John Arnold

Oh my goodness.

Scott Davis

... just to replace the oil, which is somewhat problematic. Or a solar farm substantially bigger than Wales for that same demand, just to generate that hydrogen, which would need to replace that oil. Nuclear would be the size of a small city, really, it's about 55 square kilometers, same sort of size as the city of Oxford if you know our geography well enough. But density is key because when we're talking about energy in these huge quantities, we do have a lot of space, but we would rather use it efficiently.

Onto the second part, if we can hopefully agree that nuclear is a key part of that energy transition, in particular, there are inherent risks to nuclear, but that's just all the more reason to do it in the right way. Today, across the world, we've got a variety of different nuclear technologies which have been operating for decades all around the world. That makes up about 10% of the global grid. And with the proper technology regulated in the right way, it can be incredibly safe.

If you crunch the numbers and talk about the number of deaths per terawatt-hour of generated electricity, even if you include the big buzzwords of Chernobyl or Fukushima, nuclear is the second-safest energy source beaten only by solar. So it is thousands of times safer than coal, oil or gas, but actually is even safer than wind or hydropower just because of the efficient regulation and the way which we go about it. The worst-case scenario is so much worse, so we just need to make sure we have a keen handle on it.

You asked as well about the fission process and how that energy is produced as well. The easiest and simplest way to describe it really is that we have a series of hot rocks which boil water, create steam, and generate electricity. 

John Arnold

Right.

Scott Davis

Very similar to coal or gas plants, you have something which needs to boil that water and on it goes. A slightly more detailed answer is that those hot rocks are fissile material. Typically, you think of it as uranium, which are very heavy atoms, which are slightly unstable, which mean they do break down and decay radioactively. They then split into smaller atoms and release an awful lot of energy and the key aim and the design of a nuclear power plant is to ensure that that atomic splitting happens at a controlled and steady rate. Which can be done in a number of different ways and there's plenty of different technologies around the world which do that in similar but unique ways.

John Arnold

That's fascinating. It's interesting to hear about different methods for creating fusion and fission reactions. But so you've talked broadly about what the different types of reactions are. How does fusion differ from fission?

Scott Davis

So it is almost the inverse of fission. While fission is breaking large atoms into smaller components, fusion is sticking small atoms together. This is what happens at the center of the sun. So we know it does work, it's just doing it efficiently.

John Arnold

Right.

Scott Davis

The center of atoms are all positively charged, so they repel each other when they get too close. If you think of it like trying to push to magnets, the closer they get together, the further they push each other apart. If you give those atoms enough energy so that when they collide, they can overcome that repulsive force, they fuse together and then release huge amounts of energy which can then be captured and generate electricity just like everything else. It is difficult to do, to say the very least, you need huge amounts of energy, but you in theory and as is becoming increasingly in practice, can get more energy out than you put in.

Why we need fusion I think is a important one because we do have lots of great energy technologies out there, but if you hadn't guessed, I think fission is one of the best options which we have at the moment, but it isn't perfect. So fission doesn't produce any long-lasting nuclear waste. That is a problem which the fission industry has, which we do have solutions for, but it is a headache. A fusion reaction can't melt down, you can't have a criticality accident, you can't have huge quantities of nuclear material exploding and being spread around. That's just not how the process works. It's hard enough to make fission work in the first place, but there, having it have a chain reaction is just not possible.

There's also no proliferation risk as part of fission as well, which peace of mind if we're trying to spread this technology to decarbonize the world. It's also abundant energy and also has abundance of fuel. It's not something we're going to run out of anytime soon. The easiest way to achieve fusion is with two types of hydrogen called deuterium and tritium. They fuse together to create helium and a neutron and an awful lot of energy. So no horrific chemicals, at least on the front end of things.

Deuterium can be extracted from seawater as well, so very naturally abundant. Tritium, the other one, is not naturally abundant. There's only about 20 kilos of it in the world at the moment, but thankfully we can create tritium as part of that whole fuel cycle process. And the neutron, which we produce as part of the fusion reaction, interacts with lithium and that makes tritium as a by-product. So it's a self-sustaining reaction as long as you've got lithium in there. The energy density is so high that one of my favorite facts is half a bathtub of seawater and the lithium from inside a laptop battery has enough fusion fuel in it to power someone's whole life.

John Arnold

Oh my goodness.

Scott Davis

Easy as that. So we shouldn't run out anytime soon.

John Arnold

Right. So you alluded to this a moment ago, there being several different methods by which fusion energy can be achieved. Can we talk about some of what those different ways are?

Scott Davis

Sure. There are two methods which are most prevalent at the moment. The first is what we call magnetic confinement fusion. So to give the atoms enough energy for them to overcome this repulsive force and to fuse together, you need incredibly hot temperatures. So one method, the magnetic confinement method, is you take that fuel and heat it and it becomes a superheated plasma and then you can contain that in giant magnets in a donut-shaped ring. That plasma is then not rattling off the sides and damaging anything from the really high temperatures, it is somewhat constrained or confined. And that means that you can then spend as much time as you like to then heat that plasma up in a variety of ways. As that plasma gets hotter and denser, it'll eventually reach fusion conditions, at which point it will release a lot more energy to then be captured later on and that is now your fusion power plant. That is a lot more comparable to a furnace, I would say. You just put fuel in, get it hot enough, and it comes out. And it's a very continuous, steady state, more typical approach.

The second one is more comparable to a diesel engine. It is a pulsed process. Instead, this process takes a very small amount of fusion fuel and compresses it until the density and the temperature reaches such a point that it achieves fusion conditions and then it explodes outwards with much more energy again. As that process only happens for a very tiny fraction of a second, those fusion conditions are reached. And it happens at such small time scales that you need to do repeatedly at a very high frequency to allow that to actually be viable for power plants. This compression is most commonly done by lasers, particularly over in the States. But there are different concepts around as well, either via mechanical compression or electromagnetic pulses, however ways to have incredibly high energies for the short amounts of time to really shock the fusion fuel into fusing.

John Arnold

It's fascinating. Well, you've mentioned a lot of the benefits besides the fuel maybe necessary to have these reactions. That seems like a challenge. Let's talk about the other challenges behind nuclear fusion. What's standing in the way of it becoming more mainstream or a more widely accepted solution to varying the energy mix that you were talking about a moment ago?

Scott Davis

Yeah, absolutely. So there are still plenty of challenges left or still looming over fusion in particular. But yeah, there's lots of hard work going into solve them. It's become a bit of a mantra of Andrew Holland, who's the CEO of the Fusion Industry Association, of, "Fusion is hard. Fusion is hard. Fusion is hard." And that continues to be true, to say the least. And to allow fusion to be achievable, there are lots of challenges. There are even more, I would say, in order to make fusion economically viable as well. The first and biggest challenge, which is what the focus has been on for a long time, is designing and building a machine or a concept which can make plasma hot enough for long enough to achieve those fusion conditions consistently.

There's been a number of experiments that have been run, the most impactful of which was in the UK called JET, was the Joint European Torus, which managed to contain plasma through magnetic confinement fusion for over the order of minutes, but didn't manage to achieve high enough temperatures and densities for a net gain in energy. But there are plenty of other designs which are in process have being built over the next 10 years to try and achieve and solve that challenge.

The second challenge, I think, is designing a plant which can efficiently capture and transfer that energy. Some of the amounts of energy once we have achieved fusion will be so big that we need some real innovations around how to capture that energy without coolants just boiling off immediately. And one of the key innovations or solutions which has been developed in various places around the world is to use liquid metals as coolants themselves just because they can take so much more heat and transfer that around ready to still boil steam and generate electricity, but same old, same old. And as part of that for either liquid metals or sometimes molten salts as well, you also need to make sure that you're creating enough fuel to sustain that reaction.

And the third challenge, I'd say, once you've achieved both of those, but I'll say that this is something that's been developed in parallel with all of these challenges, is building and designing a machine out of the necessary materials that you can sustain those conditions for long periods of time. So once we've got a device which generates huge amounts of power, it can continue to do so for a viable and an economically beneficial timescale. There are some designs out there which if built today would probably perform really well and generate a lot of power, but also have a life expectancy of hours likely. So for a commercial power plant, which we want one on every street corner in the future, we need something which can last a bit better and be a bit less taxing. The challenge really is largely around the heat flux and the amount of neutrons with chip bombarding and damaging some of these components. The highest heat fluxes are on the order of 10 megawatts per meter squared of heat flux, which won't mean much, but that is comparable to the heat shield tiles on a spacecraft that's re-entering the atmosphere. So if you think of the Apollo missions, they were about 10 minutes of these sorts of heat fluxes and these temperatures, up to 30 minutes, I think, at the maximum. Whereas we want these components to be lasting for days, weeks, months, ideally. So a challenge, but one which is definitely underway.

John Arnold

So where are we seeing the progress being made?

Scott Davis

Well, thankfully, against all of those challenges I've just mentioned, the biggest news which has come out over the last two years, it's almost two years to the date from when the National Ignition Facility over in the U.S. announced that they have a net gain experiment. So the National Ignition Facility is a laser-driven inertial fusion concept where they are compressing a fusion fuel to create that plasma via many, many high-powered lasers. They put just over two megajoules of energy into the fuel and got out three and a bit megajoules of energy. So a gain of 1.5. They have succeeded in creating more energy out from a fusion reaction than they put in.

Important to note that this was on a huge inefficiency of a whole power plant scale, but from the plasma itself it was a success by a long way. A comparison I quite like with the NIF experiment is that when the Wright brothers flew the first aircraft, everyone didn't go away and design their Boeings based off that. It was a proof of concept which showed the potential was there. So a optimized and efficient version of that could be developed further down the line. So huge first step to show that that is possible.

Also, importantly, the power plant at NIF did it once, whereas we need to make sure that the repeatability is much, much higher to actually make sure we've got some bars on the grid.

On the absorption of power side of things around the liquid metals and the molten salts, there's loads of great work going on across the world. There's several liquid metal flow loops that are now fully operational to show exactly how we can use liquid metals and molten salts as a coolant. They can run very comfortably, up to the 800 to potentially a thousand degrees, rather than water being constrained at much lower temperatures and pressures. The STEP Programme in the U.K., which is the U.K. government's program, they are currently developing a magnetic confinement device. The STEP is the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production, which lets them use lots of puns on the next step towards fusion futures …

John Arnold

Sure.

Scott Davis

… which I'm sure they were very happy with in their marketing department.

John Arnold

It's good marketing, yeah.

Scott Davis

Absolutely. They are currently designing their first proof of concept device, which will be on the grid in the 2040s, is when they're aiming for, they are hoping to use liquid metals and are developing a series of test rigs to validate their designs against that. So making some really great progress. There is a private fusion company in the US as well called Commonwealth Fusion Systems. CFS. They are a spin out from MIT and they are planning a device which will produce 10 times more energy than they put into it by 2026 or '27 is the theory. So it's much more achievable than we'd hope. Their device, which is going to be called Spark, is not going to be able to capture any of that energy. It is a proof of concept to show that you can produce these sorts of realms of energy out of there, but it isn't going to generate any electricity. They're then going to power that device and run it. I think the current plan is about once a day to learn as much as possible from that to design a full commercial plan, which they want to be ready in the early 2030s.

John Arnold

That's exciting.

Scott Davis

Absolutely, and I did visit them last year, or maybe in the year before now, and it is a real step change to stand in the tokamak hall where it's going to be. It isn't just designs on paper. They've got some huge lumps of concrete that are ready for things to slot into. So it is becoming a reality, which is hugely exciting.

That is just to mention one of the private fusion companies in the U.S. There are many more, there's over 45 private companies around the world, each of which with their own unique designs and unique ways to approach the key challenges, prioritizing different challenges over others. They have got a collective seven billion worth of funding, and that was last year's numbers I think even now, so it's going to be plenty more. And the pace definitely seems to be accelerating with nearly all of the private fusion developers planning for a commercial demonstrator plant generating electricity for the grid in the mid-2030s. So they are proving ground really in how they can utilize the newest technologies to really solve these challenges. The next will be making it economical at scale.

John Arnold

Right. Yeah, you were saying that it is accelerating and obviously true just because since you and I had our first conversation a few weeks back, I've seen articles in the AP, articles on BBC news, articles with the New York Times independent of one another talking about various nuclear initiatives globally. So as someone who is living and breathing this as boots on the ground, what is your and your colleague's role at Frazer-Nash currently? What are the conversations that you're having with your clients about the viability of nuclear fusion?

Scott Davis:

So at Frazer Nash, we are a engineering and technology consultancy. So our role that we play in this is largely the very niche technical challenges and supporting our clients who are both governments and private institutions and private developers, largely designing and building components for these fusion devices. The support is mostly around the more theoretical, so the modeling, the analysis, and then leading that into inform the designs of those key components at these challenging environments to say the least. And we do work across lots of different industries here at Frazer Nash, so this is just one part of our energy and infrastructure business unit, but largely what we excel at is that technically niche, highly challenging pieces of work, which you've got plenty of in fusion. So plenty of people who are very keen to support that.

Part of the interactions which we're having with clients as well as just helping them deliver and develop these innovative approaches is also developing a future fusion workforce and a supply chain as part of that. These don't exist yet, so a supply chain does not fully ... Hasn't formed as part of that. So we are also investing in fusion technology ourselves and supporting the development of new innovations, which will be hopefully growing to be ready for that future fusion supply chain. Some of that is producing different materials or different techniques or different designs and all the rest of it, but their key innovations, which are part of that workforce, which needs to be ready for fusion rather than actual components itself.

A lot of the key challenges which we foresee really is part of that workforce issue, as well as if/when we do achieve fusion at a commercial rate, we are going to want a massive upscaling of it to help decarbonize the world at an abundant and hopefully cheap route. And yeah, we need to make sure that the industry is ready for that step change.

John Arnold

Is it simply because ... It seems like a more difficult process. Is that the reason why more investment hasn't been made previously? Just because it's so, as the mantra is, it's hard. It's hard, hard, hard.

Scott Davis

Absolutely, yeah. I think that is a key part of it. There's a joke within the energy circles that fusion is always 30 years away, but I've noticed quite recently the joke has now changed to it being 20 years away, and soon it'll probably change to 10 years away. It is getting closer, absolutely. The achievements which are being made around the world are accelerating that development, but also it is getting to the point now where we are shifting away from scientific experiments and now more towards the practical engineering delivery as part of that, and the investment side has largely been at the moment from a private venture aspect and some of the high risk, high reward investments. More and more over the last two, maybe three years, I'd say, a lot more of those are public investments or public-private partnerships in between for development of fusion, it is becoming a lot more tangible.

John Arnold

Outstanding. That's very, very exciting. We were just talking a moment ago about how nuclear energy in general, the idea of it is accelerating. More countries are open about considering nuclear energy as an option to curb the use of fossil fuels, and I think that I read this right, that at last year's COP28 in the United Arab Emirates, 22 countries pledged, for the first time, to triple the world's nuclear power by mid-century and at COP29, six more countries did the same. Also, after our first conversation that we had, I had read something about just here in my state of Georgia in the U.S., I was curious about what the output of our nuclear energy was, and 27% of our energy in our grid comes from nuclear. Clearly, as you've been saying, there's a lot going on. From where you're sitting, what's on the immediate horizon and more long-term? Hopefully it is 10 years, maybe it'll be less, but what are your hopes for nuclear fusion in the coming years?

Scott Davis

I think it's definitely a acceleration. I think the spy chain is forming as well. People are aware of the opportunities a lot more than there were in previous years. I think historically, the U.K. have been the leaders of fusion research in particular, but there have been huge shifts over the last few years from the U.S. in particular. I think over half of the private fusion organizations are now U.S.-based, or at least have grown from the US, and there's various public programs that are catching up and surpassing the U.K. in various different areas, and there is a lot of collaboration going on in between the two as well. So we need to make sure that we are on the same side here. No matter how much commercial competition is still out there. There's also some new players that are entering the field as well, which are shaking things up a bit.

Germany announced this year, over a billion euros, I think it was, an investment into fusion development and really launching themselves forward of using a lot of their great capability, particularly around academic institutions in national labs. Japan, also this year have launched what they're calling their Moonshot program to really accelerate the development of fusion technology. They've got some great organizations spinning out, in particular, some who are developing, ready to take on leading roles in that fusion supply chain as well, Kyoto Fusioneering being one of the key ones. They are specifically developing technology ready for fusion industry to come and meet them.

There is also lots of impressive work coming out of China as well, which this has been fueling the fire. There is some theory that this could be the next space race. It is accelerating to say the very least. I think, as of last year, there were around 5,000 people working in fusion companies and fusion developers with a huge quantity more in the supply chain as well. I do see that there's going to be exponential increase in both the amounts of funding to increase that 7 billion as well as the number of people, and I think there does need to be that increase to meet the demand. The opportunity is there, we just need to seize it.

John Arnold

That's very, very exciting. Well, before I let you go and enjoy the rest of your week, is there anything else you'd like to leave our listeners with?

Scott Davis

I guess it's just to reiterate some of what I've already said of fusion isn't science fiction, it isn't academic anymore. There are more concepts than I can count on two hands who are now really transitioning into that engineering delivery rather than science. It needs a very different set of skills. As a physicist myself, I'm somewhat sad to say that it needs a little less physics and a bit more engineering to really apply that and really deliver it, and it's part of that huge increase that's needed in both resource and capability in the industry to allow fusion to meet its potential and really get us out of the sticky energy situation which we're in at the moment. It isn't just the dusty professors in labs, but needs a whole host of different engineering disciplines to allow that success. The technology is coming, I'm convinced of it. We just need to make sure that we are ready for it and we really can exploit it. And it's an exciting time to be in the industry, so I'd encourage absolutely everyone to look for opportunities to get involved while we can.

John Arnold

Well, I'll keep an eye out as the developments are coming and we will look forward to this being the first conversation of many on the subject of both nuclear fusion and fission, and we'll look forward to speaking with you again and your colleagues there at Frazer-Nash soon.

Scott Davis

I'd love to. Thank you, John.

John Arnold

Thank you very much.

CONCLUSION

Wow. I don't know if you're like me, dear listeners, but I for one, am on board with the benefits of nuclear fusion, economic and environmental and am very excited about the possibilities on the horizon for this technology. We want to thank Scott Davis again for his time and for sharing just a bit of his expertise in this fascinating field, and you can definitely look forward to more nuclear-focused episodes on the podcast in the future. If you're interested in learning more about KBR's and Frazer-Nash Consultancy's nuclear capabilities, you can head over to kbr.com or fnc.co.uk, or if you like what you heard today and want to let us know about it, or if you have an idea for a future episode, please reach out to us at inorbit@kbr.com.

As always, we want to thank you, our listeners, for another fantastic year of the In Orbit podcast. We know there's so much happening in the world and there are a lot of different things fighting for your attention. We want you to know that we appreciate you taking some time out of your day, checking in with us and keeping us in your orbit. Take care.