Welcome to Zero.

I am Akshatarati.

This week Hyped just Right.

Whatever the mood on climate these days, there's always big ideas in the climate technology space, but it can be hard to get your head around all the different types of technologies making waves and to separate what's real and what's low carbon smoke and mirrors.

So this week I'm teaming up with Shale Khan to play a game of overhyped, under hyped, or hype just right.

Shale is a venture capitalist at Energy Impact Partners.

This episode is a collaboration with the Catalyst podcast that Shale hosts, where he interviews tech experts about decarbonization.

Together, we're going to talk about some of the climate technologies that are working, the ones that are going nowhere, and some that we can't wait to see their full potential.

Chill, Welcome to Zero.

Thank you, Akshat, Welcome to Catalyst.

Well, this is a different kind of podcast and we're making it across an ocean, but with similar politics in the background.

Yeah's what's going I mean, I have a question for you.

You're in London, right yep?

Okay, so and you you work for Bloomberg Green and one thing that I have found is that in the US, places where like green or clean or climate is in their name have been having an interesting set of discussions around nomenclature.

Is that true for I mean, Bloomberg is obviously based in the US, but so I'm curious how you see it from the Bloomberg perspective high level, but also in the UK and in Europe.

Yeah, so Bloomberg News is a global news organization, but yes, it is US headquartered.

I would say there isn't that much muzzling of terms as it's happening in the US government, but there's certainly a backlash on the politics here.

So there is a party called the Reform Party that's on the rise over here, doing in the polls better than the main two parties Labor and Conservatives, and they are against net zero.

So we are usually a step behind America, but then eventually catch up.

Well in this case, I'm not sure I want you to catch up, but let's see what happens, all right, So this is going to be fun.

What's our plan here?

So we're going to do something different where we're going to go through a number of topics that our producers have selected.

Where we're going to say whether we think it's under hyped, overhyped, or hyped just right, and explain our positions for why we think.

So, let's start with meeting load growth for electricity, which is a hot topic everywhere, but specifically within that, What do you think about distributed energy resources?

What are they and where do you land?

And right?

So, distributed energy resources is like a grab bag category of a bunch of different things.

I would say the way I define it is anything that you deploy at a customer site, So it's sitting behind the meter, the customer side of the meter that either generates energy, stores energy, or shifts load.

So canonical examples generates energy, think rooftop solar stores energy, think power walls and batteries, home batteries, batteries of buildings.

Shifts load, think smart thermostats right where you can shift it.

And there's a broader array of things that fall within that, but they get grouped together, and is distributed energy resources.

On the question of deer's for meeting load growth, which is a question here is it over hyped, under hyped, or hype just right?

I think my argument here would be in the circles that I travel in which are pretty like wonky energy tech circles.

It's becoming increasingly hyped because we're just starting to see this way of announcements that are inexorably coming where there are going to be partnerships between hyperscalers or data center operators and third parties who do aggregations of drs to deliver capacity, to get data centers on the grid and things like that.

Like that's coming, no question, and so it's starting to bubble up into the hype world.

But I think that is my world is a pretty small portion of the world, and broadly, I think even in data center universe, it has not really been considered very much yet.

Like mostly it is we're going to build a data center, can we get grid capacity?

If not, can we build a big gas turbine?

And so my argument is because of all that, it is still under hyped as of today.

Yeah, that's an interesting perspective.

I would say in my world, which is a little bit broader because I talked to policy folks, and I talked to big businesses and I talked to vcs, is that it actually used to be more hyped because it was way in which everybody was justifying having all these big renewables goals being set up because look, don't worry about it.

I know it is variable, but we'll have these technologies that are just going to come online within the next few years and they'll make it easier to manage this variability in renewables.

At that time, it was pretty hyped.

Now I would say it's under hyped because it's not something people talk about that much.

But those solutions are actually starting to bubble up.

So we had the CEO of Octopus Energy, which is the largest utility here in the UK, on the pod and this year they've launched a bid Lee's program where you can just pay monthly to get a bid electric car and they would give you twelve thousand miles of free range in a year as long as you make sure that you put your car into the charging port whenever you're home, because they'll use the car for a virtual power plant.

Essentially, that sort of thing is now becoming very frequent, Like I get text messages from Octopacology saying, hey, twelve pm to two pm today, free electricity, use all you want.

And so I feel like, now those technologies are here and they can actually be put to use and so they're kind of underhype because you could actually now see those things out there.

Yeah, I think that DRS are a second We're in a second wave now, right, Like I've talked about this before on the pod, but there was a wave of excitement around DRS, which I think is what you are referring to maybe a decade ago, and at that point it was like, Oh, we're going to decentralize the grid and maybe this is going to disintermediate utilities, and none of that happened.

But I think what is interesting that's different is the frame of the question here, which is is it overhyped, under hyped, or hype just right for the purpose of meeting load growth?

And that was that was not a thing we cared about a decade ago when DRS first emerged.

So I think this second wave that we're seeing now DRS as a solution to managing load growth is interesting.

It's one of the things that makes it more attractive now, alongside a bunch of other factors as you mentioned, like the rise of evs and EV chargers as a significant dr source of capacity is another one.

Okay, so we're on the same side here.

We will think it's currently under hyped.

Let me ask you another one that I've talked about a little bit before on this spot, which is putting collocation with generations, so basically putting generation largely gas on site with data centers.

Is that as far as meeting the load growth challenge?

Do you think that is overhyped?

Under hyped?

Drype just right?

I think it is hyped because I have been reporting on gas turbines, which are currently, as my editor put it, the la booboo of climate solutions.

That's a very I get it.

That seems right, very high in demand, and there's a year's waiting list before you can get the one you want.

And so sure you know, in principle, if you could get a gas turbine, you would build it close to where the data center is.

But can you even get a gas turbine?

Yeah, there is that.

So you think it's hyped just right, because like it, it is a thing that would happen a lot.

But the supply chain bottleneck is the is the rate limitter.

I think that is generally true.

I do think so I've talked about a little bit before on my pod.

I think it is a little bit overhyped.

The degree to which not to say that we don't need a ton of new generation, and not to say that we don't need a ton of new capacity on the grid, but the degree to which that capacity needs to be co located with the data center, to me, is a little bit overhyped.

We will see it happen.

It's already happening in some places, right, You're seeing this in the US.

We have the Xai Colossus data Center has a bunch of gas turbines.

Meta is building a big facility that's going to have a bunch of gas, and a number of these projects will.

But I think it's going to end up being the minority of new data centers, not the majority of new data centers.

I think the implications from what you would see in the news is that like every new data center is going to come equipped with a bunch of gas turbines.

Again, not to say that we won't build a ton of new gas generating capacity.

I just don't think it's all going to be collocated with the with the data centers.

Yeah, I mean the reason we are bringing this up is because building the grid has been so hard, Right, the goal would be with co location, you don't have to wait for a grid connection to come through before you can build your data center ensure if you can pay really high prices for the gas turbines, which some tech companies can, then you might be able to do it, but most places won't.

It's also there's an interesting embedded question in that too, which is at some point will costs matter?

Well, no, actually two questions.

At some point will costs matter and at some point will uptime not matter quite as much?

Right, because if you have the same uptime requirements for your AI data center as cloud data centers have historically, and you want to front run your grid connection by installing generation, you can't just build gas turbans, right.

You have to build a lot of infrastructure because you have to have really, really high reliability.

So you're going to build your gas turbans.

You're going to build You're going to oversize some batteries that's going to be really high CAPEX.

You might add, you know, additional layers to your UPS system.

Like, there's a lot that you would build, and that comes at a real cost.

Now where we are in the cycle right now, you know, the reality is that the energy total embedded energy cost in compute is small compared to the capex of the of everything else, but mostly the chips.

So maybe energy cost doesn't really matter, even if you're deploying a bunch of more capex into that stuff.

But there's an interesting question of will that ultimately matter, which would dictate the degree to which this equation of speed to power versus cost of power shifts a little bit.

I think it it will shift.

I just don't know when that is.

There's also the chance that you know, these guys would go and build the power capacity where the grid connection is available, which there are many parts of the world where there is grid connection available.

So yeah, I think it is a little too hyped.

With co location for data centers, some will get it, but most people won't.

Let's come to the next topic, which is falling on from trying to build the grid here at zero.

We've done a series called Bottlenecks because we are seeing these bottlenecks to build the grid, especially in Europe and North America, show up in so many places.

There's so many bottlenecks that it's not just about permitting and politics but about actual objects.

So where is generating capacity on your hype meter.

And the hype meter as a bottleneck.

Right, So the question is basically, are we overly and like over hyped would mean we're too worried about it.

Under hype would mean we're not worried enough about it.

I think that, you know, the long lead times or gas turbans in particular is very well established and reported and understood by everyone, which I guess argues that it's it's hyped because people do appreciate that that is a real challenge.

There also, though, has been a lot of good data to suggest that generating capacity in the next few years is not the dominant bottleneck, Like there is enough capacity in enough places to deliver the kind of load growth for the next few years that the grid will need.

So I think this will get to the next one where I think there is a real concern.

But I would say generating capacity to me, might be a little bit overhyped.

The cues are long if you want to build new gas turbans, but I don't think that is going to be the rate limitter on load growth at least through like twenty thirty.

I think that is right.

We spoke to a utility CEO the next or CEO in the US, who said, you know, if gas turbines are going to be that expensive, that's just going to make solar prose batteries so much more attractive, and we will build those instead.

So there is certainly no reason to think all forms of generating capacity is in a bottleneck, and so all sorts of other things could be built.

But there are other challenges in bottlenecks which are much more severe to me, that we need to worry about.

So that maybe gets to the next one I think, which is which is transmission deliverability basically is the way to put it.

Do you think that is overhyped underhyped as a bottleneck.

I think it's super under hyped.

Let me give you a European example, which is that the Netherlands has twelve thousand businesses waiting for an electricity connection.

Companies like ASML, which is like the Netherlands' biggest company, most valuable company, isn't a to build extra factory because it cannot get an electricity connection for the next few years.

And is the Netherlands in the same situation as the US where we just basically stopped building new transmission lines years ago, like we I mean not zero but effectively zero for the past few years.

Is that the situation and in Netherlands or in Europe in general, or is it?

No, No, it's not that severe because a lot of European countries are interconnected and they have been building more interconnections between them.

It's more like there are places around Europe where there is more generating capacity, and there are demand centers which are typically further away from those generating capacity, that aren't getting the power supply as it's needed.

So the transmission hasn't been able to keep up with the demand that is showing up.

And I don't think of that.

Maybe I should know better, but I don't think of the Netherlands as having been a big data center hub historically, do you know?

No, I don't think so.

I mean, it certainly has some industry.

A lot of it is, you know, oriented towards electricity because it's high end manufacturing.

But no, I don't think it's a big data center hub.

Yeah, which I mean is even more concerning if you think about the context of there's this big, long queue to get grid connected in a market that hasn't yet seen the boom in like very large load interconnection requests that we're seeing in lots of other places.

There is the aspect of dr like distributed energy resources that is affecting the grids in Europe.

So Netherlands has the highest per capita rooftop solar in the world, which you know for a European country, it'll be like, oh, that's odd, but you know that's what you get.

You get cheap solar panels, and you get some policy available and you'll deploy a lot of solar panels.

But it's causing real problems at the transmission and distribution network locally because the grid has been built over the last hundred years and many of the objects of the grid are much much older.

So that brings us to the next topic, which is transformers.

Transformers are this object that said, between generation between a power plant and your home, because they have to make sure that the voltage at which power is delivered is just right for the devices that you are going to attach to it.

Where do you land on whether transformers are over hyped, under hyped, just right hype.

So again, if the question is overhyped, under hyped as a bottleneck to load growth to meeting load growth, then I think that they're overhyped.

I want to clarify.

Transformers are incredibly important, and there is a bottleneck, and the lead times are very long, and I've witnessed it firsthand, both from the utility side and the load side.

It is a problem.

I don't think it is the rate limiting factor.

Even today, with long lead times, it's an annoyance to get anything built.

Things will still get built, and certainly those lead times for transformers are so shorter than they are for gas turbines.

But I do think we also will see a lot of new transformer manufacturing capacity come online in the next few years.

It's the lead times are going to come down, and I think we'll see a way of new technology.

I'm an investor in a company called hair and Power, which is building solid state power electronics.

You know, I think stuff like that is going to revolutionize that sector.

But even in the absence of things like that, I don't think it is going to be the thing that stops the load growth from getting met.

So I'm going to say overhyped on that one.

I would go under hyped if I look at the non data center crowd because transformers are needed for everything, and in my reporting, like I've come across many many projects like housing projects that are completely on hold for eighteen months because they're missing this one object that they need before they can power the area, and so it is affecting a lot more people.

But the people who can afford to pay for it can jump the queue and get the object, then yes, they can.

They can get there.

And then on the manufacturing side, again, my reputting says, these companies are very conservative.

They will invest, but only if they have surety that there will be demand for transformers for twenty years or so, which they are not yet sure will.

No.

I totally agree with that, and it's already evident in the fact that we've had these long lead times for transformers back to I don't know, twenty twenty one, twenty twenty two.

It's not a new thing, and it has been persistent for longer than I think a lot of people expect it, in part because of the conservatism of that industry, who, to be fair to them, they've gone through cycles before where they've overinvested and then been underutilized and so on, and so they're reticent to do that again.

I think that the expansion of capacity is not entirely going to come from the incumbents, though, I think there's going to be a wave of upstart companies, whether they're doing traditional oil filled transformers or solid state stuff like Karen is doing.

I think they're going to fill in a lot of the supply gap in the next few years, even if the hitachies of the world, you know, expand capacity slower than you would want them.

To join us after the break for more of my conversation with Shilkhan, and Hey, while I've got you here, fancy writing us a review on Apple podcasts or Spotify.

Recently, Jfred nineteen eighty eight wrote zero will prompt even mildly interested listeners to get pumped about green politics and technologies.

Thanks to you, Fred.

Let's take at version for a second.

Here, you had a thing that I have no context on, but you want to talk about this that's relevant to my day job, which is you wanted to talk about VC as a tool for scaling climate tech.

You're gonna grill me on something here.

I just don't know what I would happily really on many many topics, but this one.

I wanted to put us on the hype or under hype, because you know it's your business.

But from the perspective of venture capital helping scale climate solutions.

I think VC is overhyped because that model might work in America, and I don't know if it's working because there are not that many companies that have really been VC oriented big climate champions right now, but rest of the world are building climate solutions and a lot of those companies aren't VC backed.

Your BVID wasn't a VC backed company while it became an electric car giant.

So to me, that is one model.

It can work in certain cases, and it's not working in so many cases that perhaps it's time to look at other forms of idea is that would allow maybe existing companies to pivot towards climate solutions, which also can happen.

I think what we've broadly seen historically is that venture capital, particularly venture capital in the US, I will say, plays an outsized role relative to the dollars that go into it.

Plays an outsized role in getting new technologies into commercialization right like from the lab to the market.

And usually there's one or two pioneering companies that are venture backed that do that and are the first.

So if you want to talk about bid, like what would bid be if Tesla hadn't been Tesla.

It's an interesting question.

If there had never been a Tesla, would BID still be what it is today?

Would it have scaled as quickly?

Or was the existence proof of a company like Tesla the thing that caused BID in the Chinese government to deploy a lot of capital into it.

You've seen versions of that, I think a lot of times.

Yeah.

Other example would be CTL, which is the largest battery company.

You know, what would it be if LFB lithimyin phosphate had not been invented in America and then first commercialized by E one to three, which is a venture back company.

That's right now, That's a good example of there is a separate question that I think is a good question, which is do the investors, the venture investors, and the companies that they invest in, reap the full reward of that invention and commercialization?

And A one two three is a perfect example of like, that company went public and then went bankrupt pretty quickly.

So maybe the answer to that is no, although some early investors did make some money on it, So I don't know that.

That is a different question, and that's one that I grapple with all the time.

But if you're just taking the big step back thirty thousand foot ecosystem view, I still think it is true that again relative to the dollars deployed, because where are the dollars actually getting deployed.

They're getting, you know, in total volume, they're either getting deployed into the bids and c atl's of the world, or they're getting deployed in infrastructure.

Right, the real goes to building big solar projects and things like that.

But on an impact two dollars invested ratio, I would still claim venture capital plays an outsized role.

I would just put it back on one thing, which is there's a phrase that Dan Wang, this guy who wrote Breakneck, used which I liked, which is America is good at going from zero to one, like creating something that didn't exist, But China is good at going from one to hundred, really like giving you the solution at the cheapest price possible.

But a lot of that zero to one in America happens because of the level of science funding and the talent that it has, and the basic sciences and the research, which in the current administration is going to go down or is going down already, And so there is a risk that that thing that V see enables, which is translation of this immense amount of basic science into a usable product, becomes harder.

Yes, I agree with that, and I think it is incumbent to power on the US to do everything that we can to maintain that position as the part of the world that is best at going zero to one and then arguably competing for the one to one hundred as well.

But I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that we will.

I'm saying historically, it is clear to me that that is true.

Looking forward, you know, we've got work to do there.

I have another weird one that I've picked for you, which is, what do you think about the hype on the Paris Agreement helping shape businesses towards climate solutions?

Under hype are just hyped, right?

So I don't think I have a good answer to this one, because, to be totally honest, I don't hear about or think about the Paris Agreement at all, like basically zero.

So maybe that tells you something.

It's certainly in my world it's not hyped.

I can tell you that, but I couldn't tell you whether it should be hyped or not.

Do you have a view.

Are there things that are like downstream of the Paris Agreement that are affecting my world that I just don't know, you know, came from Paris or is it just sort of a it's there and it's a big geopolitical thing, but it's not really affecting business.

Yeah, I would say this is the bit as a journalist that I find fascinating because I see many worlds and the Paris Agreement actually works as I've seen across all these worlds.

But some people have very strong views and other people have no views.

So let me explain.

In climate diplomacy, Parasagreement is this document that was agreed on in twenty fifteen by all countries in the world, which is in principle voluntary, but sets a goal of one point five or two degrees celsiaful warming that all countries must keep to.

It was twenty five years in the making, That's how long it took to come to a conclusion, and then what you got was a voluntary agreement.

And a lot of the people in Diploma see are happy and sad at the same time, like we have something, but it's not good enough, and they think about it a lot.

We meet at COP meetings every year, which we're going to do in Brazil next month in November at COP thirty, and we'll talk a lot more about those words.

And the people in that world continue to be frustrated by Paris.

But Paris's impact on businesses is actually quite big because it has become translated into government policy, and then government policy gets translated into all forms of directions that businesses are taking, which they may not always explicitly tell you it is because of Paris.

They'll say it's because of government policy.

And every government has its own policy, but its tentacles have far reaching impact, even if most people don't see the direct connection.

I believe that, and I also think probably I'm colored by the fact that I'm in the US, where you know, our relationship to parents has been fraught and back and forth over the years, as opposed to like Europe, where it's been consistent, and so probably the policies have had more time to take hold.

But it is interesting your point that like people either have very strong opinions about Paris or no opinions.

I'm clearly in the latter camp.

There.

All right, we're short on time, but I think we should do a quick grab bag of additional We could just do a few technologies and decide whether we think they are over hyped, under hyped, hype just right.

All right, So let's start with a battery chemistry, sodium ion batteries over hyped, under hyped, hype just right.

So I know you've done a couple of episodes, so you probably have a better more informed view on this.

My view is that, as somebody who's written about batteries for the last decade, getting new chemistries out to a commercial use case is really hard.

When companies do that, kudos to them.

But given the pace at which lithium ion chemistries have fallen in price and the amount of manufacturing capacity that's been built the world.

If I look at Bloombaginif projections, sodia mine will make an impact, but such a sliver even after twenty thirty years, that I feel like today sodia mine is overhyped because people think it could make a big difference, but really it may not.

I think it's hyped just right.

Largely.

First of all, I don't think it's that hyped, to be honest, People talk about it, but you know, I think for all the reasons you described, and everybody having had the same history that you're talking about, people are reticent to like go all in on this is the next big battery chemistry apart from clickbaity articles.

But I think there is a degree of hype that is warranted, largely because it seems pretty clear that some of the big Chinese manufacturers c ATL included are investing a lot is sodiumyan and are actually deploying I mean, your point about getting new battery technologies into the field is true.

They're doing it though in China, and so it's coming.

The question to me is is you know sort of the one you're alluding to, like, what portion of the market does it take up?

Right?

And the last version of a big chemistry shift, which is a smaller chemistry shift than this one that we saw was lf the rise of LFP, and that has been a huge deal, huge deal.

Right, Will sodium ion be the next wave of the same type of a thing or is it going to be a more niche solution because it's lower energy density and so on.

I don't think we know that yet, but it's coming from from c at L and its cohort, So let's just see what happens.

The next one is advanced geothermal.

Where do you land on hype, under hyped, just right?

So in the US, advanced geo thermal is very hyped.

I would say it's hype for a bunch of reasons.

Some of them you know, legitimate success of companies like Fervo Energy, you know, sort of pioneering it.

But also there's a political lens to that because our new administration are our Secretary of Energy in particular, Chris Right is super bowlish on g thermal in general.

He likes geothermal and nuclear and those are the two sort of like overlapping clean energy things that I think he's full throatedly in support of.

And so as a result of that, it is highly hyped that maybe warn't like, let's see where it goes.

But it's very early days.

Like you know, Fervo is hoping to have its first hundred megawatts of its first big project online sometime next year.

So I guess my argument here would be it's somewhere in the hyped just right to maybe slightly overhyped stage in the US.

I'm curious, though, from your sort of more global perspective, the degree to which advanced geothermal has talked about.

So this is one where typically the rest of the world is following the US on its hype cycle, and so clearly there's a lot more talk about advanced geothermal because US has shown some success already and surely, you know, being able to apply shiel drilling type technology could make many other parts of the world, which don't always have great geotone resources, suddenly more valuable.

The difficulty, I feel like is that it's overhyped because the level of other types of talent and infrastructure that you need to deliver on advanced geo thermal exists in the US, but will take a long time in other parts of the world to build.

So engineers who can manage shale type drilling, or like a study of the subsurface that would allow you to do it in the right way, all of that just takes a long time, and I don't think that expertise exists in the rest of the world quite as much, and so we are going to see not as many projects built as many people think there might be.

It's an interesting point, right because one of the reasons that it is so attractive in the US is that we do have all of this expertise from oil and gas that is being leveraged for advanced geothermal.

But of course we are a country that has that expertise, has the resources, has been drilling, has been doing horizontal directional drilling for a long time, invented it in fact.

So yeah, that's a good point.

Okay, last one, continuing on the same vein of technologies that Secretary of Energy Chris Right likes, advanced nuclear over hyped, under hyped hype.

Just right, Yeah, it's got the similar vibe as advanced geothermal in that you know, in principle, wouldn't it be nice if we could build small modular nuclear reactors because then we could make many of them and try and then lower the price of nuclear which has been going up and up and up in Europe and North America.

And again the hype is following on from America, where you know, countries like the UK are now asking Rolls Royce to make a small modular reactor.

But the reality is the only countries that have functioning civilian small modular reactors are Russia and China.

And the countries who have been building nuclear not just domestically but also around the world are Russia, and China and Asia if you want to include os like eight thousands, right, agreed, Yes, South Korea too.

And so do suddenly imagine that you know a new technology will unlock nuclear in Europe and North America to me is overhyped.

I think there's an interesting question we're heading into in nuclear world, which is sort of between I don't know what to call advanced nuclear and not advanced nuclear.

But let me just like I'll frame up to groups.

Group one says we need to just we have a couple of technologies that are kind of the front runners from large OEMs, right, So this would be the eight one thousand from Westinghouse and maybe the br X three hundred from Gatachi, which is an SMR that's a you know, three hundred megawatt reactor.

Those are the furthest along.

They're bankable OEMs.

Forget all this other noise.

We need to go deplay as many of those as possible.

Right.

And then the other argument is there's a whole bunch of new technologies coming from a whole raft of companies that could be deploying SMRs or microreactors or whatever, and some of those need to go win as well.

And you know, I don't think it's clear yet which direction we had if either.

One thing I do worry about is that I personally think in the long run, nuclear probably ends up looking like gas turbans look today, which is there.

You know, in the gas turban world, there are basically three OEMs that control like seventy seventy five percent of the market.

It's an oligopoly essentially, and I don't see a really strong reason why it would be different in nuclear.

So we need to get through this winnowing.

We need to call the herd a little bit to get to the point where we're deploying enough number of individual reactors to get down that cost curve, and that's going to be a messy process to get there.

I guess my answer is that I think advanced nuclear, if I broadly define it to include all of those things, seems hyped about right to me.

But I worry that we are overhyping too many individual technologies, reactor types, companies relative to what we actually need to do in that market.

Yeah, that's an interesting one.

I mean on gasterbinds.

Yeah, it's semens, ge and Mitsubushi, which are the three giants to the extent where China has been trying to make a gasterbine manufacturing industry, and it's not really succeeding because it's just so specialized and the supply chains are so tight, and the supply chain also ends up being one where the same parts are used by jet engines, for example.

So like real complications nuclear, to me, it's hard to see if it comes down to those three, especially with the kind of political layer attached to nuclear, where transfer of fuel and which country can build in which country is tightly coordinated by the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, That makes it much harder for me to see just the sort of market forces that drove gasterbine MNA happening in nuclear.

Does that argue in what you're saying for their actually being more OEMs than there are in gas service?

I think there will be national champions and more of them, whereas siemens G and Mitsubushi are more than national champions.

Yeah, sure their country support them, but they also have such large customers in other countries.

It's interesting because I could see an argument for what you're describing sort of pushing in the reverse direction, which is that actually it's going to be getting through the gauntlet of being a nuclear reactor OEM is going to be so hard because of all the additional layers that even fewer companies are going to get through it.

Adding the national lens to it maybe complicates it a little bit, but I could see that being an argument for maybe there aren't three, maybe there's really one or two, rather than they're being thirty.

Well, you're imagining a more peaceful world than I think we are going into.

But I hope you're right.

All right.

I think we covered a bunch of stuff here.

This was fun.

Thank you Akshav for doing this with me.

Yeah, this is great fun.

Thank you for suggesting the idea, and thank you for listening to zero And now for the sound of the week.

That is a machine making a copper heat Sinc.

Which helps remove heat from chips running in AI data centers.

They require huge amounts of electricity to run, much of which is wasted as heat, and that's why data centers are transforming power demand around the world.

This was the subject of a recent Bloomberg Big Take linked in the show notes.

If you like this episode, please take a moment to rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Share this episode with a friend or with someone who thinks their technology is underhyped.

This episode was produced by Oscar Boyd and Daniel Waldorf.

Our theme music is composed by wonder Le.

Special thanks to shil Khan, Samersati, Moses Andem, Laura Milan and Sharan chen i'm Akshatrati back soon.