Bret Kugelmass
We are here today on Titans of Nuclear with George Verberg, thank you so much for joining us.

George Verberg
It'll be a pleasure, I hope.

Bret Kugelmass
You're the former Vice Chairman of the Board of Urenco and also lead probably the most prominent pro-nuclear energy group in the Netherlands right now. But before we get to current events, I'd love to just learn a little bit about your past and where you grew up and how you got started into the sector.

George Verberg
Well, I was born in Jakarta, Indonesia. And then I moved, of course, my parents moved, and I went with them to the Netherlands. I studied-

Bret Kugelmass
Were your parents, diplomats, or engineers? How did they get out there?

George Verberg
No, no, my father was a tobacco planter. So, we moved to the Netherlands and after high school I went to Erasmus University Rotterdam where I studied macroeconomics. Thereafter, I got a fellowship from a foundation to spend one year for specific task research, doing research in at MIT, at Berkeley, both at the President's offices of those two well-known universities. Thereafter, I went to the Ministry of Education and Sciences of the Netherlands for three years. And in '74, I moved to the Ministry of Economic Affairs, to be one of the three civil servants who had to write and prepare the white paper, which, at that time, Minister of Economic Affairs would love us, who later became a longtime Prime Minister of the Netherlands as a result of the first oil crisis in 1973, 1974.

Bret Kugelmass
And before we continue, was it an interest in economics or an interesting government that was driving your career decisions?

George Verberg
It was both, because my economics knowledge assisted me in designing policy advisors for the ministers which I had served. And that was a very fun combination for me. Therefore, I have spent about 17 years in government.

Bret Kugelmass
Is there a specific type of economic model that you've followed or that believe is the best path to lead government? Do you fall into a specific camp? Or has that changed over the course of your career as you've taken in new information and seeing how the world works?

George Verberg
Well, my career has developed always in a, at least for me, in a surprising way. When I started my study of economics, I thought I will become a real economist, even with a PhD, but I never succeeded in that because I never tried. But my economics was, let's say, influenced by the works of let's say, Robert Solow and other great economists at that time, working in MIT and other places.

Bret Kugelmass
Yes. Okay. Please continue with your journey.

George Verberg
Well, in Economic Affairs, Ministery of Economic Affairs, I was very busy with assisting and writing the white paper on energy policy. It was the first energy policy white paper in decades. It was a very interesting thing to do because, as you might imagine, it had to do with all kinds of energy sources, which you could imagine whether it was coal, or oil, or gas, or even at that time we started with wind, and nuclear. They all came together in mix, which was considered to be important for the energy mix of the Netherlands.

Bret Kugelmass
And this theory about having diverse energy sources, it makes sense to me at the front, but aren't some energy sources better than others? I mean, is every energy source really equal? Do you really always want to mix? Or do you want to, at some point, move towards a select two or three energy sources?

George Verberg
Well, in practice, it was focused upon three energy sources for a long time in the Netherlands: gas, coal, or oil, and nuclear, but not nuclear never developed very much after the first one of about 500 megawatts in Borssele.

Bret Kugelmass
And why is that? Why just one plant and that was it?

George Verberg
Well, it was because nuclear, when the minister proposed to Parliament to expand nuclear power plants with 3,000 megawatts, which was quite considerable at the time. We are talking about 1974. Shortly after, it became clear that there were some serious doubts whether that was the best way forward, in particular, in let's say, the more or less left of the center of political arena.

Bret Kugelmass
What was their specific criticism?

George Verberg
Well, again, we are talking about the years 1970s. So, you had the issues of nuclear waste, radioactive waste. You had the issue of non-proliferation at that time. There was not yet IAEA with the responsibilities as they have. Now, there was one was not sort of whether the nuclear reactors which would have been built in the 70s would have been as safe as you would like to have. And all these kinds, that mix of thoughts and second thoughts about nuclear was coming together, and has led us to a delay of executing this policy decision of 3,000 megawatts. First, the issue was to try to solve all the issues which were tabled by the opponents of nuclear power. And so we did. We put a lot of attention to the issue mentioned and tabled. But I have to be honest, that part of the opponent have never been convinced, or were willing to be convinced, or whatever it might have been. That's their judgment to decide how they want to have it cleared.

Bret Kugelmass
I'm wondering if, reflecting on that, I mean, I came into this industry just a few years ago. But one thing that I've seen in studying the history of this industry is the more that nuclear advocates tried to convince people that don't want nuclear - let's say the waste or whatever the issue is - the more we try, they never change their mind. But we keep agreeing to things that just make it more expensive and more difficult to build the nuclear and then they've got a new argument, which is it's too expensive and it takes too long. Have you found that throughout your career as well?

George Verberg
Well, partly Yes. But you also could see the sunny side of it. That is that the nowadays generation of nuclear power plants to be built is really safe to explore it. And that's, to a certain extent, of course, a result of the research which was done after all the doubts were tabled by the opponents. And again, there are many opponents of nuclear who will never be convinced by the progress which we have made in the nuclear domain. So be it. But nevertheless, in nowadays world with the climate crisis ahead of us and closing in on a time schedule, which is really, really ambitious, in order to prevent a lot of damage, then you can come into a situation where you evaluate the remaining risks of nuclear, which are almost not feasible. But always you can argue that it is still there, because it's manmade, against the remaining case, of everything we do in order to stop the coming climate crisis. And if you have the guts to be rational, then I'm pretty sure that many opponents will say, well, we do not like it. And if we could have afforded, the better, but if need be, then we need also use the nuclear power plants in our energy mix, in order to stop the warming of the earth.

Bret Kugelmass
That's a very optimistic outlook, sometimes. I am too, but sometimes I feel that people who don't like nuclear don't even care about climate either. Otherwise, they'd already find themselves nuclear advocates. But we can come back to that later to the 3000 megawatts were tabled. And then what happened? I know at some point, you became the director general at the Directorate for energy at the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Yes, that position.

George Verberg
Yes, that was in 1981. And in 1980, we have had a very broad discussion in society with 1000s of participants in the discussions, spent some 40 $50 million at a time, which was quite a chunk of money in order to organize that broad discussion. And the conclusion of that board discussion was that it was not the first, the first thing to do to build new nuclear in the Netherlands, of course, you have to realize that we have in the Netherlands, a huge gas abundance at that, in that era. Therefore, it was easy to walk away from something difficult and to use natural gas because that was fairly easy to use, it was safe to use it was giving the government a lot of money due to the government take off the natural gas production. And it was geopolitical, fairly safe because it was our own gas. Yes. And not gas from someone else.

Bret Kugelmass
I always say that if it weren't for climate change gas is a great energy source. You can if you're a high technology society, you can dig deep enough you'll find gas,

George Verberg
I agree. Yeah, but that has turned sour in the Netherlands due to the earthquakes in the soil above the Groningen reservoir. And okay. And after this board's discussion in society and after the advice, which was not, not a no to nuclear, but not now, I one of my first task as Director General of energy was to, to design and formulate with my staff, what kind of point of view will the government take on the outcome of this broad societal discussion? And that government point of view was that we should build between two and four nuclear reactors of 1,000 megawatts each, that's that we are talking about something like 1985. And so we went out to inform the public about this point of view of the government, we went out with our staff and experts from the geological service of the, of the state, and so on and so forth. To explain what would be the consequences of building nuclear power plants in the Netherlands, we focused initially on about seven locations where it could be built. At first sight, when we went into it in more depth, it came out at three locations would be the best with a lot of cooling water nearby, a lot of industrial area space. And that has been more or less sealed. In the space planning projects we also went out with the electricity sector, and industry to find which nuclear power plants would be most interesting for the Netherlands. So we were in Sweden, which at that time, as a company building nuclear power plants. We went to Germany, we went to France, and we went to Canada, which had a complete different types can do the activity with which was nevertheless very interesting concept. And in Canada, they showed us that they indeed, were working pretty well, they are still working pretty well. So that was, that was good to know. Before the final decision, would have taken place in the parliament in the second Chamber of Parliament about the location, whatever was still to be decided, even the date of the vote in parliament was already set in 86 and mentioning the name that you already can imagine what happened about three or four days before the vote in Parliament would have taken place. channelview happened that time. And that was Yeah. That was of course, an event, which was so important that disasters for our plants at that time that we had to put it in the in the in the fridge in order to wait for for a time where we have completely studied at why, at where could it happen again? And so on and so forth, which

Bret Kugelmass
So, you know, I go around the world collecting different perspectives on the reaction to this event. I am wondering how long did it take for at least the nuclear community, the scientific community in your region to say a lot of what happened was a function of it being an RBMK. And in with the graphite tips and all of these different things that are very unique to this reactor? I'm assuming you weren't considering RBMK designs, you were considering water based designs. How long did it take at least for your local scientific community to decide this doesn't have does shouldn't impact our our plans to move forward and convincing the public is another thing but how long did it take internally to say yes, we want to keep doing this?

George Verberg
I'm not aware I do not know how long it would have taken them. I would guess some two, three years a lot has been cleared by the conferences of the IAEA in order to find out what happened and to learn from what happened. But I cannot tack certain year on the on the nuclear society was evaluating the events and drawing its conclusions. But apart from that, what it was much more important that the society was not at all ready to to think again, about expanding nuclear. So we have to wait and see what would happen.

Bret Kugelmass
And wondering how come? And this is maybe a question nobody can answer, but I'll ask it anyway. How come the nuclear industry itself doesn't go through like a giant marketing campaign at this moment to explain that not all nuclear power plants are the same, just like if there was a giant chemical explosion Bhopal, for instance, you know, the chemical industry says, Listen, this isn't the same everywhere, we're not going to stop building chemical plants, or when a hydro dam collapses, they say it's not the same, we're not going to stop building hydro dams. How come the nuclear industry didn't come out in force, you know, it's 10% of the world's energy, that's a lot of money in the industry, how come they didn't come out in force and say, it's not the same, we're not going to stop building nuclear plants.

George Verberg
And I think that that would have not made sense, at least not in the Netherlands, or, let's say Western Europe, apart from France, but also necessary, because they were already convinced that nuclear is a very valuable part of the energy mix. But the anti nuclear groups were very capable of having their own marketing activities. And with well, fueling fear for something which you cannot see cannot taste cannot smell. It is it is a job very difficult to counter here, we also have seen after Chernobyl, that some of the anti nuclear groups, were talking in terms of hundreds or 1000s of deaths, a lot of people have a lot of women have been have decided to get an abortion. Due to all this, this unclear situation which was really used by the opponents to fuel the the uneasy feeling, to say the least, about nuclear. So I think it was wise not to spend a lot of money into pro nuclear branding campaign, because in my opinion, that would not have helped. Which is, as we saw it in the Netherlands, no money was spent on it. And one of my last advisors, as Director General of energy to the minister of economic affairs was to make it officially known that the plans for nuclear expansion were put in the fridge.

Bret Kugelmass
And how did that make you feel at the time?

George Verberg
Well, you have less say, amounts of frustration, and thereafter, you try to make the best of what is needed. I am not, at least I believe I am not a person who can be frustrated for long, because there's so much to do. So many exciting, other challenges. That the way forward is best to do without frustration. Yeah,

Bret Kugelmass
Yeah, that's a that's a pretty good stoic attitude. Um, moving on, then in your career, you ended up joining the Urenco. What precipitated that?

George Verberg
Well, I was that was only in 2000, see 2004 that I joined the board of Urenco, which is one tier board, construction and like many companies that's based in the UK, the headquarters of Urenco, but my main job was to be part of the board of Gasunie. So that was quite a change because for the first time since long, I only had to do with one type of energy source that is natural gas. And I had no responsibilities whatsoever for coal, oil or nuclear or wind. But nevertheless, also that was on the exciting, exciting time.

Bret Kugelmass
Yes, yes. So tell me, you know, that was a that was a long time ago, how have things changed over these last 20 years? In the nuclear domain, of course, in the nuclear domain, but just, you know, we still want to know in your perspective of energy and how you've seen society shift, just hear your thoughts. Okay.

George Verberg
At the start of my career, again, economic affairs with energy, and later on, certainly with gas, really, I had the same idea, like you mentioned a couple of minutes ago, that natural gas is a wonderful source of energy. However, later, and I think that I turned my, my views on the issue of carbon dioxide around 2001-2002. So for many view, climate change is much too late but nevertheless...

Bret Kugelmass
That's early for a lot of poepl. A lot of people take a lot longer than

George Verberg
I know, also, many who think I was pretty late. So in 2002, I was ready, dissipated to become a president of the NGO International Gas Union, which is the worldwide natural gas and gas NGO, and I would become president of the NGO for 2003-2006. And in those years of preparing the 2003 start, I had work, which was a lot of, of give me a lot of inspiration and fun with our Japanese colleagues at the time, who were the presidents of 2000 to 2003, we already started to speak about natural gas as the fuel for the intermission for the transition period, towards the carbon dioxide free world. And in the Dutch triennium, we have spent a lot of attention to this issue of transition, natural gas as a transition fuel. So that was completely different, talking about natural gas as we did in let's say, the 80s and the 90s of the last century. And that has been at least a my thinking deal develops further and further. So when CCS or carbon capture and storage methods were tabled. I also thought well, it's perhaps expensive, too difficult to do, but we cannot exclude that possibility to to abate carbon dioxide emissions further. And since, I think around say four years, since, the Minister of Economic Affairs has decided to close in coal and natural gas production, and to end all the natural gas production of coal that I have made another term that I think that natural gas really should and before 2050, we can make good use of natural gas in as a transition fuel, either as a biofuel or as a possibility to make hydrogen which is necessary to change the production processes of a lot of heavy industry, chemical industry steel industries. But thereafter, we should not use natural gas anymore. That also has a geopolitical idea behind it because if we don't have our natural gas ourselves, then we become so dependent from sources where we have to natural where we have to import natural gas from the,

Bret Kugelmass
Like Russia

George Verberg
For instance to mention, important supplier

Bret Kugelmass
Sorry, I had to say jit ust in case our audience wasn't picking up

George Verberg
I can understand. But you're right. Yes, yes, that's not my first choice nowadays to have imports from.

Bret Kugelmass
So you've come to this conclusion that although natural gas is a great transition, and I agree as well, and a great fuel other than climate emissions, it's a shame. And maybe even someday, they'll be able to do something where it doesn't emit, and they can capture, but we'll see about that. My fingers crossed. Yeah. But in the meantime, this leaves nuclear, if you need to power an energetic society, and and you want dispatchable power, you want baseload power, and you want it to be clean, and you wanted to have the smallest waste footprint and the smallest environmental footprint of any other source? Nuclear. Right. Yeah. so and so. But then you begin joining advocacy efforts in the space as well. Tell me about that.

George Verberg
Well due to the events and the developments in the last decade, I surely realized that there was a lot of talk, and rightly so in my opinion, about building windmills on sea somewhat less about windmills on land, because we are quite a highly populated densely populated country, solar panels on roofs, solar panels and models, in order to create a lot of energy sources without carbon dioxide emissions. And then I thought, we in the Netherlands, have a relatively high energy intensive industry due to our natural gas history, where it was easy to, to locate huge energy intensive industries, like Dow Chemicals in the Netherlands DSM and that are many others. If you want to keep your industry with all the labor places, which go around with that, all the supply of companies, for whatever things, you might an energy intensive industry might net off, then we should be think, again, whether we should stay out of the nuclear development. And when I had myself reach the point that I thought and think that that is not very wise to do to stay out of the nuclear, if you realize what can get a huge task is ahead of us in order to reach Paris in 2050 and time that we had that I found a couple of my business friends and told them how I thought about this issue. And I have a course pleased that quite a few of them told me Well, you are right, let's do something about it. And let's try to to make the politicians and the authorities aware that there is still another source of carbon dioxide free energy source which is nuclear. So, let's try to make nuclear part of the discussion again with small group and still a small group of around 10 people, we started last year our endeavor to bring nuclear to the fore. And well at least we see that also our endeavor has added a little bit to the awareness of nuclear as one of the important possibilities to change your present carbon dioxide or gauge energy mix towards carbon dioxide zero or net zero energy mix. So thereafter, we we also ask well known Dutch people who have have been former ministers or important business people, not too many just enough to have a solid body of people who are wise and know a lot and know how to weight the different issues which are at stake, if you are talking about an energy mix with nuclear or without nuclear, and these people around 15 were willing to assist us in a in a very useful way that they gave the advice, which enables us to stay out of making poor moves, which would be counterproductive.

Bret Kugelmass
And what would like like trying to go against renewables? Is that one of those examples where that seems like it might be counterproductive?

George Verberg
Well, it's funny you're thinking, that's that that's the first thing you'll think about, because for the very, very start, also, by myself, there was one very important decision taken, that we would not be against the renewables like wind and solar and what you have more heat or whatever. Because the task, past 2015 is too big to take out any option, which we, we can use make use of like wind, like solar panels. So that was never at stake. But it could be that perhaps we would have started with arguing that we should start with 20 nuclear power plants. But that's not the best way forward in the Netherlands. Let's first see how it develops. And we see so far that the development is going rather well. A lot of people are understanding that the nuclear world also has developed for the better is better designed nuclear power plants, very good and solid, interim solution for nuclear waste, which giving us all the time needed to prepare for the final decision for the final repository, place of nuclear and the way and when. So, that made it possible that we have noted quite important change in the, in the opinion of public society, face of a nuclear. And nowadays, I think that if you had just a vote in Parliament, on will we expand to clear or not? I'm not talking about with how much but just the principle, or the first question that you will get majority in favor of expanding our nuclear power, part and energy mix

Bret Kugelmass
And what is the vote in Parliament meant to secure? Is it to put money into the development? Or is it to create land that's allocated for nuclear? And one more question on that, why is it even necessary? Is it possible that an independent power producer could come in and just build a nuclear plant like anyone builds any electric infrastructure and then sell to private industry or sell to the grid?

George Verberg
And I think that the latter proposition which you just mentioned, is in principle possible because there is no law like in Germany, which forbid the build and exploitation of nuclear power plants. However, first of all, there are three designated locations at a time. So you need to get space in one of these three locations a second for an important investment, like nuclear power plant, I think that the investor would like to see that is bought acceptance, let's say a license to operate the business. And because otherwise you do not invest a lot of money in your endeavor in a country, which is hostile to nuclear power plants, because that is just taking a risk, which is not your business risk, that could be a risk of a madman. And that's not what the investor is. So, it is important that the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the other ministries who are involved and Parliament give at least the notice that they accept nuclear as one of the important or sources in our way, on our way to Paris, 2050.

Bret Kugelmass
And then just a fine point on something he said, in order to get a little bit of confidence that the government will support this for the investors, does it actually require Parliament? Or can it just be the ministry itself and taking meetings with the government and the government saying, yes, if you want to pay for this, on your own, we approve.

George Verberg
Again, in principle, there is no law against it. And therefore, I expect that every investor who wants to build nuclear power plant in the Netherlands, whether it is EPR, or whether they should as Mr. That this investor will go to the Ministry of Economic Affairs. And then the Minister of Economic Affairs will look up in the government agreement about the coming four years, whether in this government agreement, it is stated that nuclear is acceptable or not. If it's not, then he will say to the investor, at least, that's my reading of it. Well, there is no law, which forbid, to build. But you'll be aware, I realize that we are not happy with your investment. So it's your decision. But then at least you know, how we look at it.

Bret Kugelmass
Yes. If any investor if the government were to say we're not happy with it, I get it. Yes. But I guess what I'm wondering, is there a middle ground where you don't need some you don't need an overwhelming support throughout parliament. But there also isn't a negative signal either.

George Verberg
We do not need an overwhelming support, besides the fact the question what is overwhelming? What's the definition of that? You need a majority in government and a majority in parliament in order to be be convinced that you will get your license to operate from society.

Bret Kugelmass
And not to belabor the point. But can't Parliament's majorities change? I mean, isn't this possible that you get the approval from Parliament now, but a savvy investor thinking this is a couple billion dollar investment, it's going to take several years, maybe half a decade till it's actually online, thinks that there's a possibility that in those next five years, Parliament may change their minds?

George Verberg
We are and I'm quite happy with that. It's a very democratic country. So majorities can switch over time. I can change over time, depending on your point of view, for the better or for the worse, that's up to the democratic outcome of the voting process.

Bret Kugelmass
Democratic outcomes voting process really decide electric infrastructure.

George Verberg
Yes, it is part and parcel of our society. And that's it's not part and parcel of just the business society, it is for all of us important that we at least accept that the of the largest operate is being given also to the nuclear sector. And there is a good chance in my opinion, that this largest operate will be there when it is needed. Why do I say when it is needed, as long as no... has come to the floor to say we have a threat and we have learned that some change has been noticed in the Netherlands, in favor of nuclear and now we would like to consider the seriously the possibilities of investments in the Netherlands, then you need from the Minister of Economic Affairs. One way or another way, your statement that you are free to go or that you're welcome.

Bret Kugelmass
Very good. And then there's one thing I want to mention there was a comedian, a Dutch comedian that brought up nuclear maybe a year or two ago. Do you remember? Yes, yes, sure. How did that happen? It's so odd to me, that comedian out of nowhere would start advocating for nuclear. Do you know the story?

George Verberg
Yes, Mr. Lubach, he is a very interesting comedian, because he quite often takes an item, which is one way or no other way, frozen in societies thoughts. And there are quite a few of these items, which he think is a little bit crazy or dumb. Not to think about it for a second time. So he has also picked once I believe in it, it was one or two years ago, the issue of nuclear. And he made a big item of that a lot of laugh, went around in that society. But at the same time, many people woke up and said, Hey, gosh, we have a thought about nuclear. Let's do that again. And let's take it serious. And after we've taken a serious and perhaps we come to the conclusion that nuclear should be part of our energy mix on our way towards 2050 Paris. It is amazing and a lot of anti nuclear people and NGOs they were furious, because with this light hearted way of approaching this frozen nuclear issue. Suddenly, they saw that people were started starting thinking again about nuclear, instead of just working the way these anti nuclear opponents had made ready for them to work.

Bret Kugelmass
It's amazing. I wish that that model could be replicated around the world whenever he did he did it just right.

George Verberg
Yeah, but I'm afraid that Mr. Lubach will not travel around the world for the for this to do.

Bret Kugelmass
Sure, yes. And so tell me what's next? What are the next milestones that we're looking for? To see a real, you know, development effort for nuclear in your country?

George Verberg
Well, the I don't know what that will be first in time. But let's say a very important issue is what kind of coalition between different political parties will be established in the coming weeks months for new government and the Netherlands could be about a fast but I'm afraid that this time it will be one of the longer taking forming of government coalitions. But that's important, because as I've tried to explain earlier, in this government coalition paper, it's not stated that nuclear is also welcome as part of the energy mix, one way another way word, then of course, we cannot advise would be investors that they are licensed to operate is ready available for them. Second, the Minister of Economic Affairs has asked the KPMG group accountancy group to find out sort out what kind of issues play in the electricity market and the energy market which are important for the development of nuclear power, the Netherlands, are the setbacks are other items which are in favor of nuclear, I cannot think at this point of time about anything a favor, because it's very much not set that way because there was no nuclear at the horizon. So KPMG has to sort out what hurdles are there in the market, what opportunities are there in the market? What changes could be envisage in the market in order to create a level playing field between the main sources of energy in climate util, energy mix, show you that you have to think, again, of course, about wind, solar nuclear, as the main pillars of such an energy mix. And that's report, which we expected, let's say at the end of June this year. And that's, of course, a very important feat for thought for both investors as well as for the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the other ministries, which are involved as cert item, which is important that also they will be looked into the willingness of the local societies, province provinces, to mention an important layer of government in the Netherlands, whether they accept or to not accept nuclear power plants in their profits. So for instance, I have the feeling the idea that the Province of Zeeland were Borssele already house for decades, as in 73, or something like that, that they know, nuclear, that they know that nuclear is an easy neighbor, in your your surroundings. So I expect that the province of Zeeland will be in favor of expanding nuclear nuclear power in its province. But there could be other provinces, which also would like to see nuclear power plants and their province and the chances for that, I think, have grown thanks to the development of the nuclear sector towards the smrs. Because small modular reactors, it's quite a difference, whether you're talking about 1600 megawatt EPR of EDF or whether you're talking about, let's say, a C 100 megawatt SMR, or General Electric Hitachi, just to mention one of the several smrs, which are approaching at the point in time where they can really launched on the market. So that's a huge difference, both from a technical point of view, also, from the point of view, whether it is easy to integrate these nuclear power plants in the existing electricity grid system in the Netherlands. And from the point of view, whether the surrounding civil society is willing to accept it. If you're, if you're not used to a nuclear, then I would guess that an SMR is easier to adjust yourself to, let's say, an APR of 1500 megawatts. So this, this car items are very, very important the coalition agreement, the marketing outcome of KPMG, and the acceptance survey for nuclear in the different parts of the Netherlands.

Bret Kugelmass
Excellent. George, as we wrap up here today, do you just want to leave us with a final thought on your why this is important?

George Verberg
Well, it is important because if you take the total energy requirements and hydrogen requirements for the industry, in particular, in order to reach Paris, 2050 in time, that you need such a huge energy source, that I can think that I think that wind, sun and nuclear together and when necessary, also with CCS, as long as you need some natural gas as a position that that makes is necessary, is capable. And it's also wise from a geopolitical point of view.

Bret Kugelmass
George, thank you so much for taking the time today. Really appreciate your insight and look forward to talking to you

George Verberg
Thank you Bret I hope that I have interested the audience. Thank you.