The World Changing Podcast

Matt Loszak: I was talking to another founder the other day and told him what we're doing, and he's like, oh, old school. And I was thinking, like, that's such a funny way to look at it, because. But it was true. It's like this retro futurism where we have this dusty, hidden, misunderstood technology that we discovered in the fifties and sixties, and yet in so many ways, it's so much more advanced than everything else we have today.

Greg Robinson: Welcome to the World changing podcast. Was that too much? Yeah, that was probably too much, but let's keep it. We'll keep it. Anyway. How about this? If we do the podcast and the world doesn't change, then we can take that out. Welcome to the World changing podcast, where we deconstruct the projects and products that are moving us towards a decentralized and carbon free future. We'll talk to skeptics, supporters, and innovators in the fields that depend on electricity to run their industries, which is changing every single day. I'm your host, Greg Robinson, co founder of Aston Labs, a decentralized infrastructure company. And on the other side of the camera here, we have Flo Lumpston, our producer, and she will make sure that the train stays on the tracks while we do this. Good to see you.

Florence Lumsden: Good to see you, too, Greg. How are you?

Greg Robinson: Great, great. Okay, we're going to talk about Matt Lozako.

Florence Lumsden: Yes, it was a really good conversation.

Greg Robinson: Founder and CEO of Allo Atomics, which, it's so cool. As somebody who majored in physics, although I didn't spend much time in nuclear physics to see these nuclear companies coming back up, I think it captures the imagination of anyone who's studied that at the particle level. Although I will say almost none of what we talked about was about actual nuclear physics, because building a nuclear reactor startup, raising venture capital money, and scaling it from scratch is very different than being in a laboratory trying to make it work. So that's one of the things that made this one so exciting to me, is just getting it into the real world, commercializing a nuclear reactor and what that really takes. So, in this episode, we talked about solving for the tech. Of course the technology has to work. It has to be safe.

Greg Robinson: People have to trust it. That public opinion piece we talk about, not in my backyard, the nimbys, that's a big part of nuclear. You have two camps where one side you have everybody saying, oh, obviously all you need is nuclear reactors, and then there's this huge push against commercializing them. So it's just such an interesting situation. And then, of course, the finance side. All of this has to be financed. So a little bit more about Matt real quick. Matt Lozek. He studied engineering and physics at Queen's University, and then he worked as an acoustical engineer for one year before quitting to spend ten years in the software startup world. He co founded Humi, which is a HR software suite which scaled to 150 employees.

Greg Robinson: But his holy grail has been a return to his roots, combining engineering and physics with his learnings from the startup world. Alloatomics is the result of that. That team is commercializing what's called the Marvel reactor, which we'll talk about, which we talk about in the episode. It's a microreactor from Idaho National Lab, and it'll be the first new microreactor built in the US in decades.

Florence Lumsden: Big news.

Greg Robinson: Yes. We hope you enjoy the conversation as much as we did.

Matt Loszak: Hello?

Greg Robinson: Hello. Can you hear me?

Matt Loszak: Yeah.

Greg Robinson: Quiet. Okay. Loud.

Matt Loszak: Perfect. On my side.

Greg Robinson: Nice. How's it going?

Matt Loszak: It's good. How about you?

Greg Robinson: Not too bad.

Matt Loszak: Yeah.

Greg Robinson: Oh, man. So I'm excited that we're talking on a microphone today. We talk so much off of microphones.

Florence Lumsden: How did you guys meet?

Matt Loszak: I think it was Mike Miller who introduced us.

Greg Robinson: Mike Miller? Yeah, yeah. How'd you guys meet?

Matt Loszak: Mike Miller. How did we meet? I think through other investors.

Greg Robinson: Oh, is it?

Matt Loszak: Yeah, yeah.

Greg Robinson: Were they, like, physics?

Matt Loszak: Actually, he might have invested in my last company.

Greg Robinson: Oh, okay.

Matt Loszak: Yeah, yeah.

Greg Robinson: Usually gets contacted for, like, recovering physicists.

Matt Loszak: Yes, exactly. He actually made some introductions to me of people just like that were a pretty specific bunch.

Greg Robinson: So the misfits that didn't end up at CERN or something that's roaming around the world trying to figure out where can we apply this degree that were told that were promised was going to get us somewhere in our lives.

Matt Loszak: Yeah. What to do with our lives.

Greg Robinson: Yeah, yeah. Amazing. The other thing about this, us being on a mic now and having talked so much off of a microphone, I told flow, I was like, oh, we don't need a pre call or a schedule or a script or any of those things. So welcome to the. I don't know what they call that. It's called the goat rodeo session, where you're just supposed to figure out. I start every conversation off with just, like, the backstory a little bit. Like, how did you even get. Because you haven't always been in the energy space. How did you even get to the energy business? What drew you to that? And go back as far as you want.

Matt Loszak: Yeah. So my background was originally in engineering and physics. So I studied that university and thought I might as well use that degree for something. So for one year, I did acoustical engineering, which was pretty cool stuff. It was like sound vibration control and architecture. So anything from concert hall design to going to a mental facility and measuring at 04:00 a.m. To see if too much sound was leaking through the walls and exposing people's privacy as they were disclosing their secrets and determining who would sue who, whether the builder, the tenant and so on. That was interesting, but got the entrepreneurial itch during that year. Taught myself to code Googling. How do you build an app? How do you build a website? And quit that engineering job after that year and did a ten year hiatus in software startups.

Matt Loszak: The first one you could call a learning experience. It was called Jamcam. It was essentially TikTok before TikTok. So we got to a million downloads. We did a maroon five partnership where we made this crowdsourced music video for them, for their hit single at the time called Sugar. Lots of fun. But as that kind of startup is very binary, so either becomes the next big thing or it's hard to make money. So moved on and started something not as sexy, but a better business model. And that's called humi. So it's HR payroll benefit software. And that did much better.

Florence Lumsden: So we like the music app better.

Greg Robinson: Should have downloaded it. Flow they would save.

Florence Lumsden: I could have saved you. I remember that song.

Matt Loszak: Yeah, there you go. Yeah, it's on their YouTube still. That crowdsource video we did for them.

Greg Robinson: That's cool.

Matt Loszak: I think humi was not as sexy, but a better business model. And we scaled it to 150 people. So it turned into a real business and learned a lot about recruiting and how to structure a company and all those good things. But really my kind of holy grail objective all along was to take those learnings from software and business and bring it back to science and engineering where I came from. So about two and a half years ago now, left during a series B and sold some shares and started to explore all these kind of more technical, fun areas for a physicist like me, like us, and really honed in on clean energy. And I was thinking, should I do something in solar or batteries? And the more I looked into nuclear, the more it lit this fire under my butt.

Matt Loszak: I've never seen something where there's such a large disparity between the public perception of something and a lot of the realities. And so that's really what lit this fire into me. So I set out to learn whatever I could in the space, and to date, I met with over 500 people in nuclear, met my future business partner, about 100 people into that list, and the rest has been history.

Greg Robinson: That's cool. I have to do this to you, so why go even further back? Like, why science and engineering? Were you. What did you do as a kid? Did you have some kind of bias towards one route or the other, like math, science, engineering? But did you have any kind of activities or exposure as a kid that sort of guided you into that?

Matt Loszak: I'm glad you asked, because I was thinking about this the other day. I think there's two things that come to mind. So one of them is, I used to essentially want all these toys, but I couldn't get them, so I would make them out of cardboard. And I got very good at building toys out of cardboard, like, to the point where it looked pretty realistic. They were functional, different suits of armor or weapons and things like that. And I feel like that's an early precursor to engineering or just being hands on. I was always more of a hands on learner than someone who likes to sit back in class and let a lecture wash over you.

Matt Loszak: Then the second big thing is, I had this weird obsession with magic tricks as a kid, so I had this magic briefcase with my full magic infrastructure, like, all these different types of tricks, and there's some sleight of hand, but also some gimmicky kind of hardware you needed. And I just love the idea of seeing something and being like, how the heck does that work? You can either shock other people. It's. Look, if you believe this is possible, but then maybe they want to know, and maybe you tell them, maybe you don't. So I feel like physics and science is the closest thing to that in real life, basically.

Greg Robinson: Yeah, yeah. My ten year old, who is obsessed with magic, goes to magic meetups. Also obsessed with engineering, 3d printing, like, now wants to learn about Ohm's law and how to build electric circuits and to build battle bots. Yeah. That path through magic. I have to know, were you the one who told everybody your tricks, or were you the one that was like, oh, I'm gonna fool everybody? Was it more of a performance thing for you, or. It was like, I know the secret. Let me tell you. Were you a secret teller? And maybe I should already know that because you're not a magician today, and, like, magicians don't tell their secrets. So maybe you were a secret teller.

Matt Loszak: Yeah, exactly.

Greg Robinson: Your career.

Matt Loszak: Yeah, I think I generally would let the mystique simmer for some time.

Greg Robinson: Nice. So you're bored of it?

Matt Loszak: Yeah. Yeah, maybe.

Greg Robinson: That's amazing. That's really interesting, too, because I'm always wondering how someone comes from science and engineering and then moves into being the CEO of a company. Like being a CEO of a company, even though the daily work is, like, perfectly matched to science and engineering, because it's all about just, I need to know a little bit more. Change the view. Here's hypothesis. We gotta test it. So that works really well. But the actual, like, the pitching and all, that's actually antithetical to being a science or engineering person. In a way, the whole. If you look at the whole universe, the whole process of, oh, that one didn't work. Let me change.

Greg Robinson: But when you're in that moment, there always seems to be have to be something in your life that was like some kind of performance or some kind of place where you had to put together the plan or put together the pitch or put together the. Their performance. Did you have any of that? Other than being a magician, of course.

Matt Loszak: I feel like maybe one path I've seen some people go through is from CTO to CEO. So in my last company for a time, I was CTO. And although I had other roles as well. Once you do that, and then maybe you have an initial success with business in general, and then you look around the world and see what you want to do. Often I think if you get obsessed with these sciency style businesses, then you look around and there's not very many. There's a very specific profile of person who can lead a science focused business, I think. And maybe people in the world who are not as technically inclined or have more psychological or sales oriented minds or something, they wouldn't want to start a sciency focused business. And so I feel like it's almost out of necessity.

Matt Loszak: Like, you have a bunch of engineers, leading engineers. Often these engineering CEO's are engineers as well. Just almost out of necessity, because no one else is going to do it.

Greg Robinson: That resonates for sure. I think especially going into, I have to know, like, in all the conversations you had with nuclear folks, was it was the aha. Moment for you that, whoa, nuclear is happening. Like nuclear. There's this sort of renaissance that's happening. And if so, if you did see that moment, did you already know that going into your research, or at what point of the 500 people were you like, oh, there's actually a real way to build a commercial business out of this, because I think that's often if you hear people saying, nuclear is one of those things we've been talking about for decades. There's no commercial. I actually had someone. I have to throw this out at you. I know you won't be offended, but I heard somebody, a copy, actually, of call small modular nuclear vaporware.

Greg Robinson: And I heard it again, so I want to just hear it generally take us down that path of, you're going along these 500 people. Were you like, wow, this actually could become a commercial company in a reasonable timeframe? And then, like, how do you answer those questions? Or how do you respond to those people saying, oh, this doesn't exist, so it can't exist, which I already know where that one's going, but start with the first one.

Matt Loszak: Yeah. So I started that exploration in 2021. And this might be surprising, but even two years ago, the public psyche was very different. So it's amazing how fast this renaissance has been coming up. And we had 2011 Fukushima, which set a chill on the industry for five or six years. And then there was the kind of rumblings of a pro nuclear movement that began around maybe 2015, 2016, and it's been picking up steam. But when I was starting it still felt pretty risky. I mean, obviously it still is, but it was even more so because I think it was going against the narrative that all we need is solar and batteries. Why bother with nuclear? There's still a ton of misconception. All that is still there.

Matt Loszak: But the difference now is that there's a nugget of thought leaders or kind of people on, for example, Twitter, which I think X, formally known as Twitter. Yeah. With kind of this. There's a lot of kind of thought leadership that happens there. And there's now a nugget of VC's and technologists and people who think about these things, who at this point, that opinion seems like something that's a known truth. But I don't think that was the case even two years ago. So I think that's changing. But at the same time, if you go talk to a random person on the street, the situation is identical, which is they're either indifferent or maybe a little bit afraid of it. So there's still a huge amount of work to be done.

Matt Loszak: So I think when you talk to someone and they say it's vaporware, they're technically right. No company has been approved to build anything, except Kairos actually just got a good approval to build their test reactor, and Marvel got their approval to build their test reactor a few months ago. And that's Marvel. The latter is the one that we're basing our technology on. So it's very rapidly emerging from the vapor and the fog and the physical stuff is about to show up.

Greg Robinson: Yeah, yeah. Obviously, like, in engineering, like, everything starts as vaporware, so you got to have an idea of what you're going to build. Question on the. Since you talked about companies that were getting these approvals, can we talk about Nuscale? Do you know anything about them? Do anything about. Yeah, a little bit. Yeah. So that was one of the things that I was reading about a bit. I don't know that much about it, so I'm not going to sit here and explain what. What's going on there, but they're now, I would say. So I got into solar, like, 2010. Very soon after I got into it, were blessed with Solyndra. And so then I had to fight myself out of the Solyndra cage. Every time I go into a room, it was like, oh, you think solar power is going to be the answer?

Greg Robinson: Look at Solyndra. And so I'm assuming, at least in the last, I don't know how long with you, but. But I'm assuming some people are going to come and be like, look at what happened at Nuscale. That's the pattern for everybody. But do you know anything about, like, the first principles of what happened there that just. So that isn't the truth like, that, is it the truth that continues to move on unless it is, and then you have to get your resume ready. But what. So what is so about nuscale? What was it that, what do you think was their mistake? Fatal flaw? What's some kind of first principle that you could say that might be an isolated incident or not?

Matt Loszak: Yeah. Yeah. So I think it was relatively specific to the project. So my understanding of what happened is the writing was on the wall with this for a number of years. It had been in the planning stages for five or ten years. They were trying to build a reactor with a large capacity, over 100. They're just, they hadn't fully subscribed. Ppas are off take for that demand. And so it got to this kind of threshold where a lot of people saw it coming, but that particular project just was not properly planned. So I think it's less something that speaks to the technology and maybe even less so to the economics and more just the planning of that particular project. But I'm curious if you've heard more about this.

Greg Robinson: No, I just think. I think, unfortunately, in the process of building anything or engineering anything, or trying to create a new movement, or whatever you want to call it, or even just a new product. I think it's really easy to overlearn the lesson, if that makes sense. And so then that comes out as small modular reactor company, which 100 mw, pretty big, is LiKE that one, didn't Work. Therefore all reactors will not work. You've heard, I've heard stories of Elon Musk, talk about how in the early days of Tesla or SpaceX, to him, it wasn't like the failure of Tesla. Wasn't the failure of Tesla, it was the failure of electric cars. And it was going to be another decade, because now everybody would say, oh, it wasn't TESLA, it was electric cars.

Greg Robinson: And so I think just all I know about NusCale is that people are now it will get used as a reason to not go down the nuclear path. And I think that it's important to note that my tHesis, I think the hardest part about the energy transition is finance. And finance often ties into ppas. Are they bankable finance? Did you subscribe everything? Is there a market for trading nuclear power that you just plug in? Probably not. It's not bankable if you don't have your PPA subscribe and you don't have your financing in place. That could be the reason a project fails. But that's not what the story will be like. The story going forward will be, small modular reactor company couldn't get it off the ground. That must be the case for this category.

Florence Lumsden: Yeah. What do you think, Matt?

Matt Loszak: Yeah, I think that's all fair. But I think the interesting thing there is, if they're trying to build a reactor in an area where it doesn't seem like there's actually going to be sufficient demand to fill out that whole reactor size, then that kind of does come down to maybe poor planning. And I think maybe that's, in fact, an argument in favor of the smaller nuclear reactors, because they're more right sized for various types of applications that are, you can just take the whole thing with one application or two applications. So, for example, a data center or desalination plant or things like that, where you don't really need to patch together three, four, five off takers, but just one kind of tent pole customer.

Matt Loszak: In theory, that's almost an argument in favor of these smaller reactors, as long as they can, a, become not vaporware, and b, proves that their economics are good enough.

Greg Robinson: But to be fair to the vaporware statement, vaporware is like that. It hasn't been commercialized yet, but let's even go a step backwards if, like, with engineering, you have to build a prototype. And I would say once you get to that stage, like, you're starting to, it's starting to not become vaporware. As long as it's not just, like, a rendering. I think you guys are past the rendering stage.

Matt Loszak: So.

Greg Robinson: Yeah, speaking of seeing the pictures, speaking.

Florence Lumsden: Of which, Greg, you're super familiar with and alloatomics, and I'm not. And any listener, many listeners, will not be. Maybe we could back up a minute and talk about what the company is doing, what the product is, et cetera, if that's okay.

Greg Robinson: Yeah. I was just gonna ask you about. With that building, I wanted you to talk about the Marvel reactor, because, really, that is running. That is. Can you expand on that, on the actual product? We'll get into kind of, like, business model stuff with Allo. And, like, how you're thinking about growing the business, but just that one piece of technology, not vaporware, real thing pictures, what's going on with it today, and where does it stand, and then if you want to move into commercialization, you can.

Matt Loszak: I'll answer that question directly and then take a step back and explain the whole picture.

Greg Robinson: Yeah.

Matt Loszak: So Marvel is a government program. It's a small microreactor, a nuclear microreactor, and it is scheduled to be the first one completed in decades. So essentially, they just two months ago now reached a historic approval by the department of Energy. They became the first reactor that the DoE has ever approved. So it's this new design. They've approved it, and they've already started construction, and it'll go critical. It'll turn on next year. So this is super exciting, taking a further step back. This is all happening at Idaho National Lab, and INL is essentially the nuclear womb, so to speak. You know, in the fifties and sixties, there were roughly 52 reactors, kind of test reactors, that were built at Idaho National Lab, and then they went down to three during the kind of slowdown in nuclear interest in the seventies, eighties, nineties.

Matt Loszak: And Marvel represents the dawn of the second atomic age because it's this first new reactor being built there since that slowdown. And several other reactors, kind of test reactors, will follow. And a test reactor is something that is not intended to make revenue. It's intended to test out the neutronics and thermal hydraulics and just build something up and test something about a certain technology, whether it's different types of coolant or different types of fuel. That's what Marvel is. Should I go on to talk about the company, or do you guys want to dive deeper on Marvel?

Greg Robinson: Yeah, I probably will come back to that, but just keep going so that technology gets built that's been developed over time. It's in a lab. It's basically being used for research and to figure out how it should work. And then you come along and you're like, I can. I'm going to build allo around this technology. Like, take us through that process. I'm just genuinely curious about, because we've skipped through the high level, but I'm really curious about, like, you. You meet. You meet your partner, your business partner at InL. He's working on this technology. This is number 100 out of 500 people start there. How do you move from that meeting into, oh, we're going to start a company, we're going to get it funded, and we're going to spin this out.

Greg Robinson: James, you can go as deep as you want about just the technical as deep as you want, and then if we need to cut it for NDA purposes later, you're welcome to do that.

Matt Loszak: So I think the context was, in that hundredth meeting, the learnings that it had to date, is that essentially, if you look around the world, we've got over 400 nuclear reactors currently operating. They're all using water as the coolant. And there's other technologies for nuclear that could improve the economics and maintain that amazing safety record that nuclear has, because it is as safe as solar and wind, statistically, despite what the mass psychology might imply. And therefore, it's worth exploring these more advanced technologies. And the elephant in the room is, or was, that nobody had been approved to build anything yet in the advanced reactor space. And it's a complex issue.

Matt Loszak: There's lots of reasons why, but one of the main ones is there's a bit of a catch 22 with the regulator where you need nuclear test data to get a license, but you can't get that test data without a license. And so this is one of the main reasons why I was so excited when I saw what they were doing at Marvel, because essentially, they were building this reactor within that nuclear womb at INL. And essentially, so if a company like allo came along and were to commercialize a scaled up, more economical version, then we could point to Marvel and say, this is our test reactor, and let's go straight to a commercial deployment.

Matt Loszak: And this is really what sets us apart, I think, in this kind of effort to rapidly commercialize nuclear to help with energy independence and climate change and all that good stuff is we can actually go straight to a commercial deployment and address that catch 22 with the NRC in light of Marvel actually being built. So we've actually recruited a number of people who worked on Marvel, including the chief architect and project lead. So Yasir Arafat, and he's our CTO and business partner, and a number of others from the Marvel program. And we're essentially telling them, say, let's do it again, but scale it up, and we'll really focus on economics. And our ambition is essentially to have that same stamp of approval to start construction within two to three years.

Matt Loszak: It's a scaled up design, a bit more complex, but the team just did it. That's the core thesis of all o our company.

Greg Robinson: And so then you go to them and they say, yeah, great, that sounds great. We'll do that deal with you. We'll help you, because do you have to license the technology out of I. Now, did you have to start with that step first? It sounds like you had some insiders, but was that step one? Yeah.

Matt Loszak: So the idea here is the reactor that we're designing is quite a bit different than marvel. So it's larger. There's a number of design changes that I can get into if people are curious. But essentially, the reactor is separate ip. But the part that we're trying to leverage, that we'll have to license or go through the right pathway to obtain, is that nuclear test data. So there's things called the gain voucher program, Crada SPp, things like that. The API, to use a software term of the lab is those types of agreements, and we can leverage those to get the nuclear test data to validate for the regulator. Here's how the neutronics will perform with this fuel, with this kind of coolant. And we'll have to combine that with our own non nuclear test units, more full scale or different types of non nuclear testing.

Matt Loszak: And those two things together will form a very wholesome or fulsome regulatory case.

Greg Robinson: Yeah, that's cool. Just because I am totally curious about this. What is the same, because you're saying you can use that nuclear test data that they're developing. What is the same as the Marvel programs reactor that allows you to even leverage that test data? And then what if you. What are some modifications and why?

Matt Loszak: So the core thing is the fuel. So the fuel is a very interesting fuel called uranium zirconium hydride. And this fuel is often used in university research reactors. So there's 30 university research reactors around the US. And often students walk around these things without even knowing they're walking around a nuclear reactor. And the reason is there's no big concrete dome or anything. And the reason they can get away with that is because this fuel is so inherently safe. The hotter the fuel gets, the less reactive it gets. Practically, what that means is you can try to make it melt down, and it won't. The physics of the fuel prevents it. Whereas elsewhere in nuclear, a big concrete dome saying, hey, if it melts down, at least we'll capture it. But this is saying it can't with the fuel.

Matt Loszak: And so the data that we'll get will be, how does that fuel pair with a different coolant with liquid metal? Because the reason, you might ask yourself, hey, Matt, this fuel sounds amazing. Why hasn't it been used in other power generating reactors around the world? And that hearkens back to what I said earlier, where all those reactors are water based. And having water pairing with this fuel is a little bit finicky, because the water can't take the heat away fast enough, and the fuel shuts itself off too quickly. So with liquid metal, when you touch a metal object, it feels cold because it's taking heat from your hand away quickly. It's actually the same temperature as the rest of the room. It's not actually cold, but it feels cold because it's such a good conductor of heat.

Matt Loszak: When you use liquid metal, which sounds pretty cool, it sounds like terminator something as the coolant, then it pairs beautifully, and, in fact, it's way more power dense, which means you can have a very small, compact reactor producing a lot of power, which should tell you the economics are good. And then this beautiful inherent safety characteristic, which tells you, hey, it's super inherently safe.

Florence Lumsden: So, yeah, cool. Can I ask a clarifying question? So we've got the fuel source, which is the same as the marvel generator, and then you have the coolant, which is a metal coolant, and a metal like coolant instead of water. Is that also the same as the marvel reactor, or is that unique to allo.

Matt Loszak: So, yeah, both marvel and aloe, we are both liquid metals. Marvel uses sodium potassium, a eutectic mixture, which happens to be liquid at room temperature. It's a metal that's liquid at room temperature. And this is good for test reactors, because they turn on and off all the time, so you don't want to have to worry about the metal freezing, thawing, et cetera. But then this pure sodium is what we use. It's a metal as well, but it solidifies at a higher temperature. So just certain reasons, we decided to just go with pure sodium. But it's from a neutronics perspective, it behaves in the same way.

Greg Robinson: That's cool. So mainly when you're going through the test data, you're really looking at the fuel source. Like, how is the fuel source behaving? That's the primary thing that says, hey, look, we use this fuel in a reaction and use the word going critical, basically. Like, that's really what they're testing. Like when the NRC, or like any kind of approval agency is looking at a nuclear application, they're just looking at what happens to this fuel when it gets really hot. Can it get, can it become unstable? Is that what they're looking at? So when you need to get that data, you need to say, how does this behave in a reactor? And then after that, sounds like you have some variables that you can play with. Are there any others that you can't play with, like, any other variables in the design?

Matt Loszak: No, I'd say you're spot on. If you have a lab, you can test willy nilly, a lot of things. In fact, you could build a reactor prototype, and instead of using nuclear fuel, you can just resistively heat the core like a toaster and test everything else. You test all the other fluids, all the other. The turbine, the steam. You can do that tomorrow if you have the time and the money. But the nuclear fuel part, the NRC say, not so fast.

Greg Robinson: And when you were saying the non nuclear testing, that's what you were talking about, is that you're going to do. You're going to basically feed it some heat and try to simulate. Yeah, you're just going to isolate. That sounds like a pretty gnarly variable. The nuclear fuel, I mean, although safe, the perception is not of the rest of the reactor. It's just like, man, I saw, I heard just so many things that cop that I'm not going to sit here and talk about. We'll have to just catch up about those just like, claims that people made. That was like all these sort of what if statements about, like, what would happen if I did this with the fuel? It's like, but don't do that. Don't, please don't do that.

Florence Lumsden: We did have a very respectable thought leader on the show recently.

Greg Robinson: Yes.

Florence Lumsden: And he did mention concerns around proliferation, nuclear proliferation, and in certain countries, nuclear power being a scapegoat for other sort of efforts. So I'd love to hear what types of fuel are useful for that versus not, and how yours compares, et cetera.

Matt Loszak: Yeah, I think the general principle there is, you want to make it such that if you were a terrorist, there would be many other easier ways to do harm than this way, the cat is out of the bag with regards to nuclear weapons. On the one hand, it takes an entire country's government effort to make a nuclear bomb or something. You couldn't just be a random small group and make a nuclear weapon. That's pretty much impossible. But maybe there's other ways where maybe you try to steal some radioactive material and slip it in someone's pocket or something. Like, there were russian spies who were apparently would do that. There's the idea of a dirty bomb where maybe you try to blow the reactor up.

Matt Loszak: But I think, in general, with our design and a lot of others, it's just so much harder to do anything with it. And if you did do something with it would be so much less destructive or less harmful to people than other things you could do that it just doesn't make sense. So we can get to details, but I think that's the high level way to look at it. Yeah.

Greg Robinson: Yeah. There's, like, so many different energy sources. If you wanted to go commit ax terrorism against energy plants, you do a lot of damage. Like, you don't need the nuclear to do damage to the surrounding area. But just out of curiosity, given that uranium, like, the uranium is a chronium hydride, as it's heating, sounds like it's becoming more stable because of the physics of. Am I saying that right, that it's less reactive? Okay. Yeah, I guess in emotions, those are synonyms, but. Yeah, but in nuclear, maybe not. And so putting all the other wild thought experiments we could do for, like, here's why I shouldn't be here is because I can imagine a situation where terrorists comes into rural Idaho and decides that the aloe reactor is their one obsession in life. Right. There's so many other places they could go.

Greg Robinson: But let's put all of that aside. How do you make the fuel? Like, where and how does that fuel actually get manufactured? Can you talk a little bit about that? Like, how's it manufactured? Where is it? How is it getting to you? Once you guys are in production for.

Matt Loszak: Marvel, they're purchasing the fuel from framatome and general atomics, a joint venture they've created. And so that's in France. They're going to ship over the halu, which is around just under 20% enriched, and they'll ship it back for loading up into the marvel reactor for all o we've decided to go for something that's more commercially readily available, so you could today, for example, purchase from your encode ten or just under 10% enriched fuel. And that's what we intend to use for the allo reactor. So it's better economics more readily available. And in the long run, we want to have our own fuel fab facility, because in theory, you could improve the economics of this fuel by ten or 100 x. And when you have a small reactor, a large cost driver is the price of the fuel.

Matt Loszak: The same cannot be said of large reactors. If you look at the pie chart of cost of a large reactor, one of the biggest slices of pie is the financing side to your point earlier, the interest and so on, because you have to spend so much capex over so many years, and that compounds. But with these small reactors, you can install them much more quickly, make them in a factory, and the fuel is larger because the neutronic efficiency is lower. So when you have a small core, you get a lot more neutrons leaking out. And that directly means you need to load fuel more often. And fuel becomes a bigger part of that pie chart. So that'll be a big focus for us, is making our own fuel in.

Greg Robinson: The fuel in the future. I know you probably told me this before, but when you're manufacturing a reactor, you're preloading it with fuel as it's leaving. Are you doing fueling on site or are you. What's that? How do you envision that process?

Matt Loszak: There are some other companies that are envisioning having a shipping container that's all inclusive, and you just deliver it, plug it in, it produces power, and pull it out and ship a new one. We're not envisioning that. We're envisioning shipping the reactor and shipping refueling equipment and having it be much more like a flashlight or something, where you install a flashlight, install the batteries, and then replace the batteries every five years. So you ship this thing, once you install it powers 10,000 homes for five years, and then you refuel it in a day or a week and keep going.

Greg Robinson: That's cool. I think it captures the minds of anybody who studied physics because it's like the most pure merge of physics and engineering. It's like this thing that you learned almost. It almost seems like theoretical physics when you're learning it. Radioactivity in general. It just seems like, oh, my gosh, we didn't know about this forever.

Florence Lumsden: It's like magic.

Greg Robinson: It's like magic. It's like magic trips.

Florence Lumsden: I think, for the episode is that you like to do magic as a kid and now you are doing magic energy.

Matt Loszak: So, yeah, it's literally, it's alchemists, like alchemy from the.

Florence Lumsden: Yeah, yeah.

Matt Loszak: They figure out, how do you turn, like, lead into gold? Like, that's possible with nuclear physics. Turn one element for another element, like our power producing asset inside of it is alchemy. Right. It's just, it's so cool. And also going deeper on that point is, I was talking to another founder the other day and told him what we're doing, and he's like, oh, old school. And I was thinking, like, that's such a funny way to look at it, because. But it was true. It's like this retro futurism where we have this dusty, hidden, misunderstood technology that we discovered in the fifties and sixties, and yet in so many ways, it's so much more advanced than everything else we have today.

Matt Loszak: It's like this alien technology that is like hidden in the past, and we're just trying to uncover it and enable it for the future. It's really beautiful.

Greg Robinson: That is. Yeah, yeah. It really captures like that. That's why I could just spend so long talking about the details and stuff. But I want to get into. I want to talk about business models, because I think business models are those finicky things that have destroyed many scientists and engineers companies in the past, whereas you just don't figure out those husky business models. Yeah, it's sort of like in the business plan, if you're a scientist or engineer, it's like you have this whole entire whiteboard of the magical ways that our technology is going to work. And over here, there's like a circle that says distribution. So I'm really curious, like, not even just how you're thinking about it, but just more broadly. Let's maybe start at, like, the second islamic age, just the business models that could apply to that.

Greg Robinson: I think there's a very simple business models that we hear all the time about new energy technologies, which is either the sort of binary decision that you have to make of, am I an energy company or am I an energy tech company? Do I sell, am I an equipment manufacturer that sells my stuff, or am I a designer of stuff that sells energy? And so that being the two pieces. But you and I have had some amazing, if not just totally outlandish, brainstorms about what these business models could be, but maybe just start there. I'm just curious about how you think you have to grow this, because you're starting from a place where the costs might be high today and you have a future vision of how to decrease that. But how are you thinking about distribution?

Greg Robinson: And then maybe just in general, what is your opinion about what will be the business model? Or what do you think is the prime business model for this second atomic age?

Matt Loszak: Yeah, I think you're right. The big challenge here is there's a lot of money out there in the world. And the people with that money look around and say what are the best ways to spend that money? And by spend I mean invest or try to get an Roi. And nuclear is pretty scary financially, not even from a safety perspective, because you need a ton of money for the current state of nuclear and the ROI is uncertain. That's the state of finance and nuclear today. It's funny because for us as a company, we have to solve a lot of different things and maybe three main things, like the technology side, the public perception side and the finance side. And you could almost argue that part of the core mission for us is to make nuclear more investable.

Matt Loszak: I think that as a framework is a great way of thinking. I wouldn't say we have all the answers today, but I can speak to some of the things that were thinking about here. So one of them is, and this is a super controversial thing to say in the nuclear space, not everyone thinks that this would be the solution, but we think it's worth exploring and trying to prove. And the nice thing is, if we try this and even if we fail, there's still many other markets where this will be applicable. So the whole microreactor thesis is that there's lots of microgrids and applications where microreactors will be helpful or necessary. These are reactors that are between one and 10 mw in size and they can be applicable to data centers or desalination plants or industrial process heat.

Matt Loszak: Anywhere there's a microgrid or mining things where they have power needs in the order of 110, maybe 50 or 100 mw, that'll always be there. However, let's say a company comes along and they really nailed that it long tail of microgrids and they show and they say, hey, we've got a factory that's making hundreds or thousands of these microreactors for that market. And lots of people say, oh, you know, it's b's like you're not really making a dent in climate change if you just do that. But the thing is, if you can actually do that repeatedly at good economics, then suddenly you might actually get some utilities who say, hey, maybe instead of buying two or three gigawatt scale plants will buy 2030, 50 of your microreactors. And instead of going into debt over five years, billions of dollars, we'll start by buying ten.

Matt Loszak: We'll sell them this year, buy another ten sold next year, and that way, you don't have to go into as much debt before you start to turn a profit, start to sell those electrons. And that's a mixture of solving this financial engineering problem with a mixture of engineering hardware and more financial engineering. And there's other kind of interesting things about that, too. It could actually even be, I already said, nuclear, super safe, but it could almost be even more inherently safe, because for the same reason you don't have one big battery cell in your Tesla, you have 100 small ones. There's a problem with one. It's not the end of the world. The other ones keep operating.

Matt Loszak: But the main kind of doubt here is if you imagine having ten or 20 smaller reactors instead of two or three large ones, that could, in theory, blow up your operational expenses. So I've spoken to utility ex who say they're concerned about that. So you have to make sure that you can have all these different small reactors, sharing one large turbine, sharing refueling infrastructure, finding a way to make sure that you don't totally solve the capex problem and then cause a massive opex problem. So that's like a big, I think, interesting angle that could. We often look for analogy to SpaceX, where it's like the big, obvious way to improve costs by ten or 100 x. There is just don't throw out the rocket. Keep using the rocket and nuclear. It seems less obvious that there's one big, simple trick.

Matt Loszak: It's almost more like a thousand small things.

Greg Robinson: Yeah.

Matt Loszak: Anyway, that's one thing we're thinking about.

Greg Robinson: Yeah, yeah. And all the just maintenance, like the intelligence that you can build around the reactor to make sure that you're really maintaining these in the most efficient way. It just seems like there's so many answers to those objections to that. Like, I have often found that in any conversations I have about nuclear, like, the objections, as you said before, it's like people are over the nuclear objections. Like, they've run that one down the path. And now we have all these other exceptions, but those are being solved in massively complicated arenas. SpaceX is a great example that has a complexity that also captures the imagination like anybody. My father in law is a sort of engineer, lifelong engineer. And I swear, if you ask him what he watches on tv, just the SpaceX channel, like I just sit and watch the SpaceX channel.

Greg Robinson: Just watch because it really. The complexity of that. But then when you come down to this idea of intelligent maintenance or like watching the system and making sure that I'm going to back up for a second the utilities that you're talking to, the sort of meme of utilities is that whatever you do with the utility, you have to let them do exactly what they do today, exactly the way they do it today. And if you ask them to change in any way, like you're not going to get the sale. And so are you feeling like if you go down that, as you're going down that path or having those conversations, are you going to run into that block where it's like you can't perfectly fit your business model into the way they do things?

Greg Robinson: Or do you feel like there's enough pull for them or you have enough value for them to potentially even alter the way they do things because there's more reliability here and because it's based on, because it's carbon free. That's, those are the other things that we're just glossing over unit and I haven't even touched on that even though we just went to cop. It's like sort of glossing over the fact that this doesn't emit greenhouse gases. We're just moving over that and saying, oh, utility will do this, but, oh, my natural gas opex is just a little bit lower. So I'm going to keep burning all these fossil fuels over here. Like, how do you think about that in terms of utility?

Greg Robinson: Do you think that they will evolve to kind of see the world from your perspective, which is just like a lot of small things would be, or do you think they're just, do you think you're going to have to solve those problems for them to get a distribution model?

Matt Loszak: This is why I'm thinking we'll go after them eventually, but not initially. So we'll prove it out in the early adopters and then slowly the slow moving laggers, elephant utilities will say, oh, this looks interesting.

Greg Robinson: Yeah, no, I think what will happen is the early adopters will buy the laggards and then they'll be like, hey, you don't have to do anything different. We'll do it. We'll take it from here.

Florence Lumsden: I have another potential benefit from small modular, but I'm not sure. Does it help with grid reliability, stability, redundancy? Is it a, could that be another aspect of the sale to a utility company?

Matt Loszak: Yeah, in that case, for example, with the initial markets we'd be going after. Their alternative would be trying to plug into the grid and cause problems for the utility. So it would be helpful because with a lot of these new microgrids that are going up, it's very lumpy, large demand, and it's hard for utility to deal with that. It's not just like a few new small homes going up. We could definitely help utilities from that perspective, indirectly. And maybe there's some interesting business model that kind of facilitates an agreement between all the parties involved.

Matt Loszak: But I think it is a major way that you can enable a ton of growth in new data centers, new desalination plants, new industrial facilities building, and not worrying about causing problems with the grid by just selling to them these microreactors and saying, hey, initially this will cost a bit of a premium, but it's worth it for the reliability, for the fact that it's clean. And if we can make them as safe as a university research reactor, then it's something that you would want in your backyard, because it's just there.

Florence Lumsden: Yeah, it's because we've talked about the unreliability of other renewable, clean energy sources. So we need a carbon free baseload the grid. So if different parts of the country are trying to completely go carbon free for their grid, they would want to probably initially have some kind of reliable baseload, like nuclear.

Greg Robinson: So.

Matt Loszak: Yeah, yeah, totally.

Greg Robinson: Do you ever imagine a nuclear reactor just being like a component of a data center, rather than being like, oh, I'm building this energy system, and then I need to find a data center so that I can power it? You don't say to a data center, you're not like, oh, I got this h vac system and then I got it. I'm going to run the h vac system. We got to find a data center for this h vac system. It's just a component of the data. Like, it's just servers are part of it. H Vac is part of it. This door right here is part of the data center. Because it's so compact, does that just become an appliance at some point? It's hard to imagine, like, solar panels being an appliance, except for at a house. It is.

Greg Robinson: It's small enough for a house that you could think of solar panels as an appliance. But do you think, have you thought about that model of just like, designing it into these large scale applications and not being an energy company at all, but literally, like just being a component of the data center?

Matt Loszak: Yeah, no, I think that's a super good point. Because if you can have a data center that is some kind of modular shipping container sized thing, and you install a few of those, why not tack on an extra shipping container that has the reactor and powers those other containers? What you're replacing with one shipping container sized allo, one reactor is like a square kilometer of solar panels. It's not a lot of places, and not every place would be able to support that. And then also you'd have to have the batteries and all. It's just the alternatives are these messier solutions. So I think it makes a lot of sense. Yeah.

Greg Robinson: No one really ever wants to talk about the biodiversity impact of a solar field. What you have to do to the thousands of acres of land. Not everybody does this, to be fair. There are companies that are doing agrivoltaics, or they're using as mixed use, but a lot of times to be as efficient as they possibly can be with construction, they'll just wipe out the whole entire property and put up a million solar panels. So your point about like, replacing this square kilometer, it's like, I'm interested. You probably seem like you might know this stat, but how much area does the waste like when you're done with the fuel from one of these reactors and you replace it five years, what's the footprint of that waste from one of those reactors?

Matt Loszak: There's some really cool fun facts about this. A skittle size of fuel could power your whole life for a year. Just one little skittle, like a candy. Your whole life. You would produce the amount of waste that would fit in a coke can.

Greg Robinson: A coke can, yeah. Wow. Your whole life of nuclear waste would fit. This is a twelve ounce can.

Matt Loszak: Yeah.

Florence Lumsden: And this is every year.

Greg Robinson: Is it a tall boy?

Matt Loszak: Your whole life?

Florence Lumsden: Yeah. Your whole life, from birth to death?

Greg Robinson: Yeah. Skittle a year. Skittle a year. You just put it. Yeah. Just go plug it into your house. Just go put a skittle in the nuclear box in your house. Yeah, yeah, I know. It's not that simple. We talked about that. I dream of it being that simple. Okay, so one coke can for the waste and that's one individual person. What about like, scale that up for me a little bit? So let's say we're running an entire reactor. An entire reactor. How many homes is, for a visual, like, how many homes worth of power does one allo reactor would one allo reactor run?

Matt Loszak: So, yeah, a reactor would fit in a shipping container and it would power 10,000 homes.

Greg Robinson: 10,000 homes yeah. And in one shipping container.

Matt Loszak: Yes.

Greg Robinson: And so what's the waste of that? So we scale that up to 10,000 homes. Is that 10,000 coke cans? Or is that like, for the entire life of all those human beings? Do they have one person in each one of those homes?

Matt Loszak: I think what's even crazier than scaling it up for just one of our reactors is you scale it up to every reactor on earth ever, and you take all the waste from all those reactors from all time. All of that would fit on a single soccer field or a football field, which is. And it would be maybe like ten yards high kind of thing. So you compare that to the waste that coal plants or natural gas plants put out is just insane. Like the pile would be as big as a city of stacked like kilometers high or miles high of just carbon waste that's in our air, in our lungs. And then even with renewables right now, there's not great recycling there. And so there's quite a bit of volume of waste that will be produced.

Matt Loszak: So it's cool because with waste, not only is it not this big unsolved problem, but it's actually a very manageable, totally solved problem, which is very manageable and small in scale relative to what we get from it.

Greg Robinson: Yeah. How many gigawatts of nuclear do we have in the world right now? Do you know that stat?

Matt Loszak: I think probably somewhere between four and 800 gigawatts. I'm not sure.

Greg Robinson: Wow. Yeah. Because the Doe, I think it was the Doe loan program's office or something. It was talking about ASA stat that we need 200 gigawatts more nuclear for the energy transition just in the US. And so you saying that for all time, it's like a soccer field we're gonna have to set aside. I don't know, I was gonna say the end zone, but we have to set aside an end zone on some high school football field to like, deal with the waste for the next 50 years or something like that. So it's really not a massive footprint compared to a lot of these other technologies. Like a lot of. And my point about solar installations is like, they're great.

Greg Robinson: You could retire if you have long duration storage and you have solar, like, you can add a lot of land and you're willing to wipe out all life forms within however much space you need. Several thousand acres, potentially. And again, I don't mean to diss it so bad, because there are people who are trying to like, make them, to use them in different ways, but I don't think that's the industry standard. It's more of we're using this renewable so that we can get rid of fossil fuels. But in the meantime, we're solving this other problem, which is these massive tracts of land that's really fascinating just to get that scale. Did you know that flow? Did you know that it was that small? Like the nuclear waste was that small?

Florence Lumsden: I don't think so.

Greg Robinson: All time?

Florence Lumsden: Yeah, I didn't think it was going to be a lot because I know it's pretty efficient.

Greg Robinson: So what about in terms of mining? Are we going to have to ramp a bunch of mining operations up in some hard to reach places of the world?

Matt Loszak: A lot of the mining today happens in Canada, Saskatchewan and Kazakhstan and Australia. This is not investment advice, but I do think Cameco stock, for example, I think will do well in light of this kind of nuclear renaissance that we're seeing.

Florence Lumsden: What's the name of the stock again? Pamlico.

Matt Loszak: Oh, a Cameco.

Greg Robinson: Just don't act. Oh, you're not an insider, are you? Are you an insider?

Matt Loszak: No, they are a canadian company, and they bought Westinghouse recently, which is pretty cool. But I think what's interesting about this is were just a cop, and were in these countries where so much of their economy is based on oil and gas, specifically their reserves and the oiling of the gas. All this value is in the fuel. And what's interesting is nuclear kind of flips that on its head, because a lot of the value in nuclear is not necessarily in the fuel, but it's in the technology. And that kind of makes it an interesting game, because on the one hand, some of these countries are diversifying and trying to build nuclear. So UAE is where cop was, and 25% of their grid is now nuclear. As the past two years, his Excellency Al Hamadi led that rollout and did an amazing job.

Matt Loszak: This kind of reminds me of, for example, the finance world and bitcoin or cryptocurrency in general, it kind of changes where the value accretes. With crypto, it's no longer the fat cats. And in the old finance system, the person who made the database that stores how much money you have, which could easily be changed by anyone. The person who made that database didn't really make much of the money or accrue the value, but that changes with crypto, where the people who are creating the ledgers did quite well. And I think what's interesting is, in an energy transition, you're bound to see a shake up on where the value accretes. And with nuclear, there's certainly still a lot of value in mining, but there might be even more value in a lot of the technology and deployment.

Greg Robinson: Yeah. Any end use applications, fresh water or green chemical production or AI. Some of those like green chemical production, that's not going to scale with fossil fuels, AI that's going to grow. Those data centers are going to get deployed. The Internet is not shrinking. AI is not shrinking. We are going to build more. We're either going to build them without fossil fuels or we're going to build them with fossil fuels. But it's going to happen. I typically have one question. I already asked you that because I said to go back to your childhood, but I'm very curious about not just was there something in your childhood that led you to this, but was there anything that you were exposed to as a kid that uniquely prepared you for this moment today, what you're having to face today, like this public perception challenge.

Matt Loszak: What's interesting is my parents are both in psychology and psychiatry, but my dad used to be a physicist. So I think that's a pretty unique combination. And I'd say the nuclear challenge is probably half technology and half public psychology. So I think for me also, growing up in Ontario, where it's almost a solved problem, it's mostly nuclear, it's one of the cleanest grids in the world. Prepared me to say, okay, this is how it can be done. But from a skill set perspective and a personal perspective, I think it's a pretty unique challenge that deters away a lot of purely technical people because they want something that can be solved purely through technology. It doesn't require the messiness of human psychology and that sort of thing.

Matt Loszak: I think that probably will help all of in the future, but we'll have to stay tuned to see how we do.

Greg Robinson: Yeah, that's cool. Well, that's usually where I end. I mean, I'm sure we could go on for another, like several hours. We can. Joe Rogan another time.

Matt Loszak: Thank you for giving me this platform. It's really helpful.

Greg Robinson: Yeah. Is there anything else? I think I might already know this, but is there anything else that, like, if were gonna take this episode and point it at journalists or were gonna point it somewhere in the world, you're welcome to say who you wanna point it at, but just what would you want them to hear from you?

Matt Loszak: So right now we're really excited about talking to the Idaho national lab about deploying our first reactor there and very shortly thereafter deploying a few commercial deployments potentially in the Philippines and potentially in the UAE. And so we're talking to folks there who led their nuclear deployments and nuclear initiatives in the past, and so we're really pushing hard on that angle. But the main focus for the company is getting the DOE approval to construct our first reactor, which our objective is to then subsequently use that as our first commercial reactor so it'll actually make revenue. And so those are the kind of current focuses for the company.

Matt Loszak: We're also fundraising for a series A in Q one, and we'll use that to scale things out, get our warehouse, and build some physical prototyping, all with the goal of getting that approval and building that first reactor as soon as possible.

Greg Robinson: Who do you need to get buy in from? Inl? Idonational lab Inl.

Matt Loszak: Some specific people we're in contact with from UAE and Philippines.

Greg Robinson: Got it.

Matt Loszak: Need to recruit good people, so hopefully people will be listening who could join or also potential investors or customers.

Florence Lumsden: So are you expecting to, once you get those deployments in maybe the UAE or the Philippines? Would that be like your case study to do the bigger commercial development? Or would that all be happening simultaneously?

Matt Loszak: The first deployment, I think we're aiming to start construction in two to three years, and that would be at Idaho national lab. And I think as soon as construction starts, as it becomes more real and real, then it becomes more likely we got some more firm and firm offtake agreements, and then we can finance against that and try to rapidly build and parallelize as much as possible. So I'm not exactly sure of how that timeline will look, but we're going to try and do it as fast and parallel as possible.

Greg Robinson: Nice.

Florence Lumsden: Cool.

Greg Robinson: Cool. Matt, thanks so much for having this conversation on a microphone. We'll have to do it again sometime. Yeah.

Matt Loszak: You guys are awesome.

Greg Robinson: Thanks, man. Talk soon.

Florence Lumsden: Good luck on your quest to make magic real.

Matt Loszak: Yes.

Florence Lumsden: To dust off the inventions of the sixties that we put away and modernize it.

Matt Loszak: Yes. Thank you so much.

Greg Robinson: Love it. Thanks, Matt.

Florence Lumsden: Thank you. Bye. Hey, it's Flo. We would love to hear from you. What questions do you have about the future of electricity and power? What guests do you want us to interview? You can let us know and help us get the word out by commenting, rating, and reviewing us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. You can also join the conversation on Twitter and Instagram. Our handle for both is thewcpodcast.

Greg Robinson: Thanks for tuning into this episode of the world changing podcast. Be sure to follow us wherever you get your podcasts. ITunes, Spotify, YouTube to hear the latest episodes.