The panel today on industry decarbonization is covering a lot of ground, right? And this is such an important topic when, you know, we're thinking about human and economic development, industrialization is really the underpinning for that. And I think about industry decarbonization sort of in three buckets. The first is how do we decarbonize the actual processes that we're using within industry that produce emissions and other greenhouse gases, you know, it doesn't have to be just CO2. And, you know, these are things like within cement and chemicals and those account for about 5% of global emissions. And then we can think about how do we decarbonize the huge amounts of heat and power that we use within industry and that accounts for about 25% of total global emissions. And finally, I think about, you know, how do we decarbonize the feedstocks that are primarily hydrocarbons at this point in time that are used directly, for example, in making things like hydrogen or, you know, in processes like reducing steel. So I am thrilled to be moderating this panel. I feel like, you know, this is a topic which requires some really gritty people and we have four all-stars on stage who are going to share with us what they're doing in this space around addressing these sort of three pillars within industrial decarbonization. I'm gonna take a moment and say a few words about each of our panelists before I invite each of them up in turn to give us a lightning talk and share some of their research and then we'll have a discussion here. So our first panelist is Professor Leora Dresselhouse-Marais. Leora is an assistant professor in the Department of Material Science and Engineering with a courtesy appointment in Mechanical Engineering and a term appointment in Photon Science at the Slack National Accelerator Lab. Leora studies how modern methods can enable new opportunities to update old-school materials processing and manufacturing for sustainability, including steelmaking, which she'll be talking about today. To Leora's right is Professor Tiana Venorio, who is an associate professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences and by courtesy, Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geophysics, which is where we first met 20 years ago, I think. Tiana's research involves the mechanical and chemical interactions of fluids with Earth materials that drive many geologic as well as engineering processes and today she's gonna be talking to us about decarbonizing cement. Next we have Professor Jonathan Fan, who's an assistant professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering at Stanford, where he's researching new design methodologies and materials, sorry, and materials approaches to nanophotonic systems and Jonathan's been working on developing alternatives to combusting fossil fuels to produce high-grade heat and power. And last but not least, we have Dr. Sahar El Abadi, who is a postdoc in energy resources engineering. Her research focuses on developing circular economies by transforming waste methane into useful products as well as quantifying and mitigating fugitive methane emissions to ensure gas feedstocks into industrial processes are as clean as possible. So we have a really broad range of topics here, so something for everyone and with that, I would like to invite Leora up to the podium to kick us off. You have a clicker with a big green arrow. Awesome, big green arrow, good start to any talk, right? Okay, so thank you all so much for coming. It's my honor to get a chance to talk to you today about decarbonizing deep industry and in regards to the steel making industry in particular. So as Naomi nicely mentioned, my group focuses on using modern toolboxes and technology, either using photons at synchotrons and at x-ray free electron lasers or novel computational approaches to be able to get some deeper insights to allow modern science and technology to be able to start to push forward the large scale industrial problems that need to be decarbonized. So before we dive into the science, it's important to remember why we care about steel. So I probably don't have to make too great a point of this, but steel, it turns out, is ubiquitous in modern society. It was the underpinning that enabled the Industrial Revolution to modernize society to what it is today. Today we make one point, or at least last year, we made 1.92 gigatons of steel that year and that produced 3.8-ish gigatons of CO2 just from that process. So what does that mean? Well, steel underpins our modern society. It's ubiquitous in our technology, but is 8% of the global CO2 emissions and that number is actually only going up. Demand is projected to increase by 35% by 2050. So you might ask yourself, where is all of this emissions coming from? And the answer, when you look across the entire industry at all of the different parts of steelmaking from preparing the ores, then making rocks into iron, iron into steel, and then steel into something that is useful to be able to build cars and windmills. Actually, half of the emissions there come from just making iron rocks into iron metal to be able to start the process of alloying. So when we look a little bit kind of big picture at what exactly iron making means here, we can see that this process is at such a big scale that no one solution is gonna solve everything in time to avert catastrophe from climate change. So to be able to decarbonize this industry, what we need to think towards is every single step and trajectory within the time scale of being able to develop the next generation of clean technologies. So the way that I like to put this is that we have kind of three buckets that we need to think in. There's the bucket of how do we clean up and modernize today's infrastructure that is already in place to be able to at least clean up the infrastructure we have. Then the second box is, you know, what are the transitional technologies that we need to start developing for things that we haven't yet figured out all the optimization tricks to be able to make work at the appropriate scales. But how do we get started on this process on building the infrastructure to decarbonize a gigaton scale industry? And then we need to start now today at building the carbon zero versions of these technologies so that within a hundred years we'll be able to roll those out at scale at the gigaton scale. And hopefully we'll do it in less than a hundred years. So now let's look at the science, of course. So when we take a deeper look at iron making, it turns out that a lot of these CO2 emissions are not just because we're performing a process at 2600 Kelvin, sorry, Celsius. It's also that actually the carbon monoxide and carbon in coal is what is used as the active reagent to take these iron ores that are hematite and turn them into, there's three steps of reaction here going from hematite to magnetite to wustite and then to iron. So that produces at least three molecules of CO2 just from the process itself, ignoring all of the heating requirements and things like that. So this is done today at incredibly large scales. It's 75% of the industry with furnaces that are 100 meter tall called blast furnaces that allow us to be able to, alternating layers of coal and iron ores, be able to do this type of conversion to get molten iron. So hydrogen offers an opportunity to be able to decarbonize the process itself, going instead of converting your carbon or carbon monoxide to CO2, it now offers you the opportunity to turn that into going from hydrogen to water that is easier to be able to capture afterwards with condensers and other types of technology. So this seems like the golden ticket, the winning ticket but of course, like many things in industry, it's not quite that simple. First off, of course, hydrogen is difficult to make and especially difficult to make inexpensively. But another pesky challenge here is that hydrogen makes what is previously an exothermic reaction generating heat to thermal runaway to be able to make a process that is really downhill once you get it started to a four times more endothermic process that now becomes an incredibly difficult reaction to stabilize every time you increase the scale. So in my group, we look at connecting fundamental science at going from the atomic scale picture of how the atoms are actually moving around, transporting through each other and propagating heat all the way through then exploring how to implement that into building the next generation of reactors to be able to either optimize the technology we have today or to be able to come up with the next generation of technologies of tomorrow. So I'll focus in for today on some of our initial work that we've started doing really at the very fundamental scale and I'll close today by showing you where that comes and how we connect the fundamentals back to these megaton scale reactors required to be able to decarbonize these processes. So as I showed before, we have a beautiful phase diagram here where we're reducing these hematite ores, first to magnetite, then to wustite, and then to iron. But if you ask yourself, well, what is so difficult about this process, it turns out the last step is the rate limiting step because it couples the interesting reactive chemistry to structural transformations that can cause the reactors to shut down and fail. This is called the sticking or the whiskering mechanism by which effectively, as you convert from your iron oxide to your metallic iron phase, the transport of iron ends up actually bridging particles that are near each other, causing them to whisker and stick together, therefore causing what might in a reactor, either a fluidized bed reactor, which is one type of approach to scale this process, or a blast furnace and pellet-based reactor, which is a different version of the process. In both cases, it causes these sticking effects that ultimately prevent the reactor from continuing and cause catastrophic failure that then requires you to close down the reactor, clean everything up, and restart the problem. So to be able to design efficient reactors, we need to be able to understand the fundamental science that underlies these types of sticking mechanisms and whiskering, but we also need to be able to understand how to efficiently navigate this whiskering process to avert it from the optimized conditions and the full range of optimized conditions to be able to be relevant in a reactor that is 10 meters wide. So as you start to try to ask that question at every length scale, what it turns out is that the answer looks very different at every single scale you ask it. In fact, of course, this problem has been studied for over 100 years. A lot is known at each scale, but being able to connect the dots between the scales is still an ongoing challenge that prevents us from being able to push this technology towards the full macroscopic scale required for the reactors. So in our work, we've been looking at the smallest scales that are often overlooked at the large processes and trying to find ways in synergistically connecting these length scales to be able to describe them at the large scale of the process. So we put on our hats and decided it's time to learn what the reactors are actually doing. So we got some industrial ore finds from US Steel from the Iron Range here in Minnesota, and we very quickly found that indeed when you look at these under a scanning electron microscope, you find that there are a lot of features and grains that are sub 10 nanometers in scale. So we as material scientists know that nanochemistry in these types of particles is not the same as the macroscopic chemistry that we typically would use to describe a reactor at this scale. So we generated these 10 nanometer particles to be able to actually look at the process at the relevant length scale to be able to describe a scale that's always been overlooked so far. So we went to the synchotron and we did an experiment and we were able to show as a function of temperature that these nanoparticles really do behave quite differently at these very unusually low temperatures. And at the lowest temperatures, we could actually separate each of the steps of the chemistry. And we were able to demonstrate that at 300 Celsius actually first off in the nanoparticles, you generate a phase that you wouldn't normally see until the high temperatures. But second off, we demonstrated that this breaks down into three different stages. The first of these stages is this really rapid surface chemistry where all of the reactive sites on the surface are exposed and therefore the kinetics go rapidly through every single step of the process. Then in stage two, we start to slow down because we've passivated our surfaces and now our kinetics are dominated by diffusion or fixed laws as we discuss in material science. And then in stage three, we end up in a very different stage of this process where now we've gone a large step of the way through the formation or consumption of the magnetite and now we start to convert to iron. And as that happens, we were able to demonstrate with this 3D of tyco-tomographic imaging how the nucleation and growth of the iron phase actually couples to the centering of the particles at this small scale, causing them to increase in length scale by a hundred fold, even though we started with 10 nanometer particles that who would care at the gigatonic scale? So what this really shows you is the beginning of a long term of work that we're doing in my group now, laying the groundwork to be able to enable this type of multi-scale view of the process to be able to link and connect the dots between the scales that have often been overlooked and the full reactor performance. But of course, you might be sitting there asking yourself, well, Leora, come on, how is this relevant to these huge reactors? So I have a little roadmap here laid out for you guys to show you how this type of really fundamental science actually does connect to these megaton scale reactors. So we start with interdependent driving forces that we understand from kinetics modeling and such are incredibly important to be able to effectively and accurately describe the process. Then we go to the synchotron and we do our measurements to be able to really effectively validate our models. But then we translate those with reactor scale models to be able to inform which are the relevant order parameters to describe the process with the full fidelity of the kinetics that I just described. And then we start to do some techno economic analysis to be able to effectively show, you know, now that we understand the process, how to make it work effectively, how do we know how to ask the right questions to be able to roll out this technology actually for commercial use. And then finally, we start off by building those actual pilot scale reactors to be able to demonstrate not just that it works in theory but it works in practice and to be able to do the refining and such at the relevant scales. We already have some partnerships with a couple different companies to be able to make this translation really happen. So long-term solutions like what I'm describing for carbon zero steel have to be prioritized today to be able to enable full industry decarbonization when we really need it. So on that note, thank you all for listening. I will happily take questions at the appropriate time and looking forward to discussion. Thank you, Leora. I'm actually gonna take the liberty of asking a question because I feel like it's gonna be hard to ask one question that will be appropriate for everyone. So I'm gonna ask each of you a question after your talk and then we'll open it up at the end to the crowd. So, you know, I'm really interested in, you're working with the steel industry and how are they receptive to this idea that you've got to sort of invest today to ensure that we're limiting emissions with the current facilities while investing in potentially a whole new build out down the road, right? So can you talk a little bit about how they're thinking about this strategy? An excellent question and a very important one to ask. So in this industry, mining and extraction is an industry that works at a very large scale and is very conservative. You know, there's a running joke in the field that you have to really be able to demonstrate your work at about 100 kilotons per year scale to be able to really be relevant and demonstrate that it's worth scaling beyond that. And while that might be a joke, it's not so far off from valid. And so what we often find in this industry is that startup companies are the ones that are able to push hardest at the carbon zero versions of the technology, but the big corporations in steel need to be working on cleaning up the infrastructure of today. And so this is where kind of those three pillars that I showed are really important because they translate between kind of each of the layers of this that are required to be able to decarbonize and everyone needs to see this as a priority to be able to make a difference at each scale, time scale. I would say the other aspect of this that has been really refreshing to see over the last year or two is that some of the very, very large companies, these are huge multi-trillion dollar corporations, some of them are also now starting to invest in clean steel startup companies. And so they have accelerator programs for mid-scale versions of startup companies that have already gotten to the scale that they've demonstrated at maybe 10 kilotons per year. So not quite the hundred you would need to be able to get the funding to build a billion dollar plant, but at least enough to be able to demonstrate that it's an approach that really is pushing the frontier and is viable. And you started seeing some of these companies now start to invest in startups that are enabling that. And so I think that's actually probably gonna be the thing of the future is watching how the large and established companies invest in the technologies of tomorrow. And we'll see who ends up being, what the tea leaves read, but it's been really promising thus far. Perfect, thank you. Tessiana, I'd like to invite you up to the podium. Thank you for having me and for joining today. The focus of my talk today is on geomimetic cement. I'm very happy to share the latest development of this technology. So the focus is on geomimetic cement. I will show what we are doing and most importantly, why? And I will start with why. But before doing that, I'd like to acknowledge the team. It's so far has been really interesting collaborating across disciplines. I'm a rock physicist. I'm collaborating with Alberto Zalayo, who is a material scientist, and Matteo Carniello, who is a chemical engineering. And then we have two fantastic postdoc from the geoscience side, and then from the engineering side. And the students, undergraduate and graduate students who are moving the first step. So a very exciting team. And I also like to acknowledge OTL that this year has decided to highlight our technology for their report. So I mentioned that I would like to start from the why. Why do we need a different cement and why we're focusing on geomimetic cement? So when it comes to cement, there are three challenges and need. The first one is the reason why we are gathering here today. We need to decarbonize that industry. Cement manufacturing is responsible for age to 10 of the world's CO2 emissions. The reason is because if we do not include or neglect transportation, CO2 at least one third comes from the use of energy. That is used to calcine the carbonate rock. And then two thirds or 70% comes from the reaction that breaks down the calcite mineral and to obtain the calcium oxide or the lime. So from here we can make a first reflection if tomorrow, for example, we are going to have the cleanest energy resource. We would take care only of one third, but we still have to deal with reducing the emissions and so the two thirds are 70%. So for this, we need a different rock and that's how the role that geoscience plays. And so we need a low carbon binder precursor. The second challenge and the need is that cement is a great material but has one flaw and the flaw is it needs reinforcement because the tensile strength is low. And so reinforcement is really a blessing and a curse because it's good, but at the same time, as Liora just mentioned, the stainless steel and so that is used for rebars create even more emissions. The second thing is that rebars are responsible for the corrosion of concrete and then create spalling. And we can also think of reinforcing the cement at lower scale by using fibers that are added to the slurry. However, because the fibers have different composition with respect to the matrix, normally the materials experience what is called debonding or fibers pull out. And then there is another problem. The more fibers we have, clearly it's better because the strength and the ductility of the material increases but then the greater is the viscosity of the paste which then brings lower workability of the slurry. So what if we decide to reinforce the cement at the nano scale by growing fibers in situ? The third challenge is serviceability. There are many applications from aerospace to the subsurface. We need to take care or we need to make sure that cement, the integrity of cement remains as it is for a long time, especially if we're dealing with harsh environment. Just for your knowledge and just as an example, here in this plot, I'm showing that 50% and this plot has derived from the analysis of 18,000 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. So 50% of the wells experience sustained casing pressure, so excessive pressure on the casing of the wells after just 15 years of production. And about 15% of primary cement jobs fail costing the oil and gas industry more than 450 millions annually in remedial cementing work. So for this reason, we need a different material, an enhanced cement that has an enhanced response to stress, changes, temperature, and chemical attack. And clearly when we talk about serviceability, serviceability is extremely linked to safety. And we all remember that the horizon oil rig blowout, which was due to poor design, so a cement flow design. So what are, what is the material that includes all these properties? Clearly those are rocks. And so our technology is focusing on geomimicry because there are certain rocks that have low carbon composition. Clearly Earth has already calcined those rocks and so especially volcanic rocks do not contain the carbon ion. Some of these rocks have exhibit high strain energy because of the presence of fibers that grow into the material directly. And some of these fibers exhibit an entangled structure which we will see is important. And then we know many times rocks bear harsh environments whether it's temperature and then clearly they also self heal. So we are working on this technology and we're focusing on an alternative raw material as a binder that is made of a volcanic rock blend. A volcanic rock cannot contain a CO2 ion because again Earth has already calcined this rock and this rock can replace the limestone rock. On your right you see a plot showing the reduction. There is a drastic reduction in CO2 upon calcination. But just to, this is a different way of showing with respect to Portland cement we can have a reduction of CO2 that is depending on the calcium-silicon ratio that goes from 50% to 70%. We still need to calcine these rocks just to transform the minerals into oxides. So calcination is still required. Once the calcined material is created, the material is exposed to hydrothermal synthesis. The composition does not, as you have seen does not have a lot of calcium but has alkali-rich minerals. And it forms the same minerals that are formed in Portland cement. Mention we need fibers that grow and we use hydrothermal synthesis. The most important thing here is that the fibers needs to be entangled. Why? Because we see that the entanglement of the fibers plays an important role on the strain absorbance. If the fibers are straight, the stress is higher but the strain is much smaller. So in order to get the same stress you just need to use more fibers and grow more fibers into the material. At the end our material is in between Portland cement based and alkali-activated or a geopolymer. So it's a hybrid composition. And in this plot here you see the bonds, silicon-oxygen bonds. And normally in a hybrid material the FTIR response is in between. And interestingly enough this is the same response that Roman Marie Concrete has. So Roman Marie Concrete is also a hybrid and naturally cemented cop rocks that exhibit high strain absorbance. So as a summary we are using a calcol-caline volcanic rock blend that has low carbon footprint. We use in-situ growth of mineral fibers for reinforcement and most importantly the fibers must have an entangled structure at the nano-microscale to favor strain energy absorbance. And so at the end this alcoline and the calcium composition makes the blend hybrid that is in between the Portland cement and the geopolymers. If you want to know more, yesterday or today there is a poster. So please see Davides and Jorge poster. These are the first experiments that we are making and so it's interesting to see that despite the high porosity. So this is really high lightweight cement the stress of failure is very promising and this is not yet the reinforced materials. So I thank you for your attention and at some point I will answer your question. Thank you. Well I want to know more. So I'm curious that the durability and the service ability is that what you called it? Yeah, how do you think about those in terms of life cycle assessment of I guess both emissions and cost? Yeah sure. So as I mentioned clearly the focus is on reducing the energy emission and also finding another material that emits less CO2 compared to the carbon rocks. But I still believe that when it comes to concrete durability and service ability should be factor in in the life of concrete. Because clearly the more durable is the material the environmental impact is spread over long period of time. Clearly it will use less resources it will create less waste. And so just for that the durability and the service ability of the material should be considered when having or making a new recipe. But in my opinion there is also something that sometimes is not often looked at and is the fact that sometimes there are situations there are application where the cost for replacement are too high. And so in that case there is a lot of pressure on communities or even consumers that do not come from privileged or they come from socioeconomic disadvantage areas. So at the end I see service ability and durability not only important as properties of the material but also a way to, it's also important to make materials more equitable for inaccessible to communities. Yeah, great. All right, we're gonna move right along here.  I recognize that I have the luxury of asking these amazing professors questions anytime. So when we're done with the talks you're gonna get your opportunity. So be jotting down your questions as we go here. All right, Jonathan over to you. All right, thank you. And it's a real privilege to get to tell you about some of the work we've been doing in electrified reactor systems. As we've already talked about throughout this whole week nearly a third of greenhouse gas emissions are due to industrial processing of materials and chemicals. We've already seen two really great examples of this in the steel and cement industry but it's certainly not limited to that. It's really everything that you see around you in this room, the pulp and paper industry, the food industry and for me and what will be the focus of this talk the gas reforming industry where high-grade heat is used to do everything from producing ammonia and hydrogen to ethylene. The majority of these emissions in the chemical industry are due to fossil fuel combustion to produce this high-grade heat. And that is really something that I want to focus on here. Now as we've seen throughout this week and as you know there are going to be a lot of really promising ways to use electrochemistry and photo catalysis to name a couple of ways to begin to reduce the amount of heat required for the chemical industry. But we should also be reminded ourselves of just how incredibly efficient and this industry is and how catalysts and processes have been developed not just for the last decades but for the last centuries. And as such thermal chemical processing will continue to serve as the predominant chemical synthesis platform in industry. I'm showing a couple of examples of how high-grade heat is used in the gas reforming industry typically in order to get heat into these reactors schemes based on wall heating or heat transfer through heat transfer fluids are used these are extremely well known and mature technologies but this gives you the idea of the type of infrastructure required in processes today. So of course as we start to think about decarbonization and specifically decarbonization on time scales that are really important in the world today which is to say over the next couple of decades one way to really address this problem is to think about generating high-grade heat with green electricity. Now there are of course many ways to generate heat from electricity. You simply have to look around your own kitchen to see that there are methods based on resistive heating, inductive heating and microwave heating amongst others that are used which begs of course a couple of questions. The first is which one of these methods do we actually want to consider and the second is are there actually new things to be done in this domain or is this actually a very mature topic? Well I'd like to argue is that this is not actually a solved problem in that there's a really big opportunity which is to co-design the electrified heating method with chemical reaction engineering to enhance the performance of chemical reactors today. By performance I refer to achieving higher conversion efficiencies, mitigation of parasitic thermal gradients within reactors and to potentially have smaller reactors and process intensified processes due to the fact that most reactions today are endothermic and that heat transfer is in fact a bottleneck for the type of reactor processes. In fact I would argue that the development of new capabilities is really necessary if we want to start utilizing in practical ways green electricity for heat because of the relatively high cost of green electricity compared to the combustion of methane today. So it's not going to be sufficient for example to electrify a boiler and to use heat transfer fluids in the old fashioned way to actually come up with a techno economic argument but we're actually going to have to significantly reduce capital costs and improve the performance of these type of reactors. So our group has been really thinking about this co-design problem and we are developing chemical reactors in which the inductive heating of free form susceptors enables fully customizable volumetric temperature profiles. So by susceptors I'm referring to internal structures within the reactor which are three dimensional that can be heated in ways where the heat volumetrically as well as temporarily can be fully customizable. These reactors eliminate thermal transfer bottlenecks which is to say the amount of energy that can be delivered to catalysts can significantly exceed those of conventional reactors methods. Thereby improving conversion efficiency eliminating many of the parasitic bottlenecks that we see in current reactor technologies and what this ultimately does is enable reductions in reactor form factor. The key for making this happen is in fact advances at many different stages and I just want to talk about this at a very high level though I'm happy to talk about this in more detail later. Many of these ideas really stem from electromagnetic. My background is really in understanding the relationship between geometric structures and their interaction with electromagnetic waves in over the last two decades. There have been some really new theories on how structured media can interact with electromagnetic waves in order to achieve certain types of desired properties some were exotic and in this case we're talking about uniform or a tailorable heating profiles. There have been some incredible advances in manufacturing where again especially with the emergence of the current state of the aerospace industry it is now possible to additively manufacture super alloy materials and even complex conductive ceramic materials to have nearly any type of form factor in shape which really introduces the possibility of truly customizing what we can do with reactors. So in fact in the chemical reaction space this has taken the terminology of structured reactor engineering. Scientific computing has certainly advanced tremendously over the last again couple of decades where we're really looking to push the limits of multi physics, multi scalar computation involving fluids heat transfer and electromagnetic coupling. These are extremely complex problems that require not just interfacing with super computing infrastructure but also new ways of accelerating these computing means using for example machine learning and a major point of value add that we've been focusing on with my collaborator Juan Rivas has been recent developments in power electronics where wide band got semiconductors made from gallium nitride and silicon carbide based switching technologies now enable switching at very high frequencies including megahertz frequencies. And it's really the collection of all of these different ideas that really enable the co-design of the inductive heating process with reaction engineering which is to say that and ultimately combine all of this together we are able to create reactors in which uniform heating and is able to be achieved and we're ultimately where we are able to optimize not just for heating but also for mass transfer and heat transfer. We have theoretically and experimentally verified these volumetric heating concepts including uniform volumetric heating with high surface area volume susceptors with efficiencies that are over 90%. One of the really difficult parts for us in fact that we're trying to tackle is this question of efficiency with induction heating which for many typical applications such as welding people don't think about efficiency but for the energy space efficiency is everything. And we are currently testing our concept with mesoscale reactors for electrifying the reverse fire gas shift reaction in fact working with my colleague Matt Cannon in chemistry. I believe he filled you in earlier this week on work he's been doing on Save the Yard carbonate catalyst for reverse fire gas shift. It like all endothermic reactions still requires methods to deliver volumetric and heat into the side of the catalyst. I want to maybe end on a broader picture which is that if we look at the reactor landscape today we are typically dealing with either very small reactors which is to say micro reactors where the enhanced surface area to volume enables superior heat and mass transfer. And as such there's a cottage industry and micro reactors where very high performance can be had on small scales. And also very large scale reactors and of course when we visit the exons and the shells we're talking about huge refineries with close to gigawatt type energy consumptions in order to achieve incredible performance. With low cost. But as we start thinking about the chemical industry on a more sustainable platform there will need to be new distributed infrastructure where we may not necessarily be thinking about just building huge refineries everywhere but where we may be thinking about more mesoscale reactors. And as we go about designing these reactors to optimize for all major chemical reaction engineering phenomena that we essentially will have mesoscale reactors that can operate with one or tens of megawatts but that have the capabilities of micro reactors in terms of heat, mass, transport and such. Lastly I want to acknowledge my team. It's been tremendously gratifying and I think similar to what Titiana was showing we have a very interdisciplinary group of people in electrical, mechanical, chemical, material science for even working with someone at Slack. And I think it's very clear as we look to continue to really push what we push these topics in electrified chemical reaction systems that this is definitely a topic that's gonna require a tremendous leverage from every major engineering department on campus. And so stay tuned. I think the last thing I'll say is that in developing these ideas for high temperature gas reforming reactors it's also extremely clear that the ability to control heat as a function of volume and time in nearly arbitrary ways with temporal resolution down to microseconds is actually something that will benefit a great deal of technologies and not just thermal chemical reactors. All right, thank you. All right, let's get real. Are we really gonna scale this from the lab out to the scale we need for commercial processes? We've got what, 25% of total energy is in industrial heat and power? Talk to us about that a little bit. That's a great question. I think when I started thinking about these ideas around three years ago, and if you read the literature there's a lot of academic demonstrations showing topics in micro scale resistive heaters, microwave heaters at the lab scale. And there's no question if you're looking to do a small academic experiment that pretty much any method can be tailored to something. But a big reason for us to focus on inductive heating is at least two reasons when we're talking about scale. The first is that it is currently used at scale in certain industries like the metallurgy industry where inductive heating furnaces are used at tens of megawatt capacities for example, the melting of metals. So we know that the infrastructure is there and the concepts are there, of course adapting it towards something like gas reforming is what we're trying to do, but that there is a pathway to scaling. And the second comes down to understanding how the grid and how power works at megawatt power levels where you're no longer even going to be using power electronics but ideally you'd like to use wall plug, very high voltage type of sources. And that's of course one of the really compelling reasons for us to use inductive heating because of just the mechanism we are potentially able to directly use electricity from a generator without additional transformation. So we do see inductive heating playing a major role in scaled technologies in industry. Great, thank you. All right, moving on, Sahar, last but not least. Thank you so much, it's wonderful to be here today. Today I'm going to be discussing methane emissions and how new technologies are revolutionizing greenhouse gas detection and mitigation. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. It has over 25 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 100 year time period and contributes about 30% of the temperature increase that we're going to be seeing associated with climate change. There are several different anthropogenic and natural sources of methane, key among these is oil and gas production and use. And while this is a key contributor of anthropogenic methane emissions, it also is a ready target for cost-effective mitigation. However, mitigating methane emissions requires that we are able to identify methane sources, which brings us to the question, how do we currently measure methane? And this is the work that myself and several others at Stanford have been focusing on for the past several years. Conventional approaches for measuring methane involve individual site visits. So for example, a technician with a handheld device, such as an infrared camera or a handheld sensor, would visit a site and monitor every piece of equipment in order to determine the leak rate of methane on site. This was improved somewhat with sensors mounted on vehicles. However, both of these conventional approaches are incredibly time and labor intensive, and they often do require on-site access in order to obtain measurements. As a result, new technologies have come into this space and are aiming to improve our ability to measure methane. And I'll walk you through what some of these classes of technologies are now. The first of these are on-site sensors. These will be deployed throughout a facility and continuously measure the concentration of methane and in order to determine if there is a leak or a flow rate of methane on-site. This has numerous potential advantages. You collect incredibly high-resolution temporal data. This could also provide very rapid alert for leak detection, and these can be deployed for an extended period of time. However, you still do likely require on-site access and cooperations with operators. So the next class of technologies aims to address some of those issues, and these are airplanes. There are several different technologies that are being deployed in this space, but most of them rely on hyperspectral imaging and the shortwave infrared. This is an image from our field work from 2021 in which an airplane flew over a methane plume, conducted a snapshot image and identified the source of methane. This technology poses several potential advantages. You have with the ability to conduct entire basin-wide surveys, rapid and widespread spatial coverage. No on-site access is required, and this allows for unbiased sampling in order to get a more accurate assessment of methane emissions. However, you're measuring methane concentrations from several thousand feet in the air. As a result, you can expect higher detection limits, and also many of these technologies rely on reflected sunlight, and thus you need favorable weather conditions and minimal cloud cover. Additionally, they only provide sort of a one-moment snapshot in time. Finally, the last class of technologies that I'll be introducing you today are satellites, and these operate very similarly to the airplanes as the satellite is passing in its orbit overhead. It collects images and evaluates methane enhancement in order to identify potential methane leaks, and this is another photo from our research groups, recent publication by Sherwin et al. 2023, in which a satellite here identified this methane plume. Satellites can provide you with truly global coverage, which is the key advantage here for this approach. This is really how you can achieve rapid scalability with regular repeated observations of the same location. However, of course, now we're measuring methane, not just several thousand feet in the air, as was the case with airplanes, but through the entire atmosphere, and as a result, you can expect even higher detection limits. Of course, the same weather limitations associated with cloud cover apply, and these are also incredibly expensive to launch. With all of these novel technologies entering this space, this begs the question, how well do they work? And this is what we decided to find out. Over the last several years, my research group led by Professor Adam Brandt here at Stanford has been developing and pioneering methods for evaluating methane detection technologies. I led our most recent campaign, which was last fall, and our most ambitious one to date. We conducted two full months of testing located in the desert outside of Phoenix and tested over 20 different technology types. Our participants in this campaign are displayed on this slide, and we really attempted to bring together all of the major players in the methane detection space. The participants in this campaign analyzed data ranging from that collected by drones to airplanes, satellites, and ground-based sensors. And these participants represent university research groups, nonprofit organizations, startups, as well as fully mature companies. We tested five different airplane teams that use varying methods, as well as nine different satellites. These satellites are both privately owned, as well as owned and operated by various international space agencies ranging from the United States, the German space agency, Italian space agency, and the Chinese space agency. And we worked with our partners in order to provide the data collected from these satellites to six different analysis teams. We also evaluated eight different continuous monitors. This is a combination of point sensors, metal oxide sensors, and infrared cameras, which were deployed throughout our field site, collecting data throughout the entire two-month period. We work very closely with the different test participants in order to develop testing protocols. And this schematic on the slide shows what testing an airplane might look like. Methane is an invisible gas, but we can visualize our release stack in the image to your right, which shows the plume that we are releasing. Stanford, our Stanford team on the ground, controls the release rate from our work station where the Stanford logo is. And we release a known amount of gas to us that we do not disclose to the test participants. And we ask the test participants, in this case the airplane that's flying overhead, to conduct routine survey operations and closely mimic their field operations as much as possible. We work very closely as well with rawhide leasing. They operate our natural gas equipment. We use compressed natural gas, which you can see in the trailers next to the rawhide logo as well. And we work very closely with them sort of on conducting this type of field testing. So after collecting two months of data for over the 20 different teams that we participated, we are currently deep in data analysis mode and preparing our results. And one thing that we're really proud of and excited about is the fact that the results from all of our testing for all of these companies are fully transparent and identifiable. When we publish our results, they will appear alongside the names of the companies. And this is to advance R&D as well as to provide full transparency for operators. However, while we're still currently analyzing results, I'm excited to be able to share with you a sneak peek of our satellite and our airplane data. And this is just to give you a sense this is sort of hot off the press of what we're seeing. So to start off with the satellites that we tested, this is work, an analysis that's being conducted by my colleague, Dr. Evan Sherwin, also a postdoc in our research group. So in a moment, I'll sort of reveal the different data points that we collected, but I'll walk you through the plot first so you understand what you're looking at. So on the x-axis, this is our ground truth metered release rate. So that's sort of our known flow rate of methane that we're releasing. And on the y-axis is the reported value by the test participant. Each of the points represents a measurement. They are color coded based on the satellite and the shape of the point indicates which team was conducting the analysis. These are our satellite results. This looks, there are large error bars and it may look sort of a bit scattered, but I'd like to point out a few key points here. This is the only way that we can truly achieve global coverage. And if you look on the whole at the aggregate trend of these data, you see that they are in line with the x equals y parity line. So while we may miss smaller releases here with satellites, we are overall able to get a fairly good sense of what is happening on the ground. And this is an incredibly hard problem which only has room to improve in the next few years as we're going to see the launching of several methane specific satellites. As for our airplane results, the plot is very similar. You'll see our metered x axis, the x axis represents our metered methane release rate and the y axis represents the quantification estimate by the participant that we were testing. So we tested five different airplanes. I didn't want to play favorite, so I selected one and anonymized them for the purposes of today. And this is what this particular test result looked like. And you can see that this aircraft performed incredibly well. The parity line is very close to, or sort of the best fit line is very close to our x equals y parity line. And they're able to accurately quantify emissions spanning orders of magnitude as low as 30 kilograms per hour up to nearly 1,500 kilograms per hour. Overall, our results indicate that these novel technologies are incredibly promising for improving our ability to detect methane. But what does this mean for climate change? And here I'd like to highlight the work by some of my colleagues at Stanford who are analyzing the data sets that are produced by airplanes who conduct surveys similar to the results from the one that I just showed. This is work by Yanlei Chen and Dr. Evan Sherwin. And they used data from Kairos Aerospace that surveyed the Permian Basin, an oil and gas producing region in the United States. And here they found that we are seeing larger methane emissions than expected, far greater, several fold greater than those reported for the same region in EPA's greenhouse gas emissions inventory. This is the work that analyzes data from one oil and gas producing region, but Evan Sherwin extrapolated this to six different oil and gas producing regions across the United States using over one million measurements collected by aircrafts. And I'd just like to point out that this is really the scale that we are able to achieve with aircraft measurements. Just several years ago, collecting one million measurements with individual site levels would have been a nearly impossible feat. Evan's analysis found that less than 1.5% of sites contribute up to 80% of emissions. So we are seeing both larger emissions than expected, but the key culprits are a very small number, a very large. So aircrafts and satellites who are helping us revise our understanding of what the methane budget is in the United States, however, can also play a key role in helping us identify and fix these large emissions. However, in order to meet our global climate targets, we still are going to need to identify leaks that are below the lower detection limits of airplanes. And so this is a very active and ongoing area of research. I would like to thank sort of the entire Stanford methane group led by Professor Adam Brandt and all the students and postdocs who are involved in this work and have contributed immensely to the work that I shared today, as well as the funding sources for our field work this past fall. Stanford Natural Gas Initiative, as well as the Environmental Defense Fund, Global Methane Hub, and the UN Environmental Program. And finally, I'd just like to end by thanking our partners at Rawhide Leasing and Volta Fabrication, who we work with very closely on designing and operating all of our equipment for these field studies. Thank you so much.  So I'm curious to hear, how well do you think you're replicating the real oil and gas operations out there in the Arizona desert?  Yeah, thank you, Naomi. So our release apparatus can be thought of as sort of an unlit flare, so this does mimic the type of point source emissions that we do expect to see in oil and gas operations. The other aspect of this question that you asked is how, or the other sort of facet of this question, is how the operators are conducting their assessment. And so here we ask all of the operators that we're testing to mimic their field conditions as closely as possible. So we ask them to use the same sort of data collection process, data analysis pipeline, et cetera. I think the real key difference is that in our studies, we are telling the operators where to look. So they don't know how much we're releasing or even whether or not we're releasing, but they do know the location to look. And so I think that's sort of allowing them to see things that if they didn't know where to look, they might not have seen some of our smaller releases. And so I think that's sort of where we're moving forward in this area. All right, thank you. All right, let's open it up. Questions, raise your hand right here. So let's get a microphone. My name is Vishwanath. I'm a postdoc at Suncat. My question is to Leera. First of all, thank you so much for the great talk. So I have two parts to my question. First is there's a lot of innovation happening in Europe, particularly related to Green Steel. There's this company I've heard H2 Green Steel in Sweden. They are almost on the verge of commercializing Green Steel using renewable energy powered electrolytic hydrogen. So can you talk a little bit about how the technology is different from the conventional blast furnace based technology? And the second part of my question is for a country like India where majority of the steel industry is based on this coal-based blast furnaces, how do you envision transitioning into greener steel production or decarbonizing that sector? Great questions. I will start with the second one. And you can maybe remind me of the first one if I get off track. So India is a really interesting example. India currently is the second largest producer of steel on the planet, but is in the process right now of expanding their base of steel-making facilities by 100% over the next 10 years. So what does that mean for steel in India? Well, that means that India is one of the epicenters in the world right now of enabling this green transition because the platform is already there and the funding is already there to be able to roll out these new facilities at the appropriate scale to be able to really have an impact by 2030, by 2035, on really, really lowering the bar or raising the bar in terms of amount of CO2 emissions from steel. And right now, there's an interesting interaction that's going on between the Indian government and the Indian research programs and corporations to try to figure out how to get that implemented in the appropriate time. And there's a lot of discussion there. I probably can't get into it right now, but I'd love to chat with you afterwards because if you're interested, now is actually the time and India is the place to really make a big impact in terms of rolling out this type of green technology. The other question that you asked was about the hybrid plant in Sweden, which I will actually broaden your comment to a bigger comment, which is that at this point, there are demonstrations of three technologies that are opportunities for carbon-zero steel that have reached the pilot plant stage and have been demonstrated at the pilot scale stage and are at the cusp of being possible for really rolling it out at scale. Absolutely, this is a game changer. I don't want to misspeak at all. This is incredibly important for the steel-making industry, and this should not be understated. That said, this is also not the first time this has happened. So the first version of a pure hydrogen zero carbon steel that reached the pilot phase was in 1954. And none thus far have actually gone from the pilot scale to actually reaching the full scale, except for one example. And that was funded by Arcelor Matal, sorry, by Cleveland Cliffs and was a technology that effectively was rolled out in Trinidad to be able to use fluidized bed technology to use pure hydrogen for this. And that, after eight years of actually truly reaching megaton scale, ended up closing down because of an issue in the economics of it that they forecasted with a little bit off and they weren't able to meet the production required to be able to actually make it profitable. And so this is one of the things that's so challenging is as much as I make it seem like a science problem, it's actually not just a science problem. It's a problem that we need to be thinking about the techno-economics of the system as we're developing the technology because it's not enough to come up with the technology if we're aiming for a gigaton scale. You have to be asking the questions that can actually make it profitable on day one. Otherwise you're never gonna be able to roll it out in a way that's meaningful. So there are three different types that have reached this phase by now. One of them is called the falling particle reactor. One of that rolled out in Utah. One of them is called the molten oxide electrolysis that's in Boston. And one of them is the hybrid facility that's in Sweden. I encourage you to check them out to get involved if you can come up with your own because it's really important that we continue this progress. So I wanna build on that. We just have two minutes left. So this is gonna be like rapid fire. You mentioned a really good point, right? We're focused on the technologies, developing the technologies, but we gotta think about cost and also about policy. So as you interact with companies, industries, in your respective areas, can you just say a few words about what you're seeing in terms of their motivation to decarbonize? Do you feel like there are adequate policies in place and how are you sort of seeing that in response to the technical work that you're presenting them with? And I'm looking at you so hard because we're gonna go up the line in reverse order. So I'll start with you. So your question is sort of how is the industry receptive to efforts to decarbonize? Yeah, I would say in the oil and gas space, I mean we are seeing advancements in sort of EPA policy that is pushing this space along and applying sort of pressure to industry in order to implement a lot of the technologies that we've seen today. We're seeing regulations that are supporting sort of more technology agnostic approaches such as aircraft surveys for identifying sort of methane leaks from oil and gas. And I would say, I mean we've worked with some of the large players in sort of funding some of this work who are interested in really identifying methane emissions and reducing them. And we've got the methane fee in the IRA which is like a little bit of a stick as well there. Jonathan, how about you? Yeah, cost is everything. I mean when it comes to these really big industrial commercial processes, I think for us focusing on hydrogen production we've been thinking about it in two ways together with industry. The first is to see given the relatively high cost of green electricity whether there is a pathway to make our technology cheaper compared to blue hydrogen as a point of cost comparison. And then the second in part because of cost and in part due to deployability is to see how we can adapt this to methane pyrolysis as a means for producing hydrogen in a way where the carbon can be captured in a more practical and economic way. Solid. Assuming that, yeah, solid carbon. So yeah, it begins and ends with cost and you just have to really make a case that what you're doing is bringing value beyond what currently exists. Great, is it, Sienna? Well, if I echo what Jonah just said, cost also when it comes to cement is very important. I think everyone has to play its part. So there is the part of having policies and that incentivize the use or different technology. But at the same time when it comes to the cement industry it's also an industry that has to innovate a little bit more because if we think that Portland cement is the recipe, is a recipe that comes from the 1800, has been definitely tweaked over time, but not that much. And then the other thing is that it's also an industry that needs to diversify a little bit depending on the application. The recipe, again, is a little bit, if you have to build skyscrapers or curbside, the recipe does not change much. So I think that costs are important but also innovation. They are, briefly. I will echo what everybody just said before me. In a slightly different way. So in steel it's always about value added that just decreasing the emissions is never gonna make business sense unless you can show that doing so gives value added to the product that you generate. And so that manifests itself from the perspective of the business decisions that are made but it also manifests itself from the perspective of the policy decisions that are made. So for example, Europe is one of the leaders in green steel and the critical decision that enabled that was the carbon tax that was put in in Europe that there was a critical point when that happened that is when all of the different technologies in green steel started being born and coming out of that. And finding a way, that changed the incentives because suddenly economic sense did not lie in keeping business as usual because suddenly business as usual became a lot more expensive than it used to be. And so finding ways both at the policy level and at the technology level of making it make economic and business sense to be able to decarbonize is absolutely the winning ticket to be able to ensure decarbonization. And I'm sure that's not unique to steel. Great note to end on. Please join me in thanking our STEM panelists.


What have you done, Elijah? What is going on guys? Welcome back to the channel Critical Overlord here. So I did see Glass last night, the concluding chapter in the Isreal 177 trilogy, that Shyamalan started all the way back in 2000 with the 2000 superhero drama Unbreakable which starred Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson as Bruce Willis starred as David Dunn, a security guard who's kind of having a little bit of a spat in his marriage. He's not having the best life at the moment. He discovers that he has these superhuman abilities to him with the aid of Samuel Jackson's character Elijah Price who is a comic book fanatic and we learn more about him as those movies progress. Glass is kind of culminating that movie. Glass, well not kind of it is, it's a culmination of Unbreakable and 2017 split, both of which are some of Shyamalan's best directed and put together films. Glass is not as good as either of those two movies but because I give Unbreakable, I give Unbreakable a eight and I give Split a seven and a half. This movie here, I'm already going to tell you what my score is for it. I'm going to give Glass a seven out of ten and I'm going to get into those reasons right now. Glass has, so Glass starts off with, if you haven't seen Unbreakable or Split you're going to have to watch both of those movies because you're not going to get any type of explanation as to who these people are for the most part up until they get into the asylum and you might be confused at certain points in the film because you cannot, this is not one of those movies you can just go sit down and look at because it's not a standalone movie like Unbreakable and Split where this is a culmination of those two movies so it relies on you to have previously seen those two films but anyway in this movie the Horde, this movie takes place a few weeks after Split so in this film we have the Horde once again portrayed by James McAvoy who is absolutely amazing in this film he even gets his own section of section in the credits he does an amazing job in the film but anyway he's he's basically on the on the loose in Philadelphia he's being on the loose. This is three weeks after Split he's abducted a few more girls David Dunn from Unbreakable has been going around saving people ever since for the past 19 years he's even got his own nickname the Overseer and even owns his own home security business he's been tracking down the Horde he finds the Horde they do a little battle just as the battle is getting good they're taken to a mental institution by Dr. Ellie Staples who plays a very crucial role in the finale of this film. Ellie Staples is played by Sarah Paulson who was in Netflix's Bird Box and I think some of you might know her from American Horror Story I think that that's where most people will recognize her from she does fine for what she for her role she is an amazing performer I didn't really care for her character too much but and then I and then going back to what the critics were saying the critics are really just making this making this scene worse than what it actually is this movie is is scattered with plot holes several things go left unanswered and Shyamalan does get a bit messy in the final act of the film but at the end of the day this there's still so much to appreciate here as far as the other aspects of filmmaking that I feel that the critics are just honing in on the fact that this movie wasn't what they expected it to be and I feel like a bunch of people expected this to be a Marvel DC type of superhero movie which is exactly what it's not trying to do even though in the kind of third act it kind of bleeds into that territory it kind of becomes a parody of itself sadly but once they get to the institution they are there and they realize that we see that Elijah Price is also being held there Elijah Price is once again portrayed by Samuel Jackson he's been at that mental institution since the ending of A Breakable if you recall in Unbreakable he was the man responsible for the train wreck and causing David Dunn to figure out he he did have super abilities he well he caused him to believe he did anyway uh or further believe that he did I want to say that Glass is very well directed all three of the uh central characters as far as like the Horde Mr. Glass and David Dunn they are they are fine James McAvoy being the standout his no one touches him in this no one touches him in this movie his performance in the way he goes from one character to the next he does it with ease uh and he makes it so believable you you actually think he he will literally have this disorder he is just amazing in this movie I hope he doesn't get overlooked like how he did with his performance in Split because he is on he is on his best best performance in this movie Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson they do what they can for what little they are given uh the issues in the film lie with the fact that some of the things that get introduced and some of the plot twists don't get fully fleshed out you're left to kind of ponder what was told to you in the other half of the film which is fine I have no problem doing that because there's several clues scattered we're not several but there's a few clues scattered that will help you figure out what is going on in the movie I think that this I think that the end result of the film and the overall message Shyamalan was trying to get across I think he sticks that landing however it is a bit messy and I can see why it is getting mixed to average reviews but some of the critics are being overly harsh uh you can't go into this movie and just grade it on your expectations you need to grade it based on what you actually got and what we have here is one of Shyamalan's better directed films in recent memory uh the performances are all top the performances are all very good the development that we get with these characters as as the film progresses and I recall like some people were saying that this movie was redundant as far as like being the same thing as unbreakable as far as convincing us that these people are real it's not so much so that it's going to try to convince us that they're real not us as in the audience because we as the audience and the characters we know that they are real what glass is trying to get at is can they now convince the world and that is ultimately why this movie is called glass because this is about mr glass he is the final puzzle piece in the film and he does play a huge factor in regards to whether or not you will get that answer if they will be able to convince the world that they are real or not basically what ends up happening is we have a mr glass once he sees that david done and the beast are now here he's been planning an escape for quite some time but once he sees that they those two are here he uh he basically begins setting up a plan to escape and there's like an upcoming upcoming spectacle or an upcoming building set to debut in the city and he wants the two he wants david done and the beast to battle to prove that super beings do exist and ellie staples and her staff they're doing everything possible to make sure that that does not happen now some other issues with the movie come within the hospital itself is severely understaffed most of the people that are there they're useless shamblon's writing gets a bit messy at times the dialogue in it i can see why some people would find it frustrating as far as i constantly explain in comic book explanations and how showdowns work but keep in mind that this is not our universe this does not have to be a frame-for-frame mirror of our universe uh so maybe marvel and dc don't exist and also another thing that i want to mention there are like three twists in the movie that would even point towards the fact that marvel and dc are non-existent in this movie one of the twists would probably better explain why the dialogue is the way it is uh shamblon i think he did a satisfying conclusion to the trilogy i do think it could have been better but for what he gave us all the plot holes and everything inside maccaboy gave such a good performance and the the relationship between these characters was so beautifully developed on screen and the ending of this movie sends such a powerful message to not only our not not only to the viewer but to the entire universe it kind of sets this it kind of brings everything full circle and there's also a twist that will connect unbreakable directly to split and everything comes full circle and it all goes back to mr glass that's what makes that's why i never understood why people were saying he doesn't really have much to do with the film he has everything to do with it at the end of it he might not get much screen time which is i can see that being a complaint but he has so much to do with this movie it's not even funny samuel jackson gives something one of his best performances in recent memory uh bruce willis he had some he had a few train wrecks here and there but he's definitely showing you that he's interested here uh sarah paulson she does find and then we have our returning characters on ya taylor joys who's coming back from split keep in mind this is three weeks later i've been seeing people complain about how she's connecting with her abductor it's not so much that she's connecting with her abductor she is not not everyone is the same she recognized that her abductor was also in the same position as she was so probably so what i thought to have happened was she was thinking that this could be me if i don't speak up and she was also under the impression that this is not actually him because kevin is never in the light it's always the horde so she sympathizes with him because they come from similar backgrounds of abuse that's all that was it's not necessarily she's condoning anything that he did to her or her or the two girls that she was with it's just that she was connected with him on the simple based on the simple fact that they both come from an abusive past uh the twist in the end as far as how it brings everything together i like the twist i just think i'm not enough time was spent fleshing it out all the twists were not fully fleshed out and even one of the twists even though i liked it i think there are a few logic gaps in it uh some questionable things can be said about elyzer price as well as how he's able to do certain things which i understand the ending of the film is not anti-climatic in my opinion i think is actually the opposite uh you it want you actually want to see more but shayamman does a great job he's already made it clear that he's he doesn't plan on continuing in this universe but he ended it in such a beautiful and powerful way and i don't think you could he could have done this much better i think this movie could have easily have been an eight uh and all with all the plot holes and all the inconsistencies and the unanswered questions aside he still put on one of his he still directed one of his better films uh this is one of his this movie has a top-notch score all the actors involved are doing their best the cinematography is amazing the action sequences are some of his are some of shayamman's best because we all know if you're familiar with him you know he is absolutely known for having some horrendous action sequences and i think the action sequences in this movie are actually very entertaining and um they just get you very excited for what's ultimately going to happen those are my thoughts on this movie uh i thought glass was a solid conclusion definitely could have been much better but for what we were given and how everything played out i'm giving it a seven out of ten uh let me know what you guys think about the movie down in the comment section below if you have seen glass if you haven't already subscribe and turn on post notifications so you never miss a video in the description i have links to all my social media accounts on my facebook twitter and instagram you can mess with me there to let me know of movies or movies or news you'd like me to cover or review in the future with all that in mind guys i will see you in the next video


From Austin, Texas, it's theCUBE, covering OpenStack Summit 2016, brought to you by the OpenStack Foundation and headline sponsors Red Hat and Cisco. Now here are your hosts, Stu Miniman and Brian Gracely. Welcome back to theCUBE. We're at OpenStack Summit 2016 in Austin. I'm Stu Miniman joined with Brian Gracely and happy to have back on the program Balaji, Siva Subramanian and first time on the program Vishy Jakka, both gentlemen here with Cisco. Been talking a couple times with Cisco, talking about partnerships with Red Hat, of course all the updates from Metaplot and NFV Solutions, UCS, a whole lot of stuff. It's got a broad portfolio. But Vish, since your first time on the program, introduce yourself a little, what your role is and what you're doing here at OpenStack. Absolutely, yeah. So Vishy Jakka, part of the product management team in the UCS group. My focus is on the cloud solutions, specifically focusing on OpenStack. So we have a bunch of initiatives and solutions that we would like to talk with you guys. Excellent. All right, and Balaji, how's OpenStack fit into what you're working on these days? So yeah, I mean I managed sort of the cloud native solutions at Cisco. So one of the solutions is OpenStack Solutions that we do with partners. So what do you call a self-managed OpenStack Solutions? Cisco obviously is providing managed service to the metapod and to service provider focus in the NFV use case. But so we are responsible for the self-managed piece. And the other piece that I work on is on the container space. So I lead the content of open source effort, defining policy for container workloads. Yeah, so Cisco's obviously been in the compute space for a long time, doing very, very well. Like you said, we've talked about the telco side of things, we talk about metapod. Talk about how your partners are understanding OpenStack and containers and all these open things, which is sort of new in the Cisco channel and the Cisco partner space. How is that evolving for them? Yeah, I think the partners are, you know, when we look at selling any of these solutions, you know, we obviously, we're hardware, we go sell the hardware, but we're trying to find some use cases to sell to. Because customers are, you know, if you are just selling the hardware, you are sort of the last on the list of people they will talk to, right? They're trying to solve the use case problem, right? I want to figure out how do I build the cloud and all those things, so if you're just the hardware, you know, you're sort of the last one to talk to. So by providing this kind of bundle solution that we do with Red Hat in this case of OpenStack, we are moving ahead, you know, the partners are able to move ahead in the conversation. So now they are saying, you want to do OpenStack cloud, you know, we have a solution with Cisco that we can sell to, which has OpenStack, you know, fully integrated solution. So in a way, I think the partners, it's helping the partners to be more business, more relevant to the business. Right. So OpenStack, we've been talking a bunch, we were talking earlier about networking with OpenStack, we've been talking about a lot of different things. Give us a sense of how broad does Cisco think about OpenStack in terms of not just OpenStack, but where it has to link into the rest of things that are going on. What are you guys thinking at what's top of mind sort of every day in terms of saying, how do I make this solution easier? What else do I have to include? Those types of things. Yeah, so I think we look at, so there are a lot of deployments of OpenStack in the world, I think you've seen in the keynote and everything else, but most of them are mostly custom, right? We even see that customers are trying to build the custom solutions more and more, and that works, but that's not sustainable. So our goal is to make it more mainstream as possible, right? I think even now, even with our validator design, with our validator solution behind it, people are still asking for customization. So our goal is to make it more mainstream as possible. That's sort of the... Makes sense. The goal is to provide something repeatable and reliable that customers can roll out. What we have been hearing throughout the summit is lack of enough skilled people. So if companies had enough skillset, they could all roll out custom clouds, but that's not the case. And customers are looking for companies like us, trusted partners, to deploy their OpenStack clouds.  They want something reliable, secure, and highly available. That's what customers are looking for, and that's what we are trying to address with our solutions. So Vishy, you've had a couple of speaking sessions. I think you've done some, I have one coming up. Give us some of the highlights of what you're talking about this week. Absolutely. The sessions is a mix of what we have been hearing so far from our customers. Like Balaji mentioned, it's about use cases. Obviously, we want to sell UCS, but we want it to be more relevant to what customers are trying to do. And while they're standing up there in private cloud, they want to have a mimic a public cloud experience within their enterprise. So with managed service or with public cloud, they lose the control and data sovereignty, reliability, and security. They want to replicate all that in-house. And this is something that we have been hearing from customers. So it's essentially sharing those learnings with the customers. Then talk to them about what are the various options that customers have. It's not like one size fits all. That's not the case with OpenStack. So it's multiple options, the various options in terms of storage, in terms of OpenStack portions, in terms of capabilities.  It's up to the customers to choose what works best for them. At the end of the day, we will be with them throughout their journey. This is right from deploying the solution, maintaining it, and providing a single point of support for them. They don't want to, we don't want customers to worry about their infrastructure. We want them to be focusing on their business. That's what gets them successful. That's how that's what gets Cisco successful in the long run. So today there's a big track around containers. Containers, according to user survey, top one, two, three things that people are interested in doing. Containers, VMs change networking. Radically change networking. Things are moving around. They become virtual interfaces. Containers change it, yet again. How does Cisco look at containers, and what are some of the things that you guys are doing to hopefully make it simpler? Yeah, so I can take that one. I think I fundamentally view that the containers use a real technology. First of all, when we looked at SDN back in the days, there's a lot of hype behind it in some ways. I think I believe containers actually solve a real problem. And so we believe that containers adoption is smaller right now, but we believe that as things move on, containers would become a significant form factor for application workload to be there. So we have to make, again, our products relevant in the marketplace. Obviously, we have to add value to the ecosystem. The way the cloud-native applications are built, they assume the infrastructure doesn't, the infrastructure is not relevant. They just try to build the intelligence of reliability and scaling and all those things already on the software layers. So where does vendors like Cisco or any of the vendors make themselves relevant there? So one of the effort we are doing around this space is a project called, open source project called CONTIV, c-o-n-t-i-v dot i-o, where what we are bringing to the market, what we are bringing to the industry essentially is that as containers are getting deployed in production, more and more containers are getting deployed in production. Basically applications are getting deployed in production. There needs to be an operational policy for the applications to run, either networking related or storage related or computer related. And that is something I'm personally driving and I think is resonating well with the customers. Yeah, we wrote a piece recently for Wikibon and we basically, kind of catchy title, Docker's the least interesting part of Docker. I've got to be able to discover other containers. I've got to schedule them, keep them up and running. Like you said, there is a lot of value that has to be provided outside of just putting something in a container and going from there. Yeah, I think it's a good. As I meant to say, Cisco, the main driver is helping our customers with successful business outcomes. So it doesn't matter if you're using containers or OpenStack or any other technology. Technology, as you said, it's a piece of the puzzle. It's combining the technologies, then put the orchestration, the support, the life cycle, all that bringing all those things together is what makes our customer successful and successful at the end, in the long run. If I may add, right, the container technology is fairly immature right now. The Docker 1.9 just introduced multi-host networking, which is like, come on, right? So it's really, really early stage in terms of that. But we have done production. A lot of vendors have done that. We know that what it takes to run a production application. I think customers really, what we're getting more serious, needs to have those same policies. Just because I'm not containers, I don't necessarily have, don't have the same regulations and same security policies and things that they need to have. So I think if you look at the industry, Docker Compose and Kubernetes Part Definition, those are still defined the application. It doesn't define how the applications are actually placed or the requirements from the infrastructure. And so we are providing some sort of a framework through the content project and also some implementation of it. It's an open source project so any vendor can join in and contribute. Thanks, Danny. So let's get back a little bit. Like we said, containers very new. People are interested in a very new. Let's get back to OpenStack a little bit. We had a chance when we were talking with Lou and Rakesh from Red Hat about the multiple ways you can consume OpenStack, right? You talked about something. Give us some sense of in the self-managed space. How are you guys making it easier? Give us, what are some of those things that you're working on? Absolutely, absolutely. So if customers would, if they have to do it on their own, it's about putting, say, Cisco infrastructure and plopping any other vendors distribution on top of it. Essentially, it's two plus two equal to four kind of scenario. So what we are trying to do is, I mean, we are code designed and engineered specific plugins around Neutron or Ironic, et cetera, to leverage the APIs, the open XML capabilities and the automation capabilities that the infrastructure offers that's available out there today. And leveraging them and bubbling them up in the OpenStack context. So we hide the complexity of the infrastructure underneath behind the plugins. At the end of the, customers can consume all the capabilities of the Cisco infrastructure within the OpenStack context. And all this is co-engineered, co-developed by our partners, Red Hat, for example. So these integrations are consumed directly through Horizon, deployed and managed and configured through OSP Director, for example. So all these integrations are also the validation, the testing, the configuration, sizing, and the best practices that we offer to the customers. It makes it easy for them to deploy it. I mean, it quickly goes from a science experiment to a production-ready environment. So it's all about providing something that's production-ready, scalable, available for them. So we heard about, I mean, a lot of service so far, 65% of the respondents are deploying OpenStack. But they are deploying OpenStack over a period of weeks, maybe months. But our effort, with the joint effort, we are trying to do it in a week or two. So that's the power we bring to the table for our customers to leverage. Actually, the demo we have on our show floor shows that's bringing from a power-on to OpenStack deployment in three hours, which is actually a little, it's really great if you can just, it's all automated. So you just do it, go for lunch or whatever, and come back, hopefully, it's up and running. We have found that, like he was talking about, even just to do a park for OpenStack, people spend days trying to make the hardware and software work together. And I think this kind of effort is going to really help people to say, I want to see the benefit of OpenStack, but I want to spend weeks or months to try to just see the benefits of OpenStack. So what you're trying to do is, let's say, within a day, bring up an OpenStack for your demo or park, whatever. So then you can say, okay, I can use it. So that's sort of what you're trying to do. Yeah, so when I think traditionally, we understand some of the day-zero challenges that we always have in getting things to work. But when I think back to my networking experience, it's those upgrades that are difficult, especially most people, I put my network in place and don't breathe on it, definitely don't upgrade the code. We don't want to touch a day. It's supposed to, you look kind of the open source world. I mean, OpenStack's releasing every six months, you'd definitely do an upgrade. You'd got to be doing batches. How's that changing? How do you guys think about that inside Cisco and bake that into the product's institutions? That aspect is not easy. You're absolutely right. There's a lot of challenges there. So what we are doing is working with the community, working with the partners ahead of time before the next release comes out, before Newton comes out. We have been engaging with partners to validate the, validate the plugins, validate the various components that make up the solution. So we remove the guesswork out of an upgrade process. So that's the ongoing journey that we will plan to make it work for the customers. So one thing about that is like, I remember talking to one customer, they have like one version of every OpenStack out there. Like, you know, one part on, you know, there's a little bit, maybe a year ago, two years ago, like Diablo, this, SX and everything else. You know, because they don't know how to upgrade from once they've deployed on something. One of the benefit of our joint solution that we're creating is to be able to do that. So if a customer buys into, so we have right now shipped a few months ago on Juno, we're already working on how do I go to the next versions and they buy the solution support. We will basically provide them guidance on how to get there and we'll handhold them as they go to the next versions. Most people are actually happy with the version that they deployed. They don't necessarily need to like move every version. Even though the community is developing every six months, I don't think people would necessarily follow every six months, right? You know, because once you're in production, you don't want to touch it to your point, even though it's maybe flexible or whatever. So what we're trying to do is figure out obviously what cadence you want to have in terms of upgrades. Maybe you know, OSP7 is Juno, do we go to the next one or do we go to the following one? So these are all definitely challenging. We need to ensure there's an upgradability path and it's fully tested, validated so the customers can automatically hopefully upgrade through some sort of tools that we provide. All right, I want to give you both the last word here. You know, we talk about 7,500 people here and one of the things I think, if you talk to most people here, they're open to things going faster, changes happening. What are some of your key takeaways from kind of the attendees here, conversations you're having that you'd want to share with all of these? So absolutely, the interest is certainly there to adopt the newer version and consume the newer features but it's a journey. So they are looking at it, it's a conscious and conservative effort but the intent is to quickly adopt newer features. So they are looking for best practices talking to other attendees, talking to other companies, talking to other customers to find out what worked for them and what they want to leverage for their internal effort. It's a mutually learning experience for all of us be it the vendors, customers, or partners. It's a learning experience for throughout. So my sort of takeaway is that people are looking at containers and now they've deployed OpenStack or trying to deploy OpenStack. How does that work together? So one of the challenges do you really need OpenStack to deploy a container stack? I think that's definitely a very valid question to ask and if you do deploy containers on OpenStack you have neutron networking and then you have container networking on top. How does it all work? So that's a challenge that people are trying to solve. I think you'll sort of shake itself out in the next six months or so. So how do you deploy containers in OpenStack? And so this is definitely, I've heard like in the last week, three, four conversations from containers having this challenging decision to make on this topic. Palaji and Vish, thank you so much for joining us. Going to be right back, getting towards the end of our coverage here of OpenStack 2016 in Austin. You're watching theCUBE.


Do I look blurry to you? You are kind of blurry. Oh, I saw this in the commercial. What if I were to tell you that I got another article in Envision Magazine for February? What? That's awesome. I know, right? Oh, see? It worked. Perfect. Well, babe, I forgot to tell you. What? I am being featured in Envision Magazine for the Sanity Files in February. You are? That's freaking awesome. Oh my God. Am I blurry again? Seriously? This is the most judgy camera.