Linde plc (LIN) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Welcome back to our next session at our Green Hydrogen conference. My name is Steve Byrne. I cover U.S. chemicals, and it's a real pleasure for me to host Linde on this next session. Our speaker from Linde is David Burns. I have a brother named, David, but he's not the speaker today. David was our speaker in our last conference. He is head of Linde's clean hydrogen initiative, and he's been involved in the hydrogen and syngas business for quite some time. He started out at Dow Chemical, went over to Praxair, I believe, in 2005, so has been involved in hydrogen and HyCo for a long time and is now leading the company's effort on the clean hydrogen front. And he's in Munich and [ Juan Pelaez ] is also with us and with -- and he's up in Danbury, if you need any follow-up questions, one is certainly available, and he's going to give me a jolt if I ask something inappropriate. So he's on with us, too. But listen, fellows, it's a pleasure to have you both with us, and welcome, and we look forward to the dialogue here.

Thank you, Steve. Glad to be here, and good morning, everybody.

So for those of you that are on this session, feel free to send me questions as we go through this discussion. You can send them to me on the Veracast portal. I have that app. You can send me a Bloomberg chat, send an e-mail, whatever works for you. But we have plenty here to talk about.

So perhaps just kind of big picture question for you to start off, David. I mean, Linde is a big company. You got almost $30 billion in revenue and market cap $150 billion. And how meaningful is this clean hydrogen initiative for Linde? Is this -- what's the level of commitment would you say the company has in this, in clean hydrogen? And what would you highlight as your primary advantages? Why would you characterize Linde as the way to play this green hydrogen theme?

Yes. No, we see clean hydrogen clean energy as a real growth story for us going forward. A lot of opportunity for us. And then if you caught the earnings call with Sanjiv last month, I think it was where he really emphasized heavily where he saw this growing and how this is going to be a big part of our growth story going forward. So we put a lot of emphasis, putting a lot of resources into it. And really, we think that we can really leverage the advantages we have. As you said, we've been in hydrogen in a long time. We've got the best technology across the value chain, the clean hydrogen chain as well as the conventional hydrogen chain. We've got an infrastructure we developed over many years to support our old hydrogen business. It's a $2 billion-plus business today. All that infrastructure, all those networks, we can kind of leverage that for the blue and green clean hydrogen going forward. We're also very heavily focused on developing partnerships around the world, local partnerships, though, that are really going to create local advantages, such as we did recently with Hyosung in Korea, it was a good example of that, for instance. I think you know we have a very strong enviable balance sheet, which we could use to really invest heavily in this sector as well. And I think just the experience we've had some 100-plus years in the hydrogen business is something that others can't match. Others are just coming into the business. We've been in it a long time. We've got a lot of expertise, a lot of infrastructure, a lot of capabilities that we can really leverage here and really make us set us up for success in the clean hydrogen business, just we've had in the green hydrogen business. I guess you'd called it over the years.

So I think it was 2 weeks ago today that you along with your several of your colleagues in Linde Engineering hosted a green hydrogen event. I'm not always up at 4 in the morning, but I was that day. And I found it actually extremely useful. But I don't believe that, that event was really meant for analysts like me or certainly not U.S. customers perhaps describe that event. It was a couple of hours long. It was a very technology focused. But who would you say really was the target audience for that. And how was the response from it?

Yes, it was a tremendous response. And thank you for getting up so early to join us. A pleasure to have you on the call there on the event. But we had something like 2,700 people registered for it, which was phenomenal. The majority of those, I think, of those maybe 100 were from Linde, but the rest were really external, particularly customers. Those who were interested in what green hydrogen is about, how could they participate in the green hydrogen area? What does Linde do, et cetera? So we had the whole range of engineering companies to renewable power companies to end users to mobility. So quite across the range, but about 2,700 registered. We had -- afterwards, in the first few days, I haven't seen the most recent numbers, we have something like about 1,600 people visit our website right afterwards, about 500 requests presentations and close to about 100 requesting follow-up to talk about investment opportunities. So from our point of view, it's tremendous. We've done these kind of events in the past, physically, and you can get maybe a couple of hundred people. Maybe it's one of the benefits of COVID, you can have these virtual events, you can get thousands, in this case, 2,700. So from our point of view, it's very successful. And of course, we had Andreas Opfermann, Head of -- Managing Director of ITM, Linde Electrolysis, talking, [indiscernible] and [indiscernible] as well. So [indiscernible] kind of introduced it, who's head of our hydrogen platform here at Linde Engineering. So excellent participation from that side and it followed on a couple of months before that, we had one in blue hydrogen, a similar kind of event, but focused on blue. This one was on green. We thought we'd separate them, and we really got a lot of attention, and it was very successful, successful event.

One of your colleagues described that your projects in development as containerized versus modular versus train based. Each of those is a different size project. I don't know whether it was like a couple of megawatts for the container, maybe less than 10, then the 54 modular and then train based, the larger ones. How would you assess the 1,600 interested parties that participated in this spend, where would you place them in those 3 buckets?

I mean some of them were in the mobility sector. So they were looking at small applications maybe single-digit [ 10 today ] in terms of hydrogen. That's kind of in the kind of containerized scale, the 2- to 10-megawatt scale, if you like. Simple kind of plug-and-play is ideal for small applications, small needs for hydrogen. Next one, that was kind of the modular. And there, we're looking at maybe 10 to 50, maybe even up to 100-megawatt kind of scale. So from 1,500 tons a day to 15,000 tons a day, getting into the bottom end of the large applications in refining and steel and chemicals. On the lower end of that, you're looking at commercial vehicles, trucks versus trains kind of scale. Again, containerized making use of our capabilities around modularization to really drive down costs there. And then on the bigger end, of course, on the larger end, it's the scale you're getting to when you're looking to put hydrogen into a pipeline network or to completely decarbonizing ammonia train, et cetera, in the much larger scale. And there, you're looking at taking advantage of some new technology we have around what we call the gigawatt stack, which is a 5-megawatt stack, and they'll be kind of then replicated and build up into the train size. So cover the whole gamut of -- from 2-megawatt to 100,000 megawatt kind of scale. Obviously, we're not a 1,000 megawatt, nobody is putting that in yet, but there is talk of that, and we are working on projects in the 250, 500 range. So we have utilities and large chemical companies refining at the far end and small utility, small, maybe fueling station, city, municipalities, things like that at the low end. So that's kind of the range we covered there.

And so you say you're working on some projects that are in the 250 to 500 megawatt. Would those be projects that would have the ability to ramp up even larger into gigawatt scale?

I mean you could -- I mean, once you get to a certain scale, it's just a case of replication. You're putting in 100 megawatt kind of trains. And so you get to 250, you can go to 350, 450 and so on, right? But part of it depends what's the downstream. If you're feeding an ammonia train with the 250-megawatt electrolyzer, you'd have to then replicate the ammonia train as well. So there's certain -- I mean, if you're doing derivatives, it really depends what you're going to do downstream of it as well. But once you're that kind of scale, it's just a case of replicating and getting advantages from the cost of scale, really driving down the cost there.

So you mentioned this giga stack. This 5-megawatt electrolyzer. How far away is that from being commercial and is there even a larger unit in development? I mean, if you're talking about 500-megawatt trains, you're still looking at 100 of these giga stacks. So is something bigger in development?

Yes, I mean, what you're looking at, we started -- this is 0.7 megawatt was the original stack size ITM had, then it became 2 megawatts. That's what we're installing, lowering, for instance is a 2-megawatt. Next we have the 5-gigawatt stack, and that's going to be the basis of all the large projects we have going forward. And that's -- we're already bidding projects based on that. So that is a technology which is part of our platform going forward. And what you do is you get to 5 megawatts, putting together to make a 10. You get to 100 and so on. So we're looking at this kind of replication. And as you get up in scale, both in the size of the stack, you get better efficiencies. You get manufacturing efficiencies from automation as well. So the overall benefit of bigger stacks is you also help reduce the cost of the balance of plant that comes with it. And obviously, that's where Linde Engineering with its capabilities around process design and modularization, et cetera, and putting together full EPC packages really comes into its own in terms of driving that to a very economic train, if you like, of meeting large-scale requirements for electrolysis, which ultimately is going to be the goal if we really are going to transition from hydrocarbon to renewables, and hydrogen is going to be a key part of that. And we need to be able to do this and it's kind of scale. But obviously, we're not there yet. But obviously, you've seen the other projects at that scale, which are being talked about and which have been government funding being made available for. But right now, we're at 24 megawatts going in, we're looking at 100-megawatt projects and doing field studies on 250. So you can see the scale is gradually increasing here.

So ITM is your electrolyzer partner. And I got to tell you, over the last 2 days, we've had a lot of various electrolyzer companies representing, some are new entrants, representing the whole spectrum from various versions of alkaline to PEM to solid oxide, and I'd like to hear your view, where would -- how would you characterize the range of technologies out there from, one, have you picked the horse that you want to race with? Could you consider others as you move down the line? And why PEM versus the others?

I guess, I mean, looking at that from a high level, alkaline is the old technology. I guess, it's been around since '20s. So it certainly got a history and a track record. To some extent, we feel that it may have won its cause in terms of its ability to get squeezed further cost advantage or efficiencies out of it. But it's available technology, and it's been around for a long time. When you are looking at our -- with electrolyzer technology, we wanted to invest and partner with. We look to -- it's quite a lot of due diligence and pretty soon, ITM and PEM came to the top. When you're looking at PEM, our view of PEM is you are looking at few years and that's going to be the technology, really, this is going to lead the charge. It's a lot synergies with fuel cell technology. It's very nice for following renewable power. The variability of renewable power, PEM follows up very nicely. It's -- we feel easier and simpler and be safer to operate and maintain, and it has a smaller footprint. So we see a lot of benefits from PEM. It was early in its development cycle. We see opportunities for driving cost out as well. So PEM, I think, going forward, is going to be at parity and maybe improve over alkaline going forward in a lot of projects. This is certainly well suited to the small mobility projects and the power to gas, refining, those kind of projects. When you look at solid oxide, that's an interesting technology, running at high temperature, you get very good efficiency. You're putting some problems with it as well. But if you can take advantage of the high temperature, do some heat integration, find applications where heat integration is important, you can really get good efficiencies. So -- but I guess also we see it as kind of still at the development stage to -- in many respects, so obviously keep an eye on that, but that's the technology of the future, perhaps as well in certain applications, and you certainly get very good efficiencies out of it as well. So yes, that's kind of a summary of the 3 technologies, the alkaline and PEM, and as soon as we see it, we see it.

Okay. And so there's a range of efficiencies in those. And as you mentioned, the PEM has that ability to be dynamic in response to the changes in current. But do you have a view that Linde also has an advantage with respect to your ability to contract for renewable power at a competitive rate? Is that -- and do you agree with that? Do you think that's a sustainable advantage? Or do you think that renewable power pricing is going to become attractive to all of the green hydrogen producers that are in development?

I mean, obviously, you kind of pointed there, which is over half the -- more than -- the majority of the cost for green hydrogen is related to the power. So we can do what we can on the equipment side, but ultimately, the cost of renewable energy is critical. You have to remember also, Linde is a very large purchase of power as well for its base business, its ASU business. So we're already very well familiar with the industry, we have some leverage there as well. But the key is to get good pricing on renewables. And I think that's maybe something a lot of people are struggling with in how do you get good pricing on renewables in the Central Germany or something like that. It may be easier in the Middle East, where there are specific projects being built specifically for renewable green energy, for green hydrogen, you can get good pricing there. But it's a bit more difficult when you have to use the grid in any way, and you can't get behind the meter. So I think it's a problem we're all facing is, how do you get good pricing and renewables, where the demand is developing most rapidly, which is Europe today.

And can you comment on what kind of pricing you can get for renewable power in Europe? I think it's quite as good as you can get in Texas right now, but what's kind of an order of magnitude? Is it -- are we -- can you get to $0.05 per kilowatt hour in Europe?

That's challenging. Yes. No, I don't think you can do that today. Hopefully, yes, I mean, obviously, we're looking at some projects in the Middle East where pricing is much lower. Same in Chile, those kind of countries with renewables, but no demand really looking to develop export markets. So there you're seeing very attractive pricing or costs, I should say, on power. But -- and in certain parts of the U.S., you can get attractive pricing as well. If you're behind the meter again. But still, it doesn't compete with what you can see in the Middle East or Chile or in some parts of Australia as well. So I think I wouldn't like to comment on exact pricing, but it certainly is challenging.

So one of your other colleagues on that event talked about transporting the hydrogen in a pipeline. And if I heard him correctly, and I converted it right, we're talking about 1,000 kilometers to move hydrogen for roughly $0.25 a kilogram, if I heard him right. Is that the future, like the most efficient way to move hydrogen in those regions where you do have pipelines?

And certainly, we have a big proponent of pipelines. We operate out, I think, over 1,000 kilometers of pure hydrogen pipeline today for moving large quantities of hydrogen from centers of production to distributed demand, large distributed demand. Pipeline is a key to that. So we're a big proponent of pipelines, and we see that as the future, especially if you couple it with kind of cabin, storage cabins like we have in Texas there. We have a large pipeline system connected to a 6,000-ton cabin, and that really helps, in that case, provide reliability, but in the future, really enable you to take advantage of renewable power to make hydrogen when the power is available and demand is not there, you can really store it. So we think pipelines has a real role as demand gets up, and you're looking at the transition in full swing. We also see there an opportunity for liquid hydrogen, in particular, for applications developing such as bus, truck kind of train fueling, which is maybe in the 5-, 10-ton a day kind of range. It doesn't really make sense to put dedicated pipelines in, but you can deliver with liquid tank that can deliver 5 tons in 1 shot. The liquid will have a real low role in being able to build out that kind of infrastructure around heavy commercial fueling stations. So I think pipelines are very much in large applications, steel, chemicals refining as it is today. In the future, though, fueling stations, depending where they are, liquid is going to be the key for that, we believe. And so we have an advantage there, too, given our history in liquid hydrogen.

So speaking of that, David, I've seen in the [indiscernible], the energy requirement to liquefy hydrogen to be in the neighborhood of a 12-kilowatt hours per kilogram is what I've read, but I believe Linde can do it for roughly half of that. Is that true? And how is it that, that you have that technology? What is key to enabling you to liquefy? So let's just say you can -- your electrolysis is -- requires 50-kilowatt hours per kilogram, you just add on another 6. So 50 to 56 to converted into liquid hydrogen. Is that roughly correct? And is that -- do you think that is somewhat misunderstood because we've heard it many times in these last 2 days about the energy requirements to liquefy hydrogen is really prohibitive.

I think you have to be careful in what kind of scale you are talking about when you are talking about kilowatt hours per kilogram on scale. And we've had a lot of experience, many years of work in the liquid hydrogen space. I think over half the world's capacity today uses Linde's technology to liquefy hydrogen. We operate a lot of ourselves. I think the largest units today are like 30 tons a day, we're operating several. That start one up in Texas, and we're announcing and we're going to be building a new one in Korea, a 30-ton a day of capacity in Korea. So a lot of experience in this space and know-how to use that when we look at the next level, going to 50-, 100- or 400-ton a day kind of scale that we're looking at, which we think will be needed if you're looking to develop a large regional distribution network or even international distribution that went for liquid hydrogen. And there obviously cost is important. So meeting our expertise and knowledge, et cetera, to really look at driving costs down, capital as well as operating costs, efficiencies up. So you're looking at advances in [indiscernible] cycles, turbo machine selection, compression, et cetera, to really come up with a next generation, which will be much lower in terms of power requirement and, on a unit basis, much lower cost as well. So we think you've got to realize the advantage and really leveraging the capability we developed over years. When we look back at starting hydrogen production for NASA back in the '60s there. So it's the technology we've had, and we've kind of stuck with it. And I think we're the largest producer of liquid hydrogen there, and we again have most technology in the world making liquid hydrogen. So I think it's a good fit with our capabilities there.

And staying on the theme of liquid hydrogen, you have this Leuna, Germany plant and you have a contract to supply liquid hydrogen all the way up in Norway. And I got to tell you, when I first read about that project, it surprised me that you would be competitive, delivering into Norway, which I think is roughly 800 miles or something like that from your plant in Germany versus potentially delivery of liquid ammonia into Norway. But when you started drilling into the math and correct me if I'm wrong on this, but roughly speaking, just the truck hauling from Leuna up to Norway, we were coming up with roughly $1 a kilogram for delivery cost and then maybe another $1 a kilogram for liquefaction of that. It doesn't strike -- if those are right, it doesn't strike me as being too prohibitive. Are those roughly correct?

Yes, I mean, kind of ballpark. I mean that the key there was, this is the first ferry that's going to be using hydrogen, liquid hydrogen. With the first one, it didn't make sense to build hydrogen production and liquefaction in Norway. It makes a lot of sense to have liquid on the board that vessel that makes it a lot more efficient, given the scale we're talking about. But hauling it from Leuna to Norway to get this established was the way to do this. Obviously, we're looking at other opportunities in Norway, other ferries that will be converted and put on liquid hydrogen. And we're looking to build capacity in Norway for producing. And liquefying, but at the scale for 1 ferry, it didn't make sense to do that for that. So -- but what we're looking at is with a tanker, liquid tanker, you can get up to 4.5, 5 tons on a tanker. So we're not delivering hydrogen every day. It's maybe every week kind of thing. So it makes it efficient for that particular case and to get things started. And I mentioned ammonia. I guess as a concern -- potentially as a concern, with putting ammonia on a ferry or a passenger vessel, I'm not sure you want to use that as a fuel, potentially cargo ships, freights, et cetera, I can see ammonia being used, but not so much on ferries. And if you were looking to say, well, I'm going to import or use green hydrogen and convert that hydrogen, crack it to hydrogen, liquefy it to put on the ship, I think you look at that for the scale here. When you look at that value chain, I think even delivering liquid at Leuna is more competitive than taking ammonia, cracking it, liquefying it and delivering it. So anyways, so first of a kind, first ferry in the world, first of the kind and getting it started with liquid at Leuna, it's a good fit with the project we're doing there. And as I said, we're hopefully doing a lot more projects, and we'll get to need to build more capacity for liquid and green production in Norway as well.

Speaking of ammonia, one of your colleagues on that event 2 weeks ago did talk about green ammonia. Do you see much of the future there? Is that really more of a Linde Engineering opportunity to design and build ammonia plants? Or is this an opportunity that you think Linde would want to get into the business of producing and transporting ammonia rather than just straight engineering?

Yes. No, you certainly -- the engineering colleague certainly have the technology, the capability and we operate ammonia plants today. We supply Aramco with ammonia in Saudi and also we have a customer in Russia taking ammonia from us as well. So certainly, ammonia production is part of our kit bag. In terms of green ammonia, and doesn't make sense to produce that and ship that around, it certainly solves the problem of being out of ship hydrogen economically today. I mean the technology of a liquid hydrogen of that kind of scale is not available. You couldn't ship liquid hydrogen today from Chile or Australia. This is not there that kind of scale. Maybe a decade from there it will be. In the meantime, there's obviously a large network of ammonia tankers and infrastructure, you can move ammonia around. So it's a way of moving hydrogen as ammonia. The problem you get into is, and if you want -- if the end use is hydrogen, you have to take that ammonia and you have to then crack it back into hydrogen. And then if you needed it as liquid, say on board a ferry or on board on the trucks, obviously, time is focus on looking at fueling trucks of liquid going forward. If you end up wanting liquid hydrogen as your final product, then going through ammonia to get there is not the best way of doing it. Really, ammonia, if you can find an end use for ammonia such as agriculture, whether they're willing to pay a premium for green ammonia or they're looking -- if you're using ammonia as a fuel directly, such as in onboard ships, as I mentioned, cargo ships. If you can use ammonia as ammonia as a fuel, great application. And like in Japan, where they're looking to take in green ammonia or clean ammonia, blue or green, and then use it directly in the power production without converting it into hydrogen, there's a lot of opportunities there. But using it as a vector for hydrogen and then converting it to hydrogen, et cetera, has some challenges. But obviously, it's the only way to do it right now. The liquid hydrogen is not there. But then we also think that we can make use of local production and local distribution as well for hydrogen to compete as well. But we are not saying with green ammonia, we certainly have the capabilities, and there may be some projects which look attractive. But it's -- I don't think it's a panacea that some people think it is. I think there's key applications, key opportunities where it will fit, but not all of them.

And kind of going back to the discussion you had earlier, David, about your comments comparing the various technologies and alkaline solid oxide. I received an investor question asking you your view on [indiscernible] and exchange backgrounds.

Yes, yes, that potentially has some interesting features as well, which is something we're looking at. But again, it's more developmental is our view. So it's not ready for prime time by any means, but we're looking at maybe [indiscernible] would be the one -- the next technology to come along. But we haven't -- we're not -- we're looking at [indiscernible], but we haven't -- we don't think it is necessarily a big step change compared to, say, SOE as the next in line. So that will be our perspective on that.

Okay. How about the opportunity that you see for blue perhaps on one of your pipeline networks, where you do -- you have SMRs to generate the hydrogen, at least some of that CO2 you can capture. Are you looking at opportunities for that?

Absolutely. I think, in a way, you have access to cheap natural gas, abundant cheap natural gas, and you also have access to poor space to put the CO2 sequester, the CO2. It makes it very blue. Blue hydrogen is very competitive. Blue derivatives are very competitive. It will be hard to compete with green in many cases. So in those circumstances, under those situations, blue hydrogen, blue ammonia certainly has a role to play. And so we are looking at that. And certainly on the Gulf Coast, where we were a major producer of green hydrogen today, and it also happens to be well supplied with natural gas, and it's also well supplied with the formations to take CO2, so it kind of comes together nicely there. So I think there could be opportunities to be -- blue hydrogen opportunities there, blue ammonia opportunities on the Gulf Coast, but yes, certainly, that's something we're looking at. And yes, it will be difficult to compete with green hydrogen on the Gulf Coast unless customers are wanting to pay a premium for green versus blue for some reason, certainly versus gray of cost. But if you really need a premium of green over blue to be able to make that work, I think.

And are you saying that it would be difficult to compete with green on the Gulf Coast because you can get renewable power that cheap?

I maybe misspoke. I'm saying green -- it's going to be hard to compete with thick green hydrogen and compete with blue. Blue is going to be the low-cost source of clean hydrogen just because of the natural gas availability versus putting in renewable power, even though the renewable power is available, you're still going to have a higher cost, clean hydrogen in that case. Green is going to be more expensive than blue, even though renewable is available. Natural gas is also available. The infrastructure is already in place. Case of converting greater blue would be more attractive than putting in new green, I think.

So this event 2 weeks ago, you kind of had the closing remarks for that event. And you rattled off a whole bunch of projects, and I think you can talk for another hour about all those projects. And one of them that I was not familiar with was something you're working on what Snam in Italy. Is that a pipeline project where you would be blending hydrogen in with gas?

I mean we signed in December an MoU, so we're looking to explore opportunities to work together and develop investment opportunities together with them. So obviously, the leading pipeline operator in Italy and elsewhere, so we feel they were good partner. You've seen a very active in clean hydrogen, green hydrogen. The -- as it happens, I think, there was an investment in ITM as well there. So they're very much looking at clean, green hydrogen opportunities. We feel we got good opportunities to work with and without capabilities, both engineering as well as expertise around handling hydrogen and using hydrogen. So we're looking at several projects today around trains and buses, in particular, in Italy, which we think will be of interest. And there are other projects at larger scale, which are early in development. But I think Snam is a great partner. And the kind of partner we're looking to work with. When I mentioned earlier, we're looking for finding good partners around the world. Snam is kind of the partner we're looking for, and we're looking for partners obviously not just in that space, but also in with OEMs, renewables, data centers. So we're looking across the spectrum of who can we partner with where our skills and capabilities are complimentary to what partner or the customer is in that case. So Snam is a good example of that.

Okay. Another one that you mentioned was the Ontario, California plant where you're converting to blue. I was curious, who are your customers that are interested in purchasing blue? Are these existing gray customers that want to go blue or these -- are these incremental customers?

Well, California kind of led the way. It was kind of on the low income fuel standards and is pushed to really clean up emissions around from mobility, et cetera. For many years, they've been pushing hydrogen fueling as part of the zero emission vehicles, et cetera. So there's a quite a few fueling stations in California, many of which or most of which we supply through our fuel tech. We have Linde hydrogen fuel tech, which provides fueling systems for vehicles, cars, buses, trucks, all the way up to trains, where we can take liquid and put gas on board or take gas on board, high pressure gas. So there's actually quite a developing infrastructure in California for clean hydrogen, blue and green, and so lot of that hydrogen is going to support that. There was -- there's some other customers outside of California, who were also looking to clean up as well, but use clean hydrogen. Some big names out there, who we are taking hydrogen today. So that was part of building the capabilities to support that growth and those kind of customers. And we're looking to do more of that as the market continues to grow, especially in the U.S. as under the new administration we're looking potentially a lot more investment, a lot more stimulants, many coming available to grow clean hydrogen outside of California, and we're looking to participate in that as well.

David, there's a whole lot more we can talk about. We didn't even get to China yet or Korea. But I think we've run out of time. But anyway, listen, hey, appreciate your joining us today. Thanks for the update and look forward to catching up with you again on this. But our best to you, okay?

And to you. Thank you very much. Thanks for the opportunity. Thank you, Steve. Bye-bye.