Linde plc (LIN) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Ladies and gentlemen, the program is about to begin. [Operator Instructions] At this time, it is my pleasure to turn the program over to your host, Steve Byrne.

Well, thank you. Welcome back. It's my pleasure to host this session with Linde. The presenter is David Burns, and he looks like me, and I suspect we might be related, but it's -- we've had a fair amount of dialogue over the years, and it's a pure pleasure to have him on this session. David's got a long history, I think, almost 20 years with Praxair, then Linde. He leads the -- what is it, the hydrogen and energy business. Is it maybe specifically -- oh, Vice President of Clean Energy Development. So he is the right one for this discussion. Before Praxair, he had a career with Dow Chemical. My kidding before that, he was with the talking heads, but he denies that. Anyway, he is a Ph.D. chemical engineer and well-suited to this discussion. So thanks for joining us. Juan Pelaez is also with us. So if you have questions for either of them, you can send them to me on the portal. I will see your questions and I can relay them. You can also send me an IB or e-mail, but the portal is the best right now. Anyway, welcome, fellows, nice to see you today and glad to have this discussion.

Thanks very much for the invite. And good to see you again, Steven. And hopefully, we don't get any -- some requests that would disprove my [indiscernible].

Okay. Listen, your role is very broad. And I think I'd like to start this discussion with the breadth that Linde has with respect to not just hydrogen, but decarbonization. Your engineering colleagues have hosted 5 of these webcasts over the last -- I don't know what that's been the last 1.5 years. My dogs get me up at 4:00 in the morning. So it's not been a problem for me. These webcasts start at 4:00 in the morning. But I've learned a ton from these and you've been on some of these sessions. And I think what it really has highlighted for me is Linde's got a focus that's not just hydrogen. There's many ways to decarbonize a customer. And I'd like to hear your view on the outlook broadly. There's decarbonizing a customer by reducing their fuel consumption.

Yes.

And I know you've got a background and opportunities to do that with oxygen instead of air. Linde's got experience in carbon capture. So that's another way to decarbonize and I'd like to hear your view on that too in this discussion. And then you're also clearly working with customers that want to shift to hydrogen, whether it's blue or green. So there's a lot of approaches that Linde has. And from your perspective, I'd like to hear your view on all of that. Where do you see the greatest opportunities in -- to decarbonize across the breadth of platforms that you have?

Sure. No, it's a good question. As you said, I think Linde is well-positioned to help customers decarbonize to reduce their emissions in many ways. I mean just starting with efficiency, as you said, with our oxyfuel, oxygen applications, we can drive efficiency. And that even become very important today with just the cost of energy, so not only reducing emissions, but reducing costs as well. But the main focus has been really around decarbonization through hydrogen and carbon capture and they come together very nicely. So technologies and products that we've been working with for decades. So primarily hydrogen, it's been convenient to pigeonhole it as blue or green, depending whether it's produced in electrolysis and is green by renewable power or by carbon capture from traditional hydrogen produced from natural gas. We kind of got that breadth of technology and also the expertise and capabilities and knowledge over the years that we can, at scale today, help customers with their demands around blue hydrogen and provide the carbon capture capabilities in general as well that help decarbonize other applications such as steel and cement, those kinds of applications. But for the most part, the focus has been around hydrogen. Hydrogen is a way of certainly new applications where you can't use renewable energy, reduce your CO2 footprint in that way, then use hydrogen. So we are saying that today with carbon capture, we can produce volumes of blue hydrogen that will scale and help decarbonize a variety of applications, particularly the hard-to-abate applications. The green hydrogen with renewable power through electrolysis, that's in many ways, a developing technology, is not at that scale yet. But by the end of the decade, we'll be there. And so we see a transition through clean hydrogen going -- starting with blue, transitioning to green and certainly by the end of the next decade into 2050, hydrogen will just be part of everyday life. Hydrogen would just be one of those -- it won't be a unique fuel or topic, just be part of everybody's life and we won't even know it. And so we're using our capabilities, our infrastructure, we built up over years by the time for gray hydrogen, use that with blue with green, focus on those areas where in the case of the U.S. Gulf Coast, great access to natural gas on a world scale, low prices and also good opportunities to sequester. Same in the Middle East to produce blue hydrogen, convert that into derivatives such as blue ammonia, which then can be transported. And also looking at some applications where you have very good renewable power and start looking and start building out kind of electrolysis capability and build scale there as well. So for us we think we're very fortunate to be in a position that we have the technologies, experience, expertise and kind of infrastructure that we can take advantage of the opportunity today.

So you see a big opportunity now for blue versus green, if I'm hearing you correctly.

Yes.

Perhaps we can take that one more level and that is, as hydrogen versus ammonia, maybe give us your view on the opportunities for those 2? And is one just a carrier for the other? Or do you see opportunities for ammonia independent of it as a potential source of hydrogen?

Yes. I don't see it as kind of hydrogen versus ammonia, I see it as hydrogen and ammonia. Obviously, you have to go through hydrogen to get to ammonia. The benefit of ammonia is that there's an existing supply chain in, and in fact, global supply chain is well about 190 million tons of ammonia produced every year, about 20 million of that has moved around the world today. So you can harness that to move clean ammonia around. You can produce blue or green hydrogen, convert that into clean ammonia and then you can move that to the markets where it's needed. Our perspective is you should, first of all, use clean ammonia to displace gray ammonia. There's certain applications in developing applications where you can use ammonia such as in ship fueling, such as in power generation, where you'll see some immediate benefits from a decarbonization point of view. Some applications where there's a lot of talk about converting ammonia back to hydrogen. So now using hydrogen as a vector to move clean renewable power as ammonia converted back to hydrogen. Our perspective is we can certainly do that. We can certainly convert ammonia to hydrogen. There's an efficiency loss in the process. There's a capital cost to do it. It's better off to use ammonia as ammonia, use clean ammonia as ammonia to decarbonize those ammonia applications such as in agriculture, in power and in fuel application, marine applications, decarbonize those first. There will be some role for cracking for converting ammonia back to hydrogen and we're developing the technology for that ourselves. But I think there's a lot of opportunity just for clean ammonia to be used as clean ammonia and not just as a hydrogen vector. So use it as an energy vector, not a hydrogen vector. Again, we have the capabilities to produce ammonia from clean hydrogen and we're looking forward to participating in that kind of area in the interim until probably in the next 10 to 15 years, we'll probably start to see liquid hydrogen at scale being produced, where you can start to move it and trade it internationally. We're looking at liquid hydrogen as being an interesting vector for regional distribution of product. We do a lot of it in the U.S. right now. We'll see a lot more in the future. We see it in Europe as well that we'll develop these regional liquid hydrogen hubs to move liquid hydrogen around, say, fueling stations. So we see that as kind of a interim step until we get to the large export facilities that are probably 10, 15 years away. One of the limitations there is there's no ship today to move liquid hydrogen at scale, but at one time, there wasn't any LNG ships to move LNG either. So we just think it's a matter of time, but we'll get there as well with liquid hydrogen as a vector for hydrogen, of course.

That's very interesting. I've not heard that perspective before where you would envision liquid hydrogen being shipped around the world in ships versus converting into ammonia and obviously, ammonia is easily shipped, but then…

Yes.

You have to incur the loss of converting it back to hydrogen.

Yes.

Is that, from your perspective, the feasibility of transporting liquid hydrogen in a ship? Is that realistic to you?

Yes. I mean obviously, it doesn't exist today. But I think there's several shipping construction companies who are looking at developing that technology. So again, it's probably 10 or 15 years away, but I think that's the capability that we'll develop and we'll be ready to support it. We're already -- we're building 30 ton-a-day liquefiers today. We opened -- we start one up last year in the U.S. The next level will be 50 ton a day is what we'll be building next. And we have -- we've done feasibility studies on kind of the 400 ton a day scale, which we think will be needed for export capabilities, so. But we also see that 30, 50, 100 ton a day kind of liquefiers being important to provide a liquid kind of a regional distribution capability for hydrogen, where you're not blessed by being close to a pipeline, if you can move it by truck, you can move in a truck 5 tons of hydrogen on a truck, liquid hydrogen, where if you try to move that by gas, it would be probably about 750 kilograms is kind of what you're limited to. And of course, if you try to move it as ammonia, there's the limitations and issues around moving ammonia around by trucks in the -- in large scale as well. So we see liquid hydrogen having advantages and some where we feel we can have a large role to play. Over many years, we've been developing a technology producing liquid hydrogen. I think we're the largest producer of liquid hydrogen today in the world and over half of the world's liquid hydrogen is produced today using our technology. So we think we're in a good position to advance that going forward.

And am I right, your liquefaction technology for hydrogen has an efficiency advantage to others? How meaningful is that?

Yes. There's a lot of concern around liquid hydrogen, the extra power required. If you're saying that if you're using, say, green hydrogen taking, say, 50 kilowatt hours per kilogram to produce it, you're looking at with liquid hydrogen maybe adding 15% to 20% of that today. We see in the future with the technology where we're taking it, you'll be looking at more like 10% to 12% kind of additional power use. So we think -- we have a cryotechnique group based in Switzerland. They go -- these are very low temperature cryogenic applications, hydrogen and helium expertise. And we think that some of the technology we're looking at now at scale, we're really driving the efficiency. And obviously, that's all for the good.

I've heard percentages as high as 30%, is that an older technology?

Well, it's not our technology. So ours is lower than that. You're looking at today, probably 8 to 10 kilowatt hours per kilogram is probably where you're looking at from a power consumption perspective and we're looking to drive that down to 5 to 6.

Okay. With respect to ammonia, this association to hydrogen, there were a couple of presentations yesterday that represented some new approaches, some new technologies to do that. Is that something of interest? Do you think that could increase the potential for using ammonia as a carrier if you could cut that -- if you could improve on the efficiency of that conversion of hydrogen? And what would you say the energy loss is on that association of ammonia to hydrogen?

Well, and some of the technology we are developing and will be piloting and taking through the commercial scale, we're looking at probably around 15% energy loss is what we think. And we think that when you look at the choice of catalyst, the choice of process and the kind of the recovery technology, we think that that will be kind of leading edge. And so we're getting ready for when there is a market developed for that. And we think we'll have the technology. And in many ways, it's very similar to steam methane reforming. It's a catalyst in a tube inside furnace. So we think we have that kind of capability. And we're looking -- we'll be looking to develop kind of ammonia crackers at ammonia terminals around Europe, in particular. Again, I mean, we still think it's better to use ammonia as ammonia rather than convert it, but there will be applications. There will be some demand to convert it. And so we're developing the technology to be ready. Obviously, that technology is not available at scale today. Ammonia cracking has been used historically to provide small amounts of hydrogen in those regions of the world where there aren't gas supplies or power supplies that are meaningful. So you're looking at just converting ammonia to hydrogen, say in metalworking shops and things like that, it's small scale. But it's a lot different than produce -- using that technology at kind of world-scale ammonia import terminals and things like that.

I got an inbound question that I think is appropriate at this point, and that is, in this whole supply chain of a hydrogen production, liquefaction, transportation, distribution and so forth, where does Linde view the most value creation along that supply chain?

I think part of the value creation is being able to integrate the whole thing. We feel we have -- in each of the different buckets of the supply chain, whether it's production, we can do -- produce blue or green hydrogen, certainly, blue to that world scale, carbon capture technology at something we do today. And we have a large CO2 business. We've been capturing CO2 for many years from different applications because to feed our merchant business. So we have that technology. We have technology to produce hydrogen. We have the technology to then take the hydrogen, condition it, liquefy it, compress it and then move it by truck or by pipeline. So we've got all that experience. We've got infrastructure in place. We're developing that kind of technology in green hydrogen through electrolysis. And we think that's going to be piggyback on the infrastructure and the capabilities we have today with blue. We also have the derivative technology to convert hydrogen into ammonia. We're developing the technology to convert it back into hydrogen if needed. So I think it's the ability to put the whole chain. So it's not -- we're not just focusing on one piece of the chain, we can kind of bring it all together. And there's obviously opportunity to create synergy that way as well. And then at the end of the chain on the downstream on the final use, whether it's fueling stations for mobility or whether it's expertise in steel, where we've been working in steel industry for many years, supplying oxygen. Now in argon, there, we're focusing on hydrogen being the new kind of gas for steel going forward. So kind of look at the end-use applications, we can bring our expertise to bear there as well. So I don't think there's one particular place. I think it's just across the whole chain, and we kind of optimize each piece of it, but also optimize a whole chain as well at the same time.

I got an inbound question on your view on electrolyzer technologies, and you have a relationship with ITM, but is Linde somewhat agnostic to the technology? And I think it's relevant here that your New York project that you announced recently, I believe, is with not just PEM, which I'm not sure one could argue with a steady source of power, maybe [indiscernible] might be more logical than PEM, but it's also not ITM. It was Cummins, if I understood that correctly. So does this reflect maybe a broader view? And maybe I'll just add one more point on that. My understanding is your project in Leuna, Germany is capable of evaluating various electrolyzer technologies. So what is your view on that breadth of green hydrogen sourcing?

Right. It's a good question. I mean, in many ways, it's a developing and evolving kind of segment, right, is the electrolyze system. Nobody is producing hydrogen at scale today. You mentioned Leuna. We're in the process of commissioning a 24-megawatt electrolyzer, PEM-based electrolyzer in Leuna, which is based on ITM technology, which is a very good technology. We have a stake in that company. So we believe ITM Power's technology and the joint venture we have with MILE is a great vehicle for developing PEM applications going forward. As you said though, at the same time, we have a PEM project in New York, that's going to be 35 megawatts. In that case, it's Cummins. To some extent, that's because maybe different regions, different codes, things like that. So we're looking at Cummins for that location, primarily because it's an American-based project. In terms of PEM versus alkaline, alkaline typically baseload, steady power, that's where our client has a good fit. But there are other things to take into account when looking alkaline versus PEM and part of it is the footprint, a smaller footprint with PEM typically. We also don't have to handle the caustic chemicals, et cetera. So there's different factors to take into account when you're looking at which one to choose. But also, we are looking at some projects where we'll be using alkaline, pressurized alkaline for instance, where some applications are better suited to that. So from that perspective, when we're looking at projects around the world and green projects, we look at a lot of different factors and make the decision whether to go alkaline or PEM, whether they're ITM. And so we're just using what is the best fit for the best application -- for the application at that particular time. But we do believe PEM is maybe the one step beyond alkaline in terms of where we think it's going to go. It's the technology of the future. At the same time, we're also looking at solid oxide. We think that may have a role as well in some applications where you have some high temperature and waste heat available. Coupling that with SOEC, we think will be a good combination. So we are also doing some development work around that as well. So the key thing is to make sure we have a portfolio of technologies to use. We can pick the right one for the right application. And we aim to have the most efficient, lowest total cost of ownership kind of capability for producing green hydrogen going forward.

I received an inbound question in response to something that you just said a few minutes ago, David, and that was if we assume it's 50 kilowatt hours to produce a kilogram of hydrogen, and then you said whatever, 8 to 10 additional kilowatt hours per kilogram to liquefy…

Yes.

The alternative would be to convert into ammonia and then to disassociate back to hydrogen. Do you have a view on those 2 steps, what the energy required is?

I have done it side-by-side. I mean, there's 2 things, right? There's the energy efficiency. There's also the capital efficiency. If you're looking at having to build a world-scale ammonia train on one end, and then a world-scale back around the other end, there's an additional step there as well from a capital point of view. And you can also make the case to some extent that when you're looking at renewables, when you look at efficiency, it's more of a capital efficiency in some areas of the world than it is a true [indiscernible] efficiency you're looking at. But we believe in the right application where you're wanting -- where you're looking for hydrogen, the customers looking for hydrogen, not ammonia and liquid hydrogen may be the best way to get it there, that producing green hydrogen, liquefying and move it by truck, say, is a better way than to produce ammonia, ship the ammonium and convert it back to hydrogen. So you have to look at all the different puts and takes, but I think liquid hydrogen for those applications requiring hydrogen is probably the way to go.

Okay. You have expertise in carbon capture, I believe, absorption into -- and I mean technology. Do you also have technology beyond that? And the reason I ask is, you have heavy carbon emissions from a variety of streams.

Yes.

So some might be only a few percent CO2, some could be very, very high…

Yes.

-- such as out of a steam methane reformer or an ethanol plant. You've got a wide range. Do you have technologies to capture carbon throughout that whole range or only certain CO2 concentration streams?

Yes. No. I mean, we do have a suite of different technologies. As you said, we have a mean technology. We worked with BSF to develop CO2 capture technology for post-combustion. We also have technology -- we've got a lot of expertise in using absorption technology to recover CO2. So we feel with the portfolio of technology we have, whether it's a mean technology or whether it's absorption technology, we also have some cryogenic technology. We have Rectisol liquid methanol technology. So we have a whole suite of different carbon capture technologies, which we've built and operated at scale that we can pretty much cover the whole field of applications. And it's not just the concentration of the CO2, of course, it's also the pressure. It's a partial pressure is what the real driver is here. So it's the concentration multiplied by the absolute total pressures is -- that's the driving force you're looking to work with. So we think we have technology that allows us to work in all the applications, whether it's from converting our steam methane reformers to blue hydrogen, whether it's capturing CO2 from cement plants, ethanol plants, from taking natural gas sweetening that and recovering the CO2. So we think we can -- we've got the whole range covered. And I think that pretty much covers most applications that we're seeing out there today where decarbonization is being looked at or is needed.

Are there emission streams that you would argue carbon capture, but using a fossil fuel may be the most cost-effective solution versus switching over to green hydrogen?

Yes, I think so. I mean we've seen some applications where the idea is if say natural gas is being used as in a fire heater, maybe you can convert that natural gas into blue hydrogen by capturing the CO2 and sequestering it and then use the hydrogen heat in the furnace. And that's the better way of doing it because you can do it at scale today. And then we're working with partners such as Schlumberger or SLB, we announced a few weeks ago the project we're doing with Aramco in the Middle East to decarbonize their -- a lot of their facilities and some of our own there in the Middle -- in Saudi Arabia, 9 million to 11 million ton of CO2 to be sequestered. So again, that's a very large project using where we think we can use our technology, our capabilities around CO2 handling, compression, drying, those kinds of things. So that's not necessarily a hygiene application and also is decarbonization of other sectors of the economy or the sectors of the industry.

One question I just received is, Linde hasn't announced any really large mega projects. Is that coming? Or is that not a high priority?

It's a difficult question because you do see a lot of announcements out there, right? And a lot of announcements, if you track them 6 months, 12 months, 18 months later, you say, well, what happened to it? So a lot of these announcements are feasibility studies or MoUs. Linde's philosophy is we announce projects when we're ready to make the investment. So -- and you'll start to see some of those. We're looking -- we've been working on many projects, many large projects where you'll start to see the complete kind of value chain all the way from production all the way through to customers, you'll start to see that kind of coming together and you'll start to see those kind of announcements. And our goal is to work on real projects, I guess, at scale. And we're starting to see a lot of those develop, particularly in the U.S., now with a boost from the IRAs. It's been quite dramatic how quickly those projects have kind of moved and advanced. There's a lot of years of development suddenly with a little bit more help from the government from policy. Those are certainly viable.

I'm curious to hear your view on the value of the engineering business. You were with Praxair for a long time and then the merger with Linde provided this big engineering business. How significant is that in your current role?

It's very significant because as you said, coming from Praxair, where in the hydrogen business, we had a great ability to take third-party technology and convert it into -- and use that to develop really good investment projects. It's really good as well to have that technology in-house because you cannot only work closely with the engineering colleagues with our R&D colleagues to advance our technology [Technical Difficulty] conversations with potential customers and potential opportunities is where we can bring our colleagues into engineering and boost our credibility and really helps us create really value-added solutions for customers because we can't call on different -- we have a lot of in-house expertise, go along different technologies, whether it's absorption, whether it's production, whether it's conditioning, liquefaction, et cetera, all that in-house. It's very valuable for me, for us, as we try to develop projects to be able to bring those kind of colleagues that kind of expertise with us into a situation, into a opportunity.

One topic that has come up a number of times in the last day is a discussion about battery electric vehicles versus fuel cell vehicles. Do you have an opinion on that? And do you think it -- what leans in one direction or another and is it the size, et cetera?

Yes. I mean if you go back 6, 10 years, we -- in Linde put a lot of -- we saw a lot of promise for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, particularly cars and we were part of H2 mobility in Germany. We ended up building out about 100 fueling stations. The idea we'll build the stations, the cars will come. Of course, they're still coming. They haven't quite arrived yet. But what we see is in that time, battery vehicles, battery technologies advanced. But where there's a real opening, we think, for hydrogen and where hydrogen can play a real positive role is in the heavy commercial vehicles. And so trucks, buses, trains, ferries, where the benefits of hydrogen such as the fast fueling times, you can fuel a truck in 15 minutes. You can put 50, 70 kilograms on a truck and allow it to go 1,000 kilometers between fueling. We can run in part or cold temperatures. You can look at all different kinds of terrain without the batteries kind of fading. So we think hydrogen fuel cell powered heavy vehicles have a real advantage over their battery counterparts. And we see a lot of interest in that area and that's where we're working with people like Daimler and other OEMs to kind of advance that technology. We have -- I think we've got maybe 4 or 5 bus-stations, hubs around the world using hydrogen, where we provided the fueling stations in the hydrogen. We've got the -- up in Northern Germany, Bremervorde, there's 14 trains now on a commuter line replacing the diesel equivalents, all based on hydrogen, the fueling station, where we can fuel a train 250 kilograms in like 20 minutes. There's a ferry in Norway, which will be using hydrogen using the equipment we put on board and liquid hydrogen in that case. So we see the real opening and opportunity for hydrogen into the heavy vehicle space. We think batteries have a big role to play in cars and small lighter vehicles with limited use, limited mileage, batteries are fine. But as you get into the heavy end, heavy goods vehicles, you want a 40-tonne truck, to be able to go to 1,000 kilometers, fueled in 15 minutes, you're only going to get there if you have batteries -- sorry, if you have hydrogen. The batteries, they take away from the cargo space and the capacity, are a lot longer to fuel and they don't give you the range and they tend to fade on hill climbs and things like that, so.

The steel industry has come up many times as a targeted industry for you to help decarbonize and I think your role could be very diverse, whether…

Yes.

It's using more oxygen instead of air or carbon capture or shifting to hydrogen. How would you highlight the opportunities for Linde specifically decarbonize the steel industry?

Yes. As you said, with our expertise in oxygen and argon, et cetera, and working with steelmakers, our relationship with steelmakers, we see a real opportunity helping them as they look to decarbonize and move towards clean steel, green steel. I mean, ultimately, we've done some trials with hydrogen. But I think the big change is going to happen when we start to see a switch to DRI. Obviously it requires a capital investment to do that. So we think that's where the very large volumes of hydrogen will be required as they actually switch the process, if you like, and go to a DRI-based steel-making process. Large mass hydrogen, that's where we can look at building on-site production and whether it's blue or green to help them do that. So that's where we see the big -- always the big challenge right now is a large capital investment required to do that. And there's certain things have to be put in place. The carbon board of adjustment mechanisms have to be sound. It has to be a real kind of understanding that lean steel is going to be more expensive than it's all gray equivalent -- literally the gray equivalent and that the market is ready and governments already and the policies in place to make sure that there was kind of point it can go forward. But we see a big role for the big demand hydrogen going forward in producing clean steel.

And one last one for you, David, and that is by extension the same topic, only for power production. Do you think the opportunity is better to produce more hydrogen and blend it in with the gas for combustion and turbines? Or would you see carbon capture as a bigger opportunity for you?

Yes. And that answers both. I mean we had some DOE funding in the U.S. to look at post-combustion capture for gas turbine. So we're working with GE and I think a southern company there to look at post-combustion capture of gas turbines. So you can look at just continuing to run with natural gas-fired captures of CO2 and then sequester it. And again, we're working with partners such as SLB to enable us to give that an end-to-end CCS solution. At the same time, blending hydrogen into gas turbines, that's a way to do that, and that may be helped from a peaking point of view. And if you produce clean hydrogen say from renewable power when renewable power is available, you can store hydrogen, you can then bring that back and give it to produce -- convert it back into power using a gas turbine. You can do that through a fuel cell as well. But I think the key thing with hydrogen is it's kind of strange to produce hydrogen with electrolysis say and then to put it through a gas turbine to make power again. I think you have to have some things that what we think we can do is bring our capabilities around hydrogen storage. We've been operating a cabin in Texas storing 6,000 tons of hydrogen. We think we can replicate that, couple that with renewable hydrogen production store the hydrogen in the cabin and then couple that with power production to kind of fill the gap when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. So we see capability for hydrogen in power production to help kind of fill the gap that renewable power kind of leaves sometimes. We also see an opportunity for post-combustion capture on gas turbines as well. And we're working with some of the key players to develop that as well going forward, so. But yes, a lot of opportunities in the power sector because ultimately decarbonization is all that renewable energy. Use renewable energy where you can, electrify those things you can, where you can't, hydrogen fills the gap and it helps you to decarbonize those. Maybe no views term are to abate sectors, but also to fill in the where renewable energy is not fully -- it's not something you can turn a tap on. It sometimes has its both hours, whether it's wind or solar, we don't necessarily match demand, but we can use hydrogen to do that.

Unfortunately, David, we just ran out of time, but it's been great to connect with you again. The discussion has been excellent. Anybody that has more questions for him, you can send them to me. I can pass them through. My best to you and continued success and look forward to another one of these chats in the near term. But thank you very much. Thanks, Juan, for joining us today.

Thanks very much. Appreciate it.

All right. Stay tuned. We'll be right back.