Dana Shoukroun, Invest Through Flying - Wearing lab coats and enabling nuclear

This week Dana Shoukroun, Invest Through Flying is our guest on The SAF Podcast. 

The conversation is a wide ranging one covering the cost of compliance, why purchasing SAF now will pay dividends in the future and how growing SAF has to go beyond what is dictated by EU Mandates. We also find out which scientists need lab coats.

We move onto the potential of nuclear as an energy source for synthetic SAF production. Dana explains the exciting potential and we discuss the obvious challenges it faces in terms of regulation and public opinion. 

We finish this episode with some Any Other Business looking at what in the industry current is getting Dana's goat and what she is excited about. 

Hope you enjoy and if you want to hear more from Dana you can at SAF Investor London on the 24th-25th February, find out more here: https://www.safinvestor.com/event/148588/saf-investor-london-2026-2/

Transcript

SPEAKER_03 0:12

Hello and welcome back to another episode of the Staff Podcast, and this week I'm delighted to be joined by Dana Shakroon from Invest Through Flying. And we're going to talk about many things, including a report that Dana wrote last year about the cost of compliance. We're also going to talk about one of her more recent, I don't know if it's recent, interest in nuclear and how nuclear can be integrated into staff. We're going to touch on that. And we'll find some other controversial topics to cover, I'm sure, throughout this conversation. Dana, thanks so much for joining us. How are you?

SPEAKER_00 0:57

I'm good. Thank you, Oscar. Thank you for having me. Um yeah, this is going to be a really fun conversation, isn't it?

SPEAKER_03 1:03

Hopefully, hopefully it will do. Hopefully, we'll have a great chat. So before we get into all the good stuff, do you just want to give people a sense of your background, how you ended up where you are today, and what you are doing today?

From Physics To Sustainable Aviation

SPEAKER_00 1:17

Sure, sure. Yeah, I think I think the background will give a much better understanding of why there's so much nuclear um around me. Yeah. So my background is I am a physicist. Um, I've got a master's in general physics and then another master's in nuclear engineering, and then a PhD um in advanced materials, composite materials, which was kind of my entry point in a way to the aviation industry, as a lot of my work was on analyzing composites for aircraft. Um, and then after finishing my 10 years' academic journey, um, I then shifted towards aviation fully and specifically sustainable aviation and and decided to just be the mad scientist, but in that part of the world. So so yeah.

SPEAKER_03 2:10

So I already got it wrong. I should have called you doctor um for one.

SPEAKER_00 2:14

That's okay.

SPEAKER_03 2:15

Please forgive me for forgetting your doctor. Um and I'm already confused about half the things you said. So that's a great start.

SPEAKER_02 2:23

Oh boy.

SPEAKER_03 2:25

It's gonna be a long, long conversation of explaining for you, unfortunately. So very scientific background, moved into dealing with aviation. What's the the current sort of more day-to-day? What are you what are you doing with all this scientific background?

Independent Advisory And Role Between Stakeholders

SPEAKER_00 2:45

Yeah, so basically, but the the the way that I kind of approached my uh my place in the industry is I am kind of in between the airlines and the SAF producers. So um within the airline part, a lot of what I do is managing and explaining regulation as well as well as being the scientific advisor around SAF technologies. Um today I work on a new platform called Noga Solution, um, which is an optimization and a modeling platform for airlines. Um and the aim really of this platform is to help them navigate all the regulatory environment in the EU and the UK. So, you know, calculating like we've discussed briefly the cost of compliance, um, the cost of uptaking, SAF purchasing it through suppliers as an off-take agreement, um, evaluating all the market signals and you know, forecasting mandate trajectories to really understand the kind of risks that they're exposed to. Um, so today I'm working and still looking for airlines who want to take part of this. Um and then on the other side, um, I work with producers and investors. Um, on the investor side, it's a lot of due diligence of technologies, and then with actual producers, um, I have been working on um project development where I act as a technical advisor. Um, more mostly specializing on the ESAF space. Um, and of course, of course, trying to pioneer um the very first nuclear SAF project, which is the mal scientist part of my day-to-day.

SPEAKER_03 4:25

So, not a lot. You're not doing a lot of things.

SPEAKER_00 4:28

Not a lot, no, it's a pretty chill day.

SPEAKER_03 4:30

Yeah, loads of spare time spawned as well.

SPEAKER_00 4:32

Yeah, a lot of coffees, you know, with people and uh a lot of free time to to chill in between all of this.

SPEAKER_03 4:40

Yeah, yeah. So not much going on. Um why didn't you why not one ask why not work for a producer or you know, an airline and sort of work on that aspect? Why do you want to sort of sit in this the middle in this sort of consulting style position? What do you want for that?

SPEAKER_00 5:00

I think um I think I really appreciate the the idea of of really being able to apply the scientific method to my work. So I for most I mean I I try to work in a in an objective, interest-free way. What I do is because I believe in this industry and I believe in this product and I want to advance it without anyone else's interest at the back of my mind. So when I come in as an advisor, I never really give off my personal opinion or my personal motivation to get things done. I'm here to give the scientific objective facts. Um, and then the choice is up to you know the client or the project developer or the airline based on their own motives. But this is why I kind of want to protect this independent freelance in a way, um, advisor role because my motivation is the science, my motivation is advancing this technology and not, you know, trying to push against regulation or for regulation or for a certain specific type of pathway and and which you know each to their own, and I know that a lot of you know everyone believe in what they do the most. Uh, but I really want to keep this kind of holistic approach where there's pros and cons to everything. How do we make this happen in the fastest way?

SPEAKER_03 6:25

Joy Sharp wearing a lab coat.

SPEAKER_00 6:29

Uh I mean, as a physicist, we don't actually wear lab coats, which is an interesting one.

SPEAKER_03 6:34

Um just my world.

SPEAKER_00 6:36

Yeah, yeah. I'm really sorry. Yes, we don't really do lab coats. Nothing can spill in physics. Like the worst that can happen is I'm hit with some radiation.

SPEAKER_03 6:46

Um, but it's for the gravitas, it's not for the the spilling, it's for reminding people it's a scientific.

SPEAKER_00 6:55

It's more hassle than it than than than it helps. As a physicist, anyway.

SPEAKER_03 6:59

Um everyone listening to this thinks I'm an idiot right now because I just think everyone wear the lab coat and everyone's like, obviously not.

SPEAKER_00 7:08

We do all wear glasses though, if that helps.

The Cost Of Compliance And Mandates

SPEAKER_03 7:11

Okay, yeah. Uh easy mistake to make, to be fair. Easy mistake to make. Right, I'm gonna shift act slightly. And okay. One of your big things, I want to dig into the cost of compliance discussion. And the big sort of overarching theme around that is if you don't act now, it's gonna cost you more in the future. That is the overall argument behind that. So can you go into a bit more detail about why one sort of why it's difficult for people to act now, why people are sort of hesitating, and yeah, what they can potentially do to why they should overcome that initial hesitancy.

SPEAKER_00 7:56

Yeah, so I think, you know, um obviously we're looking at this within a European context, so we have the ETS and we have the mandate that started last year. So just understanding that the the way that this is designed to work is if you are not compliant and if you don't abide by these regulations and taxes, it is designed to increase in cost over time exponentially. Now, as a scientist, we don't use the word exponentially very often, but this is designed on an exponential approach, right? Because everything that you don't purchase in a given year is added to the next year. And the fact is, the way that we look at this, if there is no supply, that snowball effect will just keep growing and growing and really fast. Um, so this is one thing, right? So we have a setup where if we don't buy, if we don't purchase, if we don't produce, it's just gonna go, um, it's just gonna grow that that debt is gonna grow really fast and become really big. So that's the first thing. The second thing is, um, and I think this is something that we saw this past year, once these mandates are implemented, um the fear of a potential penalty that will come due to lack of supply is already being capitalized by the fuel suppliers, right? So if we look at how much of a premium an airline should pay for a 2% SAF mandate, quick back of the envelope, right? It should be 5 to 10% increase in um in fuel price, depending on the geography, right? Because we do take into account that blending and reaching certain areas are harder than others.

SPEAKER_02 9:33

Sure.

Fuel Supplier Dynamics And Offtake Power

SPEAKER_00 9:34

Um, but we see airlines actually reporting a much, much bigger increase in price that does not justify, um, especially given that we're mostly working with Heifer today, that does not justify a 2% blend. So that means that fuel supply is already here, cushioning almost a potential blow that will come through penalties in a potentially near future. So I think from an airline perspective, actually coming in and saying, okay, well, let me take control of the situation by doing my own off-tick agreements, by purchasing my own staff, first of all, you negotiate directly with a producer, so you have absolute control of um the price, and then in terms of you know negotiating with the fuel supplier, the fuel supplier needs to capitalize on these volumes because they need to account for those in their own mandates, right? If if those volumes then go directly to the airline without going through the fuel supplier, the fuel supplier is exposed to more risk and more penalties because they don't fulfill their mandate. So that gives the airline a lot more power in this whole scenario rather than just buying off the shelf from the supplier. Um I think a lot of airlines, especially the the the mid-range, mid-size airlines, um, feel like they're not bankable enough, like they don't have enough, you know, um power, they don't have enough of a volume demand to go into those off-take agreements. I don't think that's true. I think that there are definitely many opportunities and there are definitely many strategies that can enable those mid-size airlines to be part of the conversation, either through alliances with other airlines, you know, that um that fly through the same airport, um, or just by you know um implementing some relatively simple hedging strategies for the long run. Um, I have a strategy that I've worked on an airline with that, you know, we we saw that actually they get a return and a cost reduction of up to up to 15% on the staff price just by, you know, doing the and and working directly with the producer. So, but again, this has to come under the assumption, and I think this is really what we see this year, is uh it needs to come under the assumption that those mandates I hate to stay, but the airlines are confident that they will need this product in the long run, um and and that SAF is here to stay. Now, this is a whole other conversation that I'm sure we'll continue with, but under this assumption, of course, of thick agreements and purchasing SAF directly from the producer is always going to be cheaper. Um, that either compliant through fuel supplier or not compliant at all.

SPEAKER_03 12:21

Yeah. Isn't that to use a scientific analogy the theory behind reducing your cost? Whereas in practice, in the practical nature of it, there are these deep-rooted relationships between airlines and fuel suppliers that aren't potentially as easy as just sort of going around them, cutting out the middleman, as it were. So in practice, it's not that easy just to go through.

SPEAKER_00 12:47

It's just not just the volume. Of course not. Of course, this is this is this is very much a scientific approach to it, right? Theoretically, this is all, you know, of course, and every airline and fuel supplier relationship is different, you know, it's it's very much a case-by-case basis. But I think you need to come from the airline to say, okay, how do we approach this problem? How do we find a way to at least take control of our own expenses in this um in this situation? Because airlines are in the toughest position here when you think about it. Airlines have to absorb all of the costs, um, all of the regulations, and I mean we're not talking just sustainability regulation, right? Any other regulation that comes out of the commission, at the end of the day, is is bad by the airlines. Um, yet throughout the value chain, they're the ones that cut the thinnest margins. And I feel like sometimes we forget that if we didn't have airlines, there is no industry. If that part of the value chain breaks, we we can just pack our desks and go home, right? So we need to also we can't just expect airlines to just pay. We also need to think, okay, how do we preserve them? Because we've all very much rely on airlines. Um, yeah, it it's a complicated dynamic, obviously, and you know, the geographies of it all also make it extremely difficult. You know, you have airlines that fly from um tiny islands, and that's the specialty, and getting staff there is practically impossible, um, or for very, very high premiums. Um, and usually these airlines are the ones that make the lowest margin. So, how do we balance this out? Yeah, it's a case-by-case basis, of course.

Mid‑Size Airline Strategies And Hedging

SPEAKER_03 14:34

Is the another challenging aspect to it, if we're talking just EU, the nature of the of the mandated ramp up, the fact that it stays at a start at 2% for an extended period until 2030, and then it makes this jump. Whereas in the UK it's a bit more sort of step-by-step and scaled. Is that sort of another issue where potentially, as it doesn't ramp up so much so quickly, it can be a kick the can down the road situation?

SPEAKER_00 15:04

Um I think I think even on the 2030 front, we are still in terms of volume and production globally. I think there's still enough for the EU to import to cover um the need. But yes, I think you know I think there's very much a case of very short-term um insights into the future. So at the moment we're 2%, airlines feel like they can more or less take the hit uh without you know changing too much of their ways, they could potentially absorb the cost. So they just kind of sit and say, okay, we can take this. But I absolutely agree with you. Once we get to 2030, that jump, you know, is a lot higher. Um that will be a shock. The fact is, we already see airlines, you know, struggling, and and a few went bankrupt this year, just from the 2%. Um, what will happen at 6%, what will happen at 20%. Uh, there needs to be a bit of a of a of a preparation. But again, I feel like this year, um, there's just this feel of like, well, maybe it went so badly that they'll just get rid of it. I think I think what transpires to me a lot from airlines this year is that actually they don't think that these mandates will stick. They think either they will be, you know, watered down or just you know, scrapped altogether. Uh, my personal opinion is that this is not gonna happen. Um I think the commission is too proud to allow this to happen. Um, but that's the general feeling. So I think at the same time, there's also a case of like, well, what if it just goes away? Why should we invest? Why should we take the risk?

EU Vs UK Ramp Up And Mandate Uncertainty

SPEAKER_03 16:48

And it's interesting that sort of leans into what Patrick Puyan, the Total Energy's CEO, was saying that a bit like the combustion car engine engines being gone by 2035 and that just disappearing, that he thinks mandates to be watered down. As well, we're coming from a supply side producer in Total Energy's massive oil and gas company that's put contigible investment into renewables already at multiple facilities. That's giving very mixed messages when the airlines are sitting there going, oh well, if he thinks it and he's the one that's invested a lot into producing the staff. That's a problematic situation we find ourselves for the Commission and for the state of mandates and the trust that people have in mandates going long term.

SPEAKER_00 17:38

Yes, but I think, you know, I mean, it it's it's it's you know, it's it's a it's a consequential saying, but I think, you know, we've we've all heard it before. Um it was just whispered then. Now we're saying this out loud.

SPEAKER_03 17:53

Um volume makes a big difference.

SPEAKER_00 17:56

Volume makes a big difference, but the fact is, is like if you look at the entire value chain, all fuel suppliers have the least interest of on the mandates happening. They have the more to the more to lose and the least to gain. They have to change their own.

SPEAKER_03 18:09

They are the mandated party, so yeah, but they found a way, they found a way around it.

SPEAKER_00 18:14

They found a way around it, you know. Like I always say this is very much I I never expect fuel suppliers and oil and gas major to lead the way because for me this is very much a chicken for KFC situation. They have no interest and no motivation um to lead this this you know this this battle and it makes sense. Um why change something that isn't broken? And for them, it's not broken, right? We've heard it all, right? The issue is not fossil fuel, the issue is the emissions from fossil fuel. We've seen this. Um I was not too surprised to hear this, but what I think this you know, and the effects of this saying is um this is for me a really massive signal for Pussaf producers, um and just understanding that at the end of the day they have no allies. They have no allies. Um, the fuel producers, the the fuel suppliers are not their allies, the airlines who have to bear their cost are not their allies. Um they cannot create a dependency on regulation. I think this is the biggest, biggest message of this year, especially with this saying as you know, pum pum on top of the cake. Um not create a dependency on regulation because the superficial demand that everyone relied on will die the second this, you know, these sayings have an effect and these regulations go away, like we saw um it happening in the automobile industry. So I think, you know, and and I have full confidence that SAF producers will do it, but they think to kind of they need to start to think how do we detach ourselves from regulations? How do we detach ourselves from superficial demand? How do we make sure that the product that we're offering is attractive enough on its own without needing someone to you know enforce the industry to buy it? Um, because if this regulatory shift is coming, um it's gonna be difficult. It's gonna be difficult, it's gonna be very difficult to compete with, you know, outside of the EU uh production of SAF, you know, heifer coming from from China, um even even you know, even uh biostaff from the US, you know, the corn-based SAF, all of these will be more attractive than the local product. So we need to be very careful. We need to take these sayings very seriously and and think how do we survive this as an industry and not rely on third parties.

Don’t Rely On Regulation: Build Real Demand

SPEAKER_03 20:57

Do you think the mandates being set at 2% at such a low level are actually potentially detrimental to the the speed of scale-up? Because you look at China, there's no mandates there yet, there's lots of talk about mandates coming, but they're just producing as much as they can supply. They're fulfilling their engineering prowess and what they're known for of just building, building, building, creating demand through oversupply. Whereas in Europe, production is very much dictated by we need to make we'll make 2% because that's what we need to, and then the rest of it will become our renewable diesel. And that's what we'll go, and that's where we'd do it, because we don't need any more than that. Whereas they probably could produce more than that, and if they produce more than that, it might become more available and create more demand. So there's actually a little bit of a handbrake from a mandate part of me thing.

SPEAKER_00 21:55

Yeah, I I mean for sure, if the mandate says 2%, then 2% if Is and and you know from a from a financial point of view, um again, there is no motivation to do more. I think at the same time, um this this mandate is actually what drives the production outside of Europe. Um I don't think China thought about SAF before the European created a market for it. Um I think a lot of you know developing countries see the European market as an opportunity to grow their own in you know internal industries. Um and in a way this is a bit scary for Europe because we created the market, we created the demand, and yet we're outsourcing it from outside. And like you said, China is building and building and building. Uh China is not bothering with mandates because they understand that the first thing that we need to do is create a valuable product. It's let the engineers build, let the engineers do their thing, make it, and they will buy. Um in Europe, it's the other way around. Like you said, we set it at 2%, and like, okay, but the 2% has to be of a certain standard, which makes it that much more difficult because you have to abide by these laws and you have to make a product that is extremely premium and extremely expensive. So there is no motivation to buy other than the mandate. Yeah, the Chinese the Chinese took the right approach.

SPEAKER_03 23:28

But and I mean, I'm gonna go somewhere else. The US has got probably the largest voluntary demand in terms of corporate customers, the the integration of book and claim and driving um the uptake of staff, and they don't have a mandate. And the the voluntary demand is the issue that's in Europe going above that 2%. There isn't that desire to go above and beyond and stimulate markets beyond it this small amount. So I don't know what needs to happen to accelerate the voluntary aspect in in Europe, because there are big corporates and there are people that could have the capacity to do it, it's just not for whatever reasons.

China, The US, And Europe’s Handbrake

SPEAKER_00 24:14

Yeah, I think my opinion, and again, this is this is very much a personal point of view, but I think the European approach needs to give scientists more freedom. Don't don't don't remove the mandates. Don't remove the mandates, push for it to be to happen, push for the decarbonization. And frankly, they should do it across the board, right? Not just with aviation. I think the fact that they're pushing the um you know the the the electrification of of you know road transport further and further away, I think that's a that's an issue. Um but just just let the scientists be scientists, let them use what's available, create a product that is that will create an internal European industry for fuel. We talk about resilience, we talk about self-sufficiency, right? Let's move away for a second from this the sustainability aspect of it and the decarbonization and net zero, which starting to become taboo as a as a as a thing. Um let's let's create a European market for fuel. Let's stop depending on on importing it from elsewhere. Let's create something local and then let's refine it. Pardon the pun. Let's refine it and make it better. But let's start by doing something here. We have cut off 90% of available, you know, and potential feedstocks for reasons that will not affect us for years until we get to that scale. But from the get-go, we said absolutely not. These are the only things that we can, you know, these are the only tools you can use, go and find a way and make it available. That's not that's what needs to change in Europe is let the scientists do the science, let the engineers do the engineering, let them create the product, and then push for purchasing that product.

SPEAKER_03 26:03

On letting scientists be scientists and engineers do engineering, talk to me about nuclear. Because whenever I think of nuclear, I think of the film Oppenheimer, I think of um some not-so-fun nuclear events that have happened in the past. Um, and that's what fills my mind. But then again, I've made it very public that I'm not very scientifically important. Please educate me for other people.

SPEAKER_00 26:32

No problem, no problem in this system. Of course. Well, first of all, may I point out Openheimer is a fantastic film.

SPEAKER_03 26:41

Uh that is, I absolutely agree. Um, and how scientifically accurate is it?

Let Scientists Build: Feedstocks And Flexibility

SPEAKER_00 26:47

It is quite scientifically accurate, I'll be honest. Um, and and we can discuss Openheimer on a different episode because there is a lot in there. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Those designs are and and the way they they actually represented the way things happen are quite uh quite accurate. But let's talk about nuclear in SAF. So um the way the the the the the only reason I started advocating for nuclear as a as a as a you know potential as part of the solution for SAF is is really just looking at how much electricity, ESAF, right? This is all in the realm of of synthetics, um, how much energy is actually needed to make ESAF. Um so if we look at again within the realms of our European mandates and demand, uh in order to fulfill our 2050 ESAF requirement, we need an additional 120 gigawatts worth of renewable electricity. Now, to put that into perspective, um that's the grid size of China. The grid capacity of China. Um and that's assuming continuous, you know, uh non-interrupted um electricity. Now let's convert that to what we now consider renewable in Europe, uh, so wind or solar. Uh once we account for capacity factors, so take into account the fact that there's intermittency, the sun doesn't always shine, the wind doesn't always blow. Um, from a solar perspective, we will need 760 gigawatts worth of solar panels or 380 gigawatts worth of wind energy. Um, and that is twice the size of Belgium.

SPEAKER_03 28:42

Belgium's not that big though.

SPEAKER_00 28:44

Belgium's not that big, twice the size of Belgium. I mean, don't get me wrong, as a proud Belgian, we should definitely cover it with solar panels. Um twice. Um, but that is that is a lot of land for one type of fuel for one industry, right?

SPEAKER_03 29:04

Or do you just put it somewhere sunnier and then you don't need so much?

SPEAKER_00 29:09

Um, Spain. You know what? It's it's about half of Spain. How about that? Half of Spain.

SPEAKER_03 29:16

Yeah, I think that's more believable because there's the sun shines in Spain, whereas Belgians are I mean, that is very true.

SPEAKER_00 29:21

The sun doesn't really we don't we don't get that much sun in Belgium. That's uh hence the hence the beer, right? Um but but long story short, it it requires a lot of resources. Um nuclear is different. Nuclear, for a start, um works 24-7, right? So we don't have an intermittency problem. So all of a sudden we don't need 760 gigawatt, we need about 130, 140. Um from a land perspective, because nuclear energy is extremely dense, uh, we're talking about the size of central London, right? And that's to produce for the entirety of Europe.

SPEAKER_03 30:05

Is that what you're proposing to cover the centre of London with a nuclear factory?

SPEAKER_00 30:09

Zone one should become one massive nuclear um uh power plant.

SPEAKER_03 30:15

Is that what you're running? That's what you're mayor or electrical. That's your top number one priority.

SPEAKER_00 30:23

This is my manifesto. Let's convert zone one into a nuclear reactor.

SPEAKER_02 30:29

I like that.

SPEAKER_00 30:30

Um right? Perfect. Uh yeah, yeah, yeah. So we don't need that much land for nuclear. Um, also, reactors last for a very, very long time, right? So renewables last for 15, 20 years if we're lucky. Um, nuclear reactors are looking 60 to 80 years. So while this is a very, you know, it's capital investment, right? It takes it, it's a difficult one to build, but you get a much, much longer runway. Um we said land solved, um intermittency solved. Nuclear has no carbon emissions associated with it, right? You're basically making a superficial oven, you heat up some water and you generate electricity. Yeah, you're a nuclear physicist.

SPEAKER_03 31:22

Um as long as if that was your PhD or your master's thing. You did not work very hard on that at all.

SPEAKER_00 31:29

Well, you work smart, not hard, is uh is always uh is always what I say.

SPEAKER_03 31:33

But yeah. You didn't meet the word count.

Nuclear 101 For Synthetic SAF

SPEAKER_00 31:36

No, no, well, there's a lot you can say about you know boiling water. Um but yeah, so you just you just create in a a big, big amount of heat, and and and and and then it's just you know like a um a steam generation. So there is no CO2 emissions associated with we have a net, you know, we have a zero emission source of energy that's solved that too. Um and then we have this massive renaissance in the nuclear industry at the moment, and we are using the word the renaissance, um, of new small modular reactors designs coming about, um extremely diverse in um technologies, in designs, in size of output, um which means that they can be fitted to any sort of application. So we're not talking about creating an electricity and just pushing it into the grid. Now we're talking about a source of energy or a source of electricity that can be put anywhere in the world, um, you know, as as far away as we want. We plug it into a nuclear reactor and the electricity is there. Um and I think that really fits the needs of everything, you know, these are all the issues we talk about in synthetic fuels is the the certainty of electricity sources. Now, my personal interest, again, my scientist here, um, is pushing it a bit further.

SPEAKER_03 33:09

Um, I really like the fact that that notoriously ends well when it comes to nuclear power, pushing it a bit further.

SPEAKER_00 33:16

Absolutely. Let's push it a bit further. Let's see how far we could go.

SPEAKER_03 33:20

That's never a dangerous phrase in science.

SPEAKER_00 33:22

No, no, well, you know, I have to live some form of legacy. So there we go.

SPEAKER_03 33:27

Fair enough. Fair enough. Anyway.

SMRs, Heat Utilization, And Hydrogen

SPEAKER_00 33:30

So what I really uh what I'm really interested in is the fact that like I said, a nuclear reactor is really just a big ball of fire, right? It's a lot of really high temperature heat. Um, and I really want to use that to make hydrogen. So rather than use electricity, so you know, lose 55% of my heat when I convert my heat to electricity, that just um conversion efficiency, and then use the electricity to make hydrogen. I want to use the heat directly and just really heat up my water to a very, very high temperature so that these water atoms just break. Um, and then rather than using 45% of my energy, now I can use 90% of my energy because I'm not converting it to electricity, it becomes a lot more efficient, right? So we we already have SOEC, right? The solid oxide electrolysers that kind of dip into this high temperature approach. I want to push it a bit further. Um, and nuclear reactors, certain designs within nuclear reactors give you um that range of temperatures. Um, and so the idea is if we try and capitalize on heat rather than electricity and make a cheaper hydrogen because your electricity then becomes cheaper, you can use so much more of it, then on a large enough scale, that could make ESATH a lot cheaper as well. Um and so this is where this much scientist is going is okay, let's let's let's design a reactor that makes that makes sap, right? It my my I have a design, it doesn't make electricity, it makes sap at the end of it. Um through through heat only, and some electricity, but through mostly heat to uh to drive the hydrogen production and and reduce the costs. And I think this is a very interesting niche. Um and and I'm really trying to get the the you know the the ESAF producers and the the hydrogen um experts to come and look at it because it it could contribute to a to a European ESAF production um on another level.

SPEAKER_03 35:42

Yeah. I have a couple of reservations that I'm gonna buy you. The number one regulated industry in the world, you should know the answer to this, is nuclear. Number two is It's aviation. Right, and your plan is to combine the two together. So I mean look, I think there's a there's a PR problem because a historical precedent. I'll tell you what, the regulation issue.

SPEAKER_00 36:16

The original thought, to be fair, um, was to actually put a nuclear reactor on the plane. Um whose idea was that? That was more mine. I think I think this is you know we put it on submarines. Why not?

SPEAKER_03 36:32

I mean, when you put it like that, it doesn't sound so ridiculous, but I think it's probably slightly more complicated than that. It's not a nuclear reactor, really, is it? It's not like making what I don't know.

SPEAKER_00 36:44

Well, of course, of course it is a full-on reactor, absolutely. The first nuclear reactor ever uh produced was for a submarine. So we made that we made those small nuclear reactors before we made the big ones. That is the OG, that's the GOAT, as they say.

SPEAKER_03 36:59

Okay, well, in that case, put them on planes.

SPEAKER_00 37:02

Why not? Um, no, look. I think we need to we need to look a bit at it in you know in a bit more granular way. I agree with you that obviously um nuclear is the is the most regulated industry in the world. Um the the standards of design and the things you have to think through um when designing a nuclear reactor are beyond like anything you know you could even imagine. Uh speaking of what I did during my masters, mostly that. Um but it's changing, right? We are not making big nuclear power plants anymore. We're making reactors that are a lot smaller, um, a lot safer. Their designs, because they're smaller, their designs are a lot simpler. And just generally speaking, there is a big motivation within the industry to simplify the process. Because while on the big scale nuclear power plants, this is very necessary, on a smaller scale, the the effect and damage of a small nuclear reactor is not that of a Chernobyl or Fukushima.

SPEAKER_03 38:12

Um, but I just sort of want to left those untouched, but I'm glad you've said them because I think we're just sort of beating around the bushes.

SPEAKER_00 38:22

Of course. And may I just point out um there are actually zero deaths attributed to the nuclear incident in Fukushima. All the deaths that happened during that disaster are due to the tsunami, not the nuclear disaster. So the nuclear reactor, whilst um failing, did not actually uh cause any death. So this is this just shows you the level of safety and security that these designs have, that even with uh an 11-meter wave tsunami, they still managed to contain um the whole thing.

SPEAKER_03 38:56

And Chernobyl is a good TV series.

Safety, Regulation, And Public Perception

SPEAKER_00 38:58

Chernobyl is a fantastic TV series, um, and Chernobyl actually shows the power um of human error. The reactor in itself and the design itself um are actually quite robust. Uh they are um they're they're the personally it's it's a design that I really like. Uh I quite admire it. It's it's a very smart design. The the error with Chernobyl was um miscommunication, human error. Um and and frankly, it was a matter of seconds, right? A few seconds before, um, you know, if that realization that something went wrong happened 10 seconds before, and you know, the they they activated those um those security um systems 10 seconds before, none of this would have happened. So it's really just statistically um a series of unfortunate events. Although, as you say, it still is an accident and it still caused damage, and that still shows the the danger of nuclear. Um, but that's why we have so much safety and security around it. Now, it is it is getting simpler. Um, they are trying to shorten the time it takes to get licenses um and to implement new reactors. Um, the time to build new reactors is also much, much shorter, right? So an SMR should um come together once there's a license, it should be built between six and eighteen months, depending on the size. So we're not talking, you know, 10 years to build a power plant like we're used to on the big things. So that's the shift in the nuclear industry. Um aviation, true, it's regulated, but we are making fuel, right? So until we put until we put that reactor on the plane, um I think that that Venn diagram, like there's no there's no real overlap um from a safety and security point of view.

SPEAKER_03 41:02

So what year do you anticipate a nuclear reactor going on a plane then? Pre-2050 or post-2050?

SPEAKER_00 41:10

On a plane?

SPEAKER_03 41:11

Yeah, in it, on it, I don't know where it will go.

SPEAKER_00 41:13

It really depends how um how much of a free hand I get um to get this done. Um look, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility, right? It it all comes down, it's it's the for me, it's the same as the you know, the the new aircraft design. It boils down to public perception.

SPEAKER_02 41:32

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 41:32

If your average person feels safe enough to step on a plane where below the ring, there's a small nuclear reactor, which as we say it sounds mad, but I think as those nuclear reactors will become more common, especially now with the data centers coming about, we hear a lot more about nuclear. Um, I can tell you they're designed for small modular reactors that you can put in your backyard to to power your own home, and then you can go off grid. It it's the side of a tiny shed, it's coming. Um so I think within the next 20 years, um we'll become a lot more comfortable with nuclear. So maybe 2050, 2060, we'll have a nuclear plane.

SPEAKER_03 42:17

Wow. I mean, wait, when you describe what fuel is when it's in the wing, it doesn't sound overly safe and everyone's pretty comfortable with that. You just call it right like flammable liquid that's just on a plane at 30,000 feet.

SPEAKER_00 42:31

Exactly. And if that plane goes down, does it really matter if you die of radiation or of the crash?

SPEAKER_03 42:36

Like, I think we should change topic at that point.

SPEAKER_00 42:41

Let's move on. Let's move on.

SPEAKER_03 42:44

Oh, yeah. So possibilities of nuclear seem interesting if not mild mildly mind-boggling, and who knows what will happen over the next few years with the amount of technology that's being developed across aviation and staff. Who knows the direction it's it's going in? Are there people working on it now, or is this just sort of a passion project of yours that you're going and knocking on people's?

Who Will Build It First And Where

SPEAKER_00 43:11

Um no, there are, I think there are um, there are two two SMR companies who are looking into SAF or just liquid fuels as a possible output. Um Rolls-Royce, I believe, have a project with Topso. Um, and I know X Energy Um are also very much interested in that uh in that area um as an application. So some are looking into it. Obviously, for most of them, it's not a priority because the priority is data centers, they're willing to pay the price of the first of a kind. Um, so we are not first in line, but but we're not, you know, we are at the table. Um it it's part of the discussion. It's um and and I think you know it I think it's exciting. I think it it's putting together two industries um that are advancing at extreme rates and really complement each other. So I do I do really think that you know I have my own you know scientist idea but I think even the the the actual serious scientists also think of this. Yeah. So so it is it is potentially coming yes.

SPEAKER_03 44:36

We're going to move into this what I've called for this episode the any other business section. Well apart from the things that we've discussed. Are there any other things that you think we're gonna do what's getting your goat right now is in what do you think we actually really need to work on and we're gonna end on a positive note about what's exciting but we're gonna leave the the problems of mandates and cost of compliance to one side because I think we've covered those quite a lot and I think we've discussed nuclear more than enough and I'm gonna spend at least part of the rest of this day watching some if not all of Oppenheimer so thank you for that. So let's start with what's getting your go what other things do you think that actually the industry really needs to work on I I genuinely think you know producers need to um they need to to to not reinvent themselves but they need to they need to create some form of independence.

Any Other Business: Hypocrisy And Accountability

SPEAKER_00 45:34

I think um relying on mandates is dangerous. I think yeah I think I wrote down the hypocrisy but I think saying it will get me into trouble. I feel like this year really we found out what's the point of you coming just to get into trouble. Well let's get into trouble let's get in trouble I think yeah it's it it really bothers me it bothers me who's being who who who is it is it a particular group or is it just the industry in general is not walking the not walking the walk when they're talking the talk I think yeah I think it's an entire it's the the whole industry when when you know when push came to shove and it's time to step up and really do the thing everyone all of a sudden said you know what this is not for us we we're not for years we found you know we need certainty we need mandates we need reassurance we need this we need that and and trying and hoping that you know one more thing will push will push the industry to say you know what we're ready to commit um and it's just not happening and I think this year was really just just the silence that came out of this year for me is was just mind-boggling.

SPEAKER_03 46:45

It's interesting you say that because we did we had Natasha Mann on from Future Energy Global a few weeks ago and it was it I asked her what a new year's resolution for this year was the the staff industry and she said people needing to step up people needing to go the extra mile be a bit more proactive be a bit more assertive in in their strategies when it comes to staff and it sounds like you're hit banging on the exactly the same drum in terms of absolutely absolutely but I I genuinely think you know and because at the end of the day I mean I trust scientists more that than I trust lawyers no offense to any lawyer out there.

SPEAKER_00 47:21

And I really think that the change needs to be just offended half the audience in one sense I know I know I know and I I I'm I'm sorry um but but I genuinely think that the change needs to come from the product that we offer in right at the end of the day money speaks we need to be able to offer a product that is attractive on its own and and refine it over time rather than try and and you know put put the the Chanel out there and wonder why everyone prefers Zara. You know we need to be able to because SAF is a fantastic product SAF is a fantastic solution it's borderline magic um and and we need we need to make sure that it survives not because of mandate and not because of regulation but because it is a good product.

SPEAKER_03 48:17

Yeah and on that what what are you excited about?

What Excites Us Next In SAF

SPEAKER_00 48:21

What is what are the sort of some good news things that are either potentially on their way things that are happening right now that you're like okay this is this is interesting and this can actually help move I I yeah I I'm very I'm you know I'm very excited about this new wave of you know second generation self coming online um you know trying starting to diversify the the the products that we offer in I'm very excited to see you know that there's such a push to get to FID on the ESAF um and and I I really believe that this will happen very soon. And I'm just really excited to see you know over the past five to ten years we we got unbelievable solutions to moving away from fossil fuel right we we we scientists and engineers came with the most creative and ingenious ways of transforming pretty much anything into liquid fuel. So I'm really really excited to see what's the next five years of scientific breakthrough and engineering breakthrough will will bring um because I don't think we've reached we've peaked I think we we still have a lot in us and there's a lot to discover and I think we're lucky to have to be an industry filled with passionate people. The people who work on South don't work at it because it's easy. They work at it because they're passionate about it and they believe in it. And I think that's that's our resilience. And I'm really excited to see what's gonna come and and how we're gonna find solutions to all those you know new problems that pop up on the way um I we're here to stay I think you know despite the whole negativity and and you know fear around the mandates and the regulations we're here to stay we're not going anywhere. And I'm really excited about that.

Closing Thoughts And Next Steps

SPEAKER_03 50:20

Awesome. Thanks Dana that was a lot of fun and that was a lot of fun I certainly learned a lot about nuclear so I'm probably gonna go nuclear documentaries and some nuclear related films and then call myself a scientist so thanks I mean if you want I I do one-on-one fishing courses uh to uh to get down to the science uh we we we can talk after this we can talk after this yes how does it actually happen yes amazing thanks so much for joining us thank you so much Oscar it was great thank you