#211 Scott Nolan - CEO of General Matter on Uranium Enrichment

Scott Nolan is the CEO of General Matter, enriching uranium in America to reshore domestic nuclear fuel capacity and power the American energy production needed to lead in AI, manufacturing, and other critical industries. General Matter is backed by Founders Fund, the first institutional investor in SpaceX, Palantir, and Anduril. Scott is also a partner at Founders Fund, where for the past 13 years he led hardtech investments across energy, infrastructure, manufacturing, aerospace, and defense. Companies Scott has worked with include SpaceX, Neuralink, Crusoe Energy, Planet Labs, The Boring Company, Nubank, Impulse Space, and Radiant Nuclear. Previously, Scott was an early engineer at SpaceX, where he helped develop the Merlin engine systems and Dragon capsule. He earned his Master’s and Bachelor’s degrees in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering from Cornell University, and his MBA from Stanford University. Shawn Ryan Show Sponsors: https://www.americanfinancing.net/srs nmls 182334, nmlsconsumeraccess.org https://www.tryarmra.com/srs https://www.betterhelp.com/srs This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp — give online therapy a try at betterhelp.com/srs and get on your way to being your best self. https://www.shawnlikesgold.com https://www.drinkhoist.com - USE CODE SRS https://www.patriotmobile.com/srs https://www.rocketmoney.com/srs Scott Nolan Links: LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottpnolan X - https://x.com/ScottNolan General Matter - https://www.generalmatter.com X - https://x.com/generalmatter Founders Fund - https://foundersfund.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  Thinking about refreshing the carpet in your home? Now's the time to do it. For a limited time at The Home Depot, get 10% off installed carpet projects on trusted brands like LifeProof, LifeProof with Pet Proof Technology, Home Decorator's Collection, and Traffic Master. Plus, with installation starting at just 49 cents per square foot, upgrading your space is more affordable than ever at The Home Depot. Offer valid September 24, 2026 through October 4, 2026. Exclusions apply. For licenses, see homedepot.com/license numbers.

• 0:31Speaker 01

  This episode is brought to you by Welch's Fruit Snacks. Back to school season can be tough on parents, but choosing a snack you and your kids can both get behind doesn't have to be. Stock up on Welch's Fruit Snacks, made with whole fruit and now made with no artificial dyes. It's a snack kids already love and one you can feel good about giving them. Go back to school with Welch's Fruit Snacks, now made with no artificial dyes.

• 1:03Shawn Ryan?

  Scott Nolan, welcome to the show, man.

• 1:06Speaker 03

  Thanks for having me. Excited to be here.

• 1:08Shawn Ryan?

  Yeah, I'm excited to have you. I've been, you know, I've been really interested in the energy grid. I think I, I started looking into that probably about two years ago. And now I'm terrified at the US's grid and, and our power consumption versus how much power we actually produce and how we're relying on China for all these things. And so with what you're doing with enriching uranium and, and being involved in nuclear energy, I'm just fascinated in the subject. And so, yeah, thank you for coming. So it's gonna be very educational for me.

• 1:44Speaker 03

  Yeah, thanks for having me. This is, this is a really important topic, which we'll get into. But, um, you know, our company's mission is to restore US leadership and enrichment, to restore US leadership in nuclear energy, because that's what we see as the future of the grid, the future of US growth, um, power growth. And we'll get into all the geopolitical reasons why that's really important.

• 2:07Shawn Ryan?

  Perfect, perfect. Everybody starts with an introduction, right? So.

• 2:14Shawn Ryan?

  Here we go. Scott Nolan, CEO of General Matter, the American enrichment company enriching uranium in the US to fill the nuclear gap. Former SpaceX engineer who helped develop the original Falcon propulsion system and Dragon capsule subsystem. You worked with NASA to return US cargo capability to the space station. You're a partner at the Founders Fund where for over a decade you have led investments across energy, infrastructure, manufacturing, space and transportation. Cornell Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering graduate, Stanford MBA where you were co-president

• 2:55Shawn Ryan?

  of the Entrepreneurs Club and you're a visionary taking on the geopolitical and technical challenges of nuclear energy and driving towards real energy independence. It's quite the background, man. Quite the background. So, a couple of things we just got to knock out real quick. One is, everybody gets a gift.

• 3:19Speaker 03

  Thank you.

• 3:19Shawn Ryan?

  Vigilance League gummy bears.

• 3:21Speaker 03

  Awesome.

• 3:22Shawn Ryan?

  Legal in all 50 states.

• 3:23Speaker 03

  Perfect.

• 3:24Shawn Ryan?

  Made in the USA.

• 3:26Speaker 03

  Thank you.

• 3:26Shawn Ryan?

  Yeah, you're welcome.

• 3:27Speaker 03

  Later.

• 3:28Shawn Ryan?

  Cool.

• 3:29Speaker 03

  You know, it's bad form to show up empty handed.

• 3:31Shawn Ryan?

  Oh, man, a wealth of presents.

• 3:33Speaker 03

  I knew, I knew you may give some gummy bears. So what I brought is a replica of the Thumper from the Dune movie, if you've seen it.

• 3:40Shawn Ryan?

  Yeah.

• 3:41Speaker 03

  We can get into why this is relevant later.

• 3:44Shawn Ryan?

  Oh, man, that's awesome. Thank you.

• 3:46Speaker 03

  Yeah. Yeah, the quick version is if you've, if you've seen Dune, if you've seen Dune 2, you know that the Thumper calls in the worm and the worm is what makes the spice. And in that movie, in that society, the spice powers all these different things like space travel. And so it's this really, really important element, basically. And House of Trades is sent to this planet to go mine it, you know, to continue, continue progress of their civilization. So we, we view there as being a bunch of analogies there with uranium and uranium refinement or enrichment.

• 4:22Shawn Ryan?

  I can see that. Thank you.

• 4:23Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 4:24Shawn Ryan?

  That's awesome.

• 4:28Shawn Ryan?

  Last thing, then we'll get into it. So I have a Patreon account. It's a subscription account that we've turned into a community. They've been here since the beginning. And when I started this thing in my attic.

• 4:43Shawn Ryan?

  Excuse me, and they're still with us today, and so they've been just extremely supportive of me, and they're the reason I get to be here with you. So, one of the things I do is I offer them the opportunity to ask each and every guest a question. So, this is from Dylan Stockman. "You invest in a lot of others. Who is someone who you've invested in financially or not that enhanced the trajectory of your life?"

• 5:15Speaker 03

  There's probably been a bunch. Direct impact on me, it's gonna be hard to not say Elon. So, founders, you know, first I worked for Elon at SpaceX, did a few other things, and then joined Founders Fund, and Founders Fund invested in SpaceX, invested in Neuralink, invested in Boring Company. And so, I think, just looking at the SpaceX example, yes, I worked there early on, but some of the impact that they had much later on me was through the Starlink network. So, just the concept of having internets, you know, internet comms, internet coming from space, from a space constellation, is something that seemed like sci-fi one or two decades

• 5:59Speaker 03

  ago, and now it's, now it's real, you know. So, I'm a customer, directly impacted me, Founders Fund investment, so that's

• 6:06Shawn Ryan?

  Perfect.

• 6:07Speaker 03

  That's what I'm gonna go with.

• 6:08Shawn Ryan?

  There's a follow-on question. "Also, do you believe a person with financial backing can outperform a driven individual with less capital?"

• 6:20Speaker 03

  I think the driven individual with less capital wins.

• 6:23Shawn Ryan?

  I think so, too. That's cool to hear.

• 6:27Shawn Ryan?

  All right, you ready to get into the interview?

• 6:29Speaker 03

  Let's do it.

• 6:30Shawn Ryan?

  Me too, man. So, I just wanna start off with a question.

• 6:36Shawn Ryan?

  Like I said, I've dove into the energy grid, where these, where the transformers come from, where the solar panels come from. I mean, there's this big debate on, you know, clean energy and renewables and fossil fuels and, and I just, I don't understand why we're not taking nuclear more seriously. Or maybe we are, you know, with the, with the, the new administration, although it's only been six months, but, but it just, it seems like it's the cleanest, it's, packs the most punch, it's the most sustainable. I mean, and, and that's, you know, I don't know much about the energy industry, but I mean, from everything

• 7:19Shawn Ryan?

  I've read, that seems to be true. So why, why aren't we taking this more seriously?

• 7:24Speaker 03

  I think we are now. That's the good news. So I think for many decades, we did not. If you, if you think all the way back to the 50s, 60s, everyone thought nuclear was going to be the future of energy. Energy, at one point, they said, energy will be, will be too cheap to meter. So cheap that it won't even be worth having the power meter on your house. That was the idea. Obviously, that hasn't happened. Today, nuclear is about 20% of the grid. So still a pretty important chunk of where electricity comes from, but it hasn't really grown in a long time. I think in the last couple of years, we're seeing both political parties now come together to say, okay, we need more baseload energy.

• 8:06Speaker 03

  And everyone's now acknowledging that nuclear is clean. It's, it is green energy. It's no particulate emissions, no carbon emissions. It's baseload, so you can rely on it. So if you're running a huge AI cluster, you can actually keep the 99.999% uptime that you need.

• 8:29Speaker 03

  You don't have to rely on storage, you don't have to rely on weather. So I think it's, it's just the strictly superior energy source. I think that's, it's been the reality for a long time, but public perception was not, you know, is that, that's not the case. We can get, get into why that is.

• 8:46Shawn Ryan?

  Yeah, why is that?

• 8:49Speaker 03

  So I think you had this environment where.

• 8:52Shawn Ryan?

  I mean, we, we could be leaps and bounds ahead of where we are right now. Yeah. In everything had we taken, you know, our, our, our energies a lot more seriously.

• 9:05Speaker 03

  Yeah, if you look at the grid, our production has been pretty flat since 2010. In that timeframe, China's doubled their grid and they were the same, same as us in 2010. So they're now twice as big. So that just shows you 15 years, you can, you can double your grid if you want to. And electricity production is highly linked to GDP. And so if you want to grow your GDP, you grow energy production and you do things with that energy. We could be far, far ahead of where we are, but you know, what's, what's the best time to plant a tree? It's like 20 years ago or, or today. So I think finally people are coming around to the fact that we need to grow the grid. We need to do it with clean, clean sources, scalable sources, reliable, and that's just nuclear.

• 9:49Speaker 03

  And so I'd, I'd say it was in the last couple of years that politically there's been support for nuclear, both under this administration and a bunch of recent actions that are going to be very helpful, as well as the prior administration. And so we're finally seeing that unblock.

• 10:06Shawn Ryan?

  The prior administration was into nuclear as well?

• 10:09Speaker 03

  Yeah, there was support for it.

• 10:10Shawn Ryan?

  I didn't know that.

• 10:11Speaker 03

  Yeah, it's, um, a couple of years ago, really started pushing on nuclear as something that needed to happen. So there was. A large desire for these new advanced reactors that are even safer than existing ones. Existing ones are already the safest form of baseload energy, but even safer, smaller, easier to construct, hopefully much cheaper. So there was a push around that, starting a few years ago, and in 2024, the last administration created a program for availability of that fuel for those reactors, because all those reactors have no source of fuel right now, other than foreign adversaries. And so, we don't produce that fuel in the US.

• 10:53Speaker 03

  So, the last administration did realize that and said, "We need to create programs to encourage US companies to actually make this fuel." That was something that happened in 2024, that we are now a part of that program, but it's getting even more support under current administration. There's been recent executive orders, a couple of weeks ago, that dealt with nuclear by this administration. That's going to further accelerate things. So, it's been, become totally bipartisan the last couple of years.

• 11:21Shawn Ryan?

  I mean, do you think, do you think it's the fear of nuclear weapons? Like, is it a misconception between nuclear weapons and nuclear power?

• 11:28Speaker 03

  Yes.

• 11:29Shawn Ryan?

  That, that has created the setback?

• 11:33Speaker 03

  I think there's, there's two things. There's the fear of weapons, there's also the fear of accidents. But if you look at the, you know, most famous US accident, Three Mile Island, no one actually died from Three Mile Island, from radiation exposure, from anything else.

• 11:51Shawn Ryan?

  What happened there?

• 11:52Speaker 03

  So, good, good question. So, Three Mile Island was a famous meltdown that happened in the US, in, in Pennsylvania. And so, there were two reactors on Three Mile Island, an island of land, in a river, and a series of operator mistakes caused one of them to have a meltdown. And what that means is, the fuel overheated, there was, you know, some issues caused by that, and then potentially some, the fear of a meltdown is that you get some radiation leakage, but you have containment vessels that contain all these things, and that's where a lot of the cost from nuclear comes from, is making sure that in no circumstance

• 12:33Speaker 03

  can any radioactive material ever release from the facility. And so, Three Mile Island, one of the reactors shut, shut down, melted, partial meltdown.

• 12:45Speaker 03

  Due to human error, a series of human error that due to process controls would not occur today. But even so, this thing that people view as this crazy disaster, and I think it happened right after a movie came out called The China Syndrome, which was about a nuclear meltdown. So this movie came out and right after this accident happened and just drove the US into a state of fear about nuclear that lasted decades. And so, fast forward to today, one of those reactors is still out of commission, but the other one, Microsoft, is planning to turn back on to power AI.

• 13:23Shawn Ryan?

  Okay.

• 13:23Speaker 03

  So they renamed Three Mile Island to Crane, Crane Energy Center, I believe. And so, one of those reactors is going to come back. So this thing that people really worry about, they cite Three Mile Island, they cite accidents, hey, nuclear can't be safe. Nuclear is extremely safe. It's the safest form of baseload. And even the worst accident in the US history, which was caused by human error that would not occur today and can't occur with the more advanced reactors, even that one resulted in zero deaths. And so by not building nuclear, we instead did lots of other stuff. We did coal, natural gas, wind, solar, all those things we need, but none of them are as safe as nuclear.

• 14:06Shawn Ryan?

  Yeah. Well, I mean, do you think that, do you think any of the setbacks are, you know, big oil and gas industry and, I mean...

• 14:16Speaker 03

  I don't blame them. I think, I think the fossil fuels industry, oil and gas, have been doing what they've, you know, they're on their mission. Let's have US energy independence. Let's, you know, pull from the natural gas reserves we have. Natural gas being half the carbon output of, of other types of fossil fuels. And so, you know, that's, that's been a big part of how the US actually reduced its carbon emissions the last few years was, was natural gas. So I think those companies are just laser focused on what they're trying to do. I think the fact that nuclear has not become bigger is a US policy decision and it's the nuclear industry.

• 15:01Speaker 03

  Maybe not pushing hard enough for for progress, really defending themselves because there's a lot of great people in nuclear who have believed in nuclear for decades and diligently worked away at it. And it should be much bigger than it is.

• 15:15Shawn Ryan?

  Can you help the audience understand how much we could advance? You know, talk about the how important energy is in everyday society and and especially with, you know, with the AI boom hang happening right now and all the data centers that we need and how much power that's gonna consume? I mean, can you go into that a little bit on how important this actually is?

• 15:44Speaker 03

  Yeah, just to set the stage overall, if we just talk about the US, US has 94 reactors operating, produce 97 gigawatts, call it 100 gigawatts of electricity. And that's roughly 18 and a half percent of our grid energy production. In terms of how big this could be, I think total, so, you know, call it 5x that for the overall grid average production. And then total installed production capacity in the US is like 1,250 gigawatts. So a lot of that's not operating all the time. It's like peaker plants, it might be wind, solar.

• 16:26Speaker 03

  Not everything is baseload. And then just to calibrate internationally, US and China neck and neck in 2010 on production capacity on the grid. Since then, China doubled. By the end of the decade, it'll triple. So you can double and triple the grid if you want to. They've done a lot of that through nuclear, but much more with coal. And so other countries are expanding and they're doing it not in the cleanest way. So us doing it with nuclear, us doing it with other things, you know, it displaces manufacturing that might happen there with a cleaner source of energy here. So.

• 17:00Speaker 03

  Geopolitically, if you think about us versus China, people are worried about conflicts of all types, AI conflict, kinetic conflict, economic, all three of those come back to energy. So if you want to have the US being the lead on AI manufacturing or economic influence, you need to have the most energy. It's directly linked to GDP. As a company, we believe in high-energy societies, energy societies that consume and use effectively a lot of energy. And if you look at all the countries on earth, there is not a single country that is low energy and high GDP.

• 17:38Shawn Ryan?

  He's sent us a graph, energy consumption versus income per capita in 2022. I'll overlay that on the screen, but it shows high-income, low-energy countries don't exist.

• 17:54Speaker 03

  Yeah. If you want poor countries to get the standard of living that we have, it's going to take more energy. So that's, you know, we can, we can look at the global lens and that's simply the reality. If you want, if you want everyone to have a good quality of life, you know, be able to heat and cool their homes, have refrigeration, have all the things we have, it's going to take a lot more energy and there's, there's no way around it. One of the big-

• 18:23Shawn Ryan?

  Oh, is this India? Do they produce more energy than us as well?

• 18:27Speaker 03

  Per capita, no. Let's see. Where's India on here? Yeah. Per capita, no, but overall, yes. India, China, huge, huge production and consumption.

• 18:49Shawn Ryan?

  I mean, in, on top of that, I mean, I've been talking to a lot of innovators, a lot of tech innovators, which is had Dino Mavrukis on, who's founder of Sironic. Been talking to a lot of, a lot of AI types, Alex Wang, had Shamsan Kar in, and I mean, they're all talking about how much energy that we need, you know, in, in, in the race to AI. And so, I mean, I've heard of these mini reactors that people are starting to-

• 19:25Shawn Ryan?

  Build, are those, I mean, are they using those yet? Is that legal?

• 19:29Speaker 03

  Not yet. They're not using them yet.

• 19:32Speaker 00

  Thinking about refreshing the carpet in your home? Now's the time to do it. For a limited time at The Home Depot, get 10% off installed carpet projects on trusted brands like LifeProof. LifeProof with pet-proof technology, Home Decorator's Collection, and Traffic Master. Plus, with installation starting at just 49 cents per square foot, upgrading your space is more affordable than ever at The Home Depot. Offer valid September 24, 2026 through October 4, 2026. Exclusions apply. For licenses, see homedepot.com/license numbers.

• 20:03Speaker 01

  This episode is brought to you by Welch's Fruit Snacks. Back-to-school season can be tough on parents. But choosing a snack you and your kids can both get behind doesn't have to be. Stock up on Welch's Fruit Snacks. Made with whole fruit, and now made with no artificial dyes. It's a snack kids already love, and one you can feel good about giving them. Go back to school with Welch's Fruit Snacks. Now made with no artificial dyes.

• 20:31Speaker 03

  In terms of the AI demand, if you just project out AI demand, it's going to be equal to our grid by 2030. It's just this exponential growth curve. And those are always hard to predict, but reasonable predictions say it needs as much as we have on the entire grid by 2030, which means we have to start right now expanding production of reactors, of fuel. And so to your question, are they using them yet? No, not yet. There's a lot of companies building, designing and now building and will be testing advanced reactor types. And I expect those to, we should start seeing those plug into the grid in about five years. And so we need to do that now. If, you know, it's five years out, okay, AI is going to...

• 21:16Speaker 03

  Consume equivalent to the US grid today in five years, potentially.

• 21:21Shawn Ryan?

  That's crazy.

• 21:22Speaker 03

  We need to go full speed on reactor licensing, construction, deployment. And all those reactors need fuel. So existing reactors need fuel. Advanced reactors need fuel. I think a lot of people forget about this. You think, okay, I build a nuclear reactor. And nuclear physics is really complicated, but maybe it's like a, you know, almost like a perpetual motion machine. But it's not. It consumes fuel. You reload the fuel every year to five to 10 years, depending on the reactor design. And you need the fuel production too. And that's what we're working on.

• 21:55Shawn Ryan?

  What happens if we don't advance and AI sucks up that much energy? But in five years, what would happen?

• 22:05Speaker 03

  If it soaked up all that energy, then you're gonna, you just don't have enough to go around. So I think at a minimum, you see electricity rates go up for homeowners, for your, for, for businesses. If that happens, you know, in California, there's occasional brownouts. I think you see that more if there's not enough to go around. So you're getting brownouts. You're getting more expensive electricity. You're probably losing manufacturing to overseas where there is available electricity. Or you're not getting AI. So you're just gonna halt that progress.

• 22:37Shawn Ryan?

  Man.

• 22:38Speaker 03

  I think the, the good news is a lot of the AI builds that people are doing, the big data centers are looking for a gigawatt plus. And so a big part of how they're planning to get that electricity is by bringing new production online, often behind the meter or plugged into the, you know, plugged into the grid for some smoothing so that they don't have to have, you know, perfect uptime. They can use other sources like natural gas. But we're gonna see a lot of new capacity come online to feed AI identifiers that they are bringing online, and that could actually benefit the grid. So if we do this right, a big data center builder will figure out production on their end and probably over-design a little bit so that there's margin and be able to feed back onto the grid.

• 23:22Speaker 03

  So the rest of the, through AI growth, through new nuclear that might happen at those sites, we should see rates actually come down over time and production go up. And so it's the usual like innovation cycle where in theory, if we're just thinking about the world as a fixed sum, zero sum game, the pie's only so big.

• 23:43Speaker 03

  Things get worse when you have more demand, but in reality, as you develop new technologies to meet this demand, you're going to see things get better.

• 23:53Shawn Ryan?

  Let's talk about your company.

• 23:56Speaker 03

  Yeah, so companies generally matter. What we're doing is enriching uranium to make nuclear fuel for these reactors. The reason we're doing that is the US currently does not have a significant amount of uranium enrichment for fuel production. So the US cannot currently produce its own nuclear fuel in any quantity beyond R and D quantities.

• 24:24Shawn Ryan?

  Are you serious? So where do we get it from?

• 24:29Speaker 03

  So currently, we get all of our, so there's five steps in making fuel. You have to mine it out of the ground. You then turn it into a gas for enrichment. You then enrich it, which is just, it's essentially a refining process. So enrichment is separating the element of uranium into its two, a couple of different types based on its isotope, which is how many neutrons it has. So it's really a refining separation process. So a lot of people hear enrichment and they think, okay, this sounds dangerous or sounds like there's going to be a lot of radiation or there's going to be some sort of dangerous chemical reactions. It's actually just separation. So we don't even have any, you know, in an enrichment

• 25:13Speaker 03

  plant, there's no nuclear reactions happening. You're not making anything go critical. That's what they call it when there's a chain reaction. And there's no chemical reactions. You are doing phase change. You're taking some material from a solid to a gas, but you're just separating it. So that's the middle step that the US doesn't currently do. We'll talk more about that. And then you bring it back down into a solid, which is called deconversion.

• 25:38Speaker 03

  And then you form it into a pellet or a particle, a pebble, whatever form the reactor needs, that's called fuel fabrication. So these five steps, the US has mining. We have mining in Texas, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado. So there's mining. Canada has mining, a lot of mining for uranium and Australia has great deposits as well. So US and its allies have plenty of uranium. On conversion, we have one conversion facility in the US that's operating in Illinois. And then Canada has one too. That's again, going from solid to gas. But enrichment, the US has no commercially operating capability.

• 26:21Speaker 03

  So we get all of our enrichment from foreign companies, which are state-backed entities. Most of it's overseas. So that's, we get enriched uranium product from Russia, from France, and from a European consortium of a couple of countries that produce. And then that consortium, at the request of US utilities, built a facility in the US to produce some of what we need, but it's still less than a third. So two thirds comes from overseas, one third produced by a foreign company in the US using their technology. And then on the downstream side of making the pellets, good capability in the US for doing that right now.

• 27:03Speaker 03

  Some of the more advanced forms of like little pellets that are maybe poppy seed size called trisoe. It's got some ceramic coatings around it that- Did you say poppy seed size? Yeah, they're poppy seed size. To get into the details of some of the fuel forms, there was a type of fuel that was developed decades ago and tested for a really long time. So it's been proven to be really robust. But you take a tiny piece of uranium and you coat it with ceramic. And that ceramic means that even in the worst case scenario, where your reactor somehow disintegrates, these little pellets are self-contained, so they can't even release any radioactive gas. So it's another layer of safety on top.

• 27:48Speaker 03

  So a bunch of the advanced reactor types are doing that. But if we zoom out, you know, for to really have domestic capability, you need all the steps. And so the step that's missing right now is enrichment. And that's why we're working on enrichment. Why don't we have enrichment right now? We used to have enrichment. Global map of enrichment right now, Russia's about half. Europe's about 40%. China's roughly 10%, growing really fast. So the 10% was a couple years ago. It's it's north of that now. And the US, just in terms of how much total enrichment we're doing, it's less than 0.1%. And so you ask, how do we get here? Yeah.

• 28:32Speaker 03

  These, these things are usually, it's, you know, it's usually over constrained. There's a bunch of reasons why we got here. We didn't think we needed it. We thought maybe nuclear isn't growing anymore. It's fine. We have these reactors. Up until a couple of years, there wasn't an agreement that we needed more reactors. And so why build a bunch of new capacity in the US for enriching if we're not going to build a bunch more reactors? We can just get this stuff from, we can get enriched uranium from our allies in Europe and, you know, other countries as well. And if you rewind to the history of this, in the 50s, the US built a bunch of enrichment. This was, you know, Cold War

• 29:14Speaker 03

  era. We were the world leader in enrichment. We had these plants spread out throughout the country that used an old technique that was expensive. It was required a lot of energy to do it. But we were, we had the most capacity. And we built up a lot of enriched uranium that we stockpiled. And those stockpiles, we knew they would last a really long time, you know, decades and decades. And so with the fall of the Berlin Wall, we said, let's start trading with our former enemies. We're allies now. We can work together. Free trade's good for the world. And we can get this product elsewhere. And so over the next couple of decades, we moved towards free trade and imports and decommissioned those old facilities.

• 30:00Speaker 03

  Assuming that that would be a fine thing to rely on with a bunch of different partners. But now we're in a position where we need to grow nuclear energy. And if you look at how much enrichment the US is going to need, right now, we produce less than a third of what we need. And the administration a couple of weeks ago said, we are going to quadruple our nuclear energy by 2050. So now we went from producing a third of what we need, less than a third, to less than a 12th. And so we need to create a massive amount of new nuclear reactor builds. We have 94 now. We've got to quadruple that. And the fuel production, we need to increase much more than that.

• 30:42Shawn Ryan?

  How much, when you're talking about a poppy seed, I mean, that's like nothing. How much energy does that produce?

• 30:53Speaker 03

  So a pellet, roughly an inch tall, of conventional enriched uranium, that one pellet, which roughly like Coke can dimensions, just shrunk down to one inch tall, would contain as much energy as a ton of coal or 100 barrels of oil.

• 31:14Shawn Ryan?

  Wow.

• 31:15Speaker 03

  And yeah, that's, that's also if that, that pellet is conventional nuclear fuel, which is about 5% enriched. And when you run that through, most of the energy is still in there. So you, you put it in, you know, the way that nuclear reactors work is you have uranium inside, the fission material is uranium-235. You get uranium-235 in proximity to itself, and it starts releasing neutrons, which create heat, and it forms a chain reaction. These chain reactions are controlled in reactors through the control rods that they have, through water in the vessel. And so it just, it's basically a heat generator.

• 31:57Speaker 03

  And you take the heat, traditionally, you boil water. You either do that directly, you know, all the rods are sitting in water, and so they're making heat, the water's heating up. You can either keep that really pressurized, like a pressure cooker, and exchange the heat and run a steam turbine outside, or you can actually just let the water boil and use the steam there to power, to power turbines directly. So that's how reactors work. And Like, a really simple analogy I give is it's almost like a compost heap. It's like, you know, food scraps and yard waste spread out isn't going to do anything. But you pile it enough, you start getting some heat production. And that's essentially what a reactor is doing, except it's doing it with a much different type of reaction.

• 32:42Speaker 03

  It's a nuclear reaction, and it's doing it with uranium. And so that's how every reactor works. It's just fuel held in some configuration with some element of control over how much heat's produced and some coolant that's around it.

• 32:57Shawn Ryan?

  Wow. So one little one-inch pellet is equivalent to a ton of coal or 100 barrels of oil.

• 33:07Speaker 03

  Yep. That's also enriched at conventional levels, 5%. So the big reactors we see today, the ones with the, you know, the Homer Simpson reactors, the ones with the huge cooling towers, those run on 5% fuel. So in nature, when you dig up uranium, it's about 0.7% uranium-235, which is the fissile material. And so you do this enrichment process to get it up to 4.95, 3% to 5%. A lot of reactors want to run at 4.95. And so you get it up to that level, and that just means it's more potent energy. And so for any given reactor size, you get that heat production happening at that enrichment level.

• 33:51Speaker 03

  If you're talking about the advanced reactors, a lot of them want to go to 10% or just under 20% because you're going to get that much more energy density. Your reactor core can get smaller, or you might not have to refuel it as much because you can just let it run all the way further down as it burns up. And so that makes economics better. So if a lot of people want to go to 20% because smaller reactor core means you can build that reactor in a factory, then maybe you can just ship it to the site. So now you avoid a huge construction project. And as you build things in factories, the cost just naturally comes down as you build more and more and scale up.

• 34:27Shawn Ryan?

  Wow.

• 34:33Shawn Ryan?

  Wow. So, how are you enriching? How did you get into this anyways?

• 34:40Speaker 03

  Yeah, good question. It's not something people really wake up one morning and say, "I want to do enrichment of uranium." It's a pretty esoteric industry. For me, the background was, you know, I'd worked at SpaceX early on and seen what it looks like when people just stop doing something and completely lose the capability. And, you know, SpaceX is an example. I was always in, I was aerospace. I always wanted to do aerospace, rockets, airplanes. And during college, I worked at Boeing. And I worked on a big government project, but knew, you know, it wasn't moving that fast. We weren't making that much progress.

• 35:25Speaker 03

  I knew that there was a future that we never had in space and found out about SpaceX, went to work there. We were thirty-something people. And the whole point of SpaceX was, let's make humanity a multi-planetary species. A lot of people at the time were really focused on satellites and saying, "Okay, there's this revolution in satellites. They don't need to be school bus-sized satellites that are a billion dollars. We can make smaller ones using modern technology, compute, computer chips, all the things that are just off-the-shelf available through the electronics industry. Let's put those into satellites and use them." And so satellite costs came way down and satellites got much smaller. But there was still this step of launch. Launch was still bottlenecked, still super

• 36:10Speaker 03

  expensive. And so SpaceX's whole thing was, let's bring down the cost of launch. Let's restore US capability. At the time, 2002, that SpaceX got started, that was really the focus. And then this became really urgent with the loss of the space shuttle and the grounding of the space shuttle by the mid-2000s. And so it was really clear, hey, we need this capability if we want to have a future in space. So that SpaceX experience is really analogous to what I saw a couple of years ago in nuclear. So post-SpaceX did a bunch of other things. Started a founders fund in 2011. So founders fund's a venture capital firm based in San Francisco. Big investor in a bunch of companies, including SpaceX, Palantir, Anduril.

• 37:00Speaker 03

  Facebook, Longlist, Airbnb, Spotify. But most known for some of these incubations of companies that are solving big national security problems like Palantir and Androl. And spent over a decade there, meeting many different nuclear reactor companies. And in the last couple of years, you know, nuclear companies and other forms of energy. So last couple of years was really focused on energy, not even on purpose, just it was it was where a lot of interesting stuff was happening. And starting a couple of years ago, the the common refrain from every nuclear reactor company was, we don't have a source of fuel.

• 37:43Speaker 03

  We need this more enriched fuel, enriched to 20% because we want to make our smaller reactors. We want to make them in factories. We want to get really low on cost and, you know, high quality, low cost, the whole Six Sigma manufacturing strategy. But let's use those concepts and apply them to nuclear reactors instead of treating every single one as a bespoke, one-off construction project. We're going to factory produce these. So that was that's pretty much everyone's vision. But they said to pull that off, you've got to make it smaller. You can't build a huge thing, a thing the size larger than a factory in a factory. You've got to make small things. And so if we're going to make the reactor small, we need more energy dense fuel. How small are they making these reactors?

• 38:28Speaker 03

  So one company that Founders Fund invested in makes a reactor that's fits in a shipping container. So you can truck it to the site, drop it off, put some perimeter security around it, put some active security around it, and minimal site preparation, you can operate. How much would that power? Those that are in a container like that, one megawatt. So that's meant to just replace a diesel generator. So not a lot. But if you can make them cheap enough, you can tile them together and build, you know, a big array of them like you see with. Solar. Yeah, solar, gas generators, grid scale, battery storage, same thing. So that's one approach. I think you go that small and it's going to have some really unique applications that

• 39:13Speaker 03

  are off-grid or, you know, defense-based resilient power. You can go bigger and still achieve some of the same things. So it's a question of, there's this range called microreactors, which is anything from a megawatt.

• 39:26Speaker 03

  To 20 megawatts. And so different people have different opinions of how, what's the optimal size. But you can go as small as a shipping container. And there's people trying to go smaller for other applications. Wow.

• 39:39Speaker 03

  Yeah. That's interesting. So all these, all these ones taking the small approach, they need this more enriched fuel, enriched to 20% because we want to make the small core. And what everyone said was, yeah, we don't have a good source of fuel. We really need to figure this out. And so I would ask, well, where are you going to get your fuel today? And the answer was, hey, only Russia and China make this fuel. They're the only ones going to 20%. And so I would naturally, you know, ask, why don't, why don't the US enrichment companies make this fuel? Is it a lot harder than making the fuel up to 5%, enriching up to 5%? And they would say, what do you mean, US enrichment companies? They're, we're not really enriching

• 40:20Speaker 03

  in the US. There's, there's people trying to and trying to get commercial going, but we, we're not doing it today. And so I spent over a year looking for a company to invest in at Founders Fund that would, that was doing this, that could do this, that had a path for bringing the cost down and bringing production up. And regrettably couldn't find one and said, okay, what would it take to, getting back to your question of how did this all start? Just ask, what would it take to start a company to go do this? And it was, you know, you are going to need financial backing to your, to your question of who

• 40:59Speaker 03

  would win? A really dedicated, passionate founder without much capital, or someone with capital, a lot of capital. And capital's important for this. I'd say, why not have both? And so you need the capital, you need a great founding team. Ideally, the team would have both people from the nuclear industry, that's mandatory. You need the best people plucked out of the nuclear industry who are scattered everywhere. That's part one. But part two is you need people from Silicon Valley, the tech industry, the hardware industry. And this was actually the formula that Andrell used, that Palantir used, even SpaceX used.

• 41:40Speaker 03

  And then part three is you need a team that can get security clearances and is like highly passionate about this problem and has worked on things before with the government. And so zooming out, I realized, wait, that's, that's us. We need to incubate a company. We need to, you know, pull together the team and then it felt like I was the right person to run it. And so that's how we got started. That was 2023 was that process. And then really got going full speed in 2024.

• 42:09Speaker 00

  Thinking about refreshing the carpet in your home? Now's the time to do it. For a limited time at The Home Depot, get 10% off installed carpet projects on trusted brands like LifeProof, LifeProof with pet-proof technology, Home Decorator's Collection, and Traffic Master. Plus, with installation starting at just 49 cents per square foot, upgrading your space is more affordable than ever at The Home Depot. Offer valid September 24th, 2026 through October 4th, 2026. Exclusions apply. For licenses, see homedepot.com/licensenumbers.

• 42:40Shawn Ryan?

  How much progress have you guys made?

• 42:43Speaker 03

  We've made pretty good progress for, you know, a year and a half in, at least we feel like we have. So, one of the first things we did was, even before starting the company, we had a lot of conversations with the DOE. You know, going back to that question of, what's the best way to start a company? It's, it's by understanding if there's a need. And so some of our first conversations were with people within the DOE saying, hey, this seems like, seems like a need based on all the startups that we're talking to. They say that they have to get their fuel from foreign providers. Is that really the case? And the, you know, DOE would confirm that yes, we currently get all of our enrichment

• 43:24Speaker 03

  from foreign providers. And we asked, is this something that we should go and try and do? Is this something the DOE would be supportive of? Because this is a controlled technology. And again, same thing. Yes, this would be good. We, we could use more people doing this. This would be a good thing. We also talked to the DOD. People on our team were involved in the DOD at the time and were looking around saying, do we have an answer to this fuel problem? And the answer was, we have a stockpile, but someday that runs out. And it would be great if we could get production going. And then we talked to the reactor companies and not only did they not have a source of enrichment or a source of fuel at the enrichment levels that they needed,

• 44:08Speaker 03

  but they also pointed out, hey, it's also really expensive. At the prices we're going to have to pay these other companies, it's going to be more than half our cost. And so we do want to get the cost really low and we're going to do the factory builds. But even if we got the cost of the reactor to zero, we can only have this unless the fuel cost comes down. And so that was very similar to the space industry 2000s, where, yes, the satellites had gotten a lot cheaper and smaller, but the launch cost was still there. And so if you really wanted to erode the total cost, you had to hit the launch cost next. And so we're trying to do that with fuel. So our whole mission was, let's make, let's bring back domestic production of enrichment.

• 44:53Speaker 03

  Let's do it, yes, at low enrichment levels, but also at the HELO levels, the 20% that all these reactors need. And let's figure out how to do this much, much lower cost so that we can make nuclear better than every other form of energy. It's already the safest baseload, the cleanest baseload. We're also going to make it the cheapest. And so that's the whole North Star is let's bring back domestic production. Let's make nuclear so cheap and safe and reliable with, you know, fuel supply chain certainty throughout that it becomes the dominant form of energy. So that's the goal. That's how it got started.

• 45:33Shawn Ryan?

  Wow. So it didn't sound, it doesn't sound like you had a ton of red tape, government bureaucracy shit to deal with.

• 45:42Speaker 03

  The DOE stepped up and said, we are going to help catalyze this HELO production by being, being the market maker. We're going to be the offtake partner. So they created a $2.7 billion government program, contract sealing, to purchase enriched uranium from providers. And then the DOE would then hold on to that and sell it to the reactor companies as they needed it. That's the start of that program in early 24. So we applied to that and You know, we submitted what we thought was a really strong application. And in October of last year, the DOE selected us as one of the awardees in that program.

• 46:26Speaker 03

  So that one was us and three state-backed entities. The French company, the European consortium, and a company in the US called Centrus that spun out of the DOE a few decades back. And so it's, you know, us and those three government-backed entities. We're the only startup in the mix. And so we were in stealth for a long time. And when that got announced, I think a lot of people wondered, who are we? And so now we've started talking about what we're doing.

• 46:56Speaker 03

  How much of this will you be able to produce?

• 47:00Speaker 03

  Depends on the year, but we're going to be producing by the end of the decade. That's our commitment to the industry and to our government partners. And we're going to try and, you know, go as fast as we can on that. And the sooner we get started, the more we can produce because our production will naturally ramp. But the goal here is by the, you know, in the 2030s, we want to make sure the US can actually produce what it needs to consume for all its reactor fleet today and for future reactors. So the goal here is restore domestic independence on fuel production and do that in the 2030s. So this means, you know, at least a couple of large facilities that we'll have to construct over the next decade. Do you know where you'll put those facilities?

• 47:45Speaker 03

  Right now, we do have a few states that we're deciding between. So these are all pro-energy states, pro-nuclear energy states, who have taken actions to prove that they're really, really excited about nuclear energy and really want to do things. And so that's currently our top ones that we're looking at that are for a big commercial greenfield facility are Texas, Wyoming, Utah, Washington. And so we have some, you know, there's front runners there, there's ones we're really excited about. We're excited about all of them. But over the next couple of months, we're going to be making some decisions about which one is really the first one we go to. How big will these facilities be?

• 48:30Speaker 03

  They're, the way to think about it is it's, you know, people think about nuclear and they think of You know, either the the classic cooling towers with steam coming out, ours is gonna look very much like a Amazon warehouse, or a data center, or like a pharmaceutical plant that's just a rectangular building.

• 48:50Shawn Ryan?

  Gotcha.

• 48:50Speaker 03

  And the size of these buildings depends on how much capacity you want, but we're talking a few hundred thousand square feet. So, think, hey, it looks like a big Amazon warehouse and there's a lot of equipment inside, but it's a self-contained thing.

• 49:02Shawn Ryan?

  I mean, how many, I'm just curious, how many difference, you're talking about poppy seed size with ceramic around it, you're talking about inch, inch high, I mean, what's the, what's the biggest?

• 49:17Speaker 03

  Yeah, the traditional reactors operate off of these small fuel pellets that are the inch-high ones, and then they assemble those into fuel rods that then get bunched together and then go into the reactor.

• 49:31Shawn Ryan?

  Okay.

• 49:32Speaker 03

  So, classically, the biggest you would have would be those one-inch little cylinders. Some new reactor concepts are using the poppy seeds, but they form them into larger spheres. So for that, you've got something that's roughly the size of a golf ball.

• 49:47Shawn Ryan?

  Okay.

• 49:48Speaker 03

  And those will be sitting at the bottom of the reactor, generating heat as gas flows over them to cool them off and to harvest the heat. So, these little tiny poppy seeds get, you know, basically formed together into that golf ball size.

• 50:02Shawn Ryan?

  Okay.

• 50:03Speaker 03

  And then some people are even trying to use molten salt approaches, where the whole coolant that flows through contains the uranium in it, and so you have a mixture of, of fluids. And in that case, it's just, it's basically like a liquid flowing.

• 50:17Shawn Ryan?

  What about the waste? Is there any waste?

• 50:20Speaker 03

  There's, yeah, the, the waste that people talk about is really spent fuel, that's the way to think about it. It's just, hey, we took this pellet, classically, the one-inch-tall metal sort of pellet, and we put it in the reactor for a while, and a lot of the U235, it reacted, it released heat, it released neutrons, it's something else now, and so it decays into other things. And so now you've got that pellet, and what do you do with it? You put it in water, cool it off for a period of time, and then they put it into cement cylinders, and these cylinders are...

• 50:56Speaker 03

  You know, probably roughly 10 feet across, bigger than human size, but nearly indestructible. That's how they're designed to be. And today, we just keep them next to the reactor that they were operating at and they sit there. If you look at all those, and you know, there's ways to potentially recycle some of that spent fuel and get more energy out of it, which is something people are talking about and thinking about now, but that would just, you know, that's a longer conversation about what are the benefits of that, even if you don't do that. And you just take these pellets that we've run through and put to the side and you put them all together in a pile.

• 51:38Speaker 03

  All the nuclear spent fuel that the US has generated over the entire history of nuclear energy, if you put that all into an Olympic-sized swimming pool, it would be half-filled. That's it? That's it, and it's metal. People think of nuclear waste or spent fuel as, you know, green ooze that's going to trickle out and get in the water supply. These are spent metal fuel ingots, again, that all together are only half the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool. So this is not actually a big deal. I think the waste issue has been a red herring. I think it's been something that people bring up who don't want nuclear energy as, hey, we can't do nuclear energy until we solve the waste issue.

• 52:23Speaker 03

  And good news, there is no waste issue, so let's do nuclear energy. That's my perspective. Wow. There's still things we could do about waste and should we store it all together in one place that's very inert and stable? That's a discussion. Should we somehow recycle it and get the remaining energy out of it? Because there's still U-235 in there. We could still utilize that energy. That's a conversation, but yeah, we should not let this idea of waste be a stopper for doing more nuclear. What do you think we should do with it? I think for now, what we're doing is not terrible. Just keep it where it is. The US should decide on what are we going to do with this long-term.

• 53:08Speaker 03

  Is that one site where we can just store it? Is it a couple of sites? And so we should continue looking for places to place it as a backstop. But, you know, recent, some of the recent executive orders talk about how should we think about recycling? Are there ways to do better? Recycling may not be as cost effective as just going and mining and producing new fuel. France does recycling and reprocessing, but the US doesn't. So there's some economic argument there about what's the total cost of these different solutions. So I think that's, that's something we'll just, the industry's going to be looking into for the next few years.

• 53:44Shawn Ryan?

  What else has the, what else has the government done to, to, what have they done to quadruple our energy production by, when did you say?

• 53:58Speaker 03

  By 2050.

• 53:59Shawn Ryan?

  By 2050?

• 54:00Speaker 03

  Yeah, yeah. So we're just taking action now. So really, the last couple of years, there's been the programs to, if you, if you zoom out, there's fuel side and there's reactor side. On the reactor side, there was a program that was about deploying advanced reactors. There was a couple of companies that were involved in that that started a few years back. And so Terra Power, X Energy are both part of that. That's a program to try and accelerate their deployment. So that's probably the first action that was taken in recent history that's really spurring things.

• 54:41Speaker 03

  And then you have the HELO availability program a couple of years back that launched a couple subprograms under that that are funded by that HELO availability program, one of which is the enrichment that we're working on. And then with some of the, there was a Russia sanction pretty much across the board, except for a couple of categories. And uranium actually got banned from Russian imports, middle of last year. And so that triggered another program focused on the lower enriched uranium. So you had the ARDP, the Advanced Demonstration Reactor Program. You had HELO and LEU enrichment programs.

• 55:29Speaker 03

  And then what we saw a couple of weeks ago were a couple, uh, four executive orders focused on accelerating nuclear. So these are some of the biggest actions that have been taken a long time. So yes, you have more funding for things, but that's like the gas, but there was this break on things and the executive orders are meant to address the break. Okay. And so you had, you know, a lot of people say it's all about regulation. That's been the thing that stopped it. These, I don't think that's the whole story and we can get into that, but these executive orders, they're going to focus on the regulation piece because they can't tell the industry what to do. The industry's got to actually go, go do it. But the executive orders did address four different things. Uh, one was the supply

• 56:14Speaker 03

  chain. One was the DOE. So supply chain, meaning fuel and other elements that, uh, elements of workforce and things that need to go into the industry. So how do we, how do we support that and bolster that? Second executive order was around the Department of Energy and saying, we haven't done anything new with reactors for a long time. Pretty much any reactor we build is going to be R and D. And so we should treat it like R and D. And the Department of Energy has the right to test reactors under R and D. So we should give them more top cover or ability to go test these reactors on their land. So this creates an alternative for companies just trying to get started to prove out what

• 56:58Speaker 03

  they can do. And now they can do that on DOE land even more than they could before. So that's, that's one action. There's another executive order that said the Defense Department should stand up the capability to deploy its own reactors so that they can, you know, have, uh, energy resilience on their bases. Another executive order said the NRC should reform. Historically, it just looked at risk and said, we need to get radiation risk as low as possible, even lower than background levels in some cases. This policy was known as ALARA, um, as low as, uh, reasonably achievable.

• 57:41Speaker 03

  And there's really no floor on that. So that meant that, well, the safest, the safest nuclear is no nuclear. And so there's naturally a bias towards really restricting nuclear and, you know, just creating an incredibly high safety bar that's higher than any other source of energy. And so this executive order said, hey, let's take a look at the regulations and let's update them. Let's not deregulate, let's just re-regulate and think about, given modern technology, how should we be thinking about this? Yes, every energy source has some risks, but nuclear has a lot of benefits and we should factor those in, just like we do for air travel.

• 58:21Shawn Ryan?

  Uh huh.

• 58:21Speaker 03

  There's risk, but there's benefits. So you can't say that it has to be zero risk. Otherwise, you're going to do other things like driving to somewhere and that's higher risk.

• 58:29Shawn Ryan?

  Uh huh.

• 58:29Speaker 03

  So same thing on energy.

• 58:33Speaker 03

  And so there was NRC, DOD, DOE in the supply chain and all four of those executive orders went out a couple of weeks ago and they all just get back to the core themes of, let's get more industrial activity, more economic activity in the US. Let's remove unnecessary regulations that just slow things down. Two, really, let's bring stuff back onshore and have our own capabilities so that, worst case, we can produce what we need. We should still trade, but let's make sure we have a backstop to that. And then three, if we want to have national security and be able to have influence across the globe, we need to be leaders in these industries. And so for nuclear, we need to lead.

• 59:14Speaker 03

  And we need to turn around the trend of 87% of reactors that are out there in the world are designed from other countries, not the US. And so as people deploy those reactors, that comes with fuel contracts and really locks them in to be dependent for a long time on these other countries. And so the US should be actually leading there and being able to work with our allies to give them reactors and give them fuel.

• 59:37Shawn Ryan?

  Yeah, I got a question. I mean, is, is somebody who's jumping into this with both feet and you're going full speed ahead, I mean, with the polarized political climate of the country right now, I mean, do you worry that, and I think you said by the end of the decade, so there will be, you know, there'll be a change before, do you worry that?

• 1:00:02Shawn Ryan?

  Political rivalries are going to get in the way of of your success.

• 1:00:08Speaker 03

  I don't think so. This, yeah, this has been a really bipartisan issue. So even the programs that were working with the DOE on, those were under the last administration. And then this administration's doing great things to try and accelerate nuclear, too. And I think last couple of years, you saw this bipartisan support emerge where people who were more focused on clean energy realized nuclear emits no carbon and no particulates. And it's safe and the waste issue, the spent fuel issue is so small compared to the waste we generate through every other form of energy. This is the cleanest baseload. It's the safest baseload. We should do this.

• 1:00:47Speaker 03

  And then on the, on the other side, people who are more focused about energy production and cost realize with the new technologies, nuclear could actually be the cheapest, the most economical, and our best path for just expanding production like, you know, like we haven't in a very long time. And so I think this is, this combined with the safety profile of existing nuclear and the even better safety profile of advanced nuclear. I don't think there's, I don't think there's going to be a lot of disagreement. I think people have realized, hey, this is one thing we can come together on and say that this is positive, and I don't think there's any reason for it to become a political thing.

• 1:01:28Shawn Ryan?

  That's great to hear.

• 1:01:29Speaker 03

  Even some of the states we're, we're looking at, Washington, for example, that's a classically blue state. But they're doing a lot of things in nuclear. And so I think everyone's come around to this.

• 1:01:42Shawn Ryan?

  That's good to hear. Will we be able, maybe we already are, I don't know, but I mean, will we be able to mine our own uranium here?

• 1:01:50Speaker 03

  We already do.

• 1:01:51Shawn Ryan?

  We already do.

• 1:01:52Speaker 03

  Yep. So on the five steps, just to, to go back, so mining, converting into gas, enriching, deconverting back into solid, and then fuel fabrication. The mining, we already, we already do it, and we've been doing it for a long time in Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and with newer techniques in Wyoming and in Texas. And so there's a bunch of places in the US that have uranium that we can go mine either through conventional techniques, which is classic mining, underground or open pit, or the new, modern technology, which is in situ recovery, ISR, which essentially people

• 1:02:36Speaker 03

  are just, they drill wells, they flow a fluid through the underground and then pull it back up, and that fluid manages to dissolve and extract the uranium. And so that's a newer technique that looks more like fracking or something to get uranium. So we do mining in the US. Our allies do a lot of mining. Canada does mining. They have great ore deposits. So does Australia. So between us and our allies, there's plenty of, plenty of mining and plenty right here in the US.

• 1:03:06Shawn Ryan?

  Do you think we would wind up exporting?

• 1:03:08Speaker 03

  I think we could.

• 1:03:10Shawn Ryan?

  Enriched uranium?

• 1:03:11Speaker 03

  Yeah, I think we could. Our focus is, let's get the US back to completely meeting its own needs. But when you think about other countries that want nuclear, and they say, hey, you know, why can't we have nuclear energy? Why can't we have nuclear fuel? I think the US should, at some point, be the provider of that fuel, especially if we can do it really cheaply. So think of an argument of a country like Iran that says, we want nuclear energy for, for commercial use, non-military use. If we told them, hey, we make a lot of fuel, we do it at a very low cost, why don't you buy it from us? You don't need to enrich.

• 1:03:53Speaker 03

  I think that could be, you know, a win-win if they're willing to agree to that. And I think at some point, if the US is producing a lot of fuel at low cost, and we're willing to sell it at that low cost to other countries, much cheaper than they could ever produce it for. And if they're new to nuclear and we're building new reactor types, and we say, look, let us do this for you, we're going to give you the reactors, we're going to give you the fuel, it's going to be far more economical than you could ever do it for. And, you know, there's going to be some details that have to be worked out, and who's in control of that.

• 1:04:28Speaker 03

  But you have to imagine if they should say yes to that unless they have other goals through enrichment and so that quickly reveals like who's being genuine about just wanting clean, safe nuclear power and who has other, other things in mind.

• 1:04:41Shawn Ryan?

  Great point. Well, Scott, let's take a quick break.

• 1:04:45Speaker 00

  Thinking about refreshing the carpet in your home? Now's the time to do it. For a limited time at The Home Depot, get 10% off installed carpet projects on trusted brands like LifeProof, LifeProof with Pet Proof Technology, Home Decorator's Collection, and Traffic Master. Plus, with installation starting at just 49 cents per square foot, upgrading your space is more affordable than ever at The Home Depot. Offer valid September 24, 2026 through October 4, 2026. Exclusions apply. For licenses, see homedepot.com/license numbers. Thinking about refreshing the carpet in your home? Now's the time to do it. For a limited time at The Home Depot, get 10% off installed

• 1:05:30Speaker 00

  carpet projects on trusted brands like LifeProof, LifeProof with Pet Proof Technology, Home Decorator's Collection, and Traffic Master. Plus, with installation starting at just 49 cents per square foot, upgrading your space is more affordable than ever at The Home Depot. Offer valid September 24, 2026 through October 4, 2026. Exclusions apply. For licenses, see homedepot.com/license numbers.

• 1:05:52Shawn Ryan?

  All right, Scott, we're back from the break and um, yeah, this is, this is like a master's class in nuclear energy. So, thank you. But do you, do you see nuclear, how do I say this? Do you see everything moving towards nuclear in the future? Automobiles, planes, rockets? Do you, do you think that's gonna powering neighborhoods?

• 1:06:29Speaker 03

  I don't think everything. I think grid, I think we're going to see nuclear increase from just under 20% to hopefully much more than that. Cars, I'm more skeptical. You know, it's, the reason we use fossil fuel and batteries in cars is because it's it's so energy dense. And while, you know, a nuclear, piece of nuclear fuel is very energy dense, a reactor is not quite as energy dense. And, you know, you have safety concerns of that, what if a car crashes? All those sort of things. And you could design around that, but I think it just makes a lot of sense, a lot of sense to just either do electric or fossil fuels for cars. I think if you're talking about a neighborhood, that's a grid, that should be more nuclear.

• 1:07:13Speaker 03

  Nuclear should be the future of that. Airplanes, people have talked about nuclear airplanes in the past. Out in Idaho, they actually tested a reactor that was meant to be for an airplane. But reactors are still pretty heavy. Probably better off just, you know, either doing electric or what we have today for airplanes. So I think, you know, there's some people who might think, okay, nuclear should be every single source of energy. And I would argue it still could be, even if it's not used in those applications, because those applications run on fuels. But what if your nuclear was so cheap that you could use it to make like synthetic aviation fuel or synthetic automobile fuel? That's conceivable. That's a, that's a further way away.

• 1:07:57Speaker 03

  I'd say let's, let's get started with deploying a bunch of reactors. Let's get their cost down. And then when their cost is really low, then we can, we should do those things. But it's going to be step by step. It's going to be gradual. That's like a 20-year project, I think, to get, to get everything.

• 1:08:12Shawn Ryan?

  How far do you see some of these mini reactors going?

• 1:08:15Speaker 03

  Yeah, if we go back to the one I was talking about earlier, so containerized, one megawatt of electric, two megawatts thermal. I think those could be, you know, you're going to start in really more niche applications like the remote Alaskan village that doesn't have a good source of electricity and, you know, solar's unreliable, wind's not going to work. Okay, we're way up there in middle of nowhere, Alaska, and we need to actually import diesel every summer through a tanker. And then we store it and we just run our diesel generators. Examples like that are just seem like a no brainer for a nuclear reactor that could be containerized and run for five to 10 years. Or an army base that is going to run off of small ones like that, maybe for radar, maybe

• 1:08:59Speaker 03

  for some other critical systems. I think those, those applications we're going to see right away. And I think for the small ones, you could see as they deploy into those applications, they get more experience building things in the factory, the factory cost comes down, all of a sudden you realize, okay, these small ones, maybe you can combine, like the generators, like the solar panels, like the battery storage. And we could have parking lots of these that in aggregate produce a pretty good amount of power. I think at some point, once you're trying to go to bigger amounts, like, okay, when you do a gigawatt, maybe there's a more efficient way where maybe it doesn't have to be in a shipping container, but it should be truckable or put on a train. And it should be able to be made in a factory.

• 1:09:44Speaker 03

  So then you're getting more into the midsize, which people, you know, those really small ones are like generally called microreactors. How big are they? Like one to 20 megawatts, shipping container size to something a bit bigger than that. You know, not quite 20 times bigger, but a few times bigger because this is how things scale. And then the, the SMRs, the small modular reactors, that's generally considered 20 to 300 megawatts. And that's where you're still, now you're getting into a little bit of construction project. You're going to prep your site, you're probably going to dig areas for the reactors to go. You're going to have to pour some concrete, build some structures.

• 1:10:28Speaker 03

  But the idea of modular there is, hey, we bring in the reactor core and then separately we'll bring in maybe the cooling loop and separately we'll bring in the turbines and we'll plug it all together there, but we can keep it pretty simple versus one big integrated thing. So, once you go to the traditional style of a gigawatt scale reactor, it's a lot more complicated. You're doing a lot more assembly and construction onsite in an integrated way, which much more complicated. Still has merit because the amount of power you're getting out of that is a gigawatt plus. And so, the payoff is pretty big. And so, if we can get good at those construction projects, that's a viable path, too. So, people ask me, which one do you think wins? Which reactor wins? I think these are three

• 1:11:13Speaker 03

  pretty different segments where the really big reactors, that's, that's straight onto the grid. You're competing at grid scale, grid energy costs. You have to hit really low cost. Middle end of the spectrum, it's about speed and about, yeah, how fast can we build this construction project? This can't be a 10-year project. It has to be a five-year project or less. We need energy now and we need it. We don't care if it's quite as cheap as the grid, but we want it to be extremely reliable. So, 100% uptime. And so, that's going to point you towards small modular reactors that many people are working on, and that's probably for data centers. So, data centers has been a huge

• 1:11:54Speaker 03

  push for this. Previously, they went out and they looked for stranded electricity. You know, where can we find a few hundred megawatts? Where can we find a gigawatt of stranded wind in, you know, west Texas? Or solar that's not being used? And, or where is there maybe solar and wind in a natural gas pipeline and we can just put it all there? Those sites are largely now claimed. Everyone's been searching for them the last couple of years. People found them and people locked them up and they're building data centers on those sites. Now, it's about, okay, we need new production or we're not gonna, you know, those days are over where there was just latent supply. We need to create supply of electricity. And so, that middle segment, I think, is for the data centers. It's, that's

• 1:12:37Speaker 03

  where we're going to see rapid adoption. Day one, it's going to be higher price points than you could get from the grid, but it's certain and it's, you can do it in bulk. So, they're going to sign up for that. And then I think the microreactors are a whole separate story of, you know, we're not even thinking about the grid because we're going to places where either the use case has to assume the grid is not working, or there is no grid. I think that's where we're going to see that first. So I think there's room for many of these different reactor designs to succeed. And the biggest variable I think of between them isn't what fluid they have inside the system, isn't exactly whether they use the poppy seed size kernels, trisoparticles, or golf ball size, or little cylinders.

• 1:13:19Speaker 03

  It's how big a reactor are you making and how much does it cost to build?

• 1:13:23Shawn Ryan?

  How about the transmission point?

• 1:13:26Speaker 03

  Transmission's the next, the next big piece. So you've got fuel, you've got the reactors, and now what about actually moving the electricity around? I think that's, that's going to be a challenging piece. And that's, that's something we hear from friends in the data center world is that, you know, the grid is going to be challenged to grow as fast as we needed to with a bunch of bottlenecks. You've got, you know, it takes a long time to build transmission lines based on environmental permitting and the supply chains. You know, an example of supply chain issue is transformers. So transformers now have a long lead time. We didn't build up a ton of capability in the country for making as many transformers as we now need.

• 1:14:10Speaker 03

  So now there's, there's wait times and lead times. Yeah, so I think, I think we're going to see supply chain challenges there that are going to, they will bottleneck how fast we can go. And so, you know, do you see new companies getting stood up to actually address the transformer shortage? I think you could see things like that.

• 1:14:28Shawn Ryan?

  Are we, are we already at the point where a private entity can put in its own reactor? Or is that, so for these data centers, you know, that you're talking about all the land that's, you know, that has? Everything going for it, the land, the gas and all that, that's all sucked up and is being built on or has been built on. So now, you know, what can, can the data center just buy their own reactor and just totally bypass the public grid?

• 1:15:04Speaker 03

  Yeah, so Utah just put out legislation that, that actually did that. So previously in Utah, my understanding is you weren't really allowed to do behind the meter generation. You had to produce and hook into the grid as a way of supporting the grid and helping make sure that Utah's grid was strong. I think there's enough of this concern over bottleneck that recently legislation and regulation said, if you can't get the power you need from the grid, you can go do a reactor behind the meter. And that was Utah. I think other states, many other states allow for this too. The real, you know, the real thing we're gonna have to wait for on that front is seeing some of these smaller reactor formats

• 1:15:45Speaker 03

  and reactor designs actually get licensed by the NRC. And so that'll be a few years. You know, that'll be them doing some testing initially on DOE land, for example, proving that the reactor works. If they're small enough, they can do that out at Idaho National Lab in a facility that they call the dome. So it's an old containment dome from a different reactor that they, you know, emptied out. The dome is there and they can bring reactors in and test them. So what we're gonna see probably starting 2026, 2027 is reactors going in there, putting in small amounts of fuel, proving that things work the way

• 1:16:26Speaker 03

  they expected to, using that data in NRC license applications showing, hey, we, we ran it at a small scale. We see that the models actually hold. We see that the predictions are true. And here's all the reasons why not only will it work, but it'll be extremely safe. So then that's a two-year process. And then we're gonna see them building them in parallel with getting approvals or preparing to build them and then shipping them to the site. So all in, you know, that's three, four years before you're seeing it behind the meter. So it's actually, it's not that these companies are not allowed to do that. It's that we're just at a point right now where we're still a couple of years out from seeing those shipments of reactors.

• 1:17:07Shawn Ryan?

  Gotcha. Do you think this gets to the point where?

• 1:17:12Shawn Ryan?

  It goes down to the consumer, like consumer grade.

• 1:17:15Speaker 03

  Under their home?

• 1:17:16Shawn Ryan?

  Yep.

• 1:17:17Speaker 03

  Something like that.

• 1:17:19Speaker 03

  I think that's a long way out. I think at some really tiny scale, you start to lose scale efficiencies. So now you have to build something so small that,

• 1:17:30Speaker 03

  you know, you have all the systems, you're trying to build a really compact, you're trying to make it safe. I think you're gonna get so little power out of that for the average home, you know, average home consumption is so small that, that's not, doesn't, probably doesn't make sense. Just like, you know, at any of our homes, we don't have like a natural gas mini turbine that's making our electricity, we just get it from the grid. So I think the grid still has a major role to play and it's gonna help us unlock the bigger formats that are gonna be more cost effective. Rooftop solar is maybe the one exception. It's like you already have a roof, just put some solars on it. You don't have much civil costs of building the structure that's gonna hold it.

• 1:18:10Speaker 03

  But in general, we don't, people don't produce their own power because it's, it's just so much more efficient to do it in some sort of centralized manner.

• 1:18:17Shawn Ryan?

  Will the lines be able to handle the load?

• 1:18:21Shawn Ryan?

  That we need? I mean, I think if you're gonna say by 2030 that AI and the data centers will, will suck up all the energy that we have right now.

• 1:18:30Speaker 03

  Yeah, their demand is projected to be the same as the grid capacity today. Good news is, I think a lot of that stuff is not really gonna hit the grid. So if they're finding an isolated site to put their data center and they're gonna put reactors there and maybe they're gonna put natural gas there,

• 1:18:48Speaker 03

  that's not gonna really put a big load on the grid. So the grid in that case could stay pretty much the same. If we are trying to quadruple nuclear production though, and maybe double the grid overall to keep up with China, or do something like what they did, then yeah, the grid's gonna have to expand quite a bit.

• 1:19:05Shawn Ryan?

  Have a major overhaul, huh?

• 1:19:08Shawn Ryan?

  Do you, do you see, I mean, does, does oil and gas and wind and solar, do they have a place anymore?

• 1:19:18Speaker 03

  I think so, yeah.

• 1:19:19Shawn Ryan?

  Why? If this is the cheapest,

• 1:19:22Speaker 03

  Yep.

• 1:19:22Shawn Ryan?

  then most efficient,

• 1:19:25Shawn Ryan?

  why, why would those have a, why would we need them?

• 1:19:29Speaker 03

  I think you could do it. Could you do it all with nuclear? Yes.

• 1:19:32Shawn Ryan?

  Other than automobiles, but.

• 1:19:34Speaker 03

  Yeah, yeah. And then even the automobiles, maybe they run on fuel, maybe, you know, there's company, there's nuclear companies that have an explicit plan of saying, we're going to build a reactor who's relatively large and so low cost that we can actually do the sustainable aviation fuel production there or other forms of fuel. We'll do carbon capture, which costs energy, takes, you know, takes energy, adds cost, but our nuclear energy is going to be so cheap, we can afford to do the carbon capture, or we'll co-locate with some industrial process, we'll grab that carbon, and we're going to turn that into a fuel, and that fuel could be used by cars, by airplanes.

• 1:20:11Shawn Ryan?

  What do you mean carbon capture? You mean pulling carbon out of the air?

• 1:20:14Speaker 03

  Yeah, yeah, there's a couple approaches. One is pull it out of the air. People are working on technologies for that. One is sit right next to an industrial facility that just would normally spit out carbon, and we're just going to grab that carbon and use it in our process. So those are the the two general categories that I've seen of people that want to do carbon capture for fuel production. And doing that takes energy, takes electricity, but if you have cheap enough nuclear, you can do it. So I think going back to the, will everything run on nuclear? It's possible. It's possible that that that happens, but to get there, we've got to make nuclear much cheaper. So then to your question of what

• 1:20:52Speaker 03

  about the other forms of energy, I think, you know, nuclear is 20% today. Until it's really taking off, we need to do everything. And the data centers are going to need a lot more power in the next few years. How are we going to do that if the if reactors are three years away? So we're going to see expansion of other things. We're going to see solar at some of these sites, solar with a bunch of grid level storage. Maybe that grid level storage can run on old batteries that are recycled or cheap. So it doesn't need to be really expensive. Maybe there's a path there for people that really need power today and are willing to pay for it. You're gonna see solar. I think rooftop solar can make sense because you already have the roof. Put the solar panels on. And

• 1:21:36Speaker 03

  then, you know, I think wind has fallen out of favor quite a bit. There's still places where there's good wind resource and we can use that and it's cost effective, but it's intermittent. So you have to plan for that. And so AI, AI data centers, hyperscalers, they want really, really high uptime. And so I think that uptime is going to look like it maybe it could be a combo of wind and solar in some places which are supplemented by natural gas, which could kick in when the wind's not blowing or the sun's not shining. And then nuclear, but nuclear is the ideal answer for them because it's, it's safe, it's potentially really low cost, and it's no carbon emission.

• 1:22:18Shawn Ryan?

  What does this world even look like in 10 years?

• 1:22:21Speaker 03

  Yeah, I think-

• 1:22:22Shawn Ryan?

  Everything's changing so fast. Space, the auto industry, energy, AI, Neuralink. What, I mean, what is it, what does it even look like?

• 1:22:35Speaker 03

  Yeah, I think it's, I think it'll be good. I think it's gonna be exciting. I think on the AI side, to me, feels the hardest to predict because it's such, such an exponential curve. But automotive, I think, you know, electric vehicles are getting better and better. You know, I have a Tesla. I like it. I have also a regular internal combustion car. I like that, too. So I think we're gonna see more electric cars. They'll get cheaper. They'll be more competitive. Power, I think power's gonna be the big story. I think as we want to grow the economy, as we want to do AI, as EVs come online and gain market share, I think it's all gonna be about energy production. And I think that's ultimately

• 1:23:19Speaker 03

  gonna come back to nuclear. It's gonna be a big part of the growth, and then that's gonna come back to the fuel.

• 1:23:25Shawn Ryan?

  Do you think, I know you said we're, this is kind of where I was going when I was asking if we're mining uranium right now. Do you think we will continue to mine our own uranium? Or will we take the oil and gas approach where we import, you know, from-

• 1:23:47Shawn Ryan?

  Because we sat on a lot of reserves. And now that everything's, it sounds like everything's starting to move towards nuclear. Maybe we shouldn't have sat on those reserves.

• 1:23:56Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:23:57Shawn Ryan?

  Because those reserves are, but it's going to become obsolete. And we missed a major opportunity, you know, if this happens, that, that we can never revisit.

• 1:24:05Speaker 03

  Yeah.

• 1:24:06Shawn Ryan?

  Do you think, and I, I mean, me being a novice, that just sounds like a mistake to me. Like, we, we sat on these reserves, we didn't do anything with them. Now we're moving into nuclear. Those become obsolete. We just missed out on a shitload of money, you know, for the United States by not using those reserves for ourselves or exporting it. And so, do you think that will happen with the, with uranium as well?

• 1:24:33Speaker 03

  Luckily, it's still, it's still there. It's still under the ground, so we can start going after it and, and companies are. So there's new mining projects in, at least Texas and Wyoming, that came online starting last year and are, are ramping this year. So we're going to see more uranium production in the US. Um, you know, some, some countries do have better ore deposits than the US, really high ore deposits. So as you go and mine, it can be really easy to get the uranium that you need. So it can still make sense to trade with other countries.

• 1:25:03Shawn Ryan?

  Uh huh.

• 1:25:03Speaker 03

  Um, if they can produce much cheaper than we can, but we have really large deposits, uh, that can take care of what we need for a while. And so I think we're going to see that production come online.

• 1:25:15Shawn Ryan?

  How big are our deposits compared to Russia or China?

• 1:25:19Speaker 03

  Uh, let's see. Compared to places like, uh, Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, like Russia gets most of its uranium out of Kazakhstan. Our deposits are not as good as theirs on uranium, but still years and years of production capacity. And so if we're even producing a fraction, uh, you know, mining a fraction of what we need. We're talking decades of of potential production in the US. And I think it's similar to oil where people thought that we were at peak oil at one point. And then you discover new ways to to find more. So discovery technologies get better, extraction technologies get better.

• 1:26:02Speaker 03

  Even even these new technologies in mining are an example of that where some of the deposits people are going after now are not really ore-rich deposits. But through new techniques like in situ recovery, where you do the pumping and then extraction out of the ground with no, no standard mining equipment, no digging, no open pits, much more self-contained and, you know, no uranium released in the process. You can do that much cheaper. And so it's going to be one of these classic things where people predict that our reserves are at the limit and we're out. And then technology actually is the answer of how you get much more out of the system than you ever thought you could.

• 1:26:43Speaker 03

  So same thing happened in fracking where, you know, we, we thought that the US did not have as much accessible fossil fuel as it did. And then fracking came around and figured out, wait, there's ways to extract this natural gas. And not only is that good for energy cost or energy independence, but this natural gas has half the carbon emissions per unit of electricity than coal. And so we should be doing this. And so that was, you know, that's been the story the last decade or two.

• 1:27:13Shawn Ryan?

  Did you just say Kazakhstan has some of the richest uranium? So so let me ask you this. Do you see, as the world moves towards nuclear, which it sounds like it is, do you see a, do you see a power shift happening? Do you see a country like Kazakhstan rising up in the, in the food chain and, and big oil and gas countries coming down?

• 1:27:39Speaker 03

  Oil and gas, I think fossil fuels is still something like eighty percent of US power production. Uh huh. So in terms of geopolitical power shifts, I think fossil fuels will still be really important for a long time, for decades. Okay. So it's not going to be sudden, but I think on the margins, you're going to see countries like Kazakhstan potentially become more important as people think more and more about where are we getting our uranium. Countries like Australia, Canada, Canada already mines a lot, so does Australia. As they step up and decide, how aggressive do we want to be on uranium production, on mining? I think it's, it is up to many of the countries what their future is. Do you, you know, will they be pro-nuclear? Do they want to do not just mining, but other things in nuclear?

• 1:28:23Speaker 03

  Do they want to have reactors? It's, it's a complicated playing field that's going to depend on production, how fast new reactors are built, which countries do that, what trade agreements are set up. But it's, it's absolutely like, over the next decade, it could be tectonic shifts in, in policy and in which countries are important and which ones become really the focal points for international negotiations. How focused is Canada on that? They've got, they have a great industry and they have great ore deposits. And so there's a company in Canada called Cameco that does mining at a couple of these sites that are known to be really good and does a lot of production.

• 1:29:05Speaker 03

  And then they do conversion to the gas as well. Canada runs on a different reactor type that doesn't actually require enrichment of uranium. They just use plain uranium and use heavy water to actually make the reaction happen. Those are called can-do reactors. And so they classically haven't had an enrichment technology because they've chosen to do this other reactor type. So Canada is pretty active in nuclear and in uranium mining.

• 1:29:35Shawn Ryan?

  Where are we going to get the water in all these western states to cool these reactors?

• 1:29:40Speaker 03

  Luckily, the water, yeah, good question. Same question applies to data centers. So historically, a lot of data centers used evaporative cooling, and so you ran through a lot of water. The newer data centers are doing closed-loop cooling, so no water evaporation. You do have big heat exchangers sitting outside, but you're not evaporating water to cool. And some of the, very similar to data centers, some of the modern nuclear reactors, what people call these generation four reactors, just the latest in, you know, in technology, in safety, in cost. They also use closed-loop cooling. So one of them, the ones we talked about, the shipping container-sized reactor,

• 1:30:20Speaker 03

  no water use. The fluids flowing around are other fluids like helium and CO2. And so to cool off, you just run it through a big fan and heat exchanger system, just like a radiator in a car. And so you don't need any water for cooling, so no water consumption. In fact, like if you can get, if you can get nuclear cheap enough, and now we're,

• 1:30:42Speaker 03

  now we're actually producing electricity and using that for some purpose, and we have a bunch of thermal leftover, could we use that thermal energy to do things like desalination? And so do you actually go from something where you might think, okay, nuclear reactors, we're going to use up a lot of water? And maybe the old, old designs did use water, but the new ones don't. Could you actually go from, you know, water consumptive to actually water creating?

• 1:31:12Speaker 03

  Yeah, I think we're going to see a lot of, a lot of cool things. I think a lot of it's going to be driven by energy. I think the next decade's going to be all about energy. Even, even Sam Altman from OpenAI had some recent, recent hearing or talk where he talked about just the evolution of AI. And so you've got algorithms, algorithms run on chips, but ultimately the chips need electricity. And what he said, if, thinking back to this interview, the algorithms are going to get better and better and better and cheaper, and the chips will get cheaper and cheaper. But at the end of the day, you have to get the electrons, and the electrons have a fundamental price. And ultimately, it's going to come down to that. So I think even the AI.

• 1:31:54Speaker 03

  The AI competition between different companies in the US, between different countries, it's ultimately going to come back to the electricity production. So I think, yeah, next decade is going to be all about, all about power production. AI, military, if, if you think you need kinetics in military, that comes back to manufacturing. If you think economics, okay, we have to have the biggest economy so that we can just have the most productive capacity, energy. So I think next decade is going to be all about energy. And we've stayed flat for a decade, for 15 years, we haven't done anything, more like 20 years, our grid's been pretty stagnant. And if we want US leadership, it's going to have to grow. So I think that's, that's going to be the story we see, and it's going to be about solving

• 1:32:36Speaker 03

  different supply chain needs, whether it's, it's fuel, maybe it's transformers, maybe it's transmission, all these things are going to come up. It's going to be chips.

• 1:32:46Shawn Ryan?

  Are we actually, you know, when you talk about China has doubled their power, or doubled, doubled what we have, correct? Are they, I mean, they also have a lot more people.

• 1:32:58Speaker 03

  Yep.

• 1:32:59Shawn Ryan?

  So are they, are they seeing the benefits of having that much more power production than we do, or is it equivalent because they have so many more consumers of energy?

• 1:33:08Speaker 03

  I think a lot of that, we'd have to go back to that, that chart and see exactly where is China today, where were they before, in terms of per capita. But I think a lot of that production, the doubling of their grid relative to our grid, a lot of that's gone into manufacturing. And so, you know, we've shifted manufacturing from the US to overseas, a lot of that's in China now. We've let them do it. You know, a big part of that, people thought was, well, Chinese labor is much cheaper. But a lot of these processes can be automated. And so, once you automate it, it just comes back to energy cost. And so China said, let's, let's double our grid, let's, let's keep going, let's work on tripling our grid, and we'll do it in the cheapest way possible, because we want

• 1:33:51Speaker 03

  to win on manufacturing and get all this economic activity over here. Meanwhile, the US has said,

• 1:33:58Speaker 03

  You know, we have a bunch of regulations which are good and probably some that are unnecessary and have slowed us down. And so we haven't done the growth and, you know, we've been very thoughtful about emissions, environmental impact, carbon. Meanwhile, China's doubling, tripling their grid and has done a lot of that with coal. And so we've shifted manufacturing here that would have been cleaner over there and just probably ended up net producing more carbon than we would have, more pollutants than we would have, and just kind of outsourced that. But as we know, carbon flows everywhere. So if you're really worried about carbon emissions, letting China double their grid with coal and move manufacturing, energy-intensive manufacturing there is not actually the answer.

• 1:34:41Speaker 03

  The answer is the US has to unblock building here, doing industrial activity, do it cleanly, do it with nuclear or other sources, even natural gas, half the carbon emissions of coal. And the world would be way better off. And so I think their grid doubling hasn't just meant that everyone there has a better quality of life. I think it just means that we've taken a lot of manufacturing from here and done it over there. Gotcha. Gotcha.

• 1:35:10Speaker 01

  This episode is brought to you by Welch's Fruit Snacks. Back-to-school season can be tough on parents. But choosing a snack you and your kids can both get behind doesn't have to be. Stock up on Welch's Fruit Snacks, made with whole fruit, and now made with no artificial dyes. It's a snack kids already love, and one you can feel good about giving them. Go back to school with Welch's Fruit Snacks, now made with no artificial dyes.

• 1:35:38Shawn Ryan?

  Thank you for listening to the Sean Ryan Show. If you haven't already, please take a minute, head over to iTunes, and leave the Sean Ryan Show a review. We read every review that comes through, and we really appreciate the support. Thank you. Let's get back to the show.

• 1:35:58Shawn Ryan?

  Do you have any insight on, from a consumer standpoint, just a household? How, what kind of energy prices can we expect, you know, when this, by 2030?

• 1:36:12Speaker 03

  It's going to depend a lot on what we, how we implement all this. So you have huge variation between states, so I think a lot of it comes down to regulation.

• 1:36:21Shawn Ryan?

  Okay.

• 1:36:21Speaker 03

  So, you know, some states, you know, you've got retail electricity costs in the single-digit sense. California, I think it can get into the 30s. So between states, you can be triple. So clearly, that's not technology-driven, that's regulatory-driven. And so I think a lot of how this plays out is going to be, what do we do on the regulatory side? We have cheap sources of energy. People could have them. You know, the grid is currently capable of shipping electricity to people's homes at the level that we consume them, consume electricity. So with net new sources coming on the grid, it should get cheaper. But that's going to depend on a lot of different factors.

• 1:37:06Speaker 03

  It's going to depend on who sets the rates, how electricity is priced. Do you have some infrastructure costs and then some generation costs? Will there be separation of transmission and generation costs everywhere? What is the balance between those two? How much are we paying for the transmission? How much are we paying for the generation? There were some shifts in that in California where it was more bundled and as people did more and more rooftop solar, I think it was separated because the utilities were having a harder time paying for their existing infrastructure. And so how that all goes in each state is going to be the real driver, I think. I think we have the ability to produce as much electricity as we want through all these different methods.

• 1:37:50Speaker 03

  But how that actually makes its way to people's homes depends on state-level and federal-level policy, as well as, as well as things like NEPA, which is the environmental regime for...

• 1:38:04Speaker 03

  Standardizing a lot of these federal approvals on large scale infrastructure projects, which has slowed down things like new transmission lines. And so the degree to which that gets reformed or looked at, or how can we still have all the safety that we that we always had, that we want the environmental protections, but how can we streamline this to help things go faster? I think you're gonna, you know, big, big picture. You've got two curves. You've got the demand curve and you've got the supply curve. And if the demand curve for electricity, whether it's AI data centers or people's homes, starts really outpacing supply, that's when prices go up. If you can outrun demand with supply, prices go down.

• 1:38:49Speaker 03

  And so it's, you know, demand is going to be what it is. People are going to get EVs. People are gonna want to use AI tools. Those tools require data centers. That's going to happen. That demand is going to be there. It's up to us how quickly do we bring in supply? So I think that's, it's that balance between supply and demand that's going to really drive where prices go and where, what people experience.

• 1:39:13Shawn Ryan?

  Have you, have you ever heard of Steve Quast and his company Spaceville?

• 1:39:18Speaker 03

  I know you had him on recently. I listened to part of the podcast. It was, yeah, really interesting.

• 1:39:23Shawn Ryan?

  Yeah, he was mentioned, he had mentioned that China is, is putting or has put a nuclear power plant in space. And that we could have the capability of doing that, nuclear or solar, and beaming, beaming energy into something like an antenna. What are your, what are your thoughts on that?

• 1:39:49Speaker 03

  Yeah, there's a few startups working on this right now, actually. So there's a few startups that are saying, you know, space launch is going to get extremely cheap with, with Starship. And so we're planning on launch costs getting so cheap. That you could deploy a huge solar array in space and beam it down, whether it's laser or microwave, or even trying to just put mirrors up there and reflect sunlight. So there's a few companies doing that. I think there's, you know, we need to see the launch costs come down by a lot with Starship succeeding and really scaling. And early years of Starship are going to be dedicated to Starlink launches, I would imagine, just to get the rest of that constellation up. So, you know, we need a few years for Starship to really start doing high-volume

• 1:40:34Speaker 03

  commercial launches. And then we need a few components in that overall architecture to probably come down in cost to let those use cases make sense. But it could be anything from beaming power to like a forward-deployed unit that needs to be somewhere really remote and still have the ability to power things, beaming light onto an area of similar applications, or doing things like, hey, how can we redirect energy for industrial use affordably? Where maybe it makes the difference between that industrial process working or not working based on the energy cost there. So I think we're seeing it on the solar side.

• 1:41:14Speaker 03

  On the nuclear side, I actually don't know what the US is working on there or what's planned. And, you know, I would think that that would probably be under a DoD program that would be compartmentalized if that was the case. But, yeah, it sounds like China's doing things and, you know, that has a lot of implications.

• 1:41:36Speaker 03

  So you were at SpaceX when there was only 30 employees? Yeah, 35, somewhere around 35. Wow. Yeah, it was cool. How was that? It was fun.

• 1:41:47Speaker 03

  You know, I think when you're in the middle of these things, you don't really understand the gravity of it or the implications of it. You know, back to 2002, the US had something like 20% of global launch capacity. Today, based on everything SpaceX has done over 23 years, people forget that. It's been 23 years. It's not some five-year overnight success. It's two, over two decades of building. Took a long time. We went from 20% of launch capacity to now, I believe it's, it's like 90% of total

• 1:42:23Shawn Ryan?

  90%?

• 1:42:24Speaker 03

  Total mass to orbit in the world, 80, 90%.

• 1:42:27Shawn Ryan?

  No kidding.

• 1:42:28Speaker 03

  Yeah. So the US went from, you know, third place, second, third place, to now wildly first place. And if we hadn't done that, China would be the leader in launch capacity. And so, yeah, 20, 23 years of hard work. Have lots of friends who are still there, have been there the whole time, you know, working on the mission. So it's been, it's been incredible to watch. Back then, it was early days, we were 30-something people. You know, we were designing test stands, we were designing the first engines that powered the Falcon family of launch vehicles, first the Falcon 1, then the Falcon 9. And just working through the inevitable challenges of engineering, you know, we were doing a

• 1:43:08Speaker 03

  clean sheet redesign of a rocket engine, saying, okay, North Star mission, we want to make humanity multi-planetary. We want to, before that's going to happen, we're going to have to commercialize space. If space is going to become commercialized, launch has to get way cheaper, a tenth the cost, ideally less. You know, you can't, you can't spend all this money to put something small with only limited utility into space. And at the old launch cost, there were only a few applications that made sense. So let's bring launch costs down, and that means we can't use the same technology we've been using. We can't, we can't do that with the space shuttle. The space shuttle's been running, this was the mindset at the time.

• 1:43:50Speaker 03

  Spatial has been running for over a decade and we see what those costs are. It averages out to like a billion dollars per launch. That's not going to work. We have to start over and we're just going to question everything. So some of the principles that we had there were, you know, it all started with a mission, a very, very clear mission. We're going to optimize on dollars to get a kilo or a pound of payload into an orbit. That's it. Don't care how we do it. That's what we're doing. Bringing the cost down. And so that meant we have one goal and we're just going to rethink everything to get there. We're going to rethink what our engine technology is. We're going to just go with the simplest, lowest cost, reliable engine we possibly can.

• 1:44:34Speaker 03

  And so instead of going with a more exotic engine type that some people talked about at the time, we said, we're going to go with a really proven one. This thing is not even going to be that efficient, but it's going to be so low cost that instead of one exquisite engine on the bottom of this rocket, we're going to have nine, we're going to have nine really low cost ones. Together they'll equal the output of the big one. Won't be as efficient. We're going to need a little bit more fuel to get there. Maybe our payload that we can bring up slightly smaller relative to the total fuel. But our vehicle is so low cost that we're going to win just on dollars, back to that North Star goal, dollars per kilo to orbit. And so, yeah, 2003, when I joined as an intern, that was the mindset.

• 1:45:18Speaker 03

  There was an employee handbook I opened on the first day and I think the first line was something like, this is not a science experiment. We are not here to do new science. We're here to do engineering, really low cost engineering. And so the team that was assembled to do that was some people from aerospace so that we knew what the range of technologies was. We knew how things had to be done. What are the real requirements?

• 1:45:44Speaker 03

  And then people from the automotive world who knew how to build, you know, machines really cheap. I think half the guys on the team on the weekends did hot rods and they did drag racing. No shit. Yeah. So a lot of the people came out of the drag racing community, just how can I have the highest performance machine for low cost? I don't care how pretty it is. It's just gonna, it's gonna perform. And so, um, yeah, it's SpaceX culture back then was really almost equal parts aerospace, automotive, and then kids straight out of school who wanted to work hard on something, um, you know, had the, had the latest training. So we knew all the analytical techniques, but didn't know much about the industry. And these people

• 1:46:28Speaker 03

  from the industry, from automotive or from aerospace or from wherever, would just be the, you know, the gray haired people who just taught us what we had to do and worked together to go as fast as we could to get capability back. And so when I got there, 2003, we were designing test stands that our engines were gonna go into. And then by 2004, we were testing engines. By 2005, they were really working well. 2006, um, I then got to go work on the Dragon program and worked on a couple of subsystems there for controlling the temperature, controlling the pressure inside the capsule. And that capsule was, you know, going up to the space station. That was the plan. So by this time, the space shuttle had been grounded. So we'd had the accident with the space shuttle and we'd

• 1:47:13Speaker 03

  put that fleet on pause. And there was a big need by NASA. NASA said, we need capability to go back to the space station and we need to be able to take cargo up there. We need to be able to return cargo from the space station for experiments that we're doing for astronauts that are up there. At the time, we, you know, we were totally relying on Russia to get cargo and astronauts up and down. And so NASA wanted to create a new domestic capability for that, both the capsule and a new launch vehicle since the space shuttle was grounded. And so SpaceX competed with a bunch of other providers, was selected to have a chance to, to actually deliver. And NASA set up this contract that

• 1:47:57Speaker 03

  was milestone based and fixed price. So. It was not a cost plus contract SpaceX had to perform. It was if you hit this threshold and you do this thing, you will get paid. If you fall short or run out of time, you fail. Sorry, you're out. And so there were a couple of companies selected. Only SpaceX completed it. The milestones were set to be difficult on purpose. We worked really hard to make those those happen. We worked with NASA on that. NASA was a great partner throughout. We made sure every safety scenario was planned for. Thought about every way that things could go wrong and just eliminated those possibilities. And then ultimately, yeah, Dragon completed that program. Docked with the space station, proved the ability to bring cargo back and forth.

• 1:48:40Speaker 03

  And I think did the last missions in 2013. So, yeah, those early days, starting in 2002, went all the way from core concepts, architecture, proving things out on a small Falcon 1 vehicle with one engine, to then getting that vehicle working and going all the way through Falcon Falcon 9. Wow. And then, yeah, the last five, five plus years has been people now working on the next generation vehicle of Starship, which whole new effort, whole new engines, whole new architecture, but that's what's going to get space launched down another 10x, which then unlocks all those different applications like, you know, solar energy production in

• 1:49:22Speaker 03

  space for some, some things and space constellations and maybe a bunch of other things, too. Wow. You think we're going to Mars? Yeah, I think we're going. Do you really? Yeah, I think it all, I mean, what, next year is the next window? And I think internal, internal goal at SpaceX is let's, let's ship something in 2026. Damn. Yeah, if you don't go 2026, you have to wait, I think, a couple more years before a good window opens again. So there's urgency. What's the window? That I should know. I think it's, it's, you can always go, but when the planets are very close, the energy that's required is much lower.

• 1:50:06Speaker 03

  So if you want to get there quickly, something like a six month journey, you've got to go in one of these periods. Some of these periods, I think, are every, could be wrong. I think they're every three or four years. Yeah, they're not every decade, they're not every year, it's in the middle. So you miss this next window, you're waiting a little bit. And so I think NASA has sent stuff to Mars. We've obviously have the rover, but sending more to Mars. First missions will not be people for probably a while. I think we'll prove we can send something, prove we can land something. Then we'll ship actual large amounts of cargo en masse to prepare for humans to go there. And then maybe the next window, you're doing people. That would be my guess of what evolution could look like on that.

• 1:50:51Speaker 03

  Wow. Let's talk about the Founders Fund. When did that start? Founders Fund started 2005. This was, yeah, Founders Fund was originally, if you think back to venture capital in the 90s, it was very much this idea that, hey, we should invest in the same old stuff, software companies.

• 1:51:15Speaker 03

  By the late 90s.

• 1:51:19Speaker 03

  Well, let's talk about the 90s first. So I think the 90s were obviously dot com. That was the big story of the 90s where you had all the internet companies, and ultimately only a few of them survived. But there was this seemingly golden era in startups, in internet, and mostly in consumer internet, in search. And the bubble popped early 2000s. And by early 2000s, most of the VCs were, it was extremely discouraging. People felt like, hey, this was a one-time thing. Did we all go crazy? Were we too, did we have irrational exuberance? Were we too excited about the future? And by early 2000s, venture capital had become, I think, much more conservative

• 1:52:03Speaker 03

  to where it wasn't investing at the time in ambitious projects. People just had a lot of battle scars over the late 90s.

• 1:52:13Speaker 03

  Felt like maybe they had been too excited. So by early 2000s, a lot of conservatism, a lot of looking for more classic, easy to predict and understand businesses like enterprise software. And viewing businesses as a horse and a jockey. So the jockey might be the founder or the CEO and the horse is the business and the technology. And hey, you know, maybe the horse is great, but the jockey's not so good. Let's swap out the jockey a couple of years in. And so that was the mentality of venture capital, which was look for good businesses, look for businesses that are pretty easy to understand. Let's not take a ton of risks. We did that in the late 90s. That didn't turn out well. We overestimated how big these companies can become.

• 1:52:58Speaker 03

  And let's view our role as venture capitalists, and this is all before Founders Fund started. Industry mentality was let's view the role of venture capitalists as helping build these companies and replace management and bring in new management as we need to. And so when Founders Fund started in 2005, it was actually coming from those experiences of some of the team at Founders Fund, you know, really the founders of Founders Fund, Peter, Luke, Ken, lived out that PayPal experience where they had investors that were much more that conservative attitude and didn't trust the founders of the company to run the company. And so Founders Fund came about in 2005 with the purpose of empowering founders to run

• 1:53:42Speaker 03

  their companies forever. And so the thinking was, hey, all the best companies that exist are going to be founder-led. That's, you know, companies that started in the 90s or even earlier. So if we think about Amazon, still founder-led. Apple, founder-led for a very long time. And so there was this belief that founders should run their companies because they have the moral authority and the vision to do that. And if the founder's not so good, maybe the company will fail.

• 1:54:13Speaker 03

  But to achieve like really industry changing companies, you need that founder mentality behind. Here's what we're doing. Here's why we're doing it. And every decision is going to be aligned with doing that, even if it doesn't optimize for the quarterly number. And so Founders Fund started in 05, initially backed a lot of different founders out of the PayPal network. So a lot of consumer internet things early on. One of the first big bets was actually Facebook, but a bunch of other ones as well. Spotify was an early investment. You know, then I think the first incubation happened mid to late 2000s, originally within Peter's office, Palantir.

• 1:54:58Speaker 03

  And Palantir was really a response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11, where the conversation after that between policymakers was really, are we going to have safety? Are we going to have security? And I think you had Shamaan recently on a podcast. I think he talked about this, but this concept of trade offs by policymakers, you know, Palantir was there to solve where it said, well, we have this trade off sphere or this efficient frontier that we can trade between. Do we want safety or we want privacy? And Palantir said, no, we don't. We don't need to make that choice. We can do technology that does both. And so that was really the first incubation by the Founders Fund team to say,

• 1:55:42Speaker 03

  let's actually solve a national security problem through technology and let's work with the government really closely to build out the tools that are going to help us trade information between different departments in a really secure way with privacy controls and make sure that something like 9/11 never happens again. So, yeah, we, Founders Fund started transitioning from maybe more of the consumer internet sort of world, coming out of the PayPal experience in 2005, to then by, you know, helping incubate, pull together the Palantir team. 2008 comes around and SpaceX is now going through its launches, had a couple launches that didn't work,

• 1:56:25Speaker 03

  but was on a great trajectory to actually get the next ones to work. And Founders Fund stepped up to lead one of the critical rounds in SpaceX to help it have the money to do those additional final launches and keep momentum through that.

• 1:56:39Speaker 03

  And then by 2011, really starting to think a lot about, you know, not only is there this core element of backing founders and running their companies, but how do we invest in things that aren't, you know, there's going to be a bunch of important companies that are built in consumer internet and in enterprise software. But how do we back things that otherwise won't happen? These core technologies, whether they might be biotechnology, they might be energy, they might be space.

• 1:57:09Speaker 03

  Things that are maybe even controversial at times. Defense technology, like with Anduril. At the time, nobody wanted to invest in defense in Silicon Valley. And even Google was canceling their program to work with the government on defense software. And so by early 2010s, you saw this evolution or expansion from just let's back founders unilaterally. Whether we succeed or fail, we are there for the founder. And we're going to let them run their company the way they see fit. To now let's do that while also backing important things that otherwise are not going to happen. And so that that was really the evolution from 2005 to 2011 when I joined. Got to, you know, be a part of a bunch of important investments

• 1:57:53Speaker 03

  across a bunch of different technologies.

• 1:57:57Speaker 03

  And yeah, now it just continues.

• 1:58:00Shawn Ryan?

  What are some of the ones that stick out to you the most?

• 1:58:03Speaker 03

  To me, like oddly, a lot of people ask for a long time, what's your favorite company in the portfolio? And I was biased, but I thought objectively SpaceX. You know, working on this thing that wasn't going to happen without SpaceX, bringing down the launch costs dramatically, leveraging that into enabling a bunch of other constellations, including their own constellation of Starlink. And so so much exciting stuff to do there. That was a really important one.

• 1:58:31Speaker 03

  A friend out of business school, so I did business school between SpaceX and and Founders Fund and a friend out of there was, you know, he was thinking about going into the investing world. And during business school, he did a little bit of investing. But he quickly, you know, he was focused on Latin America. And he saw that in Brazil, consumers were paying like 100% interest rate for their credit cards and getting completely ripped off by the existing banking system. And he said, hey, I'm gonna, someone should start a bank and make this more like the US and make sure that consumers actually get a fair deal. And so he started a company called New Bank down there. That started with a credit card for people and it's expanded a lot.

• 1:59:13Speaker 03

  Turned out to be a really important company for consumers in Brazil. Today worth tens of billions. So, big impact. Let's see. Neuralink, we're investors in. So that one's been pretty cool to watch where it went from a concept to demonstrating it, you know, in monkeys playing mind pong. I don't know if you ever saw that video. If not, it's worth watching. You can search Neuralink monkey mind pong. And you'll see a monkey that's playing pong with a joystick. It has a Neuralink in it. It's happily enjoying some banana smoothie every time it wins the game. And then you see halfway through the video, they remove the cord that's actually connecting

• 1:59:57Speaker 03

  the joystick to the computer. And the monkey keeps playing, thinking it's playing. But all it's really doing is reading off the Neuralink thing.

• 2:00:05Shawn Ryan?

  Wow.

• 2:00:06Speaker 03

  And it's still winning at pong and it's still getting the banana smoothie treats. And when I saw that, that's when we knew this is gonna work. And so, fast forward to today. Now I think you've got, you've got some very famous people who have used it, like Nolan. People who had accidents, quadriplegic, couldn't move at all and now actually have jobs that are just internet-based jobs. So just completely changing these people's lives. That's been a really cool one to see.

• 2:00:35Shawn Ryan?

  Do you have any fear of Neuralink?

• 2:00:38Speaker 03

  No, I don't.

• 2:00:39Shawn Ryan?

  No?

• 2:00:39Speaker 03

  I think what we're gonna see the, you know, next decade of Neuralink is gonna be people with quadriplegia, ALS, them getting cured. I think the company's talked about other applications too, like blindness and deafness. Could you actually use it to not just read what the person's thinking and express that onto the world, but could you actually take inputs like from a camera and help them see again? People even who are born with blindness. So, yeah, that doesn't make me scared at all. That makes me really excited. Now, people will think about merger with AI.

• 2:01:16Speaker 03

  Down the road, or like, how do you have human AI symbiosis? I think that's far enough away. And it's gonna be, anything like that is gonna be completely voluntary for people that, hey, if, you know, that's, that does not even enter my area of concern at this point. It doesn't. No, because first, I think it's so far away that we're gonna figure out a lot of things before then. And second, you know, will I ever get a Neuralink? I don't know, like, maybe if it doesn't look like a good idea, I wouldn't do it. But I think for many of these patients today that are paralyzed, or ALS, or blind, or deaf,

• 2:01:55Speaker 03

  or, you know, missing limbs, how can we actually, like, use the Neuralink-type device to let them get full capability back? That's, that's what excites me about Neuralink. So, yeah, we've had, had a chance to be a bunch of, to be a part of many cool companies. Even some that are more conventional, like, a friend of ours at Founders Fund started a company for cancer therapeutics. So specifically dealing with types of cancer and really looking for the target on the cancer that they, they could go after. And they ended up selling that company, and now the same target that they were working on is now showing up in a bunch of drugs. From that company that they sold to, and then other companies. So it's, yeah, a lot of this stuff is really futuristic and feels more distant,

• 2:02:40Speaker 03

  but then also getting to back unconventional approaches in things like cancer therapeutics, and watching patients eventually get cured from that. Wow. Has been really cool. I'll bet, I'll bet. What are you guys focusing on now?

• 2:02:55Speaker 03

  I'd say the, the Founders Fund thing is, it's always, it's always seemingly a black box from the outside. It's, it's seemingly random. And so, you know, one saying is that, once there's a theme of what we're doing, or like, there's a category that you can be a part of, it's already, it's already something Founders Fund probably won't invest in. It's probably already too late.

• 2:03:16Speaker 03

  So people talk about commercial space now, and all the things happening in space, but the Founders Fund first investment in SpaceX was 2008. And so- In terms of what categories are we investing in now? It's really the anti-category. It always has been. It's always been what's the thing that's coming but isn't yet obvious? And that's not something that the Founders Fund team is so smart that they can figure out. It's that the founders bring those ideas to Founders Fund. The founders of these companies say, hey, this is the important problem no one is solving. Or everyone thinks about this problem this way, and the reality is that you should think about it this way, this very different way, this orthogonal way.

• 2:03:59Speaker 03

  And it might not make sense to a lot of people, but here's the reasons why that makes sense. And here's all the questions you might ask, and here's all, let's go down the rabbit hole together and figure out what the answer is. It's those types of companies that Founders Fund backs. And so it's completely without a theme. I think the biggest theme is it should be something that can change an industry and is like N of one, just like a totally unique company that is unlike anything else.

• 2:04:29Shawn Ryan?

  Well, Scott, we're wrapping up the interview, but I mean, what are some problems in the country or maybe in the world that you think that founders and innovators should be looking to solve?

• 2:04:42Speaker 03

  I think a lot of it's going to come back to the energy stuff that we talked about. I think it's going to be energy growth. I think everything comes back to energy. So if it's manufacturing, if it's AI, it's going to come back to energy production. If it's economic growth, it comes back to energy production. So I think we're in this period of immense need for more energy, and there's a lot of companies that could get started. There's people starting reactor companies. We're working on the fuel for the reactors. There's going to be things like transformers. And so I think it's a huge range of things people should do, but it's not going to just be energy. I think what should people do? It's, you know, I think the guideline that Peter at Founders Fund has given to people,

• 2:05:25Speaker 03

  which I find really inspiring and like, it's a good rule of thumb, is do something that matters. That otherwise won't get done and that only you can do. And I think if you can find that thing to work on, that's more important than anything else. So I think that's, that's a sweet spot. So I'd say, search for those things. And until you find them, just try and be part of teams doing things that you think are important, that you can contribute to. And don't worry about the role. Just figure out a way to add value.

• 2:05:59Shawn Ryan?

  Great advice. Great advice. Thank you. Last question. If you had three people to recommend for the show, who would it be?

• 2:06:13Speaker 03

  We've talked about a few people today.

• 2:06:15Shawn Ryan?

  It's like the toughest question I asked, huh?

• 2:06:17Speaker 03

  Well, there's so many people that you should talk to. But I mean, yeah. You haven't had, I've mentioned a few people today. Mentioned Peter. Peter's great. You could go on for 10 hours with Peter. You'd get into a lot of different things. Talked about Sam Altman and what he thinks about where AI is going. I think that, that one could be good. I think Elon at some point would be really interesting.

• 2:06:48Shawn Ryan?

  Perfect. Perfect. Well, Scott, thank you again for being here. And that was fascinating interview. I hope to see you again. And I just want to wish you the best of luck.

• 2:06:58Speaker 03

  Cool.