This Week in Startups - Next Unicorns: The Path to Reaching Net Zero with Avnos CEO Will Kain | E1810

Episode Date: September 15, 2023

This Week in Startups is brought to you by… LinkedIn Jobs. A business is only as strong as its people, and every hire matters. Go to http://linkedin.com/unicorn to post your first job for free. Terms and conditions apply. Fount. Do you want access to the performance protocols that pro athletes and special ops use? With Fount, an elite military operator supercharges your focus, sleep, recovery, and longevity, all powered by your unique data. Want a true edge in work and life? Go to fount.bio/TWIST for $500 off. Catalog. Stop wasting time and money with expensive design firms and unreliable freelancers! Get fast, 3-day turnarounds for a flat monthly fee with Catalog! Get $1200 off right now at https://trycatalog.com/twist * Today’s show: Avnos CEO Will Kain joins Jason to discuss the importance of direct air capture technology for our planet (4:07), CO2's relationship to climate change (11:02), the path to reaching net zero (36:45), and much more! * Time stamps: (0:00) Avnos CEO Will Kain joins Jason (4:07) What carbon capture is and what makes it important (6:15) The high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (9:46) LinkedIn Jobs - Post your first job for free at https://linkedin.com/unicorn (11:02) CO2’s relationship to climate change (19:05) Fount - Get $500 off at https://fount.bio/twist (20:36) Direct air capture (DAC) technology developments and the cost of carbon capture (26:17) What is takes to power a DAC system, resource efficiency, and Avnos’ unique HDAC (32:33) Environmental conditions for DAC (35:16) Catalog - Get $1200 off right now at https://trycatalog.com/twist (36:45) The path to reaching net zero (38:49) Monetization strategies (42:46) The section 45Q tax credit legislation and the VC angle (50:48) Avnos’ number one goal (55:44) Mastering natural systems (59:36) AI’s impact on DAC technology * Check out Avnos: https://www.avnos.com * Read LAUNCH Fund 4 Deal Memo: https://www.launch.co/four Apply for Funding: https://www.launch.co/apply Buy ANGEL: https://www.angelthebook.com Great recent interviews: Steve Huffman, Brian Chesky, Aaron Levie, Sophia Amoruso, Reid Hoffman, Frank Slootman, Billy McFarland, PrayingForExits, Jenny Lefcourt Check out Jason’s suite of newsletters: https://substack.com/@calacanis * Follow Jason: Twitter: https://twitter.com/jason Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jason LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jasoncalacanis * Follow TWiST: Substack: https://twistartups.substack.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/TWiStartups YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/thisweekin * Subscribe to the Founder University Podcast: https://www.founder.university/podcast

We've only got one planet Earth, so we better take care of it, right? You know, this is something, you know, Elon said to me maybe 15 years ago, and we were talking about the controversy around this when it was like a little more controversial people talking about. Yeah. And I said, what do you think? And he said, I think this is a stupid experiment to run. And that's why I'm doing Tesla. And I said, you know what?

The risk is totally asymmetric, isn't it? If we do nothing and climate change is a real thing, we're up a creek. This weekend startups is brought to you by LinkedIn Jobs. A business is only as strong as its people and every hire matters. Post your first job for free at LinkedIn.com slash unicorn. Fount, do you want access to the performance protocols that pro athletes and special ops use? With Fount, an elite military operator supercharges your focus, sleep, recovery, and longevity, all powered by your unique data.

Want a true edge in work and life? Go to Fount.Bio slash Twist for $500 off. And Catalog. Stop wasting time and money with expensive design firms and unreliable freelancers. Get fast, three-day turnarounds for a flat monthly fee with catalog. Get $1,200 off right now at trycatalog.com slash twist. All right, everybody. Welcome back to this weekend startups.

We're doing our next unicorn series. is it's been ridiculous. What amazing group of founders we've had on the program. We had Victor from synesthesia making AI generated video avatars. Had Andy from Path AI, building AI software for pathologists.

Helps them make diagnoses faster, more accurately. We had Shiv from a bridge. They're doing a HIPAA approved speech to text AI software, saving doctors a couple hours a day, which really does that up. Nick from Light Matter, building photonic computing chips for AI.

That's going to make data centers less hot and make data move faster. Do all those big jobs. That was episode 1787. Definitely worth your time. Gabriel from PropRo, it's a surgical platform. It uses computer vision, AR,

to teach surgeons to do very complicated surgeries and to have them do complicated surgeries without looking at some x-ray on the side. Nope. They can see everything right there up close and personally while they're fixing your spine. Delian from Varda, he's building space factories for pharmaceutical companies. I mean, it sounds like science fiction.

Peter from Covariant, full-stack robotics platform, basically he's using AI to help robots, function in the real world, right? C3PO, Decker. And then we had Celine from Loyal working on life extension drugs, not for humans, but for dogs, because that would be a great stepping stone. and hopefully can be super profitable for the team over there. We had suits from Sardine.

They were building an AI-powered fraud detection platform because you've got all these new AI hackers, right? Think about all those incredible industries, biotech, AI, chips, space, robotics, healthcare. Really, deep tech is happening in a major way in the venture capital, Silicon Valley space and, you know, all over the world. We haven't had a climate founder on.

You know why? I looked at a lot of climate companies. A lot of these are hippies. They're doing stuff that's not going to matter or is low impact. And we searched and we searched. We said, who's doing something that's super high impact? Well, we found the guy. So, uh, Wilcane is with us.

He's the CEO and founder of Avnos. Abnos is a hybrid direct air capture startup. Basically, he's building machines that are to capture carbon from the air and, uh, turn it into something we all need. Water. Well, welcome to the show. Jason, thanks so much for having me. It's a pleasure to be here.

And that list, it's been a great series. It's been a terrific list of founders you've had on. It's a pleasure to be here. Yeah, it's great to add you to the list. Okay, we're all going to need a bit of an education here. We hear the term carbon capture over and over again. Why is carbon capture important? How does it work?

And then what technique and strategy are you bringing to the table with your startup Abnos? Yeah, important place to start. So carbon capture is a broad rubric under which there are a whole bunch of different individual technologies that refers to the process of pulling CO2 emissions out of some airstream. You may have heard of point source capture, which is going on the back of industrial processes, for example, in pulling CO2 and other pollutants out of the exhaust stream of industrial processes. You may have heard of things like, nature-based solutions, so growing trees and other types of biomass that naturally pull CO2 out of our atmosphere. And that's actually a certain form of what we call direct air capture. And that is what we do at Avnos. So we are pulling legacy CO2 emissions. So the CO2 content that's already in the atmosphere around us. We are pulling those emissions, legacy emissions, as we call them, out of the atmosphere to reduce the total CO2 content in the atmosphere. You've read and heard that we are approaching

420 parts per million CO2 content in our atmosphere, carbon dioxide being the chief bad actor among a variety of greenhouse gases that create effectively kind of a heat dome that trap heat in the low earth atmosphere and generate what we know as climate changer has been called global warming over the years as well. And in order to get to a net zero economy, that's another term that a lot of folks out there have probably heard, where that net zero refers to net zero emissions of CO2 in our economy, we have to deploy things like carbon capture and direct their capture in particular. That's the only way.

Yeah. The CO2 that's in the atmosphere. Yep. CO2 itself comes out of humans, right? When we breathe out, it helps trees grow. It is not in itself a challenge except when it gets to an extreme amount. And this chart, I think, sort of displays that over time, it was pretty steady. and we know this from the science

of looking at, I guess, trees or minerals and then carbon dating them? Or how do we know that, just so we level set here? Because there's a lot of client deniers. There's a lot of people now who are trying to spend misinformation. And listen, there's also people on the environmental side who have been worked up and maybe gotten a little hot under the collar in some cases hysterical.

So it feels to me like the climate discussion has lost some rationale You can see that on both sides. So just to be clear, there is nothing controversial about CO2 necessarily. It's the amount that we have. And then that's causing heat and temperatures to rise. And maybe your best explanation of why this is not a controversial statement. Yeah, yeah. Well, you've got it.

CO2 in and of itself is not a bad thing, right? Carbon is kind of the basis of all life form. So it is not in and by itself a bad thing. but as the expression goes, poison is in the dose, right? And so the chart that you just showed, yeah, we know from pretty sophisticated carbon dating and carbon modeling, historical looking carbon modeling, that up until the industrial age and on the chart that you just had there, you can look at that as roughly 1800, let's use sort of rough numbers.

As of 1800s to the early to mid-19th century, you saw that CO2 content in the atmosphere was pretty steady at about 280 parts per million. So you almost think of that as kind of a natural equilibrium state. That's where the CO2 content in the atmosphere has been for centuries. But then again, you look at that chart and you can see there's a bit of a, not a bit of a, there's a significant move upward as of the beginning of industrial activity in the early 19th century. So that 280 parts per million, which again, think of that as equilibrium, plants,

live pretty happily, humans live pretty happily, right? The temperatures on the globe are quite conducive to supporting life, right, and supporting a comfortable existence for most forms of life. But then, yeah, you can see as of about 1800, you go to, you get sort of sharp, ever sharper slopes headed up into the right in terms of the CO2 content. And by the year 2000, that 280 parts per million had become roughly 370 parts per million. And then just in the last 23 years since the year 2000, we've seen another 20 parts per million of CO2 added to the overall content of our atmosphere and we're 420, 417, if you want to be particular about it, but we're roughly 420 parts per million CO2 content in the atmosphere.

And, you know, what that points out is the human activity around industry is the thing that has changed there on this graph that we're looking at. Nothing controversial about that. We've built factories. We built cars. These were incredible human innovations. They moved the species forward, but there are downstream effects of them.

That's right. All right, listen. You're listening to the next unicorns, right? That's table stakes. Well, if you want to start on the path to becoming a unicorn yourself, you're going to need to find and hire great candidates. And how do you do that? LinkedIn.

Of course, you're on LinkedIn. I'm on LinkedIn. Over 900 million users now, the March to a billion continues for the amazing team over at LinkedIn. And you can attract both the passive and the active job seekers. And all you have to do is put that purple hiring ring on your profile. Then you post some interesting content. When they see that purple hiring ring, it says, whoa, wait a second.

I know that founder. I know that CEO. I know that VC. Well, they're hiring. Let me click and check it out. And then all of a sudden you start getting this great inbound, right? We love LinkedIn. I mean, I've gotten some of the most amazing people.

In fact, I just got a new personal assistant because things are going so well. And I've got the new accelerator that we have coming in. in San Mateo, and I need somebody help me run that and set it all up. And I said, you know what? I need to have an executive assistant again. So we found somebody amazing on LinkedIn, of course. And so here's your call to action. LinkedIn jobs helps you find qualified candidates you want to talk to fast.

Post your job for free at LinkedIn.com slash unicorn. That's right. LinkedIn.com slash unicorn to post your first job for free. Terms and conditions apply because LinkedIn is so generous. It's kind of strange when I heard Vivette. Beck, you know, who's, I don't want to say he's a climate denier, but he, I guess, is using the climate as, like, part of his, you know, technique for getting votes. He and I aren't necessarily on the same side of discussion, but, yeah. He was sort of saying, like, hey, the CO2 is, like, helping green the planet, because we all know trees need CO2.

So this is a true statement. Also a true statement. There's a lot of CO2. So there's a lot of undeniable facts here, but it is, um, I think the next part of this puzzle is once you accept, okay, yeah, if we burn a bunch of fossil fuels, that puts pollutants in the air, not good for anybody. So I don't think anybody can debate that. But the CO2, obviously, then creates heat. So just let's make that next jump there. And there's, there shouldn't be anything controversial about CO2 in the atmosphere. I don't think. So if we can all agree on that, because this is pretty, irrefutable science. It's irrefutable science. Yeah.

That's right. Yep. Okay. Now we get the next jump, which is temperatures increasing. Right. So let's make that next jump. How certain are we, CO2, is causing that heat jump? Yeah.

The certainty is sort of as high as it gets in the scientific community, right? You've seen the same stuff that I have that when you consider the IPCC reports and surveys of climatologists around the world who are certainly experts in the space. of a level that I cannot claim to be, that CO2 is the primary, again, bad actor in trapping heat and creating global warming and broadly climate change, right? Because global warming is not the only feature, is not the only features too positive a word, is not the only ramification. It's really climate extremes that are being created by virtue of this excess CO2 in the atmosphere. And if we go back a second, you said, you're exactly right. Trees do absorb CO2. They're great at that.

But we, the actions of the industrialized economy over the past, you know, roughly 200 years, have overwhelmed trees' capacity to absorb CO2 and to bring us and keep us at an equilibrium level with respect to the CO2 content in the atmosphere. And it is that excess CO2, you know, to give a couple of numbers since roughly that dawn of the industrial age, so since roughly 1,800, we've emitted roughly 2.5 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere as a global economy, and something like 700 billion tons have been absorbed by landmass, by trees and plants and other photosynthetic organisms as well as the oceans. And that leaves roughly 800 billion tons of CO2, of excess CO2, right? That has,

gone into our atmosphere. And so I come from the school of thought that that's creating an existential climate crisis for us, us being humanity. But even if you don't necessarily subscribe all the way to that level, right, what you've got, ultimately, Jason, is a significant waste management problem. I mean, you think about that volume of waste that has been emitted into the atmosphere. And ultimately, that's what CO2 emissions are. That's what pollution is, is its waste and its inefficiency. And when you see that level of weight, think about other forms of waste, CO2 is a hard one to visualize, given that it's an invisible gas. But when you think about sort of waste management, you know, you can't imagine our industrial trash, for example, just going into our environment

and not creating negative impacts. And the negative impacts that we're seeing now are really all around us. Climate change has been one of those a bit esoteric concepts for much of, certainly my lifetime and much of human existence. It's been hard to visualize and wrap your arms around what climate change actually means. But the big thing is heat. You're right. And you're seeing July of 2023 was the hottest month in recorded human history. In June of 2023, we had the hottest week in recorded human history. 2022 was the sixth hottest year in recorded human history. And how's this one? Ten of the ten hottest years in recorded human history have happened since 2010. Got it. And that's, and that is then, and yet John's got another great

article in chart up here, which then you start to see the effects, not just of the heat itself, but you see more extreme droughts and more extreme flooding and sea level rise and ocean temperature rises in acidification. And, you know, all of those effects that have, start to have the meaningful effect, a negative effect on our everyday life as humanity. So when, and I don't want to, I don't want to tag anybody with being hysterical or denial, or being in denial, right? So let's take the 20% of the lunatics on either fringe, 10% whatever, people who are chaining themselves, you know, to nuclear power plant saying you got to shut this thing down,

whatever it is. Interrupting NBA games, which I have no interest in an NBA game being interrupted, yeah. So let's put the lunatics aside. And we won't call people climate deniers. We won't call people historical. But just looking at the facts here, the heat fact is undeniable. And so I guess the question then becomes twofold. One, is there any, when you hear people say like, well, we've had other times, we've

had spikes in climate, in temperatures, is there any way to give that any credence? I mean, you said 10 of the last hottest, we're since 2010. So that's like 10 out of the last 13. Do you think there's anything there that is in any way logical in terms of looking at this heat as it might be some temporary pattern that just happens to correlate with CO2 and all the science? Yeah, I think I defer to the science as you say there. And there doesn't seem to be a lot of room for argument, quite frankly, that the increase in CO2 levels has resulted in more trash. of heat and the resultant, you know, climate change madness that we see, uh, manifested in many of these extreme events that we talked about. So, you know, I, I'm a bit of a big tent kind of guy.

So I'm certainly happy to, um, I went to the University of Virginia and Thomas Jefferson had a saying, one of my fairs was for here, we are not afraid to tolerate any error as long as reason is left free to combat it. So, you know, if we want to have a discussion about, well, heat maybe is good, right? Or CO2 is good. Let's look at some data. Let's look at some facts and, you know, sort of put a point-counterpoint together. And I just think, as you said, it's incontrovertible when you put the point-counterpoint together, that climate change being manifested as heat and those extreme events is ultimately a purely negative proposition for humanity, for the world, for our economy, maybe more importantly, which is something I'm sure

we'll talk about is that, you know, there's a lot of economic rationality to fostering this energy transition and to fighting and mitigating and preventing the worst effects of climate change, which is a bit of how I think I approach it. I said before I come from the school of thought that climate change is an existential crisis for humanity, but I also think that it represents a meaningful economic opportunity to, you know, to create wealth in our economy and to create, to reduce negative externalities, which, as I said, are ultimately waste and inefficiency and create better economic outcomes across the economy. All right.

Which is what's exciting about this energy transition for me. You see these blue light glasses I'm wearing, I'm not wearing for style, although they are very stylish. They've totally changed my life. Why? I started having headaches, right, and had eye strain. So I got these blue light blocking glasses that do a little magnification because I need readers. Yeah, I look nuts.

But my eye strain's gone down. My headaches have gone away and I'm sleeping better. Do you know how I got on this? I got on it because I now have a health coach. Who is my health coach? It's found. F-O-U-N-T. It's a health company that's created custom health and performance programs that are tailored to your body, obviously.

also your goals, and they take into account your lifestyle. My coach is incredible. I text with them all the time. They did a blood work for me. They check out my wearable data, and we do weekly calls to see if I'm on track and getting the results I want. They also told me about some supplements I should be taking based on the blood work, and they do it at a fraction of the cost.

We upgraded my diet. I'm doing a little more protein. We've optimized my sleep. That's great. I got the supplement packs. I feel great. I feel like I'm in control of my destiny. If you want to be like me and you're concerned about your health and you want to

just try to do better. Have some experts on your team. Build your own program. Go to fount. dot bio slash twist. That's f-o-un-u-n-t. B-I-O-O-S-T-T-T-T-T-T-T. Get your free consultation. Mention Twist. You get $500 off your first month and get your own personal health coach. Health is well. And if you're running a startup, if you're a CEO, if you're a capital allocator, take it seriously. I love this service. Fount.bio-slash-T-T-T-T-T-L-L-E. Let's assume there's some group of people. we won't convince that this is real or existential, right? So I think that existential where it becomes triggering for people because they're just like, well, if it's too hot by the equator, why don't you move north? And Canada will become more like, you know, New York and San Francisco and New York and San Francisco will be more like L.A. and Mexico City will become, you know, unlivable during certain months.

Yeah. But no big deal. People can then just get in their cars and go to their ski houses in Colorado or something, which seems to be. The argument on the other side is like, yeah, hey, you know, it's not the end of the world. It's not going to be existential. But it also seems like, hey, what a heck of an experiment to run. If given the choice to run the experiment or not, probably would be on the side of maybe we don't run an experiment with the one planet we have since we only have one of these and we haven't found another one yet. Or do we know how to terraform?

So let's talk about the cost of capturing all this carbon that's there. Sure. And your approach to it, we had that startup rising tide, I think, that was building kelp and then running tide. Yeah, Marty and the team there. Yeah. Yeah. Which is a great solution. They think they're building kelp.

They put it out into the middle of the ocean. They cut it after it absorbs a bunch of CO2, it gets cut and goes to the bottom of the ocean. And sticks to the bottom of the ocean. Right under the osmotic pressure of the ocean. So no big deal. No big deal. Yeah. So that's a nature-based solution, right?

as I referenced previously. So harnessing the power of nature to absorb CO2. What we do at Avnos and in direct air capture DAC, broadly speaking, is think of these as engineered solutions. So we're trying to take the best aspects of nature and turbocharge them, right? If you think about a nature-based solution, for example, you know, a tree, roughly, you'll get a ton of CO2 per acre per year out of an acre of trees, for example. one of our machines can do sort of like 20,000 tons of CO2 per acre per year.

So as I say, you're turbocharging, sorry, easy for me to say, turbocharging the best effects of nature. And so, you know, the threshold that we are all as a sort of climate community, and I think as a global economy, we should be targeting, to try to stay beneath is at 1.5 degrees Celsius warming, right? The IPCC has educated us on that. And in order to do that, we both need to eliminate the next emission. So we need to go to wind and solar and geothermal and other forms of renewable power, which we can talk about the positive economic and job impacts there, by the way, especially relative to traditional kind of fossil sources. But then we also need to reduce the CO2 content in the atmosphere,

as we talked about previously, even if we go to a zero marginal emission society tomorrow, which we're not doing, right? So that 420 parts per million CO2 content, the atmosphere is problematic. We have to pull that down and get to a more rational level. And that's what we're doing at Adeno's. So this is a physical device you're building at Avernos. Exactly. It's a physical device and there's a rendering of it on the screen right now. That is actually a device that we have built. That is installed in Bakersfield and is capturing water and CO2 as we speak. So yeah, explain,

you know, how this works, you know, broadly in terms of, because this takes energy to power it. It does. Energy tends to put CO2 into the atmosphere. So I assume that we'll talk about the process here and then we'll talk about the energy and the displacement there and the economics of the energy because I assume you're using renewables to do this, but I don't know that. So let's talk about it. Sure. Yeah. So director capture writ large, as I said, it does a bit of what trees were designed to do. You pull ambient air into a chemically charged system. The chemicals that the system is charged with, or refer to those as ad sorbents, or sorbents. So those sorbents are chemically made up to be what's called selective for carbon dioxide. So you pass air over those

sorbents through that sorbent charge chamber. And the sorbents adhere to the CO2 content in that air. So the rest of the exhaust, if you like, from a DAC plant is CO2 lean air, is reduced content CO2 air. The CO2 has been captured inside of the direct their capture system. And then more often than not, we differ here, but as a broad matter, more often than not, you got to heat up that adsorbent to release the CO2 that you've captured. And then there are two things to do with the CO2. One is utilization, which are things like sustainable aviation fuel or e-fuels, where you can use that CO2 and combine it with hydrogen to create synthetic hydrocarbons effectively. So carbon neutral fuels is one of

pathway. So that's utilization. That'll be the smallest pathway of things to do with the CO2. The bigger one is to sequester that carbon dioxide in the subsurface. So think of old depleted oil and gas wells, old saline aquifers. Those rock formations, those geologic formations are really well suited to retain gaseous CO2. So you can put those, this is miles underground, right? Think of like under the Gulf of Mexico, for example, is an area that's drawn a lot of attention for CO2 storage, subsurface storage. And that CO2 can then go under the Gulf of Mexico and stay there in air quotes permanently, but for hundreds or thousands of years.

So that's director capture writ large. And I'm going to tell you why Avnos is special in the director capture landscape. But let me let you ask any questions there. No, no, I get the concept here. We're sequestering it. We can then store it somewhere, put it somewhere. It makes total sense to me. the thing I always wonder about, just like desalinization,

you know, this technology has existed desal forever. But carbon capture, for a decent amount of time, my understanding of it as a neophyte, but who's talked to a bunch of founders, is the issue becomes energy. How much energy does it take to do this? And so how much carbon can you capture versus how much are you creating? And so if we had a renewable source,

Like if this was at a nuclear power plant and at night, nobody's using the nuclear, we got this extra nuclear energy instead of doing Bitcoin mining or something, we could be having these by a nuclear power plant and at night just run them full bore for free, I guess, or essentially free for what would have been wasted energy. Is that the vision here or is there some other vision? Do you run batteries and solar, let it just become sustainable? Because I don't know how much energy it takes to do this process. And is that the blocker?

Yeah. broadly speaking, you've got the idea is that, you know, you want to think of these processes in sort of a resource, from a resource efficiency perspective, right? Is what resources are we investing in order to generate what benefit and what resources on the back end? And so, yeah, energy is one of the key factors to consider. So I'll use gross generalizations. You know, most of the rest of the space will tell you that they're going to consume somewhere

between 2,500 and 3,000 kilowatt hours per ton of CO2. That's sort of a rough generalization of what the rest of the space looks like. And that's on the order of 2,000 kilowatt hours per ton from thermal energy. So think of that as burning fossil fuels to generate heat. And as I told you previously, a lot of the other systems use heat. That's the way that they get the CO2 off of the sorbent. Well, that's what you need. That's how you generate that heat is by burning fossil fuel.

to generate that heat, which has a greenhouse gas emission profile associated with it, making those systems less resource efficient. That was one of the big realizations that I had when I started looking at the director capture space in 2017. Was that energy consumption profile, and particularly the heat consumption profile, was going to be a rate limiter for the broad-scale deployment of DAC, exactly, as you said. How many molecules of CO2 are we putting into the air to draw it down? The other piece of the equation is water, which is something that often gets lost in the discussion of climate change, but water is obviously a massive vector in climate change and drought throughout the world.

50% of the global population is going to live a water scarce existence by 2025. But the water consumption profile of many other forms of director capture is consuming somewhere between five and 10 tons of water per ton of CO2 captured. and if you extrapolate that out to billions of tons per year of CO2 capture, you're increasing the industrial water draw on the planet by 25%. So really an unsustainable proposition. So that was the other piece that I looked at in direct air capture was, all right, energy consumption and heat consumption in particular, and then water consumption, right? Pick in California where we live. You can't get an industrial process permitted and built in California that has a significant

greenhouse gas emission profile and a significant water consumption profile. Many more jurisdictions around the world are going the direction of California than not, right? And so I set out to identify emerging, interesting director-capture technologies that address those issues. And I found that at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is one of the Department of Energy's delegated research facilities in Washington State. And that is H-DAC. That is hybrid-directed air capture.

That's what we're commercializing now at Avnos, and we use the word hybrid in front of direct air capture to reflect the fact that we're capturing both water and CO2 from the same airstream in the same system. So whereas everybody else in the space is consuming five to ten tons of water per ton of CO2 captured, we produce five to ten tons of distilled water per ton of CO2 captured. And then in so doing, capturing that moisture, capturing that water from the air actually allows us. then to use the moisture to release the CO2 that we've captured. So we eliminate that thermal energy input that I referred to a moment ago. So whereas others in this space are consuming somewhere between 2,500 and 3,000 kilowatt hours per ton in order to perform their direct-air capture processes, we're closer to 1,000 kilowatt hours per ton.

You can see a major difference in why that became really attractive to me in looking at the landscape for differentiated technologies. And so a key piece of this is this atmospheric water generator kind of function. I think it is what they call them. We might call them in our homes dehumidifiers. Like when you get a leak, you put it in your basement. And it captures, and all of a sudden you got a bucket of water. Or when you put a hose on it, drip, drip, drip.

So somewhere in your process, you're extracting water from the atmosphere to help this process. Curacy, you can't use salt water for this process. Would it not be, or is just not conducive? to doing it? So there are some other folks in the space who are looking at sort of combined direct their capture and desalination processes. But for us, you know, you're moving some of the interesting insight into the technologies that there's water and CO2 and every molecule of air, right?

And so atmospheric water extraction units, atmospheric water generators are a thing, as you rightly point out. And so is director capture. So when we started looking at H-DAC, we thought, well, You're pulling molecules out of the same air stream. So how to create some efficiencies by putting these two processes in series? And so the air that we crew, that we, or the water that we generate, excuse me, comes from the air. And obviously that water is.

And that's super efficient because you've got a fan or whatever a reverse fan is. You got sucking in it anyway. So you're sucking in air anyway. You're processing a lot of air. I might as well take some in the water. Another stupid question. Yeah. You know, different regions have different amounts of water in the air, different humidity levels.

So did these devices work better near nuclear power plants that are near, you know, places, I don't know, maybe the Pacific Northwest, Canada, et cetera, places where maybe the humidity is just naturally higher than places like Texas or Arizona where it might be much drier. Yeah, so we've got that unit that John pulled up previously, that rendering. That's in Bakersfield, California, so about two hours north of L.A. here. And our next year, that unit will do about 30 tons per year of CO2 captures. It's small. It's a pilot unit.

The next scale will be 300 tons, which will also go in Bakersfield about this time next year. And it turns out that Bakersfield's a pretty good spot for us. So it's not too hot, but also not too dry. We actually prefer to be slightly lower on the humidity scale if we're talking about optimal conditions. Because the point of the system ultimately is to bring about the most efficient CO2 capture. And that goes back to some of the economics is that for better or worse, water is a horribly mispriced resource in the world relative to the value that it provides to humanity and to the world. And so, you know, even though we're producing five to ten tons of water per ton of CO2

on a volumetric basis, on a revenue basis, or it's 20 times in the, in the favor of CO2. So ultimately, the economic case is there to be made on producing the CO2. And so you're in occurring at more energy, the more water you produce, actually, the more energy you consume. And so having a little bit less water in the air is better. Having said that, our system, you know, our team, we've got a team of, you know, we have seven PhDs, I think six are chemical engineering PhDs, the one's mechanical engineering PhD that are working on creating the most robust system possible, such that the performance of the system looks really similar in Texas, in Canada, in South Africa and Chile and Japan, right?

That's ultimately our mode of deployment is to take more of a manufacturing approach and to build the same unit over and over again out of a single or a small number of infrastructure, you know, production infrastructure assets and then deliver those units to individual sites for assembly as opposed to the more cost intensive, more expensive, you know, stick built, kind of customized, engineered on-site construction. deployment mode that some others in our space and some other industrial processes have, which just ultimately adds cost. When I see a startup that's got bad design, it's hard for me to take it seriously in today's

day and age. Why? Because having great design, having world-class design, it's kind of table stakes today with consumers, with employees, with partners, and of course, with investors. But, you know, design agencies, they're very, very expensive. And there's a lot of back and forth to figure out what you want. It's not for startups. You can't spend a quarter million dollars, a half million dollars getting some design agency

to do your look and feel. And it's hard for you to hire somebody full-time because that's a full-time staff position. So let me tell you about an amazing service. It's called Catalog, a full-service design studio tailor-made for startups. And Catalog does all of your branding. They do UI and U.S. They'll do landing pages, pitch decks. They'll do it all.

It's half the price of a typical design agency, but they offer a full team. including a dedicated project manager and a design director. They've worked with hundreds of startups. So if you have a problem, chances are they've already solved it. You can stop and start back at any time. It's a monthly subscription. And Catalog will never waste your time. They do three-day turnaround, okay?

That's more than enough. Stop wasting time. Stop wasting money with all these expensive design firms and unreliable freelancers who disappear. What you want is fast. Three-day turnarounds for a flat monthly fee with catalog. And you're going to get $1,200 off right? now at trycatalog.com slash twist. That's $1,200 off at trycatalog.com slash twist.

Are we still increasing the amount of CO2? We're putting into the atmosphere each year? Or have we started to slow down? We're still increasing it. We're still increasing it. Yeah. Yeah, we are increasing. Interestingly, COVID when we were all at home, you know, we were increasing at a decreasing rate. But since we've come out of COVID and economic activity has resumed full bore, or something close to that anyway, that, you know, the,

the emissions are back on the rise. And so that's, you know, we, we as a global economy emit something like 50 billion tons of CO2 per year. And that is the challenge is to get that 50 down to zero. And again, that's what net zero refers to is,

that's what net zero refers to. Can we stop doing this? So at least the temperatures, theoretically, if we stop putting carbon in, then we would stop seeing the temperatures increase. At least we could pull. cause what's happening.

But what is the realistic net zero date, do you think? Yeah, I think, you know, I am a techno-optimist when it comes to climate solution, broadly speaking, and when it comes to climate solutions, I think we've got a shot at 2050, at net zero, something like 2050. But, you know, it's going to take Herculean efforts from here to there. You know, maybe the more likely case is something like 2075. But yeah, the carbon budget is that based on any revolutionary technologies being created, or is that just based on incrementalism and, you know, the increase in solar nuclear renewables? So it's a lot about the increasing penetration of renewables, which doesn't require a major breakthrough, continued cost reduction in batteries, for example.

But then, yeah, certainly significant step changes in MySpace in carbon removal. I think the technologies are there. I think they exist. I don't think we're starting, you know, got to invent these technologies out of a whole cloth, but we got to go fast to get up the curve and deploy carbon dioxide removal at a much faster pace,

certainly than we have been. Who's your customer? Who's going to fund this? I know venture capitalists are interested in investing in this, but ultimately you're selling to governments, you're selling to people who put carbon in the atmosphere and need to, you know, because of regulations become a carbon neutral, you know, factories or something.

Who's your customer? Who's going to buy these? What are they, what does it cost to build this, you know, these giant units you're making? Yeah. So the primary monetization mechanism for CO2 removal today is this 45 Q tax credit that was passed in the Inflation Reduction Act a little over a year ago, right here in the U.S. So that pays direct or capture companies like mine. they capture CO2 and store it in the subsurface $180 per ton of CO2.

So that's the leading regime for CO2 monetization, CO2 removal monetization in the world. So the government in this section 45Q, they're giving a tax credit. That's right. It's a direct pay, which you'll know, but it is a bit of an esoteric. But ultimately, you know you have to be a taxable entity, right? It's a cash pay program to the cash. as it were of the CO2. Got it.

So that's the government. You could just build these things and the government will pay you for it. So then it's your job to figure out if $50 per, do you say $5 per metric ton? It's 180. And so how do we deliver CO2 for $100 a ton, right? Is ultimately the challenge. And so to get from here to there, right? Because we, the director of capture is not at $100 a ton.

That's the level. What is it at now? How far are you? You know, some of the folks in the space have put out numbers like $600 to $1,000 a ton is sort of where the clearing price seems to be. So there's work to do. You got to be 10% better a month for. You got to be jamming on cost out for sure. And the DOE has set $100 per ton as sort of a threshold that they've set as a target

for director capture companies to get to. and at Avnos, we've got the most direct line of site to get into less than $100 per ton, and it's because of those features that I mentioned, it's that water production as opposed to water consumption. So we've turned a cost line item into a revenue line item. And then as I say, in eliminating the heat input, right, we use this moisture responsive CO2 adsorbent material. So we can use the moisture that we capture in our atmospheric water generator.

That is the method by which we liberate. the CO2 that we capture. So we're generating that media, that liberation media inside of our system. We don't have to add heat. And that has a couple of effects. One is obviously operating expense. We don't have to pay for the generation of heat. But then the other is that you can use more cost-effective materials in building our systems because we don't have to manage heat the way that some others in the space do. And that's really important, Jason, because as you think as a broad matter, the components of a cost of a ton of CO2 delivered from an Avnos machine is sort of a two-thirds, one-third proposition between the amortized cost of the CAPEX and operating

expenditures. So every bit that we can pick up on the CAPX, on CAPX efficiency really is magnified relative to the OPEX in terms of reducing the total cost of CO2. And that's where I, when I talk about the manufacturing approach as opposed to assembling on site. If we can build, again, invest in infrastructure to make our units and we're just making the same unit over and over again. Again, you very well know the sort of cost implications of being able to mass manufacture units, be they have those units or any other type of widget. This 45Q legislation that was put out there was done as a challenge almost to the community.

Hey, we'll pay 100. We know it's costing you 600 to a thousand to do this. So here's the carrot, get moving. And has that spurred a lot of investment? Because you've been able to convince investors, I think we can get there. And here's how? It has. It has.

Yeah, it spurred a lot of interest. It spurred in additional investment. You know, I'm proud to say that, you know, we've brought on a number of really high quality industrial partners. We announced recently, you know, Shell and Conoco Phillips and, and, and, you know, JetBlue Ventures have joined our team from a partnership perspective. And we were engaged with those folks prior to that IRA passing and the 45Q passing, but certainly it supports the case, right?

It supports the theory of the case that there is an opportunity here, that a marker has been set. You can monetize this and you can generate returns on a project basis at that 45Q level. If we do all the right things. And as I said, we've got, we think the most direct line of sight to get into less than $100 per ton, which makes then those projects deliver returns that are attractive enough to equity investors in those projects, projects, finance, credit providers, things of that nature to ensure that we've got an economic case. This is where incentives really matter.

They put this incentive out there, and it incents VCs who are taking a 10-plus-year approach. But eventually, if you start getting in spitting distance, I suppose, you know, $2, $400, it's going to incent maybe some short-term thinker. can be private equity firms, etc. Or high net worth individuals, hedge funds or whatever, maybe to want to get it on this. 100 million metric tons of CO2 captured per year at $100 per 10 billion a year. Yep.

How much did you say was already in the atmosphere? We had 800 billion tons. Yeah. So we got some wood to chop. Got a lot of wood to chop. So this is going to put a very small dent into it. but it seems like there's like three or four steps that have to occur here. You have to get to the $100 level.

And then somebody's got to, you know, not just the government, decide we want to pay for that. So that's right. So take me from, you know, getting to $100 and then getting to carbon neutral. Yeah. Well, you know, the good news is that this space has generated a lot of interest in early, what are called voluntary carbon buyers. So Microsoft, for example, has decided that they are going to be a net zero company, I believe it's by 2030. And as a part of that, they are going to purchase carbon removal offset.

So there are multiple steps in getting to net zero. The biggest chunk of that, probably 80 to 90 percent of abating or eliminating those 50 billion tons per year of CO2, emissions will be in switching to renewable power sources, for example. And then the last 10 or 20% is going to have to address what are called hard to abate emissions. So think of, you know, shipping. How you're going to...

You can't electrify a ship. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And they use particularly dirty oil when they get out into the ocean. They use clean oil to get out of port, and then they put the cheapest, most disgusting polluting. That's pollutants, which are different than CO2,

but I think it does do more CO2. But there's also CO2. Yeah, that's right. And so those hard to abate emissions, right? Those are the, that's where carbon dioxide removal comes in. You're talking 10 to 20 billion tons per year. The IPCC says 5 to 10 billion tons per year by 2050 of CO2 removal capacity. And to get us there, you know, you've seen folks like the frontier group that came out of

stripe. That's a couple billion dollars now. You've got Microsoft that are out there willing to pay significant prices, 600, $1,000 a ton to help to get. get our industry off the ground and to come up the maturity curve and down the the cost curve. I mean, and I think as as you do that, the really interesting thing, Jason, I think is, I referenced it previously is you've got a bit of a waste removal problem, which is a collective action problem ultimately. Yeah. Right. Is we all pay whatever we pay for our trash bins at our

homes, right? So as as taxpayers. And now I don't want to get into the discussion. I'm not saying you'll go there, but with anybody in particular of who should be paying for that, right? I'm not, I'm not necessarily involved in that specific conversation as much as you could see a world. And I think the government may be late. This is totally my opinion. I don't know anything about what the government's thinking. I don't know if they do half the time. But in any event, the, you know, you could see a world in this 45 queue, there's some groundwork being laid to where this becomes, again, a collective action problem and with a collective action solution where the government becomes a direct buyer of CO2 removal credits

in order to reduce the CO2 content in the atmosphere, allow us to avoid the worst effects of climate change and ultimately manage a waste problem that is not currently being managed. So I think you could see that. There's a lot of precedent for this. If we just look at the Hudson River in New York

and pollution in the oceans, collective action problem, we came up some regulations, we came up with some technologies, And eventually, you know, people are in the Olympics going to be doing water sports in the San River. And, you know, you're seeing whales and dolphins show up around Manhattan again. Like, there are green shoots here. And there's precedent.

Now, listen, of course, I know the Sen is also human waste being put in there. Sure, sure, sure. But there's a lot of issues here that you can solve with technology and regulation. It's unpopular for some people, I think, because there is the counter argument that, oh, people are going to have to suffer and this is a tax on society, yada, yada. And so leave it to the next generation or, you know, why are we giving India, China, frontier markets, emerging markets are a hard time about this. And, you know, that's, I think, where the economics requires leadership and then people like

Microsoft Striper in a unique position to show that leadership because they're highly profitable companies and it matters to their employees and to their investors. That's right. And it matters to society, right? It's, it is, I would argue it is more inflationary for, you know, state farm to pull out of California. I can't get a homeowner's policy on my house from State Farm anymore, right? It could be because of climate activity and health insurance costs that ultimately get

socialized, right? Whether it's CO2 or other forms of pollution. So we don't need to go particularly down that rabbit hole. I think you're making an excellent point, which is, hey, you know, some people will not believe this is worth addressing until they see the problem. cost of it. You know what? People did see the cost of the Hudson River and, you know, other bodies of water being polluted. And they said, oh, this is going to impact tourism. It's going to impact my life. If I want to go swimming, you know, the Southern California, where you live is,

is dealing with us now. Like, everybody knows Santa Monica doesn't have a really great sewage system. It goes right out into the ocean. If it rains, don't go surfing. The reason you should not go serving is because the fecal material, sorry to be graphic, in Santa Monica, by the peers and everything from dogs and waste and everything that gets put into that sewer system is going to be disastrous, right? And I think they're well into the process of fixing that. So sometimes a direct feedback loop is necessarily, let me ask you a really stupid question. If you are super successful at this, will that incentivize people to keep burning fossil fuels because they're like, oh, you got this? So I know that's a 30 year from now kind of problem.

And is that actually a problem? If you got so good at this and it allowed us to keep burning fossil fuels, would that be a bad thing? In other words, like we would have solved the problem and, hey, Yolo, burn some more. Right. Yeah. No, that's a criticism that we hear oftentimes. Is it anything valid about that? Yeah.

You know, I guess, I guess maybe a deep at its core. But the, the credibility that I give to it is actually its CO2 is not the only pollutant that is a bad actor coming from burning fossil fuels, right? You got all kinds of other knocks and socks and with the PM2.5 and there are all other type there are a whole other mess of pollutants that are bad actors that all things being you look to get rid of. But you know for us like I guess taking the fossil fuel question off the table. My our goal at Avnos is to prevent warming from reaching 1.5 degrees.

or 2 degrees C. And that's sort of it. And so let's bring whoever we can within reason, I guess, but with the skill sets and the expertise to help us get there. And that's the approach that we're taken. And for us also being able to deliver a drought solution in addition to a CO2 removal solution, that's something that I think everybody can get excited about. And it's something that here in California folks are in particular very excited about. You are well, aware obviously of the drought issues in California. Very weird. We have times when we have too much water and flooding and then sometimes droughts.

And this is part of the sort of weirdness of climate change, right? It's extreme droughts, extreme flooding. And it is it is those extremes. But you know, but so this. So you're going to produce a meaningful amount of water during this process? Yeah. All right. Another stupid question.

Because energy is a big part of this. Yeah. water is a big plus we have hydro in different places Yep Hydro means free energy or very cheap energy That's why people put Bitcoin near it Do you put these near

Um Wow this is kind of blowing my mind Just thinking about it out loud If you were to put these near a dam And the water that was being thrown off Got put on the other side of the dam To top off the reservoir Has that even come into your thinking

That like it possibly could The water coming out of the water coming out of this could then power the energy through the dim, etc. Yeah, that's been, that's something that we've thought about. The math on hydro power gets to be pretty staggering, like the amount of water that you have to produce and the, the drop, right? The vertical drop

that has to be generated in order to have sufficient velocity. So that's, I love that idea, by the way. And it's a good, a good thought. It's great on paper. Great and concept bad on paper, maybe. Yeah, yeah, maybe that's right. It doesn't work in the spreadsheet. But the bigger one, the thing, one of the ones that I really

love is put this, you know, put our Avnos H-DAC machines on the Green River in Wyoming, right, where there's excellent subsurface storage capacity so we can take the CO2 and store it subsurface and permanently sequester it and then put the water in the Green River, which is a headwater to the Colorado and that flows down through the seven states that are fighting each other and, you know, figuring out how to save three trillion gallons between now in 2026, right? And that, again, that's a differentiator for us in that in areas where we can monetize the water, that opens up a whole new geographic operating envelope for us in areas where the water is high value. And so we're producing as opposed to consuming water.

And so that opens up a whole new geographic operating envelope, as I say, in addition to which as we think about citing options, there are I guess three key things. What are you doing with the CO2? What are you doing with the water and access to renewable power, as you said? So there's a concept in direct air capture in carbon dioxide removal writ large that's known as additionality. So give like the California Air Resources Board in particular is out front about this, that if you're going to build a direct air capture plant and you want to qualify in the LCFS market as a CO2 removal credit that can then be traded in the California LCFS market, then your system must be powered by additional renewables. So you got to build new renewables. You're not, you can't cannibalize those renewables from somewhere else.

You got to build new renewables in order to power that our system. And I guess the other thing to consider to your point is, you know, and back to the capital is the bigger part of the expense of a levelized cost, the levelized cost of a ton of CO2. Then you can actually use the grid as a battery. So if you overbuild the solar capacity and you can overproduce during the day when the sun's shining, you can use the grid as a battery overnight. And then as we continue to green the grid, you've actually. sort of eliminated all potential emissions from the system. Does it ever like kind of blow your mind

when you're working on this, that all of these components, there's a lot of different people working on, you know, new desalienization techniques, the atmospheric capture we talked about, the AWGs. We're actually kind of building these components of

terraforming planets. And it does feel like at a certain point because we keep bouncing from hey where's the energy source hey where's the water where's the output of the water where's the right place to put this

where is the carbon capture go we're starting to have some amount of understanding of the ego system on the planet and some amount of dexterity with it that we could do things that may have seemed

you know 100 years ago inconceivable like taking a desert and turning it into something other than a desert yeah a rainforest or whatever. Does this come up when you go to conferences with your peers of how close are we to just mastering the planet, weather, you know, ecology and everything in between?

Yeah. No, I think natural systems are always hard, right? Mastering natural systems, there are a number of sort of feedback loops that are hard to anticipate, right? The law of unintended consequences comes and smacks you in the mouth very frequently when you're dealing with natural systems. But as I said before, you know, I'm a total techno optimist, especially when it comes to climate solutions. You see the ability to harness the wind and the sun to produce the lowest cost electricity in the history of the world.

And you see the cost curve for batteries that allows us to firm up those wind and solar assets. And you see progress in geothermal and nuclear. And you're figuring out how to generate water from the atmosphere at low cost and decarbonized systems, where you can then use that carbon and water that you capture from the atmosphere to produce fuels, to generate the energy that makes the economy go. So, you know, all of those things are super exciting. The technology and the approaches are pretty well understood in really good news. I'd like to say that the first, you know, 12 or 15 years of this century,

there was a ton of return to technology in the climate tech space, if not, you know, the world's greatest return to investment, but there's a ton of return to technology. And with those technologies, there's so much now that we know how to do and we can do, and the challenge becomes an integration and scaling challenge. How do you really drive down costs? And that's, again, you know, something that we think about all the time at Avnos, and it comes up at conferences, you know, is how do we ultimately continue to push down the cost curve to make the economically rational decision, Jason, the cleanest decision, right? Because ultimately that's where all of this has to go, right?

Which did happen already with solar, right? My understanding from a lot of folks is you put a coal plant and a solar plant, the wind farm, solar, you know, battery with solar. You start modeling out this stuff. It's cheaper to build the renewables. Then to continue to run the fully depreciated coal plant. How you like that? It's cheaper to build a new solar plant than it is to continue to run a fully depreciated coal plant.

And, you know, we saw this compounding technologies and compounding innovation, lots of people working on seemingly disparate projects, Apple working on batteries for iPhones. Tesla then coming in and working on cars and using all the benefits that the smartphone revolution and then video gamers and crypto working on making Nvidia, you know, chips faster and GPUs faster results in the AI boom. All this stuff is just compounding in different pockets of excellence, different problems being solved, but then they compound. I guess that would be a good place for us to end here. Is AI having any impact in this space yet? And do you see any connection where, with your company, you're like, hey, you know, we can put some of these models or some of the chemical-based stuff you're doing, finding new chemicals, there are a lot of research being done there. So, yeah, AI's impact on any of this yet? That's that the last part of what you say is, so it's early days, to be sure.

I mean, I guess it's early days, maybe writ large and AI, but certainly for the energy transition, it is early days. I think the most exciting part of AI, machine learning, deep learning, quantum computing, that whole sector of the economy is exactly what you said is, is sort of chemical formulations. How do you cycle and test and model and simulate more and more chemical formulations much faster so that we can arrive at the next generation of, our adsorbent technology, the higher performing version of the adsorbent technology faster, that again allows us ultimately to get to that $100 per ton of CO2 captured.

So that's, I think, the most exciting piece in our little corner of the world here. Well, appreciate you dedicating your life to this. Congratulations on a really strong start and raising the money. Wish your team over there the best. I know you're hiring. everybody go to avnos.com, A-V-N-O-S-com. Please go to the careers page.

Please do not go work at Facebook making advertising. 0.01% more effective. Yeah. The world does not need more effective advertising, marketing, or privacy and spying. That's me saying that, not well.

What the world needs is people go in and work with well and his team. Try to, no matter where you fall on how critical this issue is, you know, I think we all agree, something's happening here, and it's generally not good. Everybody can agree on that.

Let's all try to solve the problem, you know? And, man, I just think this carbon capture stuff has incredible, incredible potential, and I'm really stoked that you're working on it. So thank you for, on behalf of humanity, I will thank you. Well, thanks, Jason. It's a pleasure to be here, and you're right. We've only got one planet Earth, so we better take care of it, right? You know, this is something, you know, Elon said to me maybe 15 years ago,

and we were talking about the controversy around this when it was like a little controversial people talking about. And I said, what do you think? And he said, I think this is a stupid experiment to run. And that's why I'm doing Tesla. And I said, you know what? The risk is totally asymmetric, isn't it? If we do nothing and climate change is a real thing, we're up a creek.

I could also advise people, you know, when you're, you know, going down the river on a boat and you see like a nice cliff, you can jump off of into the water and you don't know if it's deep enough or there's any rocks underneath. Maybe don't jump off. maybe like check and make sure it's deep enough that you can jump off like just generally you know check the parachute before you jump out of the plane silly stuff silly that's i think that's sage council i think that's sage is a simple checklist am i wearing my parachute or not it's happened people have jumped out of planes and you know who jumps out of planes without parachutes the instructors the most experienced people because they get complacent like let's not be complacent

yeah let's not be complacent is right yeah we'll see you all next time on the swing starts bye bye