Why are people excited about nuclear power again?

16:42Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:Clearly people were not that excited about nuclear if you have this nuclear meltdown disaster movie. And I haven't watched it for, how am I, 20 years? But basically there's a reactor that melts down and then they try to cover it up. But the reason it's called China Syndrome is they're like, ah, this plant is going to keep melting down, and the reaction's running away, and it's going to melt all the way through the earth to China.

17:05Adam Stein:If the core is exposed, for whatever reason, the fuel heats beyond core heat tolerance in a matter of minutes, nothing can stop it, and it melts right down through the bottom of the plant, theoretically, to China.

17:18Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:Which is not how nuclear meltdowns work, by the way.

17:22Rachel Slaybaugh:But so they were saying that the radioactive material would burn through the earth? Like when you're a kid and your parents say you can take a hold of China?

17:29Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:Yeah.

17:30Rachel Slaybaugh:That seems wrong.

17:31Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:It is not correct. And then I would say The Kneel in the Coffin was Three Mile Island that happened like a couple weeks or 10 days or something after that movie came out. For many years, there has been a vigorous debate in this country about the safety of the nation's 72 nuclear energy power plants. That debate is likely to be intensified because of what happened early this morning at a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. Max?

17:56Rachel Slaybaugh:March 28, 1979 in Pennsylvania. It's the middle of the night, and something's gone wrong.

18:02Adam Stein:At about 4 o 'clock this morning,

18:03Rachel Slaybaugh:two water pumps that help cool reactor number two shut down. Backup systems come online to fix the problem, except now there's some valve that's supposed to close, and it doesn't.

18:13Adam Stein:Officials say some 50 ,000 to 60 ,000 gallons of radioactive water escaped into the reactor.

18:19Rachel Slaybaugh:Coolant is pouring out of the reactor. The risk, obviously, is overheating, that the nuclear fuel rods could melt down. The human operators are getting bad information from their gauges. They mistakenly think the reactor is getting too much coolant water, so they cut the water back further. With that system down, there was no way to draw heat out of the cooling water that circulates through the reactor itself. The fuel rods do start to melt. About half the reactor core will melt before anyone correctly diagnoses the problem. When fuel rods melt, they release radioactive isotopes you would not want to ingest.

18:52Rachel Slaybaugh:and the molten fuel itself turns into a dangerous sludge called corium, nuclear lava. You would not want to be anywhere near it. This is the point where everyone's in danger. This is the nightmare scenario. Except at Three Mile Island, the corium was successfully contained. It pooled within the vessel that was meant to hold it in the disaster. Nobody died. And the radiation that was released was small enough that long-term studies have not found clear evidence of health effects in the people who lived by the plant. The facts of Three Mile Island offer a story really about the airbag deploying, the seatbelt working.

19:29Rachel Slaybaugh:But that's not how the story of Three Mile Island was metabolized by the American public. Seven years later, of course, there'd be a real deadly nuclear disaster in the Soviet Union, Chernobyl. But America had turned on nuclear before that. And Dr. Slabaugh thinks part of the reason really was this movie, The China Syndrome. People treated it almost like a documentary.

19:48Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:And so, like, you've just watched this movie, and then there is a meltdown. Like, you would be terrified.

19:54Rachel Slaybaugh:Yeah, and nuclear in particular is like, it's both super complicated, kind of hard to picture outside of most of my nuclear reactor reference or pop culture. And then when it breaks, it's so visceral. And so the way it shows up in your imagination and the way it shows up on a graph are just very divergent.

20:15Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:There's a bunch of things here, but if you look at what are the factors that go into human threat perception, our threat perception was not designed for big, complicated systems. It was designed for hunting animals. And so things that distort the level of threat we perceive for something is those kinds. So if you think about, okay, it's way more dangerous to drive than fly, but people are afraid to fly and they're not afraid to drive. it's that same thing but like even more intense. And it feels like it has grave consequences. Like one car accident is, you know, a few people, but a plane crash is a lot of people.

20:54Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:It feels like a big consequence. And even if the nuclear consequences actually aren't that high, the news coverage leads us to think something else. So Three Mile Island is an interesting example where no one was actually harmed by radiation in Three Mile Island. Zero. But it felt so scary and, you know, people were evacuating and there was a lot of misinformation. And so the increase of stress-related health effects in the Harrisburg area went up. So there were real health impacts, but it was because of fear, not because of radiation.

21:30Rachel Slaybaugh:Right. It's so strange that part of solving the energy problem is about solving a problem of human psychology.

21:35Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:Yeah.

21:41Rachel Slaybaugh:That problem only got harder to solve a few years later, of course, with Chernobyl. Somewhere around 30 immediate deaths. Thousands more expected in the long term from cancer. Of course, the plant at Chernobyl had insane design problems you would not find in an American nuclear plant. For instance, the Soviet reactor was the kind of design where if it started to overheat, the reaction would actually speed up, not slow down like in an American reactor. Just a rundown late Soviet experiment. But for many Americans, this kind of mental composite image formed. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, atomic bombs, movies about nuclear death, nuclear development in America chilled.

22:24Rachel Slaybaugh:Other countries continued to pursue nuclear, although even that cooled down somewhat after the Fukushima meltdown in Japan in 2011. A 9.0 earthquake triggered a tsunami, which flooded the reactor's seawall. There was one confirmed death from radiation exposure, but over 2 ,200 people died in the hurried evacuation away from the plant. In the aftermath of that, countries like Germany wound down their nuclear programs. Other countries kept going, most notably France, where today 70 % of all electricity comes from nuclear. Their carbon footprint per citizen per year is much lower than ours, four and a half tons per person to R14.

23:03Rachel Slaybaugh:We just took a different path in America. Nuclear technology is a place where we stopped advancing for decades. After the break, our second age of much more cautious atomic optimism.

23:55Rachel Slaybaugh:Welcome back to the show. During the pandemic was the first time I started to become aware of pro-nuclear sentiment developing on my internet. I saw more people talking about nuclear, positively, openly, in a way that seemed sincere. Not just like posters slinging unorthodox takes for clout. That's when I looked at public polling and learned that America was just much more gung-ho on this than I'd realized from my bubble. I asked Dr. Slaba whether she'd felt public sentiment turned pro-nuclear in the last decade.

24:27Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:Radically. And in a way that sort of came, it kind of came out of nowhere.

24:34Rachel Slaybaugh:Like your perceptions, it came out of nowhere or like as far as you can tell, it really came out of nowhere?

24:38Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:Both. I think from in the nuclear industry, it feels like all of a sudden everyone has, it's like, oh, you finally read the data we've been reading is kind of how it feels. And that's not actually what happened. Like a whole bunch of things have changed. Some of it is generational. Like there are fewer old greens out there, like pounding the pavement against nuclear. where millennials are largely more interested in nuclear because climate change is really scary and they can read the numbers and they're like, oh yeah, this thing makes sense. And what has really shifted now is we're back to a world of load growth and we're like, what are we going to do?

25:14Rachel Slaybaugh:Load growth meaning the load on the energy system. Yeah, yeah. Higher electricity demand. So spiking electricity demand is making people want to rapidly spin up more nuclear power. And one way to do that is to actually just take nuclear plants that were previously shut down and bring them back. It's called recommissioning. Recommissioning old plants is both technically and politically easier than building new ones, so you can get more power faster. Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan, Dwayne Arnold nuclear plant in Iowa, and the famous one you've heard of, Three Mile Island is also coming back.

25:52Rachel Slaybaugh:What I found interesting is that two of those plans are being brought online specifically for tech companies. The power they'll generate has already been sold to Google and to Microsoft. If you told me in 1995 that Microsoft would restart Three Mile Island to deal with the rising energy demand partly caused by teenagers using computers to cheat on their homework, I would have had follow-up questions. Of course, the next generation of nuclear isn't just recommissioning older plants. People also want to build newer, more high-tech ones. Advanced reactors. There's a few different categories to these reactors.

26:26Rachel Slaybaugh:Some of them very unlike the nuclear reactors I was used to. I'm going to tell you about them. So some of these advanced reactors fall under a category called Generation 4 reactors. Generation 4 reactors are designed to be safer than the reactors we have now. Some use different coolant. Some might use a different kind of fuel. But the most interesting ones have this slightly hard-to-explain quality called inherent safety characteristics.

26:50Adam Stein:An inherent safety characteristic is one that removes a failure mode from the equation altogether. So you're removing a way that something could go wrong.

27:03Rachel Slaybaugh:This is a nuclear policy wonk I spoke to named Dr. Adam Stein from the Breakthrough Institute. He was walking me through this idea of redesigning reactors so they have fewer parts that can fail.

27:13Adam Stein:You're not adding another safety system to protect something. You're finding something that could go wrong and just totally removing it from the system. Some advanced reactors might not have a pump in the system at all. It could just use physics to make the fluid flow as it gets hotter or colder on different sides. So then the pump being removed creates inherent safety because the pump miller can fail if it doesn't exist in the system.

27:41Rachel Slaybaugh:Reactors with inherent safety designs are not theoretical. They exist. Other countries like China and Russia have built them. I've looked at pictures of these. They don't always have the iconic nuclear reactor cooling towers. Instead, they often look like industrial compounds filled with a handful of boxy buildings. Some of these Gen 4 reactors are expected to be large reactors. These will be the size of the nuclear reactors you're used to, producing a gigawatt or more of electricity. Full-size plants meant to replace the kind of nuclear power we have now, just safer and more efficient. No large Gen 4 reactors exist anywhere in the world today.

28:16Rachel Slaybaugh:Russia has a 1.2 gigawatt Gen 4 reactor expected to come online in the 2030s. China is also expected to be a player in this market. But at least in the U.S., Rachel doesn't believe that building reactors at this scale seems very feasible.

28:30Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:The big reactors, it's just, they're expensive. And we have not proven we can build them repeatedly and cost effectively. And because they're so expensive, there just aren't that many groups with a balance sheet big enough to build one of them. And so they're difficult to finance. The cost of financing is very high.

28:52Rachel Slaybaugh:And generally speaking, like, is America still leading on the technological development for nuclear or is it happening in other countries? What does that look like?

29:00Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:I mean, it depends on what you mean. We are in many, many categories, not just vision, but vision is one of them. We're leading on the innovation, so development of idea development, inventing the new things. But mostly China is leading on actually building the new things and deploying the new things. And why is that? Some of it is the way that we are structured. We have a lot more capital for early ideas, and we have a lot less appetite for sort of like first-of-a-kind plants or second-of-a-kind plants. Things are more expensive here. And this is true largely also in Western Europe, where we're just not very good at building mega projects of any kind.

29:50Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:Like, you know, the Bay Bridge was triple budget, triple schedule. If you add radiation, that doesn't make it any better.

29:57Rachel Slaybaugh:Right.

29:57Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:And there are other countries that are actually good at megaprojects. And a lot of that has to do with vertical integration of the construction companies. They don't have subcontractors. They have complete designs before they start building things. They build the same thing over and over again the same way. Whereas we have subcontractors who are suing each other while the project is going on. And it's not only their projects can be more cost-effective because they're better at building megaprojects. They also have a government with a much clearer top-down mandate that just funds the things they want to happen.

30:37Rachel Slaybaugh:In the U.S., where we don't have a government that builds its own big nuclear megaprojects, some private companies are now aiming at a different approach. A few nuclear startups have just decided, okay, what if we made nuclear reactors smaller? Which leads us to our next category, small modular reactors. Small modular reactors are advanced nuclear power plants that produce anywhere from 50 to 300 megawatts of electricity, enough electricity to power a big town or a small city. You can see pictures of them online. They run the gamut. Some just look like small factory buildings. Others have swooping solar roofs, Star Wars architecture.

31:17Rachel Slaybaugh:The main thing here, though, is the size and the modular part of it all. The theory is that by building the same thing over and over again to the same specifications in a factory setting, that eventually you can get costs to come down.

31:31Adam Stein:There was an understanding that one of the main cost drivers for the existing reactors was that you're building almost everything on site. You're shipping some large components in, but you're basically constructing it like a Lego set on site. So shifting to a smaller size allows you to build a lot more and fully assemble it in a factory setting. The way that most people say this is you're building an airplane instead of an airport.

32:03Rachel Slaybaugh:Meaning small modular reactors are helpful because their design is standardized. So in theory, you can build them more cheaply at scale in a factory. In Wyoming right now, one relatively small nuclear reactor project has broken ground. It's actually a project from Bill Gates' nuclear startup. It's supposed to be online in 2030. These small modular reactors, their size also means we can just slot them in to replace older, non-nuclear power plants that we want to take offline. Say, a coal-burning plant we want to decommission. But there's another challenge people want to try to use nuclear energy for.

32:37Rachel Slaybaugh:What about getting power to extremely remote parts of the world, like a tiny Alaskan village? This brings us to our last category, micro-reactors. Micro-reactors really are quite micro. Small enough to be easily transported wherever they need to go. Picture a rectangular box the size of the shipping container you'd see on the back of a truck, but sleeker. Micro-reactors are designed for places that do not currently have grid access.

33:03Adam Stein:Some of the earliest concepts of microreactors were aimed at powering very small island or very close to the Arctic Circle communities that currently use small diesel generators and have supply chain problems with diesel or their diesel gums up when it gets extremely cold and they have no power.

33:26Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:So basically anywhere that you would put a diesel generator is where you would use a microreactor. I see. And most of those locations are just like not that easy to get to. The logistics of diesel fuel are complicated. Diesel generators are smelly and they make a lot of local air pollution and they're loud. Diesel generators are not great.

33:45Rachel Slaybaugh:So micro-reactors are billed as a clean solution to the problem of powering remote communities. In theory, a micro-reactor would fit in my backyard in Brooklyn and could power my whole neighborhood. In practice, I don't think anybody's going to let me do that. NIMBYs. However, Rachel says there are a lot of other possible use cases for a microreactor. As EVs expand and we need EV charging stations kind of in the middle of nowhere, you can imagine applications like, oh, it's probably easier to build a microreactor than transmission. Right. Is there a world where in 25 years I'm like, I'm going on a camping trip.

34:20Rachel Slaybaugh:I'm going to go to Walmart and buy a nuclear generator for the trip?

34:25Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:I think probably not. I think by then it might be you're going on a camping trip and you have like your EV power station and maybe you plug it into a nuclear charging station somewhere or maybe you have solar panels with you.

34:40Rachel Slaybaugh:So what I should picture is I'm going to plug the same plug into the same things, but more nuclear might be on the other end of the plug. Yeah. So that's the dream that Rachel and Adam have, but they're nuclear optimists. So let's talk about some of the obstacles here. The big ones, the ones you do a whole other story on, are just cost and speed. Can we actually make new plants without years and years of expensive delays and cost overruns? The pessimists say no, that solar plus batteries is already cheaper and getting cheaper still. The optimists point out that renewables can't provide the round-the-clock firm power data centers need.

35:19Rachel Slaybaugh:But even the optimists concede that for this to work, they'll need to surmount some real obstacles. A big one, regulation. Over the past half century, for both understandable reasons as well as, frankly, political overreaction, we've added a mountain of regulation and bureaucracy and licensing requirements that make building nuclear in America very hard and very slow. Particularly if you want to build a reactor that is a novel design, since novel designs need novel regulations to test their safety.

35:48Adam Stein:So to license a newer advanced reactor design that generally uses slightly different fuel or slightly different coolant fluids, they needed to seek exemptions and prove to the regulator why this change is acceptable, it's safe, it's necessary. And this made the regulatory process very cumbersome. Congress has been trying to get the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to speed up its regulatory review for many years. Well, thank you very much. We have a very big announcement today. It has to do with nuclear energy and other things. And this is all nuclear. It's a hot industry. It's a brilliant industry.

36:31Adam Stein:You have to do it right. The recent executive orders from last year said the NRC has to get applications reviewed within 18 months. Well, thank you, President Trump. This is a huge day for the nuclear embassy. Mark this day on your calendar. This is going to turn the clock back on over 50 years of overregulation of an industry. America has always—

36:52Rachel Slaybaugh:Our president, when he's not putting his face on U.S. passports or demolishing parts of the White House or starting wars like a child to have focused on a game of risk, sometimes he tries to make nuclear regulation work a little faster. If your uncle challenges you to say one nice thing about the administration at Thanksgiving, there you go. But there's another obstacle besides regulation. It has to do with nuclear fuel.

37:19Rachel Slaybaugh:So here's a question I never asked myself. Where, historically, has the United States gotten much of its enriched uranium for its existing nuclear power plants? Well, it turns out from a country that we do not have a totally consistently tranquil working relationship with, Russia. Bill Clinton struck an unusual deal with Boris Yeltsin back in the day.

37:43Adam Stein:Nine months ago, President Yeltsin and I met in Vancouver, and there we laid the foundation for a new partnership between the United States and Russia. It was due to drawing down weapons, actually. Second, President Yeltsin and I agreed that as of May the 30th, the nuclear missiles of Russia and the United States will no longer be targeted against any country. In the megatons to megawatts project, we agreed with Russia that we would draw down our nuclear arsenals.

38:18Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:With U.S. assistance, we will continue to process weapons-grade uranium into fuel uranium.

38:26Adam Stein:And those would be reprocessed, essentially, into fuel, which we used in our reactors in the U.S. to make electricity. We also signed a contract to purchase$12 billion of highly enriched uranium over the next 20 years.

38:42Rachel Slaybaugh:So the legacy, like post-Cold War, all the sort of nuclear material that would have gone into pointing rockets or whatever at each other, we've been basically importing that nuclear material from Russia to fuel reactors?

38:54Adam Stein:That material is used up at this point, but we did do that for many years, yes.

38:59Rachel Slaybaugh:But it seems slightly crazy that we were depending on the idea that things would remain good with Russia. Like, I understand the idea that countries specialize, but it seems surprising to me that we were not prepared for the idea that, like, we would have conflict with a country that we often have conflict with.

39:15Adam Stein:There had to be some trust in that deal for it ever to work. The bigger concern was drawing down the warheads. Right, right. And if that could be achieved, then other supply chain risks were essentially considered to be worth it at the time.

39:31Rachel Slaybaugh:Of course, 2022, Russia invades Ukraine. Afterwards, Congress votes for an import ban. No more enriched uranium from Russia for us. We've lost access to our best uranium connect. We're rebuilding our domestic enrichment capacity, but these things take time. The final obstacle we're going to discuss here, one you've probably heard of, nuclear waste. Nuclear waste, the leftover radioactive material from nuclear reactors, is unfortunately radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. And during that time, it also generates heat, which means essentially you need to find a place where you can bury it very deep underground in a container that can hold it and find a local community that's okay being a home for all that.

40:18Rachel Slaybaugh:I asked Rachel what her answer is to critics who say that nuclear waste might be just too big a problem to solve.

40:24Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:Yeah. How do they feel about waste of other energy technologies and how responsible those other energy technologies need to be for their waste?

40:33Rachel Slaybaugh:Meaning what? Meaning like we're okay with carbon emissions?

40:37Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:We're okay with carbon emissions. We're okay with fly ash ponds. Not to hate on wind and solar, but there are toxic materials in wind and solar panels that are pretty large in volume. Like nuclear isn't the only technology that produces waste. And the reason nuclear is so interesting is the energy density is so high. An amount of nuclear fuel the size of a gummy bear is the same as three barrels of oil or one ton of coal. One gummy bear, same amount of electricity as one ton of coal. So it is a real issue that we do need to be responsible for. But we're starting with it's just not that much waste.

41:16Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow:And the waste isn't like off in the air somewhere where it's hard to capture. Like we know where it is. It's controlled. We're taking care of it today. and there are a lot of technical solutions. It is mostly a political problem and I do not want to minimize how difficult political problems are to solve. But the waste can be disposed of or the waste can be recycled. There are a lot of choices and one of the reasons we have not solved nuclear waste is it's a problem with very low urgency.

41:51Rachel Slaybaugh:This is actually the part of the nuclear optimist's argument that lands least strongly for me, I just, I understand why there are people who can tolerate unsafe smog in the air, but not nuclear waste in the ground, at least not near where they live. Even if they've been told by very smart people that the containment technology works, I wouldn't live in that neighborhood. I like poking at a radioactive idea. I would not want to live near radioactive waste. But I was also surprised to learn there are communities in America where the voters feel otherwise. They trust the science more, or maybe they're willing to tolerate the risk because they know it's not just nuclear waste storage they're agreeing to, but also nuclear jobs and nuclear investment.

42:34Rachel Slaybaugh:And there's now some political momentum towards allowing those places to decide for themselves, to become storage sites, if that's what they want. That's where things stand with nuclear right now. It's safer than we thought it was. The cost and speed of deployment issues are real. The nuclear waste problem is both a technical and a political one. All those things are real. All of them might not matter much because of the iron fact we opened our story with. Demand. Any energy source you can think of that you might want to use instead of nuclear, environmentally friendly or not, is being recruited for the great data center wars of the mid-2020s.

43:10Adam Stein:The data centers have already purchased out to 2030 every gas turbine that the world can produce. The interconnection queues for adding new generators to the grid are overflowing. The demand is huge. Renewables can be part of the solution, but if data centers continue to buy the output of even existing nuclear plants, then we need to replace that energy for the rest of the market. And if we can't buy new gas turbines because the center companies have already purchased those, then what other option do we have? We have returning retired plants, such as coal plants, to the market, which is happening in some cases, or building renewables.

43:56Adam Stein:But nuclear has to be part of that equation if we're going to even meet this demand curve. And if we don't meet the demand curve, then prices are going to keep going up. So we need to build and we need to build quickly. Dr.

44:10Rachel Slaybaugh:Adam Stein of the Breakthrough Institute. We'll have links to his work and to other guests in our show notes.

44:26Rachel Slaybaugh:This story we just played you about nuclear, it's actually part of a very informal series we're going to return to this year. Energy Year at Search Engine. Rising electricity costs and all the weird and interesting ways people are trying to solve that problem. We're just really curious to learn and explore more here. If you're curious about geothermal, about solar, about the grid itself, we're working on some stories for you. And if you're someone who we can learn from about these topics, please shoot us an email, pjvote85 at gmail.com. Lastly, if you're just confused as to why AI is sucking up so much of our energy supply, please check out our series Colossus.

45:06Rachel Slaybaugh:We published it just a little while back. It features the great reporter, Shruti Pinnamini.

45:46Thank you.

46:37For more information visit www.fema.org Thank you.

47:08Rachel Slaybaugh:small, generous, and very mighty portion of our listeners who voluntarily pay to keep the show running. Those are the listeners who subscribe to our premium tier, which we call incognito mode. It costs$7 a month, or if you want to discount,$50 for the full year. In exchange, we offer ad free episodes, some bonus episodes, we've got one coming down the pipe right now, and discounts on our merch. But the real thing you're doing is you're paying money so that we can keep making ambitious work for you. We are currently planning our next season, trying to figure out what we're going to do, trying to figure out how many reporting swings we can really take.

47:47Rachel Slaybaugh:And the subscriptions now will help us budget then. If our show keeps you company while you do errands, if it gives you things to think about, to argue with, to have conversations with the people in your life about, if we have offered you value, please consider doing this. If you're not in to do that, don't feel bad. We're just glad to have you as a listener. But if you're interested, you can sign up at searchengine.show. Incognito mode, searchengine.show, 50 bucks a year. All right, Armin, roll the credits.

48:22Rachel Slaybaugh:Search Engine is a presentation of Odyssey. It was created by me, PJ Vogt, and Truthy Pinnemanini. Garrett Graham is our senior producer. Emily Maltair is our associate producer. Theme, original composition, and mixing by Armin Bazarian. Our production intern is Piper Dumont. This episode was fact-checked by Madeline LaPlante-Duby. Our executive producer is Leah Rees-Dennis. Thanks to the rest of the team at Odyssey. Rob Mirandi, Craig Cox, Eric Donnelly, Con Gainer, Moore, Curran, Josephina Francis, Kirk Courtney, and Hilary Sheff. If you have a business and would like to advertise on our show, please email us, pjvote85 at gmail.com, subject line, advertising.

48:58Rachel Slaybaugh:If you're a listener and you don't want to hear ads on our show, sign up for incognito mode, searchengine.show. Thank you for listening. We'll see you in two weeks.

49:33Thank you.