Invest Like the Best with Patrick O'Shaughnessy
· Patrick O'Shaughnessy, John Arnold
[00:00:00] S0: If you were a politician, would you use the China story as fuel to the fire to try to communicate and market this concept that we're getting lapped by someone that's – if not our adversary – our competitor? [00:00:00] S1: Yeah, 100%. Not only is it a good narrative, but it's true. If energy becomes the constraint, we will become less competitive vis-a-vis China. [00:00:00] S0: You mentioned the asset side being so exciting on the energy side. If I was an energy asset investor, and I really wanted to fund stuff that would help us solve this problem, where you've got the joint growth in demand and this rise of NIMBYism, where does this whole thing break down? Is it in transmission? Is that the problem? Because, presumably, if we could just produce lots of energy in remote places that nobody lived or cared and transport it efficiently, the problem would be solved. Is that the right way to think about it? Do you think about it differently? I want to get towards the best version of things you could imagine in five, ten years’ time, that would solve this problem and make us energy abundant and not slow.
· John Arnold
[00:00:00] S1: Transmission is certainly a component of it. It's not the only component. We can talk about supply chains, can talk about land use, but transmission is a huge component of it. I actually started a company about five years ago trying to build inter-regional transmission lines, because it was an industry that had become so difficult to permit and build that private capital had largely given up trying to do new projects. It's one of the solutions that can be a win-win-win for everybody. We were talking about the goals of the system, right? It can reduce costs, it can increase reliability, it can reduce emissions, it can make the country more secure, it can create more jobs. Yet, it had gotten so hard to build these lines, and it’s still very hard to build these lines, that most of the developers who had gotten started with projects in the 2000s gave up. They started things thinking these were going to be five-year projects, and they were 10-plus years in, and many of them hadn't broken ground yet. Again, this is part of the challenge of America. It just takes so long, and part of this is there's not one entity that can just say, "Okay. Do it." There are multiple veto points along the way, and you have to convince a lot of different actors of this project. I talk to a lot of federal politicians on both sides of the aisle. One of the things I hear from almost all of them is this need to figure out how to permit and build faster and more efficiently in the United States. There's very broad agreement at the top level. But you can get disagreements about the details about how to go about that. I think I remain reasonably optimistic that we can get federal permitting reform done this year. It'll be, probably, the only bipartisan legislation that happens, besides maybe a budget. But there is this will that I sense, that is unlike any other issue in D.C. right now. There is this realization that this can set the country back. People will look at it for different reasons. Again, people will have prioritized those goals in different ways. So, how can you do a bill that helps all of those goals? That's what we're shooting for.
· Patrick O'Shaughnessy
[00:00:00] S0: What do you think about nuclear – both new forms of fission, but also the panacea potential of fusion?
· John Arnold
[00:00:00] S1: Promising, but very, very difficult. The innovation hasn't been proven. We can build the AP1000. The AP1000 is the latest of the traditional nuclear power plant. We know it's a very, very costly electron. It was the last nuclear plant to be built in the United States – finished, I think, in 2024. Vogtle Units 3 and 4, AP1000s, have a very advanced safety design for a nuclear power plant. The Vogtle plants were enormously expensive. If anything, they've gotten harder to build since then because they require a very significant amount of labor in generally rural parts of this country. At its peak, Vogtle had 9,000 laborers on site, many of which were highly skilled craftsmen, and trying to do that today in the United States is very difficult. We've proven we can build that, we know it's of a high cost. And so there's a lot of effort to do advanced nuclear. And that's either the SMR, small modular reactor that's fission, or through fusion. I think the question is, we don't know what the economics of either of those are. Number one, we don't know whether we can build a commercial fusion unit. I think there's a lot of optimism in the industry. Remains to be seen whether we can get there or not. The greater question is, what are the all-in economics of that? That's a big unknown, because at the end of the day, you're competing in a commodity market. We've seen that we're willing to pay a little bit more for a cleaner electron, but we're not willing to pay a lot more for a cleaner electron. So it has to be cost-competitive. Optimally, the cheapest electron is one that minimizes emissions. And so I think that's the promise of nuclear. These aren't coming anytime soon. There are some pilot plants that are being drawn up today. They may or may not have started construction on some of these. I think most of these announcements are for the PR. By the end of this decade, I think we’ll have taken some small steps there. But we're probably looking 10, 15 years to really have advanced nuclear be at any scale in the United States, and that's best case.
· Patrick O'Shaughnessy, John Arnold
[00:00:00] S0: What do you think about the basket of startups that have been launched, and raised – in some cases – a lot of money? About the prospects of good returns for those dollars that are going into these companies and projects, either today or the historical dollars that have gone in over the last five years? [00:00:00] S1: It surprised me. In some ways, I thought that some of these technologies were almost uninvestable from the VC side because it’s such a long duration to get to a free cash flow business. I'm surprised at how much money. I think it's fantastic. I think this has to be a public-private partnership where the government is putting in real capital into these, because I don't think they make sense as a stand-alone investment without public support. The time frame to commercial deployment, the amount of money that has to be raised for it, the fact that you don't really know early on whether you're making progress or not. There's a bunch of benchmarks to be overcome, but until you actually build one, you don't really know what your economics are going to be, what your efficiency of the unit's going to be. I worry that there's going to be a falling out in the industry. There’s probably too many SMR companies. It would be better if the industry can coalesce around three or four different technologies and focus the resources there.
· Patrick O'Shaughnessy, John Arnold
[00:00:00] S0: It's a scary circumstance to imagine as an investor, when funding dries up and free cash flow is still over the horizon, not even within the visible horizon. I'm curious if there are other areas that you think that's less true, like solar and batteries seems like a really interesting way of solving some of the problems in the energy markets. The cost curves for both look really cool and interesting. I'm curious what you've learned about those two, and just generally what you think about that style of energy generation and storage. [00:00:00] S1: Solar has two trends. One is technology and manufacturing costs keep going down. Technology is improving, manufacturing costs are going down, so the end product of a solar panel keeps getting cheaper. [00:00:00] S0: Mostly in China.