Power moves for the planet

Note: Transcripts are automatically generated from episode audio, and are not fully corrected for spelling, grammar, and formatting.

SCOTT STRAZIK: I think the good news in the world is we’re kind of past the point that most leaders are denying the dynamic of climate change.

This is real, and time is not in our favor. We can set many long-term goals, and they’re important. But we need to act now. What I would tell you is that technology exists to a larger extent than the world appreciates, and the challenge is: how do we industrialize that technology and scale?

We need to drive action and move the needle now.

BOB SAFIAN: That’s Scott Strazik, CEO of GE Vernova — a new energy offshoot from General Electric. I sat down with Scott in front of a live audience at the Climatech conference in Boston to better understand the state of renewable energy in 2024. GE Vernova helps power about a quarter of the world’s electricity, and Strazik explains how nuclear plants, offshore wind farms, and carbon capture will be an increasing part of our future. He also talks about the limitations of the U.S. power grid, and why it needs what he calls a” new brain.” I’m Bob Safian, and this is Rapid Response.

[THEME MUSIC] 

I’m Bob Safian, and I’m here at Climatech 2024 in Boston with Scott Strazik, the CEO of GE Vernova. Scott, it’s great to be here with you.

STRAZIK: I’m thrilled to be here. This is a cool setting. It’s a good Tuesday in Boston. Thanks for doing this with us, Bob.

Copy LinkHow GE Vernova ended up in Boston

SAFIAN: So, GE has been around a long time. GE Vernova is brand new. There are a lot of new choices that you have to make in running this global organization. And one of those was where to base the company.

And you could have put the headquarters anywhere, anywhere. And you chose right nearby here in Cambridge. So how and why did you decide to bring GE Vernova here? 

STRAZIK: You bet, Bob. And I think with just a little context, as you said for everyone, I mean, GE Vernova is a two-month start-up at this point. We spun out and separated from General Electric in the 133-year-old history of GE on April 2nd.

And today, our equipment powers about 25 percent of the world’s electricity. So, real scale. Why we chose Cambridge is for a lot of the same reasons that this room is together in this group. This is an epicenter of innovation.

When you think about the U.S. and where there’s real climate enthusiasm, especially, let’s say, north of D.C., Boston quickly became the spot. You think about the 150,000 plus college kids here, and for me and what I want GE Vernova to become, we talk to a lot of young people. And we talk to a lot of young people that talk about climate change being one of the biggest things for their generation. And we wanted to go where the kids were, also. Because the reality is, we want them coming into this industry and working with us. Because the challenges we have ahead with authentically electrifying the world while simultaneously decarbonizing it, is going to need a whole nother generation of leadership.

SAFIAN: Yeah. So, this, this name Vernova, this is a made-up name, right? You guys created this. It sounds like green. Now, not all energy companies have always been enthusiastically green. And some people might say, “Oh, is that greenwashing to put green in your name?” How did you make this choice? 

STRAZIK: I mean, the first question we had to decide is did we want to retain the GE in our branding? Because the reality is the world is changing, and we needed to change with it. And that is where Vernova came from. Verde – green. Nova – new. New green innovation. Okay, that doesn’t mean we’re running away from our past in our history.

We’re proud of that. But with the objectives and the challenges that the world has ahead, there’s gonna have to be a different way to work in a different way to operate. And that was implicit and explicit to all of our stakeholders with Vernova that this is a new company. This is a new day, and we’re going to operate in a different way.

Copy LinkThe urgency of climate change

SAFIAN: Not all energy company leaders have always agreed that human actions impact climate change. How does GE Vernova think about it?

STRAZIK: The time is now at the end of the day. I think the good news in the world is we’re kind of past the point that most leaders are denying the dynamic of climate change.

This is real, and time is not in our favor. We can set many long-term goals, and they’re important. But we need to act now. We need to use the technology that exists today to drive action and move the needle now.

Because if our goals are too far into the future and too grandiose, it may not matter if we get to those, if we don’t make progress today. 

SAFIAN: And the technology exists today to do what you can do or want to do today, or there’s some things that you’re still hoping for?

STRAZIK: It’s a combination of both, but what I would tell you is the technology exists to a larger extent than the world appreciates, and the challenge is: how do we industrialize that technology and scale?

The reality is we’ve built up an electric power system over a century that we need to transform in 20 years max. We need to rebuild and build this infrastructure faster in a more efficient way than the world has done before.

And that industrial challenge is really at the heart of what we talk about as an investment super cycle that’s required to both continue to serve the increasing demand for electricity that we see from many macro drivers. But simultaneously, every year, we need that system to become cleaner. 

SAFIAN: I mean, the power grid in the U.S., the energy future, is the idea that the power moves both ways in the grid; it’s much more technological, there’s A.I. as part of it, but the current grid is aging and does not have any of that capability, so you’re sort of balancing between fixing and maintaining what’s here, and building something new from scratch at the same time, or like, can you build on top of what’s there?

STRAZIK: It’s a combination of all the above. But what I tell you is our electrification business, as we call it, is our fastest growing business. Now, a lot of times people think about that in the context of modernizing and expanding the physical grid today.

Whether that be connecting new wind and solar farms to where it’s needed or modernizing aged transformers or switchgears, and that’s all true. But the reality is the system has been built under the assumption that it is powered from coal plants that run 24 hours a day, seven days a week in one-direction-flow to homes, and Bob, exactly as you said, we’re living in a world now where to start the power generation is more variable, more complicated that requires a different system.

But then the electrons are flowing in both directions. And that creates its own complexity, whether it be the F-150s or the solar panels, and then with it, one of our biggest investments is in grid software. Because we can make all of the physical improvements that we want.

If we don’t fix the brains of the grid, this is gonna be for naught.

Copy LinkIs it safe to utilize nuclear power?

SAFIAN: AI would be a big part of the energy grid of the future. There are AI data centers now that use a tremendous amount of energy. And they need more sustainable and predictable energy sources. One of them that’s being discussed is nuclear power, specifically small, if I have this right, small modular reactors, SMR. So, how close is that technology? How safe is it? How expensive is it? 

STRAZIK: AI is critical to where the macro theme in the sector is going. In the U.S., there hasn’t been much demand growth for electricity in the last 20 years. AI and the data centers are one of multiple drivers that’s changing that dynamic.

Whether it be data centers, whether it be chip factories in the U.S., or whether it be electrifying industries that are powered by fossil fuels historically, demand is up. One of the ways to solve that demand growth is definitely small modular reactors. And for us, we’ll commission the first 300-megawatt small modular reactor in Canada and Ontario in 2029.

So it’s real. I mean, we’re finishing up the engineering this year. We will be in construction of the first plant next year. Now, those early projects are expensive, but the point behind small modular reactors is that by doing the exact same small 300-megawatt block of power many times, we’ll come down the cost curve in a different way than nuclear has experienced in the past. Because the reality is there are very few nuclear plants in the world that have been on time and on budget. 

That’s because everyone’s been uniquely different. By modularizing to a smaller solution, we have a high degree of confidence that we’ll be able to come down that cost curve. So as we get into the middle of the next decade, this starts to become a very material part of the electric power system.

SAFIAN: They’re almost like a prefab home. Like you have the pieces in, once you know how to put them together, you can put them together more quickly, more easily, more efficiently in new places. 

STRAZIK: Lego blocks, you know, it’s not one piece by any means. And this still is a multi-year construction process. And like many parts of the system, we need to work through permitting and things like that. But the Lego blocks come together in a much more efficient fashion. 

SAFIAN: But I’m not going to have a small modular reactor in my backyard instead of solar panels. 

STRAZIK: Well, no. 300 megawatts is still a lot. This is more larger-scale industrial power still. But at the same time, the physical space is less than the size of an American football field. 

Copy LinkExploring the power of offshore wind

SAFIAN: Let me ask you about wind power. It’s a core offering for GE Vernova. Massachusetts has been a pioneer in the U.S. in offshore wind. 

STRAZIK: For sure. 

SAFIAN: Recently, other states have seen their offshore projects sort of fall through. Where are you on offshore wind? Is it an answer? Is it kind of an anomaly? Because it is complicated. 

STRAZIK: But it’s important. The reality is the last, let’s say, two years have been full of scary headlines for offshore wind, and the industry economics have definitely been challenged.

All that said, when we look ahead over the next 5 to 10 years, the world needs offshore wind. Places like the Northeast need offshore wind to both electrify and decarbonize their systems, so we believe offshore wind is critical for the future. Now, it is going to be more expensive than onshore wind. It’s going to be more expensive than solar.

But the way we need to start to think about offshore wind is the correct comparisons, which is really, is it more expensive than a new nuclear plant? Is it more expensive than putting carbon capture on a gas plant? Where do you have good wind where you have shallow enough water that you can navigate to make this work?

There’s no question in our mind. Offshore winds up are a more economical answer. It doesn’t mean it’s comparable to onshore wind or solar. 

SAFIAN: It’s interesting, as you talk about it, it sounds like the right renewable solution for each location, for each need, has to be assessed based on both the conditions and the economics that are available in that situation. 

STRAZIK: I think that goes back to driving the efficiency that the world needs.

Where you have good wind and solar conditions, you’re gonna need to take advantage of that resource every day. In the same token, we’re investing a lot of money into carbon capture, where that makes sense. You have to use the resources you have, and the challenge we have to transform this electric power system, it’s going to require an all the above mindset. And that’s one of the things I find to be a real privilege for us in Vernova is we don’t walk in the room wearing a wind hat or a gas hat or a nuclear hat because we play across these technologies. We want to apply the most efficient economic technologies to what the location has.

Copy LinkWhat kind of impact can carbon capture have?

SAFIAN: You mentioned carbon capture. I did an episode of Rapid Response about direct air carbon capture, taking carbon out of the air anywhere on the planet and putting it in the ground. What are your thoughts about that, what are the economics and what kind of impact can that have?

STRAZIK: At our research center today, we have a direct air capture facility that’s running, pulling carbon out of the air every day of the week.

It’s hard to pull carbon out of the air, because when you think about it, the carbon intensity of the air is very low. And one of the things we really debated inside Vernova is, do we want to develop a carbon capture technology that goes after the hardest carbon to catch, direct air capture, or do we want to develop a carbon capture technology that goes after the highest carbon intensity, opportunities like industrial applications? 

And the reality is, we ended up leaning more towards the direct air capture. Now, one of the reasons why we did that is, candidly, we had a benefit where, for a period of time, we had a partnership with the U.S. government on what was an air-to-water program. Because one of the largest fatalities for the U.S. military is getting resources to remote troops. So we developed an air-to-water technology to pull the water right out of the air for troops in remote locations. And we’re using that exact same technology now to pull the carbon out of the air. Now, it is expensive, and it’s early. 

But then it comes back to the earlier point, which is: there’s a lot of technology that works, but what the world needs is an ability to industrialize it at scale. That’s our next step. That’s something we’ll be really starting to advance in 2025. Because this is not about whether we’ve got exciting technologies; it’s about whether we find the breakthroughs at times to be able to build thousands and millions of these things quickly that can move the needle this year.

SAFIAN: Scott keeps coming back to this idea of industrial impact. And I think it’s something many people fail to appreciate about addressing climate change. The existing energy system is so vast and so efficient, that to have measurable impact we need large-scale, industrial-scale solutions. Unfortunately, industrial-scale organizations often struggle to act with the kind of speed that the climate crisis demands. We’ll talk about that, and how Scott is trying to channel a start-up ethos at GE Vernova, after the break. Stay with us. 

[AD BREAK]

Before the break, CEO of GE Vernova, Scott Strazik, talked about the state of renewable energy right now, and how speed and scale can come together to have an impact. Now, Scott shares how he’s teaching his organization to take what he calls: “big swings,” and the leadership challenges he’s grappling with, balancing patience and urgency. Let’s get back into it. 

Copy LinkOperating GE Vernova like a start-up

You have ambition to get a lot done. GE, which you’ve spun out from, was around a long time, had a certain way of operating. I know that you want to take advantage of some of the good things about that, and at the same time upgrade some of the limitations, make things faster and more like a start-up. So, how do you do that in an organization that’s been around a long time and is as big as GE Vernova? 

STRAZIK: I think great companies find a way to problem-solve and deliver in the near term while finding the oxygen or the space to work on the long-term breakthroughs. And at the heart of the company we’re trying to create with, I often talk about ‘a we culture’ that protects for the organization to be accountable to tomorrow, but that can feel protected to take big swings on the stuff that can really change the world.

My experience with GE Is that we never lacked ambition. But at times, culturally, we may not have found the right balance between protecting to deliver on the near term while nurturing the long-term breakthroughs. And that’s a lot of what we’re working our way through right now with Vernova.

And the good news is, as a two-month-old start-up, but one that has a history, that has a big install base, that does a lot of stuff today, our ability to kind of dual-task those themes is more possible. Because we’ve already got a big install base. We already do a lot of things. But I think we have a good read for what it’s going to take to really have step-change improvements.

And we talk about those breakthroughs in a very different way than we talk about hitting the next financial quarter or meeting the next operational milestone. I’m hopeful on this journey, we continue to nurture that culture and with it, our teams continue to get that much more ambitious to go for the big swings.

SAFIAN: Do you personally have to operate differently as a CEO than GE CEOs of the past? 

STRAZIK: I think, certainly I’m two months into a completely new and different experience as a public company CEO. So my role certainly has changed. The reality is when you’re inside a big company, relative to what I’m doing today, I have the privilege now of having more capacity to navigate the outside world.

And we have less internal dynamics to juggle, or at least I do. So that’s empowering. But it also is a responsibility because the reality is General Electric was a company that I was so proud to be part of, and I was so proud to be part of it because we led in industries that really matter, healthcare, aerospace, power. But when you play across many industries, sometimes too many goals can be no goals at all. For us now as a purpose-built company to lead in the energy transition, the expectations and the responsibilities of us are to take positions and to lead in this industry forward. And that’s exactly what we intend to do. 

Copy LinkThe hardest challenges in the climate tech industry

SAFIAN: So, when it comes to climate tech, what’s the hardest challenge? Is it developing the tech itself? Is it the cost? Or is it like the human elements, you know, inertia, getting people and organizations that you work with to embrace the changes that are really required?

STRAZIK: There’s a lot for us to juggle. The reality, like many things in the world, is that many things with energy are politicized in different ways.

What we’re trying to do inside Vernova, and this is a real shift from where we were inside GE, is we want to be viewed as the partner of choice. For companies that have good ideas, good products, leverage our customer reach, let us help you in different ways, reach the largest utilities in the world, and after that effective iteration with our customer base, use one of our greatest assets, which is we have an incredible industrial footprint.

And in some cases that industrial footprint, we can evolve. How we use that factory space, how we use the cranes. Factories near railroads are hard to come by right now that already have the electrical connection. So, in my mind, I aspire for Vernova to play a bigger, more strategic role with the ecosystem. I think we’ll make a lot of progress this decade. And Vernova will humbly try to do their part.

Copy LinkThe patience required to move with urgency

SAFIAN: I want to ask you one, last thing. The human factor. I feel like climate change is so big and the changes are slow. Right? But you need to make progress and keep everyone’s energy up. Like, how do you think about balancing that part to keep people moving forward and patient at the same time?

Like, you have to be urgent and patient at the same time.

STRAZIK: Although some of our solutions are long-cycle, and that is true, the reality is the frequency and the intensity of what we’re seeing in the world every day because of climate change is becoming more rapid. And those two dynamics motivate us more and more every day to move faster.

It’s really hard to live in the world today and not feel like the intensity and importance of our work isn’t getting more and more important every day based on what we all see with extremes of weather.

So, I think it’s quite easy every day to get motivated in a long-cycle business to do this work. Cause it’s, it’s work worth doing. 

SAFIAN: Well, Scott, thank you so much for doing this. I really appreciate it. 

STRAZIK: Thank you. Appreciate it.

SAFIAN: Coming away from my conversation with Scott, I was struck by the importance of using multiple levers in tackling climate change. We always want a silver bullet for tough problems, but the reality is usually more complicated and messier. We need to show near-term progress and also not let today’s pressures distract us from long-cycle efforts. These are traps that all businesses can fall into. Yes, big swings matter. So do immediate results. What drives lasting impact is the ability to embrace both. I’m Bob Safian. Thanks for listening.