The Second Atomic Age is Here with Matt Loszak, CEO at Aalo Atomics

(Intro Narrator at 00:00:00) Today, we're talking to Matt Loszak, CEO at Aalo Atomics, about the modern potential of nuclear technology. You're listening to Joel Beasley, Modern CTO.

(Joel Beasley at 00:00:16) So I'm a fan. I've been following nuclear technology for about 15 years now, and you popped into my X feed one day, and we're talking about how you're making these homemade nuclear reactors that could fit in your garage. And I saw that, and I lit up, and I'm like, this is the future.

(Joel Beasley at 00:00:35) I've been waiting for this ever since I figured out about how energy density works and that nuclear was only slowed by just this archaic societal misunderstanding of it. And I believe it is the future. As far as, if I were looking at how Elon Musk looked at electric cars and space travel, I think that that is where you guys are at when it comes to nuclear technology.

(Matt Loszak at 00:01:05) Yeah, I mean, I would definitely agree. You say homemade, and the thing that resonates is that for our technology, we're really trying to make these reactors as safe as a university research reactor. So a lot of people don't realize there are around 30 nuclear reactors on university campuses, and students walk by these things without even knowing they're there.

(Matt Loszak at 00:01:31) And the reason that is is because it has this special fuel called uranium zirconium hydride. Most research reactors use this fuel, which has this incredible safety mechanism where the hotter the fuel gets, the less reactive it gets. So it's essentially inherently meltdown-proof. And for no good reason—and there are some interesting subtleties to this we can get into here—but this fuel has not been used for power production before. And so the idea is, if you want to make nuclear ubiquitous and make these small reactors in a factory that can be deployed all over the place, it should be as safe as a university research reactor that can just go in your backyard, and you can feel great about that.

(Matt Loszak at 00:02:16) So that's essentially what we're trying to do: make factory-made, small nuclear reactors that can be deployed anywhere, from powering data centers, desalination plants, maybe even one day small communities with not only power but also the residual heat powering those communities. And I could go on, but that's the core premise.

(Joel Beasley at 00:02:40) Are there any universities today that are using it as the power for their lab, or is it all just test?

(Matt Loszak at 00:02:47) Essentially, all the research reactors around the U.S. are for purely research purposes, so not currently powering campus or anything like that. There is a part of the CHIPS bill, and there's a number of schools and consortia with a few reactor vendor companies that are looking at possibly powering campus and using it for research as well. The tricky thing there is the whole idea of doing research with the reactor and powering the campus—these are a little bit orthogonal in the sense that if your reactor is being used for research, you're constantly turning it off, turning it on, opening it up, putting stuff in, taking stuff out. Whereas if you're using it—if the campus is dependent on it for heat and power—students can't really play with it as much.

(Matt Loszak at 00:03:42) So that's one issue there. But there are some schools looking at doing that to provide heat and power for the school.

(Joel Beasley at 00:03:51) Well, because there's two parts of the equation. There's, does it work? Can it do it? Have we designed it to where it can actually function? And then the second one is, well, if it can function, why haven't you just deployed one?

(Joel Beasley at 00:04:05) You have two—I have two, right? One for your research and one that's just running your science center.

(Matt Loszak at 00:04:12) Yeah, totally. I mean, I think we'll see more and more of this. In the first atomic age in the 1950s, '60s, and '70s, this whole fleet of the current 25 or 30 research reactors, they were built back then. And since then, none have been built.

(Matt Loszak at 00:04:32) But right now, we're on the verge of this second atomic age. And in the past five years, the tides have really turned in favor of nuclear. We can get a lot more into that, but there are a bunch of schools that are looking to deploy new reactors for the first time in decades. There's one here in Texas, Abilene Christian University, that's doing a molten salt reactor. There's Illinois and a company called USNC.

(Matt Loszak at 00:05:01) We're looking at doing one and a number of others. And then even recently at Texas, the RELLIS—there's a new RFP out right now for possibly five or 10 microreactors to provide power, but then also maybe used for research. And so people are looking at doing a lot more than just small research reactors now in a school setting. And I think you're right. We'll see probably a bunch of these things come online for multiple purposes in the next 10 or 15 years.

(Joel Beasley at 00:05:37) So how do you fund this endeavor? I mean, I looked at the website. It looks like you're going to start rolling them off the production chain in 2026, right? But are you getting—how do you know that there's contracts? Is it because of the RFPs? How do you actually make this business happen?

(Matt Loszak at 00:05:54) Well, yeah. So it's interesting. We're taking the venture funding route. And so we've raised a good amount of money relatively quickly. We raised a $6 million seed round within a few months of our inception, and that was about a year and a few months ago.

(Matt Loszak at 00:06:12) In the past month, we closed a $27 million Series A, and that might go up a little bit higher. We'll see. We still have a few active conversations. We might bump that up a little bit more. Some more to come there. But then the plan is to raise more next year for a Series B.

(Matt Loszak at 00:06:32) And so essentially, if you look at the roadmap here, with the Series A, we'll be building a non-nuclear prototype. This will also consist of a number of other subsystem testing, and that's going to be happening over the next essentially six to 12 months. But our goal is to get approved to start construction on the first real nuclear version in 2026. This is our internal goal. And so, obviously, to fund that reactor, we'll be announcing more on this later.

(Matt Loszak at 00:07:10) It'll be a mixture of venture funding, and we're also, of course, going after non-dilutive government capital for this as well. And when we announce more on this, it'll become more clear why that is. But, you know, you're right. There is a lot of capital that has to be raised for this kind of business. I think one interesting thing there is that people don't often realize, if you look at how much money certain companies in software have raised, like Uber or Airbnb and others, it's relatively on par with companies like SpaceX or Tesla or other deep tech companies in terms of how much venture was raised.

(Matt Loszak at 00:07:52) And so at scale, it's a comparable amount of money. But I think the thing is just that there's more ways to fail in a deep tech startup than there are in a software company. My last company was a software company. I think if you can sell software to one business, 10 businesses, a hundred businesses, you'll always survive. You'll just make different amounts of revenue as a business and so on. Whereas in deep tech, you have to clear a lot more existential hurdles before you actually get to the promised land of, in this case, bankability and being able to actually project finance a reactor project consistently.

(Joel Beasley at 00:08:35) Why a non-nuclear prototype to start?

(Matt Loszak at 00:08:39) As we take this incremental derisking approach, what we're looking to do is derisk a few of the key questions. And so for us, that's partially around supply chain, that's partially around economics, and that's partially around just the physics and engineering of the system. So we can model everything. We can plan everything out. But until we actually place orders and start to cut metal and assemble things, we don't know some of these things for sure.

(Matt Loszak at 00:09:14) So that'll be essentially a full-scale, non-nuclear version of the reactor along with a few other subsystem tests, like a sodium loop, to test certain things about the heat exchanger for within the reactor and so on.

(Joel Beasley at 00:09:32) Interesting. Where did you get all the bright people that know all this nuclear science stuff?

(Matt Loszak at 00:09:39) Yeah. I mean, I think there's no doubt that to pull something like this off requires a ton of experts and probably a wider array of fields than a lot of other spaces. So, you know, anything from the nuclear physics of it to the manufacturing of it, to the financing of it and the financial modeling that goes behind that, to the construction, I mean, the ongoing operations and maintenance and so on. So there's a ton of different aspects to this that we need to bring on the top people in the world to help achieve this, because especially in nuclear, it's critical that you get a lot of stuff right the first time around. You know, there's not as much—in rocketry, you can blow up a few rockets as you're learning.

(Matt Loszak at 00:10:32) In nuclear, you can't really blow up a few reactors on your way to learning there. So hiring is critical. My cofounder, our CTO—he's the project lead and chief architect behind the MARVEL program at Idaho National Lab—and he joined as cofounder and CTO late last year after the MARVEL team achieved this pretty historic milestone, which was they became the first reactor design that the DOE has ever authorized for construction. So the DOE was formed in 1977. Until this past October, they had not authorized a new nuclear reactor design for construction. And so that was a big milestone.

(Matt Loszak at 00:11:20) MARVEL is under construction right now. It'll go live in the next year or two. But, you know, so that's an incredible derisking for us on our pathway to commercializing this reactor. Similarly, on the regulatory side, we brought on Amir Afzali. He was the former head of Advanced Reactor Licensing at Southern Company.

(Matt Loszak at 00:11:42) So he pioneered this new regulatory approach called risk-informed, performance-based licensing. And this is a form of licensing that a lot of other startups are now adopting. And so he's been a huge help on the regulatory side. And then, similarly, on the government program side, finance side, product side, we tried to find all sorts of similar caliber people who can guide us to come as close as possible to getting this right on the first try and move quickly in doing so. But, you know, I think putting together an amazing team is probably one of the most important things that we can do as a business to actually pull off our vision here.

(Joel Beasley at 00:12:27) Are there any of these small household reactors operational in the United States today?

(Matt Loszak at 00:12:33) Well, the closest thing to a small reactor operational in the States today would be these research reactors, but they are not power-producing. There is a history of smaller reactors that were experimented with by the military several decades ago. So, you know, some of these were mobile. You could place them down, pick them up, move them somewhere else, place them down and power a base. Some were stationary.

(Matt Loszak at 00:13:02) So they'd, you know—there was one really cool one that was under 10 or 20 feet of snow that powered a northern base and offered both power and heat and created a small little town around that reactor. So these things have been done. But as of late, a lot of experimentation happened in that first atomic age in the 1950s and '60s, and I think a lot of this momentum today will result in some pretty exciting deployments in the years to come.

(Joel Beasley at 00:13:40) So, again, I'm just like—I'm a big fan. I like this term. I saw in your video on your website, which you mentioned earlier, the second atomic age. I think that you guys are right at the beginning of that. Would you say that you're right at the beginning of it?

(Matt Loszak at 00:13:59) I'd say definitely. I mean, you know, it's kind of interesting there. After the slowdown after the first atomic age, in the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s, there was this false start in the 2000s towards a new atomic age once again. And I think it's kind of interesting to deconstruct what went wrong in that initial attempt at this second atomic age and why this time might be different. And so, you know, we could go on this topic for a while, but some of the key things are natural gas was just starting to find its stride. So fracking was starting to come about in that 2000s era.

(Matt Loszak at 00:14:50) And at the time, coal was much larger. If you look at the pie chart of energy sources in America, coal was much larger in the year 2000. But over the course of the next 10 or 15 years, natural gas costs came way down thanks to fracking and the creation of a lot more supply of natural gas through these new methodologies. And as of, I think it was 2016, maybe 2013, natural gas overtook coal and is now the largest energy source, electricity source in America. And so that was a factor.

(Matt Loszak at 00:15:27) And during that transition, people were saying, you know, maybe natural gas is okay. An Inconvenient Truth came out in the early 2000s as well. And so these questions were being raised, but we weren't yet taking major action on it at a policy or a technology level. And so there's also Fukushima, which happened in 2011. And so, you know, even though some people think that that was why that last attempt at a second atomic age didn't work out, the writing was kind of already on the wall. There were already challenges. The economy was also collapsing around that 2008 time frame, and with natural gas and Fukushima being the nail in the coffin of that next attempt, things didn't end up working out that time.

(Matt Loszak at 00:16:00) But I think this time is quite different, and it's really interesting to look at the differences now versus back then. And so one of the big things is load growth is just exploding right now. So things like data centers—that's a big one. That's a huge focus for us for our target market, and we should definitely come back to that. Electric vehicles, heat pumps for homes, you know, all these things, for the first time in decades, are creating a huge amount of new demand for electricity. And nuclear is super well-positioned to be there. There's also been a real shift in the public narrative, and it's really palpable.

(Matt Loszak at 00:17:01) I mean, if you talk to pro-nuclear advocates who have been in this space for 10, 20 years or longer, in some cases—I mean, Rod Adams is one of our investors at Nucleation Capital, and he's been writing about nuclear for many decades now. And he's got an incredible blog for those who are interested. But point being, the past five years is a real difference. I mean, five or 10 years ago, if you spoke about deploying more nuclear energy, you would have gotten a dirty look or people would really think you're crazy.

(Matt Loszak at 00:17:40) It's really shifted. And so in the past five years, people now—it's slowly permeated the investment community. It's permeated the news. It's permeated the government. And now everyone is saying, like, yeah, you know, we should probably deploy more nuclear energy, or we should definitely deploy more nuclear energy to help hit our, for example, 2030 or 2050 climate goals.

(Matt Loszak at 00:18:04) Our goals around the energy transition of oil and gas. So, you know, everyone is kind of waking up and saying, you know, wait a second. Why are we looking at nuclear in that negative light? You know, it's actually statistically as safe as solar and wind. It's totally clean, and yet it works around the clock.

(Matt Loszak at 00:18:24) So, you know, people are kind of almost confused now about why it hasn't been pushed so hard all along. And, you know, decisions like that were kind of being experimented with, like the idea of shutting down Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. Bill Gurley just did this podcast on this where he went and spoke to the lead behind that power plant. And, you know, everyone is starting to realize, like, it's just kind of ridiculous.

(Matt Loszak at 00:18:52) Not only should we be building more nuclear, but the idea that we should—or that anyone would say that we should—shut down a nuclear plant, it just kind of makes no sense now. So there's a lot of good momentum. I think that'll continue. And between the load growth, the public acceptance, the flow of capital, the flow of talent, I really do think that this second atomic age will be here to stay.

(Joel Beasley at 00:19:18) And so one of your initial goals is to aim for 3¢ a kilowatt hour electricity. Right? Is that going to happen in the non-nuclear prototype?

(Matt Loszak at 00:19:29) No. So that's our company aspirational goal. And I just want to point out, there are, you know, gigawatt-scale nuclear plants around today that are currently producing power at, you know, 2 to 3¢ a kilowatt hour. But those are fully paid off assets. And what we're trying to do is get to the point where, in the first ten or twenty years of operation, we can still hit that LCOE, which is quite ambitious.

(Matt Loszak at 00:19:57) And we're not going to achieve that with the first few reactors. The first few reactors, I want to highlight, as with any new technology, will be more expensive. And so, you know, the question for us is kind of how do we find the right markets and the right go-to-market and the right planning and strategy to come down that cost curve and get to the, you know, the holy grail of how cheap this technology can really be. And, you know, in our modeling, we think that maybe by the time we get to, like, the tenth and twentieth reactor of the ALLO-1, which is our 10 megawatt electric product—it's going to be around $5 a watt, $50 million for the 10 megawatt electric product. And so, you know, that's what we're kind of targeting there.

(Matt Loszak at 00:20:48) But we have a second product called the ALLO-2, which will be a 100 megawatt electric. And we think this is kind of what will hit that sweet spot balance in economy of numbers and economy of scale that can eventually get to the 2 to 3¢ per kilowatt hour range. There's a lot of kind of modeling behind that, a lot of thinking behind that. This is also kind of a contentious point in the nuclear industry today. So there's some folks that kind of think we should just be building more AP1000s, you know, gigawatt-scale plants.

(Matt Loszak at 00:21:19) And, you know, the kind of thesis that we have is that, yes, there are a lot of reasons why nuclear has gone larger—better neutron efficiency, bigger pipe diameters, better turbine efficiency, et cetera. But also, we believe that there are also diseconomies of scale as well. And if you go, you know, too large and it ends up taking ten or fifteen years and, you know, tens of billions of dollars, then you can't really get much improvement over time with learning because your next project in another ten or fifteen years, like, there'll be different people, different teams. Like, it's just much harder to get that rapid iteration, learning development cycle. And that's kind of the whole thesis behind small reactors, which I think gets misrepresented sometimes or, you know, people don't understand it.

(Matt Loszak at 00:22:11) It's just that, you know, we're trying to find the optimal balance there, an economy of number and economy of scale. And the other thing to point out is, you know, some of these large reactors, they are made in somewhat modular ways as well. But the key thing there is not all modularity is created equal. And, you know, I don't want to pick on any one designer, you know, competitor too much, but one thing is, as an example, is NuScale. So with their reactor, you have to build essentially the largest swimming pool on Earth for each deployment.

(Matt Loszak at 00:22:44) You know, and if you look at this, it's like more concrete per megawatt than any other reactor design. And I mean, that's just going in the wrong direction. It seems like, you know, there's some strange optimizations or decisions that have been made in some of these cases. And so when you take that and you permeate it across, you know, these gigawatt-scale projects that take ten or fifteen years, you just kind of know that there's lots of room in there for optimization. And when you tighten that up and factor it out, in a sense, to a factory, we think there's going to be a lot of efficiencies in there that can help improve economics and predictability on not just the cost, but also the schedule.

(Joel Beasley at 00:23:28) Unless you chain the small ones together. Right?

(Matt Loszak at 00:23:32) Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. So that's another interesting part of this. There's value to this.

(Matt Loszak at 00:23:36) So, and this hasn't really fully been explored before for a few different reasons. But, yeah, the idea is, you know, for example, for data center, nuclear, especially small modular nuclear, is a really beautiful fit because it's baseload. It's clean. But the interesting one that doesn't get talked about all the time is if you do a fleet of small reactors instead of one large reactor, then you can do what's called an N+1 configuration, where you have one or two extra reactors of the small kind that are kind of a backup. And when you're refueling or doing maintenance on one of the other reactors, you bring online one of the backup ones.

(Matt Loszak at 00:24:25) And, you know, in doing so, you could essentially completely remove the requirement for any grid interconnection. And, you know, the grid is like this really interesting thing because it's like the—it's like this crazy complex, you know, old machine that spans transmission distribution across, you know, huge swaths of land, and there's all sorts of balancing and everything. And, you know, the cost of electricity that we pay for in our homes, for example, is roughly half from the cost of this T&D side of things, transmission and distribution. And moreover, for these data center companies, it takes a long time to get a grid interconnection. And, you know, they want to deploy yesterday.

(Matt Loszak at 00:25:13) They want to deploy a lot of new capacity very quickly. And, you know, it's this really interesting thing. Like, a lot of—you know, I've spoken to a lot of the leaders at some of these, you know, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, you know, and the leaders who are looking to deploy this energy infrastructure, and they're kind of scratching their heads a little bit because nothing seems to be just right. I mean, natural gas is quick and cheap, but it's not clean. Right?

(Matt Loszak at 00:25:40) And then you've got hydro and geothermal, and these are clean, but they don't work everywhere. They have really strict geography constraints, right, based on where those energy sources are going to be. And then solar is cool and it's getting cheaper, but you need to do batteries and overbuilding to make it reliable, which adds a lot of cost. It's not as cheap when you do all that to actually get, like, to resolve the intermittency issue. And then also it uses a lot of land and, like, you know, some people say, "Oh, you know, all you have to do is cover 7% of the country with solar panels and you're good."

(Matt Loszak at 00:26:18) And it's like, is that really what we want to do? Like, that's a lot of land. That kind of sucks.

(Joel Beasley at 00:26:22) Have nuclear.

(Matt Loszak at 00:26:23) Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it just seems like a better solution. And so, you know, with nuclear, it works anywhere. It works all the time. It's clean, and it's as safe as solar and wind. So, but the reason that utilities—sorry, the data center companies are, or the big tech companies are—scratching their heads is because they're like, okay, well, nuclear is great, but then we can't wait ten or fifteen years to have a new gigawatt-size plant built. So this is our, you know, incredible window of opportunity for us right now because, you know, we've just moved into this 40,000 square foot factory here in Austin.

(Matt Loszak at 00:26:59) We've raised a good amount of venture capital so far, and we'll have to raise a lot more to execute this vision. But the idea here is small nuclear can be this amazing solution for them because they can parametrically scale their data centers with these reactors. So install one of the 10 megawatt ones alongside part of the data center and then keep expanding the data center, keep expanding the power production. And you do that in series. And that way, you don't have to, you know, worry about or wait until a full gigawatt-scale plant is built.

(Matt Loszak at 00:27:32) You just start to turn things on as each smaller plant is built. Plus the idea of doing the N+1 configuration, which removes that need for a grid interconnect, which saves time and money as well. So it's really potentially a perfect solution for, you know, arguably the largest source of new load growth in maybe in history. And it's just the pressure is now on us to show that we can execute against that vision. So can we hit the economics that we think we can? Can we actually get the regulatory approvals? Can we make sure the supply chain is there and so on? That if we can do that, then we can help Microsoft, Google, and Amazon from scratching their heads and have a beautiful solution for their needs.

(Joel Beasley at 00:28:18) Is there anybody that has a small nuclear reactor in the wild today that you could buy and put at your house?

(Matt Loszak at 00:28:27) There was decades ago, but today there's not. I mean, put it your house—that might confuse people to say that exactly because, you know, you could put it in a centralized area for a small community to share. That would be more likely the sense of in your backyard that we allude to. But it's unlikely in the short term that there will be reactors that power houses for, on a one-to-one basis for a few different reasons.

(Joel Beasley at 00:28:58) But are we going there? You think we'll have a water heater and then, like, a similar size, like, nuclear reactor just in my garage powering my home?

(Matt Loszak at 00:29:07) I don't think that's necessarily the optimal. I think the optimal would be, you know, as I drive around Texas, you kind of see these different communities, right, and they each have an entrance and then there's a bunch of homes there. I think it's more likely that each of those would share a reactor in their backyard, and it would power all their homes, it would also provide heat for their water and their HVAC and their heating and cooling in their homes. Cooling would be electrical, but I think that's the more likely—

(Joel Beasley at 00:29:42) Neighborhood-based? Community-based?

(Matt Loszak at 00:29:44) Yeah. Yeah. That makes sense too.

(Joel Beasley at 00:29:47) Because the communities, they have the community play place where you can have your cookouts and everything and then community power. Right?

(Matt Loszak at 00:29:54) Exactly.

(Joel Beasley at 00:29:56) Probably keep them a little bit separate. Right?

(Matt Loszak at 00:29:59) Sure. I mean, you don't need to do it two separate though. Like, university research reactors are, like, right next to, you know, football fields and stuff.

(Joel Beasley at 00:30:07) Right. Right. Well, thank you so much for doing this.

(Matt Loszak at 00:30:12) Can I say one more thing?

(Joel Beasley at 00:30:14) Yeah.

(Matt Loszak at 00:30:14) I think, you know, one piece of information or story that I'd love to share as well is just, like, I think people get confused when they think about economics because they think it's this thing that's kind of, like, set in stone when you look at the stats as they are today. And, you know, I think it's just worth saying that, like, nuclear really will be the cheapest energy source by far when it is fully baked out. And, you know, a good case study of this is natural gas. Like, a hundred years ago was thought of as a waste product, and people thought would never be cheap.

(Matt Loszak at 00:30:52) But, you know, when we started to invest in it and build up the infrastructure of the pipelines all around the country and the better fracking methods to source the fuel, lo and behold, the cost went way down. And it's just kind of insane to say, like, "Oh, nuclear is inherently expensive," because it is the most energy dense fuel source that we've ever discovered by a factor of several million. So, like, you know, if you take one barrel of uranium, it's equivalent energy content to 2 million barrels of oil and gas. And so, you know, just from a fuel standpoint alone, that kind of gives you a sense of how much cheaper this energy source can be because there's kind of a comparable amount of other infrastructure you need to actually, you know, turn that fuel into energy. But it's just like, if you think about, you know, how cheap nuclear could really get on the course of several decades, if we invested more into it and if the public accepted it more and if we built out more of its supply chain, it's just insane.

(Matt Loszak at 00:32:00) I mean, you know, this is the kind of thing that can really, really change the world if there's just much, much cheaper energy. And I think people need to acknowledge that and understand from first principles just how cheap this energy source can get is pretty incredible.

(Joel Beasley at 00:32:17) Have you talked with Elon about using them to power superchargers?

(Matt Loszak at 00:32:22) Not Elon, but we have spoken to some people at Tesla about that. And, yeah, I think it's on their radar. And I think they're waiting for someone to show that this can be done. So—

(Joel Beasley at 00:32:36) What's the name Aalto? Like, how did that name come about?

(Matt Loszak at 00:32:42) So Aalo, it means "the light," and this has a few different meanings for us. But one is that we really, you know, we believe in a bright future. We want to push towards a bright optimistic future, because there are, you know, lots of people out there who are relatively pessimistic and don't think humanity is going in the right direction, and we really want to help push humanity in that positive, bright, optimistic, you know, future kind of thing where humanity is growing and flourishing. But also, like, maybe one other way I'll mention that we—this resonates with us is we really try to hire really smart but also humble optimists because, you know, in our view, there's really nothing more dangerous than a well-spoken pessimist. And so it's a pretty, you know, core part to our culture and our DNA that we wanted to put in the name there. And there's a few other hidden meanings which we'll maybe be able to address in the future.

(Joel Beasley at 00:33:46) Yeah. Well, did we get everything out there that we wanted to get out to the world today?

(Matt Loszak at 00:33:52) I think so. Yeah. Definitely appreciate the opportunity.

(Joel Beasley at 00:33:57) Thank you so much for listening. And if you found this episode useful, please share it with a friend or colleague who you think would get value from it. And if you have topics that you'd like to hear discussed on the podcast, either add me on LinkedIn, or send me an email [email protected]. Every time I get an email or LinkedIn message, it absolutely makes my day and inspires me to keep going.