All right, we're gonna switch to a new topic here, which is improvement and green enablers. What do we mean by green enablers? Green enablers, companies that are early in the supply chain, that play a critical role in enabling decarbonization or other sustainable goals, either for their customers or even later in the later in the supply chain. There's been a lot of discussion about this over the course of the day. We think there's gonna be a lot of discussion in the coming weeks, months, years, over how do we try to quantify that impact? And how to try to value diversified companies who may have businesses, some that serve sustainable purposes, some that may not, but that are clear drivers of change and clear drivers of sustainable goals. So let me introduce today our three panelists.
From KBR, Doug Kelly, President of Technology. From Janus Henderson, Michelle Dunstan, Chief Responsibility Officer, and from Smiths, John Ostergren, Chief Sustainability Officer. Thank you very much for participating with us today. We're just gonna get right to it here, and Doug, the first question goes to you. When we think about KBR, the KBR had the Sustainable Technology Solutions business, has driven more than it's currently driving more than 20% of revenues and a greater percentage of operating profit. Maybe something that's not always with KBR and its history. Can you talk to us about the key drivers of your business and what the growth profile looks like over the next three years to five years based on your preliminary engineering pipeline?
Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much, Brian. It's really actually a very exciting business right now. There's a little bit of competition between the government and the sustainability technology business to try to see who's the biggest. I think from an operating profit standpoint, we're about at 40% right now, and it's really coming together. A lot of market drivers are coming together at the same time with the energy transition, the investment in sustainable solutions, and the portfolio and capabilities that we have in sustainable technology is right in line with what our customers needs in areas like blue and green ammonia, which we'll talk about some more, plastics recycling technology, sustainable aviation fuel. These are technologies that we have, and they're in demand at this point as companies really try to reach their ESG goals.
That's great. When you look at the return on capital, something that's also understandably coming up a lot more, how do you expect return on capital for that business to look relative to Government Solutions business?
Well, I think that there's, you know, it's, it's a strong business. It's got strong drivers from the market. It, you know, the portfolio, really, the portfolio of STS really has a technology base, so it's IP as well as services that we provide. So really, really strong margins, and we've stated our 2025 goals, so we've stated them out, and we're on track with those goals and objectives financially. So, very, very strong, and the future looks very bright.
One of the questions I know we'll probably get into a little bit later is just thinking about the return on capital from investments in newer technologies versus legacy technologies.
Right.
What is the willingness of KBR to kind of absorb lower return on capital for investments that may pay off in the longer term? Or is that even something that is an issue?
Actually, that's a great question cause you get a lot of, or I get a lot of questions around the new sexy technologies, you know, sustainable aviation fuel and things like that. But KBR spends an equal amount of time going back and looking at our legacy technologies, like ammonia, like olefins, some of our refining technologies, because that can really make a difference. We have a huge installed base, so if you lower the energy footprint for some of our legacy technologies, we're using hydrogen as a fuel rather than natural gas as a fuel. And so that is baked into our margins. We have a certain amount of innovation in R&D that we do at KBR. The other piece, though, is our strategy around alliances, where we don't feel like we have a monopoly on all the great ideas.
We have a full-time dedicated group that's looking at technologies being developed by sometimes very, very small companies, and we bring together, I call them the white coat lab people that have brilliant ideas and brilliant processes, and we bring those together with the KBR engineering capability and our global relationships, and together, we're then able to provide solutions that help our clients literally all around the world. So, it's not just our capital in R&D, but it's also the alliance partners that we leverage as well.
Great. John, let's switch to Smiths here. Smiths has four main businesses, and in each of them, you've identified revenue opportunities for products that can drive things like energy efficiency, green electrification, alternative fuels, carbon capture. Can you talk about how significant that part of the business is today and how you see that playing out in the coming years?
Well, so on behalf-- thank you for having me here today, and I'm happy to share some details about Smiths with you, and through the lens of those levers for decarbonization that you mentioned, so efficiency, electrification, zero carbon fuels, and carbon sequestration. So each of those we participate across our business units, and the participation today is much like the KBR description. We recognize that the energy of today needs our solutions to be produced responsibly, so that's the story around efficiency and emissions reductions. When we think of electrification, we think of our green steel-enabling heating solutions. That's superheat hydrogen that's then reacted within the DRI process that enables zero emission, effectively zero emission steel production.
When we think of low and no carbon fuels, so hydrogen as the one that we hear most about, hydrogen production, we are happy to participate in projects like the Alberta Blue Hydrogen Project, that's a net zero hydrogen project, or, you know, $ multi-billion-dollar project, and we are the 100% supplier of sealing solutions. So, to sealing solutions to that project, that, that enables both the production of the hydrogen and then it's the carbon capture component. So, it's a diverse portfolio that touches each of those decarbonization elements through our business units in, you know, different ways. What's interesting about it, from my perspective, is each of those technologies are things that are here today. This is not some future plan. It's not a science project.
It's a take action today, with a bridge to the future, of course.
So how can you characterize the revenues of Smiths, how significant this is and what that could mean? How does that growth profile look relative to rest of business? What's the materiality?
Yeah, so material today and growing for tomorrow is what I would say. So, when we look across that full portfolio, of course, it's diversified across the portfolio, and that's a good thing, not a bad thing. And the growth rates are what are distinguishing for the sector as a whole. I mean, we wouldn't all be here if we weren't excited about and felt some urgency around the investment that must be made in order to deliver these solutions. Those market signals are very visible to us in the trenches of the enabling technologies that we provide. So things like doubling our pipeline for hydrogen and CCUS projects, so it's in less than 12 months. That's a pretty big, pretty good growth signal for us.
Yeah, absolutely. Can you talk about return on capital? Like, kind of a similar question to the one I asked to Doug, which is, how does... When doubling, doubling your capacity, how does the return on capital for some of these business lines compare to investing in the traditional business-
Yeah.
and relative to, I think, it's a 15% to 17% corporate return on capital employed?
That's correct. So, and I will admit, without shame, I will admit that, I'm not a finance guy. Our CFO is here, Clare, to answer any difficult questions that might be posed. As the sustainability guy and a lawyer by training and scientist at heart, when I think of the return on these projects, what I think of is, how quickly they are coming to market. So things like the Green Steel project, that's a big project for our industrial electrification business. And when you go from one project, you know, the first to the first-of-the-world commercial scale green steel production facility, the H2 Green Steel project that we're involved with as the technology partner for the DRI process that I mentioned.
When you go from that first demonstration project to the second, to the third, to the fifth, and when you, when you look at what's needed for us, for the world to meet our decarbonization demand, I worry more about, you know, our ability to supply than I do about the demand, I guess.
Michelle, let's bring you in here. You recently joined Janus after a couple of decades or almost two decades at AllianceBernstein. You've been a long-term, long-time proponent of looking across the supply chain. Can you discuss your key areas of focus and your priorities as Chief Responsibility Officer?
Sure. So, like Brian said, I joined Janus Henderson in January, and, you know, just very briefly, what I do is I kind of oversee all three pillars of our responsibility strategy. So first, actually, our own corporate responsibility. If we are out there asking our portfolio companies to do things better or do things differently, our own practices need to reflect what we're asking others to do. The second, ESG integration. Where there is a financially material, environmental, social, or governance factor, we need to be treating it the same way we do any other financially material factor, which is incorporating it at each appropriate stage of our process. And then lastly, it is, working on developing and building out what we call our Brighter Future Funds. These are strategies that have dual objectives, an ESG objective alongside that financial objective.
So, if I had to kind of put my finger on the, you know, three things I'm focused on, in addition to getting up to speed with a new company, a new team, a new set of products, et cetera, data, dealing with the European regulations, but the last one is that product development. Thinking about how we can bring differentiated solutions to our clients, who are trying to do more with their money than just invest. In line with Janus Henderson's approach in terms of research and thoughtfulness, we'd like to craft a series of products that mimics that. Ones that don't just exclude, ones that don't just look at best in class, but ones that are truly going to drive both returns and change for society.
How do you measure that? I mean, there are plenty of companies, and we've highlighted some of them, and, you know, I think both of the companies here are underway relative to benchmarks and ESG funds, so we can look at that as an opportunity. How do you look at finding those opportunities or work with portfolio managers in sustainable funds to find those opportunities in a credible way that can be driving change?
Yeah, it's actually quite difficult, and I think it does require a lot of fundamental research. So it requires getting to know the companies really, really well, understanding what they're doing, but also, most importantly, understanding their journey, and their journey not only on, like, the legacy businesses you just described, but where they're investing for the future. So a lot of people think of ESG as this kind of separate thing that exists. It doesn't. We should be treating ESG the same way we do investing, which is for the future. Like, you don't look at a company and say: "Oh, it made a buck in EPS last year. I'm going to buy it." You want to understand how cash flows and margins are going to evolve, and you are investing for that future stream. It's the same with ESG. We need to be forward-looking.
It's also not one size fits all. You need to think about products that have specific objectives. I think we'll talk a little bit more about this, but I kind of divide the world into three. One, and they still exist, although it's a smaller share of the population, people who want to invest in best-in-class companies. They're looking more at risk control. They don't want anything, any hair on their companies. I don't know if that really drives change, but there's a distinct market for that. There are a growing segment of the population, as newer and newer people are putting their money into ESG-focused portfolios that want to drive change. They want to make a difference. They're looking at opportunities, so solutions and enablers, companies whose products and services enable others to do better.
Then the third category, I would say, is the improvers, companies who themselves are trying to improve their own operations and do better. There's opportunities in each of those, and you need to measure them in different ways, and it's very tailored to the individual company. I do think it requires that analysis. You can't just look at an ESG rating, which tends to be backward-looking, or a carbon metric, which tends to be backward-looking, or even the growing number of forward-looking metrics like a CVAR ITR climate change scenario analysis. They're very imperfect at this stage.
What are you seeing from a demand perspective for all this? You're in an interesting position on working both sides of the Atlantic.
Yeah.
How do you see demand for and interest levels among asset owners, varying, if at all, between the U.S. and Europe?
Yeah, there is a lot of variation. So Europe is, you know, obviously, I think most people would say it's quite far ahead. That's driven by both customer demand, but also the regulation. So, if you're familiar with the ESG regime in Europe, your strategies are labeled either Article Nine, which is sustainable, dark green, Article Eight, which promotes environmental and social characteristics, light green, or Article Six, which doesn't do basically any of the above, and that's colloquially known as brown. You need to be Article Eight to even get into the business today, and it's increasingly veering towards eight plus and nine. So there's a distinct demand in Europe. Everywhere else in the world, demand is growing pretty rapidly. Asia, starting from a much lower base, but I'd say accelerating actually the quickest. The U.S. is very bifurcated.
There are pockets where it's growing very rapidly, and that is in younger consumers, female consumers, high net worth individuals, family offices, and the institutional market. We haven't yet seen broad acceptance in the retail market like we have in Europe.
Let's talk technology, and Doug, as the head of technology, we'll go to you on this first. You mentioned some of the ammonia projects. KBR has been active in blue ammonia, green ammonia, carbon capture, hydrogen. Can you just discuss how technology is evolving and how costs are evolving, and if, where, when you see innovation and the impact, what impact that could have on deployment?
Yeah, great question, because there's a lot of innovation that's taking place in this space right now. So I'll start with ammonia. So KBR produces using KBR technology, about 50% of the amount of ammonia that's, you know, that's needed in the world. But we didn't rest on our laurels. We saw the need to. I'll define some colors here, just like you defined the different levels. There's blue ammonia, and blue ammonia means it's really using the same feedstock. It's a hydrocarbon feedstock, but the carbon is captured, the CO2 is captured, and it's used for sequestration or it's used for other chemical use.
And so what I've seen, if I just look at gray and blue, I've seen the number in our pipeline, the number of gray projects is going down and the number of blue projects is going up. And that has really been driven by a couple of different areas. One is legislation. The IRA in the U.S. has definitely made gray and blue on par with each other from a capital investment standpoint, and so we're seeing mainly that. The other kind of factor is that, in Japan, I'm gonna go do a little history. They moved in Japan after the nuclear incident there. They moved almost to 100% coal in Japan, and then they go and they sign the Paris Accord agreements, and you can't get there from here, you know, using coal. It just is. It's not possible.
So they had some great innovation in Japan, where they said: Let's take ammonia, which is one part nitrogen, three parts hydrogen, and let's mix it with coal. So we take away some of that carbon that's going into the production of power. And so that is really driving a lot of blue projects. You see major projects, huge projects announced by Aramco. You see the Mitsubishi plans in Louisiana. So this is driving investment in this area, and it's on the backs of this innovation. Green ammonia gets a lot of press right now, and it's really it doesn't use a hydrocarbon feedstock. It uses electrolysis of water, and it uses an air separation unit to form the hydrogen and the nitrogen necessary for ammonia, and then we use our KBR backend to produce the ammonia. So there's innovation in that.
The electrolyzer development is extremely important right now, 'cause right now, the number of electrolyzers you need and the efficiencies of the electrolyzers, it's getting better, but it's still not on par with the blue and the gray, as I talked about earlier, so. But the future is there. We're doing about five projects in green ammonia right now. They tend to be smaller scale because of the cost, capital cost challenges and operating cost challenges that I talked about before, but it, c ompanies are wanting to get their foot started in this process and then take advantage going forward. The other areas, though, it's not just about ammonia, it's carbon capture. How do you capture that carbon more efficiently, lower capital costs, in order to drive cost out of the equation?
And there's some new technologies that I won't go into details right now, that we offer that are continuing to drive that down. Sustainable aviation fuel, plastics recycling. Again, all of these areas are areas where there's been incredible innovation. And our strategy is one where we're not looking to do the same thing other people are doing in the market. We're really trying to find whether we develop it or whether, you know, one of our alliance partners develops it, those technologies that are really gonna that are differentiated, they're gonna make a step change, because that's what we ultimately want to do. KBR is, we're very sustainable, very green as a company, but our real vision is how do we enable our clients all around the world to meet their goals?
That's, that's the force multiplier, if you will, on really accomplishing what we want to.
What's the line of sight on that? Because to your point, the bull case with stimulus projects like the IRA is that by deployment, especially at some of these more emerging technologies, with scale, you can see them move materially down the cost curve.
Right.
Shale, without necessarily as much government stimulus like the IRA, is an example of as it got deployed, you saw a material reduction in the underlying supply cost. Is that something that you see on the horizon? Is right now just the rate of return to be pursuing these ammonia projects better because of the IRA, or do you actually see line of sight to technological innovation and a reduction in green premium reduction in supply cost, however you want to look at it, and when should we expect that?
No, very, very, very good. If you look at, you know, this industry that we serve, which is refining and petrochemicals and syngas, and you think about innovation, you know, if you just ask somebody on the street, "You know, what are the most innovative companies?" These are not the industries where you think about innovation. But if you look at what's actually going on in this market and the drive to make a difference in our environment and in safety, et cetera, there's a tremendous amount of investment. And so I think that in some areas, we're already there. I think we're cost competitive with blue ammonia, and it's getting better all the time. I think that if you look at the approach to plastics recycling technology, there's a couple of different ways you do plastics recycling.
One is pyrolysis, which is really where you just heat up the plastic to over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and it breaks into its components. The problem with that is it requires a tremendous amount of energy, and then you overcrack that plastic, so it has a very little, very low yield. It forms a lot of char carbon. But in our partnership with Mura Technology, they've got a better mousetrap. And so that innovation is lowering the cost of the capital costs and lowering the cost of deploying these solutions. So their approach is to use, I'm a chemical engineer, so please forgive me, supercritical water, which is another way of just saying high temperature, high pressure water. So the water transfers the heat to the plastic.
The plastic does the same breakdown, but it coats those molecules so it doesn't overcrack, so it produces a very high yield. And then KBR's added in our work with Mura, the ability to recycle that water. So you don't have to start from zero. You have some latent heat coming out, and so it's lower carbon footprint to crack the plastics, and then also it produces a higher yield going forward. So that's just a couple of examples of where innovation and really new ideas are driving costs out, both operating costs and capital costs, out of these projects to make them more viable and make them more scalable. So the tipping point, I think it's different for each technology. I think the electrolysis, I think there's still a lot of work to be done there to really make green ammonia.
I think it's latest numbers, and it's getting better all the time, but it's still about, you know, around four times more expensive to produce a molecule of ammonia using green ammonia than traditional blue or gray. That's coming down, it's getting better, but it's not gonna be tomorrow. But we're definitely, you know, we need to be playing in that space. We're working with electrolyzer companies using some of our ideas and their ideas, and I think there will be some breakthroughs. It's a crystal ball on when that's gonna happen.
A lot of the emissions reduction focus is often on carbon dioxide, but methane is, it plays an extraordinary role in this as well, given the heating content. John, let's turn to you on this. Given the oil and gas and some of the technologies that Smiths offers, how would you assess the current and potential future impact of Smiths's products in the space to help mitigate methane emissions, and what are the constraints, if any, to adoption?
Yeah. So, in a word, the kit that we offer is essential to success. So for those of you, probably everyone knows the global warming potential for methane is, it depends on the time frame that you apply, but it's anywhere from 20 times to 80 times CO2 equivalent, right? So every molecule of methane that goes into the atmosphere is gonna have 20 times to 80 times the impact of a CO2 molecule. And so making sure that those molecules don't get into the atmosphere in the first place is the name of the game for energy production today, which is one of the larger sources of methane emission, methane emissions in the world. As a result of that, you know, widely recognized science, things like in COP26, the Global Methane Pledge got a lot of airtime.
When I was thinking of today's conference, you know, the tagline, From Ambition to Action, I think the Global Methane Pledge is a poster child for one of those places where it is truly urgent that we move from ambition to action. So because of those multiplier effects, if we don't address the methane emissions of today, we are, well, shooting ourselves in the foot is an understatement, I guess, for the future. We're really undercutting the ability to deliver anything in the mid and long term. So from a solution standpoint, it's not that hard a problem. You just have to get the methane emissions not to leak out of the systems in the first place. Historically, that was known as something that our sealing business would sell on cost.
So our, if you're an oil and gas producer, you don't want to lose your methane because it's part of your product. Okay, that works for a little while. And it does, it does drive sales and interest to a certain extent, but it is, it is a different world today when you factor in those little literal multiplier effects for the emissions dimension of the value of, reducing those, those, releases. And our kit, as they say, so the sealing solutions that we offer, what we call a dry gas seal, when you replace an old-style wet seal with a dry gas seal, you reduce the emissions associated with that piece of equipment by order, several orders of magnitude, and that is essential to do.
So the second piece, from a practical standpoint, is, the seals can only be so efficient, so then you have to couple that with a seal gas recovery system, and that can increase, or reduce, or however you want to say it. It improves the, capture rates to well over 98%. And so the solutions exist. What's needed is the environment for their rapid adoption, and what's needed most is a transition from pledges to performance on the ground.
What's keeping that from happening, though? Because it seems like when we've talked to oil and gas companies, and to your point that you made,
Yeah.
Who wouldn't want to have more revenue from the product that you actually have?
Yeah
Before we even talk about the environmental, environmental impact? So in theory, it should be in interest, both environmentally and financially, but, you know, maybe when we're talking about smaller quantities, it isn't. What's your go-to to the companies to say: Here's what you have to, you know, pay for, and here's what you're going to get as a result, and what, what is it that actually-
Yeah
spurs the adoption?
Well, to be blunt, regulatory controls and enforcement are necessary in order to drive the levels of emission controls that we, I mean, that's w hen you're talking about the parts per million, you know, levels of emissions, the economics can only take you so far, and it's really the regulatory environment that needs to do the rest. Of course, commitments by well-intended operators are effectively the same and arguably more efficient than regulatory approaches. I'm open to that, but I will tell you, the facts on the ground are that we need an environment where the available solutions are effectively reduced.
Is the methane fee with the IRA, or the methane fee in the US bringing more people to the table, or?
Very helpful, very helpful, very helpful is what I would say. But whether or not it's enough is a, you know, longer discussion.
Great. Michelle, let's turn to you. As you look out there in the world for the most underappreciated opportunities from a technological innovation perspective towards sustainable goals, what do you see, and who's driving it? Is it driven by diversified companies? Is it driven by startups? Is it driven by companies that are not yet public?
Yeah. The answer is, I think it depends. We're going to need everyone to work together, whether that's academia, so basic research, early-stage startups, but also diversified companies out there. In terms of looking at solutions, I think there's really, call it, three areas out there that are truly underappreciated. The first is most people only look at that first order impact. So for instance, electric vehicles. What's the one name that springs to everyone's mind when we say, "Okay, electric vehicles are going to grow, I want to invest, Tesla". Everyone knows that. But there are fewer people that are peering under the hood of Tesla and seeing what is actually enabling Tesla, so further back down that value chain.
So whether it's talking about the batteries, the battery components, the metals and minerals like lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, that are going into those electric vehicle batteries, or even things like the companies that are hooking up the grids in order to charge your company or charge your cars. For a lot of those companies, right now, the component that goes into EVs is a smaller percentage of their revenue, but it's growing much, much quicker. You're heading into secular growth there. So I would say the more deeply you can think about who truly has to enable those primary technologies, those are underappreciated. The second one, and we've talked a lot about it today, is climate change.
A lot of people are focused on climate change, but particularly from the asset owners or the clients that I talk to that are more forward-thinking, they of course want climate change, but they're branching out into biodiversity and natural capital, circular economy, marine health. So starting to think about other elements that are out there too, and oftentimes they slightly overlap with climate change, but aren't solely focused on carbon and carbon and carbon alone. I would say the third area out there is moving beyond the E to the S. We are starting to see a lot more strategies bring up and a lot more people interested in strategies that promote, whether it's diversity, equity, inclusion, education, human capital advancement, socially conscious consumerism, or even AI, you know, responsible AI and cybersecurity.
So I would say those are areas that are less well-tapped in the market. And like I said, it's across the chain. So again, most people focus on that pure play, that large cap company or the clear industry champion. Look further down the chain, look at smaller companies, but also look at companies, like, KBR and Smiths today, where it's not the majority of their revenue, but they've got a business that's growing really, really quickly and poised for success.
Great. Let's shift to a little bit, talk about efficiency, energy efficiency or other product efficiency. We're going to actually keep it on hydrogen and then tie it into more consumer energy efficiency. This is a question for you, Doug, because you've talked about hydrogen projects being adopted and the difference between green and blue. Green, you kind of mentioned that technology is still getting to a point where it could actually be feasible. How do you see the efficiency of a decision made to pursue a green hydrogen project relative to just tying a source of renewable energy into the grid, and how does that impact where you see geographically, these blue versus green hydrogen projects economically sprouting up?
Yeah, I think that right now, I would say today, that the green projects are, some of our clients probably wouldn't appreciate this, more of a marketing, more of an ESG, kind of check the box and be seen as being on. You know, they're willing to almost make an investment in a project that's not gonna generate cash in the short term and just in order to get on the path. And so I think that's gonna continue. But there's other ways of dealing with hydrogen and producing hydrogen. One of the ways is, you know, I talked about ammonia being one part nitrogen, three parts hydrogen. Ammonia is now seen as a hydrogen carrier. So not only is ammonia as a fuel, but there are places that we need hydrogen as a fuel.
And so, just recently, we deployed a first commercial ammonia cracking unit. How do you get the ammonia back into hydrogen in Korea? So, I see those types of projects being more economically viable in the short term. And, and I think I'm very excited about using ammonia as a fuel, 'cause I think it really can supply hydrogen where it's needed and where it's economically viable, which today is primarily in Japan and Korea. But I see those projects moving forward. So kind of a long answer to your question.
There's gonna be., i f there's a place where a solution's not cost competitive, there are other ways of solving some of those problems, and I see there's where a lot of the innovation is gonna take place, and that's where KBR is right on the forefront, and it's an exciting place to be right now.
Great. John, let's talk energy efficiency from a Smiths perspective. Take us through the key products and how meaningful current and potential future impact can be on driving energy efficiency. There's an acquisition that Smiths recently announced in the U.S. HVAC market. What are the key catalysts towards achieving the objectives there, and how is policy support needed or helpful?
Yep. So, one of Smiths' four business units is, our Flex-Tek business unit, which participates in a very significant way in the HVAC markets with a heavy presence in the US. So one of the largest suppliers of, ducting, kit, and electrical heating elements used in HVAC systems across, North America. And we see through that market participation directly, again, the focus on efficiency. I don't know who was here this morning to hear one of the panelists, it was the guy from GE, maybe here in the room, talk. You know, this is the guy making the windmills, right? When he got asked the question about what are they doing to deliver their own targets, what did he talk about first? Not green electricity, efficiency. Yeah.
And so we see that directly in our HVAC business, where we participate in a few different ways. One of those is through supplying components into the heat pump market, so the resistive electric heaters that extend the geographic range for heat pumps. For a guy from Minnesota, originally, that's important. You can't sell heat pumps in Minnesota very effectively today, and you certainly can't without our heating elements to as the backup heat. Of course, you know, use green electrons when firing those systems. We also have a refrigerant line set of product that replaces copper, an engineered multilayer tubing system, that will grow quickly with the deployment of heat pump technology across the world. So those are a couple examples of efficiency associated with heat pumps.
Another great example that you wouldn't think of, but when you fly through the airport, notice that your bags are likely, hopefully, scanned by a Smiths Detection X-ray machine. And that's for safety in the first instance, right? We want to make sure that all threats are identified and addressed before people get on the plane. The other thing you might not know is that those X-ray scanners use quite a bit of energy. So when you look at the airport's energy load and you look at airports being at the bleeding edge, so to speak, of net zero commitments, for obvious reasons, participating in that industry, they're very interested in the efficiency that our systems can provide in reducing the energy demand of those fundamental screening technologies.
So when we can provide a piece of equipment that reduces the energy draw by 30%, that makes a big difference to the airport and their ability to deliver their net zero commitment. So it's those sorts of products that for Smiths are exciting in the future. Of course, there's a big portfolio beyond that, but I'll leave it there.
Great. We've got just a little bit of time left, not that much, but, I want to talk about asset mix and targets, and Doug, go to you on this, 'cause one of the areas of feedback that we sometimes get from sustainable investors for perhaps why KBR is quite underweight in ESG funds, could center around that government solutions business and whether aerospace and defense activities are within the boundaries of various fund objectives. Can you just talk about how you see that government solutions business evolving from a demand technology impact perspective, and how investors in this room should consider?
Yeah, I'll try to be brief. I think there's a lot of the capabilities of our government solutions business is largely misunderstood. I think we're considered that government is kind of synonymous with just defense, but there's actually a lot of other things that go on in that business sector. There's a very large space business. In other words, most people don't know, we manage the International Space Station, you know, we train all the astronauts. We actually do the whole supply chain manufacture of all the the astronaut suits. You know, and so there's a lot that goes on in the classified space. So, and then more importantly, right now, the government, for example, is using more and more sustainable thinking in some of their large projects.
For example, the U.S. Air Force is the largest buyer of jet fuel. So the government is now looking at, well, how do we move more to sustainable aviation fuel rather than traditional jet fuel? And so the combination of the STS business with the government business in order to facilitate that kind of transition for governments around the world, U.S., Australia, U.K., is particularly more important. So I, I would just encourage people, take a look underneath the hood of what really is going on in our government business, because I think, I think you'll find it's very different than maybe what people perceive.
Do you think that's a secular point or that can ebb and flow depending on which party controls the executive?
Uh.
You can, you can punt that. You can punt that one if you want.
That one's a difficult one to say, so yeah.
Okay. Fair, fair, fair enough. All right, we are out of time. I'm going to ask for just a quick, maybe a couple word question, since I think our next panel is on the Inflation Reduction Act, and there's been some discussion here of that. Where do you see the Inflation Reduction Act impacting either revenues or capital flows most in the near term? And what do you think is going to take a bit more time to actually play out? I'm going to start, John, on.
So incentives are great, and they're moving things fast, I would say. So I'm working at Smiths, a London-based, you know, global engineering firm. And what's interesting is to see from a European perspective, the impact on the IRA, and I would loosely call it the giant sucking sound. So the shift of capital and interest and activity to the United States was profound. In terms of how that affects our business, you know, it's everything that we do that participates in markets. I think the hydrogen incentives are particularly interesting when you look at the global impacts. I think you mentioned that for the cost parity, and it's going to be tough for the rest of the world to keep up with the U.S.
What it has done is really crystallized the opportunity potential for investors, particularly in the U.S. I mean, historically, there have been a lot of skeptics here that dealing with climate change or dealing with these issues is a multi-decade thing, and these things aren't going to be profitable for a while, and it's basic research today, and it's not going to translate into profit. I think the $400 billion commitment, and it could be bigger than that, because a lot of it is in tax breaks, and seeing companies pivot, seeing them invest, seeing them make profits, and seeing, like you said, the cost parity, making some of this profitable today has really perked up investors who were thinking this was pie in the sky, never going to be profitable kind of stuff.
So you are seeing more financially oriented investors that only care about financials focused on this stuff now because we are seeing investments in this area in the US.
Doug, you said that green hydrogen is going to take the longest, I think. What happens in that, what are we going to see in the soonest?
Well, I think that we're seeing a lot of projects that would not normally go forward, go forward. I think the challenge for a company like KBR is figure out what's real and what's not. There's a lot of people that are looking at the IRA and they're thinking, "Hey, I can develop a project", that have never developed projects before and don't know how to do it. So part of our challenge is what's real, what projects are really going to go forward and get the funding and get the backing to move forward and which are not. But from a global perspective, I do know the IRA had a huge impact in where, especially companies that were looking to maybe invest in a region other than than where they are.
So companies that might have been, you know, looking to invest in the Middle East now are saying, "Well, I could go to the Middle East, or I could go to the United States." It's more of a viable, global economic investment location than it used to be, which is very exciting for the United States.
Great. Well, we're going to have the IRA panel next. Please join me in thanking our panelists on the Green Enablers and Improvers panel.