WEBVTT - Europe's Energy Future in Focus 0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:03.200 Hi, I'm Dana Perkins, and you're listening to Switch on 0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:05.760 the B n OF podcast. So today we're going to 0:00:05.840 --> 0:00:08.560 talk about the energy transition and how it's shaping up 0:00:08.560 --> 0:00:10.480 in Europe. Now, you don't need to be in Europe 0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.840 to be interested in it. Europe has ambitious climate targets 0:00:13.840 --> 0:00:17.680 and policies that support developing solutions like green hydrogen, so 0:00:17.800 --> 0:00:20.200 there's a lot for us to learn and potentially apply 0:00:20.440 --> 0:00:23.479 to other parts in the world. Now. Meanwhile, Europe is 0:00:23.520 --> 0:00:26.759 also feeling the crunch from the current energy crisis, and 0:00:26.840 --> 0:00:29.720 this may have an impact on the outlook into the 0:00:29.720 --> 0:00:33.160 future and how the transition actually plays out. We took 0:00:33.159 --> 0:00:35.159 a look out into the future for Europe and we 0:00:35.240 --> 0:00:38.239 ran some scenarios out to You can find them in 0:00:38.320 --> 0:00:42.040 our European Energy Transition Outlook. Now, let's just say this 0:00:42.080 --> 0:00:45.400 is one of our longer reports. Lots of facts, lots 0:00:45.400 --> 0:00:49.279 of charts, lots to learn, but sometimes these can be 0:00:49.360 --> 0:00:52.479 the hardest podcast to record. What really comes out of 0:00:52.479 --> 0:00:54.840 the conversations is what are the authors of the report 0:00:54.920 --> 0:00:59.040 think actually stands out and that was the basis of 0:00:59.040 --> 0:01:03.120 today's discussion. I'm joined by Emma Champion, whose research really 0:01:03.120 --> 0:01:08.080 focuses on the energy transition in Europe specifically, and Andreas Gondolfo, 0:01:08.200 --> 0:01:11.080 who is the lead European power analyst at bienn F. 0:01:11.360 --> 0:01:14.640 Now quickly our disclaimer that BIENNAF does not provide investment 0:01:14.720 --> 0:01:17.360 or strategy advice. We have a full disclaimer at the 0:01:17.440 --> 0:01:20.119 end of the show. But now let's hear what Emma 0:01:20.520 --> 0:01:23.840 and Andreas think about the energy transition in Europe and 0:01:23.880 --> 0:01:26.160 what really sounds out to them as they think about 0:01:26.200 --> 0:01:37.959 forecasting out and out. Emma, thank you for joining today. 0:01:38.200 --> 0:01:40.720 Hi Dana, thanks for having us. And Andreas, thank you 0:01:40.760 --> 0:01:44.720 for joining the show. So the basis of our discussion 0:01:44.760 --> 0:01:48.880 today is on the European energy transition. Outlook. Now, if 0:01:48.920 --> 0:01:51.320 you heard that and you're thinking maybe I don't care 0:01:51.320 --> 0:01:53.520 as much about Europe, I'm gonna log off. Now stay 0:01:53.640 --> 0:01:55.880 stay for a second. Let us just pitch you really 0:01:56.000 --> 0:02:00.360 quickly on why Europe is so important for us to 0:02:00.400 --> 0:02:03.480 actually think about as a case study for the rest 0:02:03.480 --> 0:02:05.360 of the world and also for those of us who 0:02:05.360 --> 0:02:08.320 are located in Europe as we chart the path forward 0:02:08.360 --> 0:02:12.080 in the energy transition. So let's start with my first question, 0:02:12.280 --> 0:02:17.239 which is essentially why do we write this report around 0:02:17.280 --> 0:02:21.240 the European energy transition and the outlook, specifically when we 0:02:21.240 --> 0:02:24.160 know we already do a new energy outlook which looks 0:02:24.160 --> 0:02:27.399 out to the year, which is global and pulls upon 0:02:27.560 --> 0:02:31.160 lots of different regions. I think that Europe has long 0:02:31.200 --> 0:02:33.280 been thought of as a front runner in the energy 0:02:33.320 --> 0:02:36.400 transition and is something of a special case when we 0:02:36.480 --> 0:02:40.080 do our long term analysis. For everyone listening, we've probably 0:02:40.120 --> 0:02:42.640 heard that the UK and the EU now have both 0:02:42.840 --> 0:02:47.200 legislated their targets to hit net zero emissions by twenty 0:02:48.080 --> 0:02:50.720 and that's a really big step change in the level 0:02:50.760 --> 0:02:54.280 of ambition that we've ever had for previous emissions reduction targets. 0:02:54.560 --> 0:02:58.720 It's come with significantly ramped up twenty thirty ambitions, so 0:02:58.800 --> 0:03:01.639 we actually have something toterial to say about the trajectory 0:03:01.680 --> 0:03:05.080 to get there. And then, of course, at the moment 0:03:05.240 --> 0:03:09.040 since these targets have been announced, the European region has 0:03:09.040 --> 0:03:13.160 actually faced several pretty significant crises. We had the COVID 0:03:13.240 --> 0:03:16.240 nineteen pandemic and the impact of the recovery from that 0:03:16.520 --> 0:03:20.520 on our global supply chains, the ongoing energy crisis today 0:03:20.560 --> 0:03:23.600 and the war in Ukraine is becoming really material for 0:03:23.600 --> 0:03:27.440 the transition risks around inflation and recession on people's minds 0:03:27.480 --> 0:03:30.600 at the moment a lot, and these carry really significant 0:03:30.639 --> 0:03:34.000 impacts when we think about the trajectory and the pace 0:03:34.240 --> 0:03:37.480 of the energy transition here in the region. So really 0:03:37.480 --> 0:03:41.240 the intention with this report is to really start to 0:03:41.680 --> 0:03:44.040 look at that more regional lens have a bit of 0:03:44.040 --> 0:03:47.920 color on how Europe can both diversify and decarbonize its 0:03:48.000 --> 0:03:51.680 energy system simultaneously. So yeah, figuring out essentially what that 0:03:51.720 --> 0:03:54.480 path to net zero looks like is the intention. And 0:03:54.560 --> 0:03:57.280 I think, especially in the context of Europe where perhaps 0:03:57.360 --> 0:03:59.800 these targets are a bit more material, the report's really 0:04:00.000 --> 0:04:03.240 funded and kind of starting to answer these questions. Before 0:04:03.280 --> 0:04:05.840 we take a look into the future, let's take a 0:04:05.920 --> 0:04:09.040 quick look back at what has happened in Europe in 0:04:09.080 --> 0:04:11.240 the past when it comes to climate policy. And I 0:04:11.320 --> 0:04:14.800 must say so, I'm from northern California, very beautiful part 0:04:14.800 --> 0:04:17.640 of the world. Actually map the valley, and oftentimes when 0:04:17.640 --> 0:04:19.560 I talk to people will say why did you move 0:04:19.640 --> 0:04:22.400 to London, Like what brought you here? And it was 0:04:22.480 --> 0:04:25.479 the energy transition, so over fifteen years ago when I 0:04:25.600 --> 0:04:28.440 moved here, it's because Europe was doing so much and 0:04:28.480 --> 0:04:33.040 had so many targets in place regarding decarbonization, that this 0:04:33.120 --> 0:04:36.160 was really the right place to be in terms of 0:04:36.200 --> 0:04:39.080 the energy transition, whereverything felt like it was happening. Not 0:04:39.200 --> 0:04:42.080 that California wasn't doing anything, but they weren't where Europe 0:04:42.240 --> 0:04:45.240 was at that time. So looking back a little bit, 0:04:46.120 --> 0:04:50.800 what has historically been europe stance from a policy standpoint 0:04:51.480 --> 0:04:54.599 regarding how the transition is taking place? Yeah, I could 0:04:54.600 --> 0:04:56.560 take this first and then maybe under I also have 0:04:56.680 --> 0:04:58.920 some thoughts at least the way that we've looked at 0:04:58.960 --> 0:05:00.920 it and being a Europe has really been a front 0:05:00.960 --> 0:05:04.560 runner and deploying clean power, so really ahead of the 0:05:04.600 --> 0:05:07.040 cub I think almost double the volume of any other 0:05:07.040 --> 0:05:09.440 region that we look at today in terms of wind 0:05:09.480 --> 0:05:12.039 and solar on the ground. And the power sector has 0:05:12.080 --> 0:05:14.760 really been the focus point right We're looking at not 0:05:14.839 --> 0:05:17.960 just renewables, but also ambitious targets to phase out call 0:05:18.040 --> 0:05:22.880 and deal with the electricity supply here and the next 0:05:22.920 --> 0:05:24.560 step from there. And we can kind of get to 0:05:24.600 --> 0:05:26.640 this a little bit later, because it really is central 0:05:26.640 --> 0:05:29.840 when we're thinking about net zero, but starting to look 0:05:29.880 --> 0:05:32.640 more ambitiously at things like the transport sector and heating 0:05:32.680 --> 0:05:34.760 and I think Europe still has a place as a 0:05:34.839 --> 0:05:38.040 front runner in looking at those other sectors that need 0:05:38.120 --> 0:05:42.840 to decarbonize in order to hit a fully netar energy system. 0:05:42.920 --> 0:05:46.120 And you know, Androws, you're joining us from Greece, so 0:05:46.360 --> 0:05:50.719 we're spanning the entire eastern and western side of Europe. 0:05:50.720 --> 0:05:52.440 When we're trying to sit here and naturally talk about 0:05:52.440 --> 0:05:54.920 the transition, and we're talking about it as a continent, 0:05:54.960 --> 0:05:57.960 which we know has a bunch of smaller, more regional 0:05:58.000 --> 0:06:00.200 markets in it. And andre As, would you say from 0:06:00.200 --> 0:06:02.839 your perspective that as we talk about the transition, that 0:06:02.880 --> 0:06:06.479 there are commonalities that we can draw from the different 0:06:06.480 --> 0:06:10.520 countries that do comprise Europe the continent. I think there 0:06:10.520 --> 0:06:13.719 are commonalities and differences and they all come up and 0:06:13.880 --> 0:06:16.640 they're very interesting to look at. I'd say there's a 0:06:16.680 --> 0:06:20.400 division in resource from north to south, with the north 0:06:20.440 --> 0:06:24.000 being wind rich and the south being sun rich, and 0:06:24.480 --> 0:06:28.680 consequently these two different parts of Europe concentrating on different resources. 0:06:28.680 --> 0:06:31.200 But then when you look at the totality of things, 0:06:31.560 --> 0:06:33.880 and this is what I like about studying Europe as 0:06:33.880 --> 0:06:37.080 a whole, is that actually the continent approaches the problem 0:06:37.400 --> 0:06:40.839 in a combined way. Even though you know, the historical 0:06:40.920 --> 0:06:45.000 data doesn't necessarily show them yet, and essentially there are 0:06:45.080 --> 0:06:48.360 thoughts about, Okay, how do we get wind from Denmark 0:06:48.480 --> 0:06:51.560 went from the UK all the way south to France, 0:06:51.640 --> 0:06:54.039 or how do we get sun from Spain and Italy 0:06:54.120 --> 0:06:57.320 all the way north to Denmark. However, we must not 0:06:57.680 --> 0:07:01.160 make this sound too romantic. There are still differences within 0:07:01.279 --> 0:07:04.600 Europe itself. You know, Greece, for example, is a little 0:07:04.600 --> 0:07:07.000 bit further back i'd take compared to other countries in 0:07:07.040 --> 0:07:09.640 the energy transition and especially in the harder to the 0:07:09.720 --> 0:07:13.320 carbonized sectors. I'd say policies only now catching up with 0:07:13.440 --> 0:07:18.400 the reality of targets. However, as a whole the continent 0:07:18.600 --> 0:07:22.240 and the European Unions specifically within that, it's definitely I'm 0:07:22.280 --> 0:07:24.800 moving in a direction that other parts of the world 0:07:25.120 --> 0:07:28.360 will soon have to start going towards. And I think 0:07:28.400 --> 0:07:30.720 this is what makes you a very interesting Let's get 0:07:30.760 --> 0:07:33.600 into what this looks like, so we do too scenarios 0:07:33.640 --> 0:07:36.360 as we're looking forward. One is the economic transition scenario 0:07:36.680 --> 0:07:38.520 and the second is the net zero scenario, and I 0:07:38.520 --> 0:07:40.760 think we'll probably spend more time focused on the second. 0:07:41.120 --> 0:07:44.160 But can you quickly just refresh everybody's memory. If you 0:07:44.520 --> 0:07:46.840 have been frequent listeners, to switch it on and if 0:07:46.840 --> 0:07:49.360 you're new here, then it will be worth the definition setting. 0:07:49.440 --> 0:07:52.600 What is the difference between the economic transition scenario and 0:07:52.640 --> 0:07:56.880 the net zero scenario. So the economic transition scenario really 0:07:56.920 --> 0:08:00.360 aims to look at creating a baseline and economics driven. 0:08:00.680 --> 0:08:03.840 You know, we look at the fundamentals and existing policies 0:08:04.040 --> 0:08:07.920 only where there's kind of a legislated mechanism for their implementation. 0:08:08.040 --> 0:08:11.040 So we do include things like the European carbon price 0:08:11.240 --> 0:08:14.760 and regulations that affect things like electric vehicles, but they 0:08:14.760 --> 0:08:18.240 do feed into the economics lead baseline, But fundamentally it 0:08:18.360 --> 0:08:20.840 is looking at how far the fundamentals get us. The 0:08:20.880 --> 0:08:24.360 net zerio scenario, by contrast, is much more driven by 0:08:24.400 --> 0:08:28.600 a carbon budget approach, so we actually force all energy 0:08:28.640 --> 0:08:33.000 consuming sectors in Europe to fully decarbonized by and to 0:08:33.240 --> 0:08:36.520 kind of bring that into context for everyone. That actually 0:08:36.600 --> 0:08:40.200 requires a tripling the pace of emissions reductions over the 0:08:40.240 --> 0:08:43.720 next three decades compared to the economic transition scenario. So 0:08:43.760 --> 0:08:47.360 it's really a much more aggressive trajectory for transition of 0:08:47.440 --> 0:08:50.920 all of the sectors and how we've actually kind of 0:08:51.320 --> 0:08:53.319 sold for the solution side of things in the net 0:08:53.400 --> 0:08:56.560 Zerio scenario is really by looking at two key kind 0:08:56.559 --> 0:09:02.120 of climate pathways electrification and green hydrogen, and those two solutions, 0:09:02.120 --> 0:09:03.920 which we can talk about in a little more depth, 0:09:04.240 --> 0:09:07.600 really enable Europe to kind of increase reliance on on 0:09:07.679 --> 0:09:11.680 domestic renewable energy sources and displace the need for fossil 0:09:11.720 --> 0:09:14.840 fuel in the primary energy mix. So that's helping those 0:09:14.840 --> 0:09:17.880 sectors like heating and transport which really rely on a 0:09:17.880 --> 0:09:20.040 lot of oil and gas, as well as industry which 0:09:20.320 --> 0:09:22.320 is relying on a lot of fossil fuel inputs. So 0:09:22.679 --> 0:09:26.160 that's kind of the key distinctions. But really the nets 0:09:26.200 --> 0:09:29.640 Aery scenario is kind of hinging on those those solutions. 0:09:29.800 --> 0:09:32.640 If I can add something about the scenarios is what 0:09:32.760 --> 0:09:36.319 I find interesting though, and we're increasingly going to see 0:09:36.320 --> 0:09:38.920 that in the Benet work and probably in other people's 0:09:38.920 --> 0:09:42.160 work as well, is that what I do expect is 0:09:42.760 --> 0:09:46.320 slowly the economic transition scenario and the net serious scenario 0:09:46.880 --> 0:09:52.160 will show convergence in future iterations, as for example, costs evolving, 0:09:52.200 --> 0:09:55.359 we get a better view on how we can decarbonize 0:09:55.400 --> 0:09:58.760 industry and we can dicarbonize transport, especially in the current 0:09:58.880 --> 0:10:03.000 commodity environment. It persists. Essentially, what high gas prices are 0:10:03.040 --> 0:10:06.320 telling us is electrification is one of the cheapest options 0:10:06.320 --> 0:10:09.559 out there, being hydrogen might become cheaper so much earlier. 0:10:09.840 --> 0:10:12.559 So even though we have two differend scenarios today, I 0:10:12.559 --> 0:10:15.959 wouldn't be surprised if in ten years dying we no 0:10:16.040 --> 0:10:19.160 longer have an economic transition Senator, because the economic transition 0:10:19.200 --> 0:10:20.960 senatia and the net serious Senator, maybe we don't have 0:10:20.960 --> 0:10:24.440 a net serious scenario. Don't know. Essentially, they say the 0:10:24.520 --> 0:10:27.080 same thing that that we we red some missions in 0:10:27.120 --> 0:10:29.200 the long term, and so the question then becomes, Okay, 0:10:29.200 --> 0:10:32.000 which are the nuances in the technologies that we choose? 0:10:32.040 --> 0:10:34.400 And I find that very interesting. I find it really 0:10:34.400 --> 0:10:37.160 interesting too, and I think in particular this green hydrogen 0:10:37.280 --> 0:10:39.839 aspect of it, where we're looking at the cost of 0:10:39.920 --> 0:10:43.760 hydrogen is being much higher than any of the other 0:10:43.800 --> 0:10:46.480 solutions that are out there, at least right now, and 0:10:46.559 --> 0:10:49.280 that is a space where Europe is actually a bit 0:10:49.280 --> 0:10:52.000 of a frontrunner in terms of how they're approaching hydrogen 0:10:52.040 --> 0:10:54.160 and potentially embracing it. Is a part of the energy 0:10:54.200 --> 0:10:57.640 max going forward. You explain a little bit about how 0:10:57.760 --> 0:11:00.160 Europe is looking at hydrogen in the energy make and 0:11:00.240 --> 0:11:03.720 how they in theory could potentially in this scenario look 0:11:03.720 --> 0:11:06.280 at hydrogen and the energy mix in order to get 0:11:06.320 --> 0:11:11.160 to net zero potentially sooner. So the Commission currently is 0:11:11.200 --> 0:11:14.520 actually looking a lot more seriously at green hydrogen as 0:11:14.520 --> 0:11:16.880 a solution a to kind of get gas out of 0:11:16.920 --> 0:11:19.720 the mix sooner so that they can really reduce that 0:11:19.760 --> 0:11:22.560 dependency on Russian imports. That's part of the kind of 0:11:22.679 --> 0:11:26.199 energy security strategy at the moment is putting renewables, including 0:11:26.240 --> 0:11:30.120 green hydrogen, front and center, and when when we're thinking 0:11:30.120 --> 0:11:33.200 about what that means for the time horizon, you know, 0:11:33.559 --> 0:11:36.480 it's clear that Europe is setting perry ambitious goals. They're 0:11:36.520 --> 0:11:39.280 looking at and nothing short of twenty million metric tons, 0:11:39.520 --> 0:11:42.439 which is double the volume of fossil hydrogen that the 0:11:42.720 --> 0:11:45.480 region currently uses and that they want to have as 0:11:45.520 --> 0:11:49.760 green as green hydrogen used by industries by So that's 0:11:49.800 --> 0:11:53.800 within this decade, and the requirements for the amount of 0:11:54.000 --> 0:11:56.640 production capacity you need to deliver that is is also 0:11:56.880 --> 0:12:00.920 quite quite steep. You know. I think when we think 0:12:00.960 --> 0:12:03.400 about the longer term and the role that hydrogen could 0:12:03.400 --> 0:12:06.240 play in a net zero economy in Europe. That's a 0:12:06.320 --> 0:12:08.520 really you know, at least the twenty horizon is a 0:12:08.559 --> 0:12:12.520 really accelerated step towards that goal. But we we actually 0:12:12.559 --> 0:12:15.400 do have a very important position for green hydrogen in 0:12:15.440 --> 0:12:19.280 the energy mix. In our net zero scenario, by twenty fifty, 0:12:19.640 --> 0:12:23.480 European final energy is twenty percent supplied by green hydrogen, 0:12:23.760 --> 0:12:26.920 which translates to a hundred million metric tons by twenty fifty. 0:12:27.040 --> 0:12:29.360 So you can think of that as going up to 0:12:29.440 --> 0:12:34.079 twenty and the Commission's target and then timsing that by 0:12:34.120 --> 0:12:38.760 five essentially by twenty fifty. So and I think, just 0:12:38.800 --> 0:12:40.960 stepping back ad been a minute. The reason that we 0:12:41.080 --> 0:12:44.800 need a molecule based fuel like green hydrogen is simply 0:12:44.840 --> 0:12:47.000 because there are those parts of the economy that can't 0:12:47.000 --> 0:12:51.280 be electrified easily or economically. And we also identify as 0:12:51.360 --> 0:12:54.920 andrea saluted to already that green hydrogen, how's the potential 0:12:55.000 --> 0:13:00.000 for cost reductions. So there are sectors including steel, cement, petrochemicals, 0:13:00.040 --> 0:13:02.920 even for some heating and buildings and power generation that 0:13:03.280 --> 0:13:07.120 it may become more interesting to use green hydrogen as 0:13:07.120 --> 0:13:10.600 a fuel and fossil fuels from the policy standpoint, hydrogen 0:13:10.679 --> 0:13:13.560 was already very much on the table before Russia invaded 0:13:13.600 --> 0:13:18.360 the Ukraine. Have you seen that markedly change since then? Yeah, 0:13:18.400 --> 0:13:20.839 I mean it's doubled. Essentially, we had a ten million 0:13:20.920 --> 0:13:25.800 ton target pre you two, and then that's doubled to 0:13:25.880 --> 0:13:29.920 twenty by I don't think the long term ambition has 0:13:30.320 --> 0:13:34.240 changed drastically for green hydrogen, but definitely this decade we're 0:13:34.280 --> 0:13:36.880 looking at, you know, to the point where the European 0:13:36.880 --> 0:13:39.280 Commission have essentially come out and said, we know we're 0:13:39.280 --> 0:13:40.880 not going to be able to deliver this much green 0:13:40.960 --> 0:13:43.160 hydrogen within Europe. We know that we're probably going to 0:13:43.240 --> 0:13:45.880 look for trading partners and bringing imports into the region. 0:13:45.960 --> 0:13:48.559 So that's something that we weren't expecting to be talking 0:13:48.559 --> 0:13:50.960 about until the twenty thirties, when you have a more 0:13:51.000 --> 0:13:54.840 mature hydrogen market starting to evolve, but the commissions trying 0:13:54.880 --> 0:13:57.679 to frontload a lot of that progress and market development 0:13:57.720 --> 0:13:59.760 in order to deliver on the on the phase out 0:13:59.800 --> 0:14:03.120 of GATH. And because you referenced that green hydrogen is 0:14:03.160 --> 0:14:06.320 specifically talked about a bit more, that requires a pretty 0:14:06.320 --> 0:14:10.199 big scale out of renewable energy and projects that maybe 0:14:10.240 --> 0:14:13.560 aren't necessarily even yet commissioned. So as we look at 0:14:13.640 --> 0:14:15.840 we mean what we're in two so we've got eight 0:14:15.920 --> 0:14:19.560 years to and we also know that from a temperature 0:14:19.560 --> 0:14:24.160 and warming situation, the sooner that we bring down emissions 0:14:24.160 --> 0:14:26.720 and there there are multiple different ways to get to 0:14:26.800 --> 0:14:29.240 net zero, and when we do it actually has the 0:14:29.280 --> 0:14:32.600 biggest impact on what that warming looks like. So the 0:14:32.680 --> 0:14:36.640 between here and twenty as opposed to between here and 0:14:36.680 --> 0:14:40.720 twenty fifty, that's shorter term that eight years. What needs 0:14:40.760 --> 0:14:44.000 to happen in terms of scale and build out, and 0:14:44.160 --> 0:14:47.560 what sort of signs are we seeing that things are accelerating. 0:14:47.920 --> 0:14:50.040 I think this is actually a moment to come back 0:14:50.080 --> 0:14:52.600 to the power sector, and I'd love Andreas to step 0:14:52.600 --> 0:14:54.920 in here as well, because really the power sector is 0:14:55.000 --> 0:14:57.760 going to be delivering a lot of the emissions reductions 0:14:57.800 --> 0:15:01.680 this decade. We talk about green hydrogen, realistically, the progress 0:15:01.760 --> 0:15:04.760 that really matters is in the power system, and I 0:15:04.800 --> 0:15:07.680 think with that in mind, were also can't deny that 0:15:07.720 --> 0:15:10.640 green hydrogen relies on further ambition in the power system. 0:15:10.640 --> 0:15:14.440 Electorallyzers will potentially have impacts for grids, and they will 0:15:14.480 --> 0:15:17.880 rely on additional wind and solar to actually supply the 0:15:17.920 --> 0:15:21.320 electricity to produce the hydrogen. So I think taking a 0:15:21.360 --> 0:15:24.240 step back and thinking about the level of ambition required 0:15:24.280 --> 0:15:27.240 to accelerate the transition for power this decade is really 0:15:27.840 --> 0:15:31.440 is really important. I agree with that in we are 0:15:31.480 --> 0:15:34.280 seeing it. We're seeing it in the dext we're seeing 0:15:34.280 --> 0:15:36.720 it in the models. I'd say, we're we're willing to 0:15:36.800 --> 0:15:40.880 see it. This is on the ground converted from ambitious 0:15:40.960 --> 0:15:45.400 targets and statements of politicians to actual action. But it's 0:15:45.440 --> 0:15:49.040 doing if you take a look at the energy transition, 0:15:49.080 --> 0:15:51.920 I mean, at the end of the day, it is 0:15:52.040 --> 0:15:57.160 widely agreed that you know, renewables in the form especially 0:15:57.200 --> 0:16:01.040 of wind and solar, maybe combined with some other technologies 0:16:01.120 --> 0:16:06.480 being nuclear or ccs, but in general, like low carbon 0:16:06.720 --> 0:16:10.000 or zero carbon electricity generation, it seems to be the 0:16:10.040 --> 0:16:13.200 answer no matter where where we look at. And so 0:16:13.640 --> 0:16:16.120 focusing the efforts on the power sector in the coming 0:16:16.160 --> 0:16:20.960 decade and essentially scaling up wind and solar capacity such 0:16:21.000 --> 0:16:23.440 that we can produce you know, around six or seventy 0:16:23.520 --> 0:16:28.960 percent of our electricity from renobos by is essentially the 0:16:29.000 --> 0:16:31.320 way forward. Because if you think about it, let's say 0:16:31.320 --> 0:16:34.280 that you want to produce hydrogen and there are a 0:16:34.320 --> 0:16:38.360 few options out there today. Even if you build electoralizers today, 0:16:38.440 --> 0:16:40.880 you would be producing emissions because you're powering it with 0:16:40.920 --> 0:16:43.160 a gas plant or with a cold but along with 0:16:43.240 --> 0:16:46.200 wind and solar. So if you don't transition your electricity grid, 0:16:46.440 --> 0:16:48.840 everything else you're doing on the back of that, it's 0:16:48.920 --> 0:16:53.880 just a step in the right direction, but incomplete, let's say, 0:16:54.080 --> 0:16:57.040 until the wind and solar is there. And this is 0:16:57.040 --> 0:17:00.880 why you know, again and again what we see in 0:17:00.960 --> 0:17:03.160 our models, what we've see in policies, that the big 0:17:03.160 --> 0:17:05.520 bed is what do we do? And this steel up 0:17:05.560 --> 0:17:07.639 is pretty big. I mean, we need to get in 0:17:07.640 --> 0:17:10.840 our economic transition scenario, we need to get about two 0:17:10.880 --> 0:17:14.080 hundred fifty gills wind and solar in Europe by twenty thirties. 0:17:14.720 --> 0:17:18.199 Just to put it into perspective, doubling the capacity. Our 0:17:18.280 --> 0:17:21.040 net zero scenario is across a little bit more two 0:17:21.119 --> 0:17:23.760 hundred and eighty gig awards by twenty thirty. These are 0:17:23.880 --> 0:17:27.080 like massive numbers. It took us twenty years to get here, 0:17:27.520 --> 0:17:29.440 and now in eight we need to do what we 0:17:29.520 --> 0:17:32.880 did in twenty that's a big bed. Yeah. I think 0:17:33.240 --> 0:17:35.360 Andrews is right that the level of ambition really does 0:17:35.440 --> 0:17:37.200 need to step up, and I think to some extent 0:17:37.280 --> 0:17:39.359 we do see that merrit in the policy. But I 0:17:39.440 --> 0:17:42.000 also think, you know, at least from when when we 0:17:42.080 --> 0:17:44.760 do our botteling and analysis, there are there are two 0:17:44.840 --> 0:17:47.399 things that I kind of hold out hope on. The 0:17:47.480 --> 0:17:50.240 first is that you know, it is already cheaper to 0:17:50.280 --> 0:17:52.520 build new winded solo plants today in Europe than it 0:17:52.640 --> 0:17:55.159 is to run those existing cold and gas plants. You 0:17:55.240 --> 0:17:58.960 know that, and not fundamental gap is widening even further 0:17:59.080 --> 0:18:02.840 because of the current situation with commodity prices, so that 0:18:03.320 --> 0:18:06.760 that it's clear from the economics that this makes sense now. 0:18:06.880 --> 0:18:08.760 And Andrea's is right to a point that actually just 0:18:08.840 --> 0:18:11.640 getting projects on the ground, figuring out how to make 0:18:11.840 --> 0:18:14.480 the permitting processes in Europe as easy as possible is 0:18:14.520 --> 0:18:17.520 going to be the next kind of logical step. The 0:18:17.600 --> 0:18:21.280 second thing that I've actually quite recently been been sharing 0:18:21.320 --> 0:18:23.440 with some of our team is that when when we 0:18:23.600 --> 0:18:26.440 kind of I guess the term is like back test, 0:18:26.520 --> 0:18:29.000 are are models from from the past, and we look 0:18:29.040 --> 0:18:31.359 at the renewable energy deployments in Europe that have been 0:18:31.359 --> 0:18:34.639 achieved compared to what our models have anticipated, We've actually 0:18:34.720 --> 0:18:38.639 often either been on the mark or even conservative. So 0:18:38.880 --> 0:18:41.359 I kind of hold out hope that even though people 0:18:41.480 --> 0:18:43.960 sometimes you know, raise their eyebrows when they see the 0:18:44.040 --> 0:18:46.879 volumes that we're saying makes sense from a cost perspective 0:18:46.960 --> 0:18:49.359 in terms of, you know, solving for the power system, 0:18:49.840 --> 0:18:52.520 they you know, I think there's actually hoped that our 0:18:53.119 --> 0:18:56.040 scenarios that we're developing are actually showing where what the 0:18:56.119 --> 0:18:58.879 cheapest system is and that's a compelling narrative both for 0:18:59.200 --> 0:19:02.440 consumers and companies on for government. So I think the 0:19:02.520 --> 0:19:05.360 leve and of ambition is steep, but I have there 0:19:05.480 --> 0:19:07.439 is a lot of discussion at the moment though, around 0:19:07.560 --> 0:19:10.480 how the economics of the energy transition. We're reaching a 0:19:10.520 --> 0:19:13.560 crunch point where if we just trusted the economics, we're 0:19:13.600 --> 0:19:15.920 not going to get to net zero by and that 0:19:16.080 --> 0:19:20.760 we actually need to really focus on forcing certain things 0:19:20.840 --> 0:19:23.960 to happen and then driving those costs down and and 0:19:24.119 --> 0:19:27.400 having the complexity of the energy mix actually embrace all 0:19:27.480 --> 0:19:31.240 of these different aspects, some of which are economically very competitive, 0:19:31.280 --> 0:19:34.959 others which are not so. On that beyond the power system, 0:19:35.240 --> 0:19:38.920 which we've acknowledged does need to be decarbonized quite quickly 0:19:39.000 --> 0:19:41.080 and have a lot of attention given to it. What 0:19:41.240 --> 0:19:45.200 are the other ways? And I know that this is 0:19:45.320 --> 0:19:48.600 a very complex question, so I'm asking you to then 0:19:48.840 --> 0:19:51.400 essentially pick winners. And I know nobody ever like through 0:19:51.480 --> 0:19:54.879 this and oversimplify, but you've taken a look at Europe 0:19:54.920 --> 0:19:58.359 on the whole. So which sector or I'll let you 0:19:58.400 --> 0:20:02.800 have two, Which sector yours should we look to decarbonize 0:20:02.960 --> 0:20:07.560 first beyond the power sector if we want to fully decarbonize. 0:20:07.640 --> 0:20:11.920 The challenges that we're seeing beyond power really stem from 0:20:12.359 --> 0:20:14.480 and I think the most useful exercise when we're thinking 0:20:14.480 --> 0:20:16.800 about this question really is looking at the difference between 0:20:16.840 --> 0:20:19.760 our economic transition scenario in the next serio scenario. What 0:20:19.880 --> 0:20:23.920 are the biggest differences? Okay, we have probably you know, 0:20:24.440 --> 0:20:27.960 close to double the need for electric vehicles compared to 0:20:28.040 --> 0:20:30.639 what we're getting to in our economic transition scenario and 0:20:30.680 --> 0:20:33.480 the next zero scenario. The sector that concerns me the 0:20:33.560 --> 0:20:38.359 most as buildings, because it's a very highly distributed, very 0:20:38.359 --> 0:20:42.560 difficult to decarbonized sector that relies on solutions such as 0:20:42.600 --> 0:20:46.399 heat pumps, which you know, perhaps the economics are starting 0:20:46.440 --> 0:20:49.439 to make more sense given the current crazy energy costs 0:20:49.520 --> 0:20:51.960 that consumers are facing but that's not really an ideal 0:20:52.040 --> 0:20:55.480 situation to to have economics makes sense for heat pumps. 0:20:55.480 --> 0:20:58.359 So I think that the gap for buildings, the gap 0:20:58.520 --> 0:21:02.320 for it transport is especially the heavier duty segments of transport. 0:21:02.720 --> 0:21:06.520 And then industry Europe has actually started already. You know, 0:21:06.640 --> 0:21:09.040 industry is covered by our by our carbon price, but 0:21:09.320 --> 0:21:11.680 for a long time it has been subject to pretty 0:21:11.720 --> 0:21:14.800 generous reallocation, which essentially means they don't end up paying 0:21:15.280 --> 0:21:17.600 the full they're not really exposed to the full carbon 0:21:17.720 --> 0:21:22.159 price in a meaningful sense. And there are meaningful discussions 0:21:22.200 --> 0:21:25.399 now to phase that out and figure out ways to 0:21:25.440 --> 0:21:28.720 still keep industry within Europe. And I think that discussion 0:21:29.400 --> 0:21:32.960 will be really important. Where I see risks is that, 0:21:33.920 --> 0:21:38.240 especially in light of today's energy crisis, the momentum to 0:21:38.320 --> 0:21:42.359 try and phase out gas potentially instead of making progress 0:21:42.440 --> 0:21:45.000 faster on things like coal will have will have an 0:21:45.040 --> 0:21:48.440 impact on on which sectors actually get priority for de 0:21:48.560 --> 0:21:52.840 carbonizing sooner. So that's that's one tension. I suppose that 0:21:52.920 --> 0:21:55.359 we can say we notice when we compare something like 0:21:55.440 --> 0:21:58.280 our nets aero scenario, which really prioritizes, you know, the 0:21:58.400 --> 0:22:02.320 most economic sectors to transition first, based on the solutions 0:22:02.359 --> 0:22:05.760 that are available and the on the emissions impact versus 0:22:05.840 --> 0:22:09.320 something like the current situation placed by Europe where you 0:22:09.440 --> 0:22:12.880 really are trying to do two things at once. Essentially, 0:22:13.400 --> 0:22:15.800 andre s do you have winners? I'm going to go 0:22:16.320 --> 0:22:20.080 back to my my playbook, which is which is power? 0:22:20.160 --> 0:22:21.920 And I think, you know, the more the more I 0:22:22.040 --> 0:22:24.640 look at this, the more I realize that, well, all 0:22:24.720 --> 0:22:28.040 the answers get back to the power sector. I mean 0:22:28.160 --> 0:22:33.440 more our lead European parents got up all biased in 0:22:33.560 --> 0:22:36.280 coming to this conclusion. But I do like what I 0:22:36.320 --> 0:22:40.440 see on the ground. I'd say, maybe one thought to 0:22:40.720 --> 0:22:44.320 throughout here the Emma said, how like the current energy 0:22:44.400 --> 0:22:49.600 crisis is shifting attention to displacing gas maybe before displacing cold, 0:22:50.000 --> 0:22:52.880 and in a way, I, you know, I do see 0:22:52.920 --> 0:22:56.520 the negative effector on the other I think it's quite 0:22:56.640 --> 0:22:59.480 clear in the minds of people today that call is 0:22:59.600 --> 0:23:03.560 something needs to go. So the big question we used 0:23:03.600 --> 0:23:05.760 to come up against in the past, and in a 0:23:05.800 --> 0:23:08.359 way we come up against in the e t O. 0:23:08.720 --> 0:23:11.000 Considering that a lot of the work was done before 0:23:11.680 --> 0:23:17.240 the Russian invasion of Ukraine and repower you essentially, you know, 0:23:17.480 --> 0:23:19.639 you do all this s effort to the carbonized school, 0:23:19.640 --> 0:23:21.399 and then everyone kind of used to go mute on 0:23:21.520 --> 0:23:24.040 gas and be like, Okay, it's a clear fuel, we'll 0:23:24.119 --> 0:23:26.879 keep it around for longer. What I think the current 0:23:27.000 --> 0:23:30.320 energy crisis is going to do and the crunch is 0:23:30.440 --> 0:23:35.400 essentially gonna say, we're gonna in induce Europe to also 0:23:35.520 --> 0:23:39.440 take care of gas and not go risk entering a 0:23:39.560 --> 0:23:41.520 trap where it says like, all right, I took care 0:23:41.560 --> 0:23:43.600 of coal. Now I can kind of like sit back 0:23:43.680 --> 0:23:45.879 because I really reduced my missions. I mean a bit 0:23:45.920 --> 0:23:48.320 of what we saw happening in the US about ten 0:23:48.440 --> 0:23:51.760 years ago, right where core plants closed because gas became economic, 0:23:51.840 --> 0:23:54.560 and then people were like, yeah, we've reduced emissions more 0:23:54.600 --> 0:23:58.400 than our European counterparts. We've been subsidizing rhables for ten years, 0:23:58.920 --> 0:24:01.879 and so we can sit and enjoy the spoils of 0:24:01.960 --> 0:24:04.440 war for a little bit. And and there was a 0:24:04.520 --> 0:24:07.800 risk of that. So I'd say there is a positive 0:24:07.880 --> 0:24:09.920 in that as well, in the call is on the 0:24:10.000 --> 0:24:12.879 way out one way or another, and so dealing with 0:24:13.080 --> 0:24:18.719 gas through things like hydrogen through heat pomps for home heating, 0:24:19.320 --> 0:24:21.359 I think is a step in the right direction that 0:24:21.520 --> 0:24:24.040 was probably missing and it's where the economics don't work. 0:24:24.080 --> 0:24:27.520 I mean, Emma said earlier, right, power sector economics make 0:24:27.560 --> 0:24:30.600 a perfect sense. You don't really need to worry about 0:24:30.720 --> 0:24:33.920 hydrogen for another ten years in power and you really 0:24:34.000 --> 0:24:38.359 get that far in the power sector that it's you know, 0:24:38.400 --> 0:24:41.520 at that point by twenty thirty five, you really need 0:24:41.600 --> 0:24:44.200 to focus your attention somewhere else. And it's good to 0:24:44.320 --> 0:24:47.360 see that we're focusing about attention somewhere else today such 0:24:47.440 --> 0:24:50.320 that in twenty five we don't need to worry about 0:24:50.440 --> 0:24:53.600 sending that last emission out of the system, and instead 0:24:53.680 --> 0:24:56.880 we can focus on the carbonizing other sectors that can 0:24:56.960 --> 0:24:59.880 really have an impact. And I think just to add 0:25:00.000 --> 0:25:02.520 to that and the point that kind of all roads 0:25:02.560 --> 0:25:05.240 are kind of pointing back to the power sector, we 0:25:05.359 --> 0:25:08.719 do identify in the report quite a significant challenge when 0:25:08.760 --> 0:25:11.320 it comes to decar but like deep decarbonization of the 0:25:11.359 --> 0:25:13.960 power system. You know, if you're relying on electricity to 0:25:14.040 --> 0:25:17.119 decarbonize things like heating and transport, that that does have 0:25:17.240 --> 0:25:20.159 meaningful impacts for how the power system will evolve and 0:25:20.240 --> 0:25:22.480 look like in the future. And then how do you 0:25:22.680 --> 0:25:25.840 create you know, incentives for the clean backup capacity that 0:25:25.920 --> 0:25:28.280 you need when the wind and soda generation isn't around. 0:25:28.680 --> 0:25:30.359 I know Andrea's has done a lot of work on 0:25:30.480 --> 0:25:32.639 this over the last two years or so, and this 0:25:32.840 --> 0:25:35.359 is something that we're increasingly looking at. We look at 0:25:35.440 --> 0:25:38.080 hydrogen as one of those potential solutions, but there there 0:25:38.160 --> 0:25:42.720 are a number of flexibility solutions that could also come 0:25:42.720 --> 0:25:45.879 into the space and really shape, really make an impact 0:25:45.960 --> 0:25:48.719 on how the power system evolves. Hydrogen keeps coming up 0:25:48.920 --> 0:25:51.040 as one of these potential solutions, and there are kind 0:25:51.040 --> 0:25:53.560 of two questions around this that I have. One actually 0:25:53.760 --> 0:25:57.200 is around the emissions associated with hydrogen. So we know 0:25:57.440 --> 0:26:00.720 that gas is cleaner than coal, and so there was 0:26:00.800 --> 0:26:03.040 a transition to that at one point in a big 0:26:03.080 --> 0:26:06.760 discussion around how gas actually burns so much cleaner and 0:26:06.920 --> 0:26:11.000 is this better option? And now we've moved away from 0:26:11.080 --> 0:26:13.520 gas and the associated emissions and are starting to talk 0:26:13.560 --> 0:26:17.200 about hydrogen more. It is still not absolute zero. It's 0:26:17.520 --> 0:26:21.119 net zero that we're headed towards. So invariably some level 0:26:21.200 --> 0:26:25.280 of emissions will be tolerated. And in this cleaner, greener 0:26:25.920 --> 0:26:27.760 fifty year out in the future that I hope we 0:26:27.840 --> 0:26:31.760 all reach, will the emissions associated with hydrogen still be 0:26:31.880 --> 0:26:34.600 tolerated when we get there, or will that then become 0:26:34.720 --> 0:26:37.639 something that we will need to transition off of with 0:26:37.760 --> 0:26:42.080 better solutions in the future. We love capped the production 0:26:42.160 --> 0:26:44.720 of hydrogen in the report in two different ways, so 0:26:45.080 --> 0:26:49.000 Europe can go fully green. It can just use wind 0:26:49.080 --> 0:26:53.720 and soda to produce green hydrogen using electrolysis, and that 0:26:54.359 --> 0:26:57.320 we find essentially requires nothing short of one point five 0:26:57.440 --> 0:27:00.760 terra wants of additional wind and solar, which is close 0:27:00.840 --> 0:27:03.159 to doubling what we need for the power system, so 0:27:03.640 --> 0:27:07.000 it's it's a massive amount of additional renewable energy passed 0:27:07.080 --> 0:27:10.880 you need. Of course, Europe could explore options with importing hydrogen. 0:27:11.200 --> 0:27:13.520 There then become questions around how do you how do 0:27:13.560 --> 0:27:16.240 you regulate and standardize, make sure that you know that 0:27:16.320 --> 0:27:18.360 that hydrogen is green, and how do you make sure 0:27:18.400 --> 0:27:20.840 that the transporting it around is green. All of those 0:27:21.000 --> 0:27:23.320 considerations to take into effect I think I think will 0:27:23.359 --> 0:27:25.840 become a material in the future, especially if there are 0:27:25.920 --> 0:27:29.240 constraints to actually delivering all of the green hydrogen needs 0:27:29.480 --> 0:27:33.280 in the in the region domestically. We also did look 0:27:33.359 --> 0:27:37.200 at another way that Europe could produce green hydrogen, and 0:27:37.320 --> 0:27:41.200 that's for electorallyzers to also use some of the you know, 0:27:41.480 --> 0:27:44.720 would be wasted wind and solar generation on the grid. 0:27:44.960 --> 0:27:47.720 So essentially we looked at the curtailment profiles from our 0:27:47.760 --> 0:27:51.960 power system modeling and essentially concluded that that can help 0:27:52.040 --> 0:27:55.280 to reduce by about three gig or what's the need 0:27:55.359 --> 0:27:59.320 for additional wind and solar capacity. The constraint there is 0:27:59.400 --> 0:28:01.879 that there is only so much energy that gets wasted 0:28:01.920 --> 0:28:04.840 from the power system, and you know, you can't just 0:28:05.000 --> 0:28:08.280 rely on that to produce zero emissions hydrogen. So there 0:28:08.400 --> 0:28:10.639 is a risk, as you rightly point out, data that 0:28:10.760 --> 0:28:14.720 during that transition, if we have grid connected electrolyzers, it's 0:28:14.800 --> 0:28:17.960 very difficult to be certain that they won't be using 0:28:18.240 --> 0:28:21.080 fossil fuel electrons during the time, you know, during the 0:28:21.119 --> 0:28:24.760 transition period. And and actually certifying that that is that 0:28:24.880 --> 0:28:28.240 that is green is is becoming an increasingly important consideration, 0:28:28.359 --> 0:28:31.520 not just for people like US modeling modeling this, but 0:28:31.640 --> 0:28:33.920 also for investors that are looking at these projects and 0:28:34.040 --> 0:28:36.680 wanting to be sure that you know, the hydrogen that 0:28:36.760 --> 0:28:40.120 their projects want to produce will be able to be 0:28:40.200 --> 0:28:43.080 labeled as green. I think here just to add is 0:28:43.960 --> 0:28:48.920 the importance of actually delivering on the carbonization of the 0:28:49.040 --> 0:28:53.240 power sector, right Like people are worried about how hydrogen 0:28:53.320 --> 0:28:55.800 will be produced and whether it's green or not. I'd say, 0:28:56.200 --> 0:28:58.920 if we're producing it with electricity, it's a big first 0:28:59.000 --> 0:29:01.880 step forward. And then we need to make sure we 0:29:02.000 --> 0:29:05.120 delivered the green electrons, that this hydrogen needs to be green. 0:29:05.720 --> 0:29:08.520 And I'd say, I'd say again, you know, of course 0:29:08.680 --> 0:29:11.080 there there are costs involved in all of that, but 0:29:12.400 --> 0:29:15.400 it all comes back to exactly this question, right like 0:29:15.520 --> 0:29:17.880 how easy or hard? And you know, we started from 0:29:17.920 --> 0:29:20.120 this how easy or hard is it to build renewables 0:29:20.760 --> 0:29:24.520 in Europe today? And and what sense does it make 0:29:24.840 --> 0:29:27.080 to building yourbles economically or not? In the answer is 0:29:27.240 --> 0:29:30.040 it does make sense economically, and so we need to 0:29:30.760 --> 0:29:36.160 look at the other problems that surrounded the sector, which is, 0:29:36.240 --> 0:29:40.000 you know, we've heard them many times, permitting and and 0:29:40.480 --> 0:29:45.320 land use and all of that that might limit how 0:29:45.480 --> 0:29:48.280 much wind and solar we we might send. One of 0:29:48.320 --> 0:29:51.760 the favorite things that I've heard from people in the 0:29:51.920 --> 0:29:54.720 industry who really like dealt with the question of like 0:29:55.040 --> 0:29:57.280 where you're building in newables and how it's like everyone 0:29:57.400 --> 0:30:00.960 is in favor of renews everyone, right, like in Europe especially, 0:30:01.080 --> 0:30:03.600 people love renewables until you build them next to their house, 0:30:04.320 --> 0:30:07.880 and then they all become the most staunch anti environmentals. 0:30:07.920 --> 0:30:09.920 Now that's a bit cynical, of course, as of you, 0:30:10.120 --> 0:30:15.360 but it's it's widely too and and in a way, 0:30:15.840 --> 0:30:19.240 I'd say that's that's the big question, right, how do 0:30:19.360 --> 0:30:24.080 we unlock the renewable revolution in the electricity grid such 0:30:24.200 --> 0:30:28.920 that we can then safely shift our transportation are heating 0:30:29.440 --> 0:30:33.120 our hydrogen to the power sector. Well, when you bring 0:30:33.240 --> 0:30:35.960 that up to the renewables and the nimbiism that not 0:30:36.080 --> 0:30:38.800 in my backyard, folks, not wanting it necessarily near them. 0:30:39.200 --> 0:30:41.560 Is it going to be possible to find all the 0:30:41.640 --> 0:30:44.280 places that we need in order to build out renewables, 0:30:44.520 --> 0:30:47.120 not just to electrify certain parts of the industry, but 0:30:47.200 --> 0:30:49.600 then also to create all of the hydrogen we need? 0:30:49.640 --> 0:30:51.840 And what are the web use constraints that were really 0:30:51.920 --> 0:30:56.040 looking at in what is reasonably densely populated part of 0:30:56.080 --> 0:30:59.280 the world. We actually answer this question. We looked at 0:30:59.440 --> 0:31:02.720 why you're will actually need to deploy on shore wind 0:31:02.800 --> 0:31:05.440 and PV to produce all of that clean electricity and 0:31:05.680 --> 0:31:09.600 green hydrogen in the net zero and we conclude that 0:31:09.800 --> 0:31:12.880 the land requirement is about three percent of land use, 0:31:13.120 --> 0:31:16.840 up from just nor point to percent used for technologies 0:31:16.880 --> 0:31:19.760 like conshore wind and PV. That's kind of putting it 0:31:19.800 --> 0:31:22.600 into context. Three percent of land. What does that roughly represent. 0:31:22.760 --> 0:31:25.440 It's slightly around the mark where the roads kind of 0:31:25.560 --> 0:31:28.880 use this amount of land use today. So this isn't 0:31:29.240 --> 0:31:32.800 an impossible amount. You know, development of this size is 0:31:33.200 --> 0:31:37.560 not inconceivable, but it will be really important to you know, 0:31:37.720 --> 0:31:42.520 keep evaluating how public acceptance of renewables evolved, and it's 0:31:42.520 --> 0:31:47.400 actually becoming more important in certain regions where the renewable 0:31:47.480 --> 0:31:50.800 energy saturation is getting higher. So we we we have 0:31:51.000 --> 0:31:54.120 looked at what a land constrained scenario for Europe would 0:31:54.160 --> 0:31:57.640 look like, and we do find that in total we 0:31:57.840 --> 0:32:00.680 end up with quite a sizeable amount less on shore 0:32:00.760 --> 0:32:03.680 wind I think around two hundred gigs and instead around 0:32:03.720 --> 0:32:06.880 a hundred and fifty gig. What's more offshore wind, because 0:32:06.960 --> 0:32:10.160 that's the next cheapest kind of technology to deploy kind 0:32:10.200 --> 0:32:14.280 of bulk electricity to the grid. So that's the first thing, 0:32:14.400 --> 0:32:17.120 is that really this the land constraints when we when 0:32:17.160 --> 0:32:21.360 we consider them, really impact onshore wind. Now the regional 0:32:21.440 --> 0:32:25.760 implications aren't evenly distributed either, So Germany and Italy were 0:32:25.840 --> 0:32:29.480 both the most heavily impacted. In our land constraints scenario, 0:32:29.880 --> 0:32:32.560 we found that offshore wind in Germany delivered nearly half 0:32:32.640 --> 0:32:35.360 of all their power by and that's compared to just 0:32:35.600 --> 0:32:38.520 fifteen percent in our net zero scenario without those land 0:32:38.560 --> 0:32:41.360 constraints in place. Another kind of risk is that we 0:32:41.480 --> 0:32:44.040 found in that scenario that Germany actually relied on more 0:32:44.160 --> 0:32:46.880 gas in the near term because of the slower rollout 0:32:46.960 --> 0:32:50.480 of onshore renewal bals and a longer time needed to 0:32:50.680 --> 0:32:54.000 allow offshore wind to scale and bridge that gap. So 0:32:54.240 --> 0:32:56.480 I think you know, when we when we're thinking about 0:32:56.920 --> 0:32:59.480 land constraints and how this plays out in the near term, 0:33:00.080 --> 0:33:03.800 really that the onshore, the onshore renewables are going to 0:33:03.840 --> 0:33:07.760 be absolutely critical to really squeezing out the thermal generation 0:33:07.880 --> 0:33:10.720 mixing that's needed to kind of meet the current targets 0:33:10.800 --> 0:33:13.800 that Europe is setting. And speaking of constraints, all of 0:33:13.880 --> 0:33:15.840 this is going to take money. So let's talk a 0:33:15.920 --> 0:33:20.200 little bit about investment. Do we see signals that the 0:33:20.640 --> 0:33:24.200 finance community is essentially looking to invest in these sorts 0:33:24.240 --> 0:33:26.760 of projects and what does that mean in the near 0:33:26.880 --> 0:33:28.560 term and what does that mean in the longer term. 0:33:28.640 --> 0:33:31.440 I mean, are we seeing signs that this is a 0:33:32.600 --> 0:33:35.880 space where there is a good amount of investment flooding 0:33:35.920 --> 0:33:39.280 into it. I'd say they are not here. The signals 0:33:39.320 --> 0:33:43.800 are somewhat mixed, at least at the moment. For a 0:33:43.960 --> 0:33:47.760 very long time, Europe has relied on subsidies right then, 0:33:47.840 --> 0:33:50.280 So in that sense, it's very hard to get a 0:33:50.400 --> 0:33:52.720 clear view on what has been driving investment in the 0:33:52.800 --> 0:33:57.080 renewable sector because who doesn't want in a way. I'm 0:33:57.120 --> 0:33:59.280 not going to call it free money, but you know, 0:33:59.440 --> 0:34:02.120 it's a relatively safe return, and if you know what 0:34:02.240 --> 0:34:04.480 you're doing in Europe, you could lock in a good 0:34:04.520 --> 0:34:09.480 return with you know, good fifteen years subsidutes. Now, subsidies 0:34:09.560 --> 0:34:13.400 in Europe are not necessarily going away, but they're changing 0:34:13.440 --> 0:34:16.080 in nature and how they're delivered. In Germany, for example, 0:34:16.120 --> 0:34:18.799 they're given as a top up to the power price, 0:34:18.880 --> 0:34:20.719 or you're exposed to the power price, and it makes 0:34:20.760 --> 0:34:25.560 some occasions we've seen projects going and bid zero, you know, 0:34:25.640 --> 0:34:27.200 they want to zero top up so they have a 0:34:27.239 --> 0:34:31.000 full exposure to the market. And in Spain we're seeing 0:34:31.040 --> 0:34:34.879 a lot of private interest in building projects without the need, 0:34:35.200 --> 0:34:38.279 without you know, subsidies backing them, and instead going straight 0:34:38.320 --> 0:34:40.960 to the market and maybe signing a power purchase agreement 0:34:41.600 --> 0:34:44.439 with a court, you know, with a company that takes 0:34:44.520 --> 0:34:47.920 the power. But in general, I would say, you know, 0:34:48.040 --> 0:34:51.960 we need around five point three trillion dollars in investment 0:34:52.040 --> 0:34:55.240 over the coming three decades deliver on the net zero scenario. 0:34:55.800 --> 0:34:58.360 So that's quite a bit of money. And when we 0:34:58.520 --> 0:35:02.320 look at our power price modeling analysis, what we find 0:35:02.480 --> 0:35:07.279 is that the long thought of you know, kind of 0:35:08.120 --> 0:35:11.759 short term contracts maybe one to three years out, a 0:35:12.800 --> 0:35:16.320 lot of reliance on spot markets and all that just 0:35:16.560 --> 0:35:20.520 doesn't doesn't make the cut. You do need to create 0:35:20.600 --> 0:35:24.720 that longer term price stability to drive the investment forward. 0:35:25.320 --> 0:35:28.680 And this is in a way where what subject is 0:35:28.719 --> 0:35:33.040 also showed is that people want long term stability. So 0:35:33.080 --> 0:35:37.440 I'd say for the time being, the investment interest is 0:35:37.560 --> 0:35:40.800 there and the money is going in there even where 0:35:41.200 --> 0:35:45.160 when no subjecties are involved. Part of the spike could 0:35:45.640 --> 0:35:48.480 is also attributable to the rising in carbon prices over 0:35:48.520 --> 0:35:51.000 the last few years and now some commodity prices that 0:35:51.120 --> 0:35:54.839 is essentially making the power market a very attractive place 0:35:54.920 --> 0:35:57.120 to go, even if you don't have some kind of 0:35:57.239 --> 0:36:00.160 price stability into the future. We're doing some analysis in 0:36:00.320 --> 0:36:04.319 Spain today essentially cutting off three or four years from 0:36:04.400 --> 0:36:08.319 your investment horizon just by like being online this year 0:36:08.600 --> 0:36:11.239 or last year due to the high prices. But at 0:36:11.320 --> 0:36:14.040 some point we're gonna have to see a shift towards 0:36:15.400 --> 0:36:21.279 longer term thinking and the the the options there, i'd say, 0:36:21.320 --> 0:36:24.880 are a bit mixed. You could have a more market 0:36:26.200 --> 0:36:31.880 based approach, whereby governments don't intervene and essentially the market 0:36:32.000 --> 0:36:35.720 is left to find what length of contracts are needed 0:36:35.840 --> 0:36:38.960 and how many of them and for what portion of 0:36:39.040 --> 0:36:42.799 your project output. Or you could have more centralized approaches 0:36:42.880 --> 0:36:48.680 such as continued options for subsidies and maybe capacity mechanisms, 0:36:49.520 --> 0:36:52.120 and and the jury is still out on which one 0:36:52.239 --> 0:36:59.840 is better. Probably the centralized mechanisms run by governments delivered targets, 0:37:00.160 --> 0:37:03.479 you know, deliver on targets in a more consistent way, 0:37:03.880 --> 0:37:08.240 and the volume, let's say, is in control of centralized planners. 0:37:08.320 --> 0:37:11.200 But it creates a little bit of a dependence on 0:37:11.280 --> 0:37:13.239 the system, you know, kind of like it's very hard 0:37:13.280 --> 0:37:16.960 to shake that off. The alternative to kind of like 0:37:17.080 --> 0:37:19.759 incentivize the industry to take a more long term view, 0:37:19.800 --> 0:37:22.520 which for a long time they haven't done. And the 0:37:22.600 --> 0:37:26.640 reasons are are many, and Beno has analyzed them. But 0:37:26.880 --> 0:37:31.000 incentivizing the industry to take a long term view would 0:37:31.040 --> 0:37:35.239 then create a sustainable environment where this system just propagates 0:37:35.239 --> 0:37:41.120 itself forward and investment becomes a private enterprise with little 0:37:41.239 --> 0:37:46.719 to no government intervention. And it's primarily driven by the 0:37:46.840 --> 0:37:49.759 fact that building then yourbles is cheaper and there is 0:37:49.800 --> 0:37:53.160 a way to also meet them repay for themselves, right 0:37:53.160 --> 0:37:56.120 because now they're cheaper, but people struggle to see, Okay, 0:37:56.160 --> 0:37:58.440 how do we pay for them? And and I say 0:37:58.520 --> 0:38:01.320 that that's where markets come in, and the good market 0:38:01.400 --> 0:38:05.040 design is is important in also making them financially sustainable. 0:38:05.280 --> 0:38:07.400 And just to kind of underscore the fact that in 0:38:07.560 --> 0:38:10.360 order to get that five point three trillion invested in 0:38:10.600 --> 0:38:13.560 in the nets aeria scenario that we identify as needed 0:38:13.600 --> 0:38:15.759 for that's just for the clean energy supply, so that's 0:38:15.800 --> 0:38:19.439 your power and green hydrogen capex needs that will rely 0:38:19.560 --> 0:38:22.359 on those really robust investment signals, which, as Andrea said, 0:38:22.520 --> 0:38:26.320 is fundamentally the market design and the investment frameworks that 0:38:26.400 --> 0:38:28.560 are in that are in place, and I don't think 0:38:28.840 --> 0:38:31.480 in my time at be enough, I've ever been in 0:38:31.640 --> 0:38:35.359 such an environment where this has been under the microscope 0:38:35.440 --> 0:38:39.719 so severely. You know, the the energy crisis is exposing 0:38:39.840 --> 0:38:43.040 some of the challenges of the market in its current design, 0:38:43.480 --> 0:38:46.880 particularly for for wholesale electricity and gas prices, and I 0:38:46.960 --> 0:38:51.799 think questions around reform and regulatory interventions are still very 0:38:51.920 --> 0:38:55.560 much influx, and we're going to be having to follow 0:38:55.640 --> 0:38:58.479 this super closely because it will affect all of those, 0:38:58.719 --> 0:39:01.399 um you know, all of those factors that go into 0:39:01.520 --> 0:39:04.440 driving investment into clean technologies, and I think will be 0:39:04.560 --> 0:39:07.719 a really hopefully something that can help accelerate the move 0:39:07.800 --> 0:39:11.040 towards as Andre has mentioned, the long time pricing and 0:39:11.200 --> 0:39:14.040 signals that you need in order to actually get projects 0:39:14.040 --> 0:39:16.880 on the ground. Yeah, hopefully it ends up in that direction, 0:39:16.960 --> 0:39:18.600 but I think there are risks that we go back 0:39:18.680 --> 0:39:22.759 to more heavy handed regulatory interventions that maybe create distortive 0:39:22.800 --> 0:39:26.680 effects or or maybe hinder hinder the transition in ways 0:39:26.719 --> 0:39:29.359 that we can't really anticipate just yet. So let's say 0:39:29.400 --> 0:39:31.040 I'm in another part of the world and I am 0:39:31.120 --> 0:39:34.920 not part of the European system. What is it that 0:39:35.040 --> 0:39:37.680 I'm looking at most closely. Is it the market design 0:39:37.800 --> 0:39:40.279 question that you just brought up, or is it the 0:39:40.600 --> 0:39:45.000 technology and the l c o E declines for certain 0:39:45.080 --> 0:39:47.720 technologies that are being invested in more heavily in Europe? 0:39:48.000 --> 0:39:51.440 What is it that I am watching most closely? If 0:39:51.480 --> 0:39:55.399 I were in the America's or in the Asia Pacific area, 0:39:55.719 --> 0:39:59.240 I think it's gas. Honestly, I think that's time everyone 0:39:59.400 --> 0:40:02.120 is fast needed by the gas discussion that's playing out 0:40:02.160 --> 0:40:05.719 and how your steps away from its reliance on particularly 0:40:05.719 --> 0:40:09.760 those Russian imports. I agree with gas and call maybe 0:40:10.000 --> 0:40:13.479 being the two things that people look at, but either 0:40:13.760 --> 0:40:16.520 to say something also that maybe it's a little bit 0:40:16.680 --> 0:40:20.880 older news but still very relevant, which is not. Denmark 0:40:21.000 --> 0:40:25.480 two years ago hit something like renewable energy. The UK 0:40:25.760 --> 0:40:30.120 with its officure wind rollout is I'm going to see 0:40:30.160 --> 0:40:33.200 a very big increase in order like getting to six 0:40:34.600 --> 0:40:37.440 renewable energy by twenty thirty. So if I'm looking at 0:40:37.520 --> 0:40:40.520 Europe from the outside, I'd say, how are they making 0:40:40.560 --> 0:40:45.000 it work? How are they making these systems remain stable, 0:40:45.160 --> 0:40:49.040 deliver the power that that they need while also kind 0:40:49.040 --> 0:40:52.919 of the carbonizing and and I'd say for some time 0:40:53.000 --> 0:40:56.759 to come, Europe will remain at the forefront of kind 0:40:56.800 --> 0:41:00.839 of like setting records for you know, shares of electricity 0:41:01.080 --> 0:41:05.839 meeting shares of renewable EA, tristy meeting demand going from 0:41:05.920 --> 0:41:08.560 a dred percent over one day to a percent over 0:41:08.719 --> 0:41:13.120 one week, to a percent over one month, and so 0:41:13.239 --> 0:41:15.279 on and so forth. And I think that is a 0:41:15.400 --> 0:41:19.080 very interesting and important dynamic to to keep an eye 0:41:19.120 --> 0:41:22.160 out for because it's also one of the biggest criticism 0:41:22.280 --> 0:41:29.200 for in yours how do we go from one to thirty? Yeah, 0:41:29.239 --> 0:41:32.320 and I think offshore wind, especially from the policy perspective, 0:41:32.400 --> 0:41:35.279 is increasingly that solution. That's the kind of the go 0:41:35.480 --> 0:41:40.640 to for the post. I don't time frame. You know, 0:41:40.719 --> 0:41:42.960 we've we've just had that announcement for the fifty gig 0:41:43.000 --> 0:41:46.480 of what's in the UK, and that's you know that 0:41:46.600 --> 0:41:48.839 that is a really sizeable ramp up in ambition from 0:41:48.960 --> 0:41:51.160 just the thirty gig and what's two years ago and 0:41:51.200 --> 0:41:53.520 forty gigo what target that they said a year ago? 0:41:53.640 --> 0:41:55.960 So yeah, I think I think Andreas is right that 0:41:56.120 --> 0:41:59.600 that that is one of the hottest areas I guess 0:41:59.680 --> 0:42:01.799 to be to be looking at. So this is now 0:42:02.000 --> 0:42:04.760 an annual report that served second time running it correct 0:42:04.960 --> 0:42:08.560 it is, Yeah, what other parts of the world and 0:42:08.680 --> 0:42:12.160 other teams are also doing an energy transition outlove Now, 0:42:13.239 --> 0:42:16.160 you know, we don't have a plan to formalize the 0:42:16.680 --> 0:42:19.759 publication for other regions yet, but I really hope that 0:42:19.920 --> 0:42:23.120 we can develop and use this kind of methodology to 0:42:23.320 --> 0:42:26.160 really add that regional color to how we develop on 0:42:26.239 --> 0:42:27.920 net s aerio scenarios. I know that's going to be 0:42:28.000 --> 0:42:30.960 a really important dimension to how our new energy outlook evolved. 0:42:31.239 --> 0:42:34.120 I think in America's energy transition outlook would be super cool. 0:42:34.400 --> 0:42:36.919 I'd love to also start exploring the regions that maybe 0:42:36.960 --> 0:42:40.279 are less well served by by enough coverage, so really 0:42:40.360 --> 0:42:43.480 modeling things market like South Africa. I think that would 0:42:43.520 --> 0:42:46.360 be that would be really interesting to start thinking about 0:42:46.400 --> 0:42:49.000 their long term transition pathways, just because it looks so 0:42:49.160 --> 0:42:52.359 fundamentally different to what we have in Europe. And while 0:42:52.440 --> 0:42:54.560 they can take advantage of some of the solutions that 0:42:54.680 --> 0:42:57.200 we have, there are other things that are constraints that 0:42:57.480 --> 0:42:59.680 you know, the sectors in these regions face that we 0:42:59.800 --> 0:43:02.840 just don't have head So final question, and I know 0:43:03.400 --> 0:43:06.160 the Russian invasion of the Ukraine came up several times 0:43:06.200 --> 0:43:08.560 in the podcast today, and one of the things they 0:43:08.560 --> 0:43:11.640 all of Europe is thinking about will this accelerate or 0:43:11.800 --> 0:43:17.080 decelerate the energy transition. Many people are very much focused 0:43:17.160 --> 0:43:19.360 on the fact that, you know, wind and solar is 0:43:19.400 --> 0:43:23.920 a way to reduce reliance on gas and therefore imports. 0:43:24.400 --> 0:43:27.560 But equally there are policy decisions that are being made 0:43:27.680 --> 0:43:30.959 right now in order to bring costs down and also 0:43:31.200 --> 0:43:35.320 find imports from other parts of the world, and invariably 0:43:35.400 --> 0:43:38.480 with inflation at such high levels, that is part of 0:43:38.520 --> 0:43:41.000 the role of government to look at it. So if 0:43:41.120 --> 0:43:42.800 you had to look into the future, and I know 0:43:43.040 --> 0:43:45.840 that this is just an opinion and an educated guests, 0:43:46.280 --> 0:43:49.520 do you think that the current political climate, in particular 0:43:49.640 --> 0:43:53.880 with what's happening in Ukraine, is this going to accelerate 0:43:54.040 --> 0:43:57.640 or decelerate the energy transition in Europe? I think this 0:43:58.160 --> 0:44:00.960 accelerates things from renewal balls and as we've kind of 0:44:01.040 --> 0:44:05.200 laid out earlier, there's so many signs pointing to scaling 0:44:05.239 --> 0:44:07.879 the sector and there are real barriers, but I think 0:44:07.960 --> 0:44:10.560 that this is good news for for renewables. Where I 0:44:10.600 --> 0:44:14.680 think there are risks is you know, we're we're looking 0:44:14.719 --> 0:44:19.239 at a situation where the European Commission's plans essentially could 0:44:19.360 --> 0:44:22.359 result in a dampening of the carbon price, which could 0:44:23.160 --> 0:44:26.600 essentially result in more coal used to alleviate the need 0:44:26.680 --> 0:44:29.319 for gas. So on the emission side of things, that's 0:44:29.360 --> 0:44:33.040 not great. And I think the tension there between okay, 0:44:33.120 --> 0:44:36.200 great for more renewables, but in terms of the trajectory 0:44:36.360 --> 0:44:39.640 for for the reliance on other things like coal in 0:44:39.680 --> 0:44:42.400 the meantime is is going to be tricky to square. 0:44:42.440 --> 0:44:46.720 So I think this accelerates certain parts of the transition certainly. 0:44:46.760 --> 0:44:49.759 And I think the attention that now things like gas 0:44:49.800 --> 0:44:52.920 boilers are getting pacing pacing out gas boiler isn't instead 0:44:52.960 --> 0:44:55.279 putting heat pumps in that that's something that's needed to 0:44:55.320 --> 0:44:56.880 come on the agenda for a long time. And I 0:44:57.000 --> 0:44:59.880 think that those those things, if the right policies of 0:45:00.000 --> 0:45:02.680 all comes in place, could be an accelerator. But yeah, 0:45:02.719 --> 0:45:05.480 it's very mixed and difficult to judge because of the 0:45:05.560 --> 0:45:09.680 volatility that the market is currently in. I personally say 0:45:09.840 --> 0:45:15.080 that without necessarily trying to look into the future, I'll 0:45:15.120 --> 0:45:17.920 try to look at what has changed quickly over the 0:45:18.000 --> 0:45:20.440 last let's say six months to a year, and the 0:45:20.520 --> 0:45:22.800 one big shift that I saw, and I saw it 0:45:22.920 --> 0:45:26.440 during the the energy price crisis as well as the 0:45:26.560 --> 0:45:29.480 one that the high gas prices started and power prices 0:45:29.520 --> 0:45:32.319 started following, And I was like, oh, yeah, it's gas, 0:45:32.480 --> 0:45:35.040 but it's also wind, and I will get furious with that, 0:45:35.239 --> 0:45:36.879 and if I keep on talking about that, that we'll 0:45:36.920 --> 0:45:39.120 get furious on the podcast as well. So I'm gonna 0:45:39.160 --> 0:45:41.400 stop there. But I used to tell people it's a 0:45:41.480 --> 0:45:44.840 gas story. This whole wind thing is just like a 0:45:44.920 --> 0:45:49.200 smoke screen. As time has gone by, I feel like 0:45:49.320 --> 0:45:54.000 that conversation around the fault of wind in the high 0:45:54.080 --> 0:45:58.239 power prices has subsided, if not gone away completely, and 0:45:58.360 --> 0:46:00.680 instead now a lot of people are saying, oh, we 0:46:00.800 --> 0:46:03.760 told you if we built more renewables, we'd be somewhat 0:46:03.840 --> 0:46:07.120 more shielded today. And in a way, also another conversation 0:46:07.680 --> 0:46:10.480 has shifted around the long term pricing, which was one 0:46:10.520 --> 0:46:13.280 of the mechanics pricing mechanism that I was talking around earlier. 0:46:13.320 --> 0:46:16.120 A lot of people say, like, look, if we're building 0:46:16.239 --> 0:46:20.440 renewables with twenty year contracts, fixed price contracts right now, 0:46:20.480 --> 0:46:23.400 they would have to sell us electricity at a low price, 0:46:23.760 --> 0:46:26.320 even though power prices at the moment are you know, 0:46:26.920 --> 0:46:29.960 three or four times or or six times in some 0:46:30.120 --> 0:46:33.520 places historical averages. So from that point of view, I'd 0:46:33.520 --> 0:46:37.520 say there's been a shift, a positive shift towards unwables, 0:46:37.680 --> 0:46:41.960 which I think personally was needed and in the long 0:46:42.080 --> 0:46:46.280 term it's going to create the stability. I share Emma's 0:46:46.360 --> 0:46:50.080 concern around the core increased colburn, but I think that 0:46:50.200 --> 0:46:55.319 if we stick behind the renewable growth, having a little 0:46:55.360 --> 0:46:59.720 bit more call for four or five years, it's actually 0:47:00.360 --> 0:47:03.960 be overall cheaper. I'm gonna leave us more resources to 0:47:04.080 --> 0:47:07.040 the carbonize than if we went from a cold to 0:47:07.160 --> 0:47:10.279 gas transition only to then go from a gas to 0:47:10.360 --> 0:47:14.879 renewable transition. So I'd say my message is positive there. Yeah, 0:47:14.920 --> 0:47:17.240 I actually love that, Andreas. I was on my community 0:47:17.280 --> 0:47:21.080 this morning. I literally saw a an ad that had 0:47:21.160 --> 0:47:23.839 six words on it and it said when does cheap 0:47:24.040 --> 0:47:26.920 gas is expensive? And it's an ad for like one 0:47:27.000 --> 0:47:29.400 of the renewable energy supplies here in the UK, And 0:47:29.520 --> 0:47:31.279 I think that that kind of says that all that 0:47:31.360 --> 0:47:34.359 that momentum shift and even in the public I now 0:47:34.719 --> 0:47:36.520 is coming on the fact that we would be less 0:47:36.560 --> 0:47:39.759 shielded from from this crisis had we I'm gone faster 0:47:39.840 --> 0:47:42.560 on renewables and those that have higher exposure to renewables 0:47:42.560 --> 0:47:44.640 are actually kind of coping with things a little bit better. 0:47:44.800 --> 0:47:47.319 So yeah, I think that's a really that's a really 0:47:47.360 --> 0:47:49.759 important point to end on. Well, on that note, we'll 0:47:49.760 --> 0:47:51.600 see what the future holds, and thank you so much 0:47:51.640 --> 0:47:54.399 for joining today. Thank you Dana again in ten years 0:47:54.719 --> 0:47:58.879 and reportantly. We're going to come back again next year 0:47:59.080 --> 0:48:02.360 and tell us what's happened with the energetic Definitely be 0:48:02.480 --> 0:48:04.680 a big year from a policy standpoint, I'm sure, but no, 0:48:04.800 --> 0:48:12.200 I think so. I think so. Today's episode of Switched 0:48:12.239 --> 0:48:14.879 On was edited by Rex Warner of gray Stoke Media. 0:48:14.920 --> 0:48:17.200 Bloomberg an e F as a service provided by Bloomberg 0:48:17.280 --> 0:48:20.600 Finance LP and its affiliates. This recording does not constitute, 0:48:20.640 --> 0:48:23.839 nor should it be construed as investment advice, investment recommendations, 0:48:23.960 --> 0:48:27.040 or recommendation as to an investment or other strategy. Bloomberg 0:48:27.040 --> 0:48:29.440 an e F should not be considered as information sufficient 0:48:29.480 --> 0:48:32.440 upon which to base an investment decision. Neither Bloomberg Finance 0:48:32.560 --> 0:48:35.320 LP nor any of its affiliates makes any representation or 0:48:35.360 --> 0:48:38.000 warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the information 0:48:38.080 --> 0:48:40.960 contained in this recording, and any liability of this recording 0:48:41.120 --> 0:48:42.240 is expressly disclaimed.