 Okay, good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us today on this event, driving investment for low carbon transitions. And my name is Ahoy Pahye, I'm a section head at the IAEA, Section of Planning and Economic Studies, and it's my pleasure to moderate the event. And we have four distinguished speakers joining us today who will share their perspectives on the challenges of financing the clean energy transitions, and in particular, the investing in nuclear power. So before we start, let me introduce the panelist. So from the writer, we have Lohis Péces from Benpé Paribas, and she's the Chief Sustainability Officer. She has been behind some of the major decisions of Benpé to be among the first signatories of the Net Zero Banking Alliance and the BA. And she's also the Vice-President of a European think tank for Sustainable Development and International Relations. So welcome to this panel. Then next to Lohis, we have Devin Sweezy from who's Senior Manager for Global Energy and Climate at Google. And before being in this position, he was a utility-scale solar project developer at First Solar. So he has also the experience of renewables. And before that, we're Project Director at Breakthrough from 2009 to 2012. Then next to Devin, we have King Lee, who is currently Head of Policy and Industry Engagement at the World Nuclear Association since September 2023, so quite a recent position. But before that, from 2017 until 2023, he was the Director of the Harmony Programme at WNA. And before that, he worked at Lohis Register in different functions. And then finally, to my left, we have Michel Bertolimi, who's the Chief of Staff and Nuclear Strategic Policy Advisor at the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. And before 2019, before joining the NEA, he was in charge of Nuclear Energy Economic Study at the French Atomic Energy Commission. So welcome to this event. And before we go into a Q&A, I would like to ask you your perspectives on one of the biggest challenges to manage our clean energy transition. It's investing, finding the finance to allow investment in clean energy technologies. So just in the field of nuclear, the COP28 started with a big bang with several announcements that were made over the last two days. There was a release of a statement, the IEA statement on nuclear power, which was signed by about 40 countries that have nuclear power, but also embarking countries. And yesterday we heard also a pledge for a tripling of nuclear capacity by 2050 that was supported by over 20 member states. So tripling nuclear power or even doubling nuclear power, which is what the IEA has analyzed in its nuclear capacity projections, that will represent a huge investment. And we know that this is beyond the capability of governments to fund it from the national public budget. So we will need to find ways to attract finance from the private sector. And we're lucky to have experts in this debate who can talk about channeling investments from the private sector, making nuclear power also an investable asset that meets sustainability, criteria, ESG criteria, and so on. So let me perhaps start with Lohans, because you have a broad portfolio of technologies that you would like to experience in financing a broad range of technologies. And I would like to share some perspectives of the challenge behind financing these clean energy technologies. Yeah, sure. So good afternoon, everyone. So BNP Paribas is the lead in European Bank. We operate in 60 countries. And we have taken the commitment when joining the DnP, the zero banking alliance to monitor all our activities in order to finance net zero world by 2050. So in order to do so, we align our trajectories with the net zero scenario, both of the, we use both the scenarios of the IPCC and the IE scenario. And in all net zero scenario, there is a need for nuclear as to make it to net zero. So what we consider is that the percentage of nuclear in the electricity mix of the world we remain more or less stable, around 10%, but the amount of electricity which will be required will increase dramatically. So as a result, we will need more nuclear power plants. So fortunately, as we are a headquartered in France, we're familiar with nuclear energy. And we started looking in the topic from a risk management side back in 2010, when we issued our first policy on nuclear energy, which defines under which conditions we should and we could finance nuclear power plants. It's been slightly updated in 2012, of course, but the basic requirements are that, of course, any country undertaking a nuclear power program or developing additional nuclear power plants should be capable of meeting essential requirements such as safety, security, non proliferation, protection of populations and the environment, blah, blah, blah. You know everything about this. But we have our own set of criteria to decide whether we are going to finance a dedicated project or not. And there are around three different topics, the host country, the technology and the waste management and dismantling plants. So for host country, we want only to provide financial products and services to nuclear power plants in countries with a proper legal framework, which demonstrate international cooperation and with an independent nuclear safety agency. And this last point is critical for us and not always is it easy to assess. On the technology side, the nuclear power plant or reactor considered should be operated already in a reference nuclear country. So countries with a proven track record and high level of safety and reliability of the operation of a large nuclear power plant. And if they have experienced a nuclear incident or accident, we should have drawn the lessons from this and adjust their framework. Last point is waste management and dismantling. So we require and it's maybe an issue when it's in a country which is starting on nuclear to have a plan for development of long term solutions of the management of a high and intermediate level of nuclear waste, because it's a main difference with renewables that at the end of the day, there is still some waste and a plan for the dismantling of the nuclear power plants. So that's the framework in which we operate. Okay. Well, thank you for sharing this experience of a bank that has very, very well defined framework and policy for considering financing nuclear projects. Maybe I will go to King to ask you as a representative of the World Nuclear Association, what are your main thoughts about driving investments, attracting investments towards nuclear projects? Thank you. So, first of all, I said I'm the head of policy in the industry at the World Nuclear Association. So the World Nuclear Association is the global nuclear industry trade body. So we represent the nuclear sector. So I think, first of all, nuclear is like any other major infrastructure project. So in terms of its bankability and attracting investment, investors is no different to that. So I think there are a number of challenges and risk, like any other major infrastructure. I like some of these are one is policy risks that need to be managed and regulatory risks, as well as instruction and operating risk, as well as the electricity price and volume risk. So I've addressed some of these. So in order for a nuclear project to be bankable, there have to be strong stable policy support in order for that investment. And it's great from yesterday or mentioned about the ministerial declaration over 20 member states supporting troubling of nuclear. So that provide a very strong signal to potentially investors that nuclear is needed to meet climate change and as part of both the national energy mix and potentially from a global point of view. The second issue is about regulatory risk, you know, how to nuclear power plant get licensed. And now this increasing operation between nuclear regulators to improve the efficiency of licensing. So obviously we would like to go to the plant to be licensed more quickly than obviously within the safety regime and perhaps with a more standardized design. That's what's been licensed in one country to minimize the variation for it's deployed in another country. Perhaps more well known is about construction risk. Nuclear power plants are constructed on time and to cost in many countries like the in the Emirates in the fall unit in Bracca, but in Western Europe and in US, North America plants are both over cost overrun and delayed and we need to address that mainly from building first of a kind units in those countries and perhaps the lack of the skill base. So for for that investment, we need to make sure that we're able to deliver plant to time and to cost everywhere. And the other major to attract investment is in terms of providing the revenue guarantee over the lifetime of the plant. So that address the literacy price and volume risk. So now with the energy literacy market reform, we see that is being addressed in liberalized markets. OK, thank you. And thank you for drawing attention to the risk profiles of nuclear projects. You said there just like any other infrastructure investments, but there are some specificities that we will discuss during this session. But you were finishing about your your your your your points about the electricity markets. And I'll pass the floor now to Devon and you're representing a company that is committed to to net zero and is looking for providers of that clean electricity. So please share your your thoughts on the on the topic. Yeah, well, thank you very much for having me. So I lead global clean energy advocacy for Google and we're coming to this conversation from the perspective of a large buyer of clean energy and a large consumer of energy around the world and in particular electricity. Electricity is really fundamental to our business. We consumed last year 22 terawatt hours of electricity across the world in many different locations and that's driven primarily over 90 percent by our data center owned and operated data center fleet across the world. And so for us, electricity and reliable electricity is fundamental to the operations and the growth of our business. And we've been working for a long time to try to ensure that that electricity was delivered as clean as possible and is delivered as clean as possible. So in 2010, we were actually the first non utility company to purchase renewable power via our purchase agreement in the United States, which really helped standardize that contracting model, which today is the main way that in the voluntary markets, renewable energy gets deployed at scale in 2017. We purchased so much renewable power that we actually matched a hundred percent of our annual global electricity consumption with purchases of renewable energy and we have continued to do that since, but we knew that even though matching a hundred percent of our annual consumption is a really important milestone, it's not the same as actually operating around the clock on carbon free electricity because of the variability of wind and solar. There are still times of day or places around the world where we continue to rely on electricity provided by fossil fuels. And so in 2020, we set a goal to by the year 2030, achieve what we call twenty four seven carbon free energy, which means matching our electricity consumption on the same electricity grids where we are consuming an hourly basis hour by hour with new clean electricity technologies that we're bringing on to the grid. And that requires us to think about the challenge very differently, not unlike the challenge that grid operators have in terms of how they manage the grid with clean and increasingly variable renewable energy, clean energy sources. So there's a few ways that we're approaching that. One is that we're continuing to purchase a lot more clean energy. Today we have 10 gigawatts of clean energy under a clean track around the world. Emerily, wind and solar projects, but we're also looking at other technologies beyond wind and solar that we know are we're going to need to fill out the portfolio to achieve that around the clock clean electricity profile. The second way that we're advancing towards this is innovating on the technology side. So we are looking at other advanced clean electricity technologies and the role that they can play in the portfolio, such as the next generation geothermal long-duration energy storage and advanced nuclear power and where that could potentially fit into the portfolio and where we can help stimulate and accelerate the commercialization of those technologies through our purchases and through other means. And the third way is policy and advocacy. So really using our voice to say that we know that nuclear power needs to be part of the solution that it's increasing. It's a significant quantity of carbon free electricity on many grids across the world. A couple of years ago, we released a policy paper, sort of a policy roadmap for 24 seven carbon free energy, where we argued against shutting down existing nuclear plants where they're operating around the world before the end of their useful lives, because these are significant quantities of carbon free power that we need to maintain as long as we can in order to achieve the world's net zero goals. But we're also advocating to change the way that companies think about how they decarbonize their own consumption. Because one thing that's really important to to know from the corporate perspective is that the way that companies account for the way they purchase clean energy and the emissions reductions associated with that clean energy purchase doesn't value firm and dispatchable clean energy or even energy storage because it's based on sort of an annual accounting system, often geographically dispersed from where you're actually consuming power. There's something called the greenhouse gas protocol, which basically governs the way that companies report their emissions. And a company can can be 100 percent clean by purchasing on an annual basis to sort of offset their consumption that way and also far away from where they're consuming in some cases. And so we're arguing for a making that system more accurate and more reflective of what's actually happening on the electricity grid. And in that way, helping to direct corporate investment into the technologies that are going to fully decarbonize around the clock consumption, but also help the grid get to cleaner faster. And there's other things that we're working on in that in that vein, which I'm sure we'll talk about in the course of the discussion. All right. Thank you. Thank you for for for sharing this very interesting perspective of a clean energy buyer and the policies that you've put in place from from that perspective. I'll pass the floor now to to to Michelle to ask him to share his thoughts on investments and financing of nuclear power from the point of view of the OECD NEA. Thank you very much, Henri. I'd like to start by sending apologies on behalf of Dan Cameron. I didn't get a haircut last night. I am not Dan Cameron, but I'm very happy to be with you today. And thank you very much to the NEA for this invitation on this very important topic. Maybe I'll start by managing the moment in time. I think, you know, we're here in Dubai at 38 and we see that this is really a moment where countries globally are realizing the central role that nuclear has to play towards reaching net zero. We see at the NEA the seriousness of the conversation regarding nuclear energy that we have not seen in decades. And this is also taking place against the backdrop of rising concern regarding energy security globally. And in that context, we're very pleased to see yesterday a high level announcement declaration on on tripling in star nuclear bestie by by 2050. And also the IAE for the important statement on on our left here. But looking at the tripling, which is based on on any analysis that we publish in in 2022. One thing I would like to unpack is that when we did analyze it at the NEA, what we did on the line is that this will only be achievable by leveraging on all new technology and application looking at long term operation of the existing law, looking at large scale new bill and looking at decimal and not only for on grid power, but also for a non power application such as the say nation heat hydrogen. While we also did and our knowledge very clearly at the NEA is that, you know, we said that as an aspirational target, it is going to be hard and they're going to be a number of challenges. And we view that, you know, only by approaching that as a collective endeavor and by strengthening international partnership, this can be achieved. And in that context, in a couple of months ago at the NEA, we convened with a French energy minister, Panier Wenache, first minister of nuclear ministerial meeting in more than a decade as we can run maps to new nuclear. We convened about 20 energy ministers and more than 40 nuclear CEOs. And one of the key takeaway moving to the panel's topic from from ministers and CEOs that keep them awake at night is on the challenge on financing alongside supply chain and workforce developments. So what I'd like to do is maybe share a bit to to from the discussion. Some of the key insight that we took from the ministers and the CEO when it comes to to financing. And the first point I'd like to to make is I might be a little bit provocative, but financing cannot solve most spark code issues with nuclear projects. We need to put nuclear financing in a context where it builds on a long term policy commitment to nuclear energy where it leverages on strong upfront project planning. And so when financing fails, it may not fail because there's a systemic issue with financing. But maybe because the process and those changes with the projects that need to be addressed first. And on these good news is that whilst recent projects, particularly in OECD countries, have in recent years faced significant cost of run and delays. We see at the end years that lessons are being learned and that in particular, when we look at the success of the Baraka project built by the UAE and Korea, we can build nuclear power plants on time and and on budget. My second point is on the role of police makers. And here my message is very simple. They're going to have to play a significant role. We view at the end years that nuclear projects can be seen to a large extent as strategic infrastructures. Energy security is is an issue for for government. So mentioned is an issue for for government. And that means that policymakers have a responsibility not only in terms of providing an enabling policy framework, but really to make sure that they contribute to the project's success. However, when it comes to what they should do in terms of financing, sometimes we limit the discussion to providing direct financing support in terms of equity, in terms of debt. And we think that this is only part of the policy toolkit that policymakers are at the disposal. There's a range of policy measures that policymakers can leverage on to enable nuclear financing, in particular, going along the line of previous speakers in terms of recognizing and valuing the attributes of nuclear energy in terms of CO2 emissions, in terms of contribution to great stability and security of supply more broadly. But we also think that this has to be reflected not only in national policy, but also at the international level. And one point that was made by world leaders in yesterday's declaration on nuclear tripping is on the importance for multilateral organization, such as the World Bank, not to exclude nuclear from the lending policy, and which is particularly important when we look at at emerging economies. It has all the ramification on nuclear financing that we will come back to maybe later in the inoculating. And then my third and last point is on the need to really level the playing field when it comes to the energy transition. Nuclear and renewables have very different characteristics in terms of risk profile, in terms of contributions to to the grid. But, you know, analyses are very consistent on the fact that both are complementary and essential to meet net zero targets. So really when it comes to at the end of the day, it's a middle level playing field for one energy transition, which mean implication not only for institution for the like the World Bank, but really making sure is that in energy and climate finance more broadly. Recognize fully the merits of nuclear energy. And thank you for for for these remarks. And we'll get back to some of the points that you've raised, in particular, the multilateral development bank aspect. But there are banks, commercial banks that have lending policies regarding a nuclear power. So I will now go to Laurence. Both King and Michelle, you drew attention also to the to the problems of delivering on time and to budget. And that's one of the risk. Major risk in nuclear projects. Laurence, from from your point of view, how how do you analyze these construction risks? I think in your introductory remarks, you mentioned the importance of having proven technology. So how does this fit in? And in particular, how do you analyze the arrival of a new generation of technologies like small modular reactors, which are globally not yet on the market? Hmm. And to be honest, since we showed our policy in 2012, during more or less a decade, we we didn't see much projects to assess. So during the last two years, we've seen a momentum growing and new new projects going on. So concerning what I would call traditional nuclear, some mean EPR. We know all the difficulties which are specific to nuclear. Well, some of the difficulties are common to all big infrastructure. Are you mentioning, such as, for example, social acceptance? Well, footprint and all this kind of thing. But on nuclear, MDBs are not nuclear. So what's absolutely required is a support from government since inception and, of course, preferably with a pipeline and not a one shot. Also, what's required is a long term PPA in order to guarantee and of take price. These are conditions which are not always there, of course, from the start. So we currently advising some of our clients in the structure in other financing so it involves a lot of stakeholders because there is no standalone financing of a nuclear project. So it takes time. There is also some uncertainties, for example, on the commissioning date. So as you know, bankers dislike everything which isn't certain. But we have some track record on financing nuclear. So we manage, but it's always very complicated. As for the new generation, SMR, we're very interested because we think that it can really bring some added value in some remote areas, for example, for data centers, small, modular plans. But it's even more difficult to structure and to advise our clients because it's totally nascent. So we're interested in it because we see that some kind of R&D and first we'll test the appetite of investors at this very early stage. And it will be interesting to see their mood because it will say a lot on the potential of development of SMR. Thank you. So I don't know if Google is an investor in SMR or might be in the future, but can you tell us the challenges that you see for nuclear from a clean energy buyer, especially compared with renewables? Lawrence just mentioned having PPAs is an important, I would say, part of the sort of model that we've seen with wind and solar is what was just mentioned by the launch, which is these technologies typically need longer term PPAs in order to reduce the risk and de-risk the upfront capital costs of the project. And corporate buyers of clean energy have become accustomed to shorter and shorter PPA tenors as the wind and solar industry has scaled. So it went from 25 years as sort of the standard tenor to 20. And now you even see 15 or 10 in some places. And so we need to think really creatively about how do we balance the risk profile with companies that are typically experienced with shorter tenor PPAs with what some of these advanced nuclear technologies need in terms of that guaranteed revenue mix. Part of the solution could also be on the investment side. So we do not have today any sort of investments or equity investments in advanced nuclear companies, but we know that these technologies need significant upfront capital before they're even able to be constructed or start generating electricity. And in particular, on the sort of front end engineering and design phase of things, there could be a potential role for corporate clean energy buyers to provide capital to help build the pipeline of technologies that are sort of realistic with a potential opportunity for offtake on the other side, which is something that we're also that we're also looking at. And then there's this question around market design that was also mentioned. I mean, I think it's completely true that today many markets don't value the sort of dispatchable clean electricity that technologies like nuclear and other dispatchable clean energy technologies can play. And there's a there's a there's a need to sort of understand how we can redesign those markets to provide more of that value, recognize more of that value. And there's actually a role for companies like Google in that as well. One example is in the United States, we've purchased a lot of clean energy through utility green tariffs, which is essentially a model where you work with the utility. The utility builds a solar or a wind project and then sleeves the power through to a company on the other side. What we're trying to do now with many utilities in the United States is something that we call a theme transition tariff. They're essentially turning green tariff into a 24 seven clean electricity product that can combine wind, solar with maybe advanced nuclear or other dispatchable clean electricity technologies and recognize that there's a value to the system for these technologies and to buyers in terms of their growing load and meeting it reliably with a portfolio of technologies that's going to provide that. Thank you. Thank you for for for explaining these new market approaches. And I think the last point you're making about there being a need for for all all all these technologies and taking a system view of the transition is also very important. So we're in we're in a climate conference. So I'm going to ask King if you can share with us latest developments in climate and sustainable finance regulations and standards and how this applies or doesn't apply to nuclear. Already been mentioned, I think of a company having on a voluntary basis adopting ESG sustainability and climate standard and reporting. But we see increasingly is a new regulation being put in place where they're going to be in military requirements in a number of jurisdictions. So and an example of this is the EU taxonomy. So that taxonomy is a sustainable finance taxonomy, which classified different activity, whether they are sustainable or not. So and these classification is not only within the EU EU in a number of different jurisdictions. So in China, Korea, UK are now developing these taxonomy. So they give huge, important implications to channel capital and investment into these sustainable activities. And it's great to see that within the EU taxonomy nuclear is included as a sustainable activity. So it's within the China taxonomy. And UK has already indicated that intent to include nuclear. As well as so that now have these are just frameworks. So there's regulations that incorporate this framework, for example, the EU corporate sustainable reporting directive and other new standards are being put in place that require proper entity and financial institution to report on their climate action. So these regulations will intend to drive investment into low carbon technology. So and part of the operation will have to be required to indicate their target and their plan to transition to that low carbon. So we were aimed to work with different organisations, for example, the International Substantial Standard Board new set of requirements, standards, how nuclear will be incorporated in these standards. OK, thank you, Michel. You said in your introductory remarks that most, if not all, multinational development bank exclude nuclear from their financing policy. Can you explain why this is an issue and how how it should be addressed? And I'm thinking, especially of countries developing countries that are looking at the nuclear option and have particular difficulties in financing or considering the financing of those projects. Absolutely. No, it's it's an important dimension. This is an important topic for emerging countries, economies, but has more broader ramification for anything new. Maybe I'll start with the World Bank and if you look at the World Bank and all these different instruments and policies, nuclear is not excluded in the bylaws. However, the World Bank issues a range of policy statements or policy documents, and many of them have a very explicit exclusion of nuclear energy, where essentially nuclear energy and bundled with armed trafficking and drugs and all sorts of bad things. And what we see at the NEA when we look at that and particular mentioned the road maps to nuclear minister meeting we had a few months ago, daily countries are seeing that as an issue today. In particular, they see that as an issue because it has cascading impact effect on nuclear science. First cascading effect is on the other MDP, military development banks that you mentioned because they tend to all follow what the World Bank policies say. So clearly, this is where there is a very direct and significant impact on the emerging economies. They are also cascading impact because this goes not only to the financing of the project, but also to the top of support that an institution like the World Bank can provide to countries of the roofing capabilities. And that means that typically, if the World Bank would finance an energy system planning study, it would not be allowed to look at nuclear. So the country will not be able to look at the role of nuclear in its long-term energy strategy, which then has an impact on the demand signal for nuclear energy. And the third and equally important, it's not more a cascading effect, is on private financing more broadly. As that takes place, particularly to what is called the Equator principle, which is essentially a sort of set of principles for infrastructure financing to conduct the ESG appraisal. And this Equator principle is heavily based on what the World Bank policies on nuclear say. So word from Laurent that the BNP does, in a certain number of conditions, includes nuclear in its investment and lending policies. But for a number of banks, the Equator principle has an impact on the ability and the policies moving forward for investing in nuclear energy. And now to your second question as to what should be done. I think this is essentially a question for the countries that are today or yesterday actually made the declaration on tripping nuclear energy and made reference to the World Bank explicitly. But what we do see at the NEA is there is, in parallel, a broader discussion at the level of the World Bank and the IMF as well in terms of aligning with the Paris Agreement. And clearly we see that, one could see that as a clear window for institutional as a World Bank, to maybe take a fresh look at nuclear energy, maybe look at, you know, what could SMR fit into the sort of project they find. How could they support emerging economies getting to the point where they can make investment decisions in nuclear projects? And I think in all of that, of course, the IAEA would have an important role given what you do for supporting in backing countries. But that's also something that at the NEA with a member country would be looking to support in the months ahead. Thank you. I've looked recently at a report entitled Guiding Principles of Sustainable Finance that's signed by all the multilateral development banks. They do recognise that nuclear power is a low carbon technology, but they say it's not sustainable. And that goes back to the long debate of the EU taxonomy. But in the end, the choice or the decision was made to include it as a sustainable technology. So how do you see the discussion going forward now with this issue of nuclear and sustainable sustainability, King? I think it's really important and it's great to see that a nuclear is included in the EU as a subset of finance. And I forgot to highlight this real political implication of this. So as a result of this, EDF have introduced their green bomb framework, which included nuclear. And just read recently, I think, within last week, EDF have issued their first green bomb, I think, to aim to have 500 million I think euros or dollars to finance nuclear project. So these sustainable taxonomy have really important to attract capital. So we're going to the end of this discussion. It's fascinating. We know that there's a huge challenge to decarbonise the whole energy system. I think there's a shared understanding that nuclear has to play an important role, whether it's doubling or tripling by 2050, we will see. There have been an analysis that, as you just said, on the EU taxonomy that ranked nuclear as a sustainable technology that we've had political statements that are made. What else needs to be done to allow to unblock, I would say, the finance for nuclear projects, given that there's a finite amount of money to fund and finance the whole energy transition. So is there going to be a choice between investments in grid, investment in renewables, investment in nuclear? If you could just maybe share your last thoughts on this question or any other takeaway that you would like to share with the audience for this event, Laurence. I think we definitely need to use all the levels that are disposable to decarbonise the whole world. So nuclear is definitely part of it. And for example, at BNP Paribas, when we finance the energy sector, which roughly means 50 billion euros of financing, we have already 55% in low-carbon energy and 45% in fossil fuels. And in low-carbon technology, we transplantly communicate on the fact that it's renewable, nuclear, and nuclear represent a little bit more than 3 billion euros, not balance sheets. So without taking into account financing with structure for our clients and a small chunk of biofuel. And going forward in 2030, our ambition is to have at least 80% in low-carbon, of course, including nuclear, and 20% in fossil. I think that the fact that now we feel comfortable, we weren't before because we're French banks, as I was saying, we're familiar with nuclear, but we're comfortable communicating transparently on the fact that nuclear is part of low-carbon technologies as per the definition of the IEA and the fact that it's on the EU taxonomy. I think all this is unlock some capital, at least in the EU. And also we'll incentivize MDBs to move forward because it's a major bottleneck for us and for the emerging countries. We rely on public-private partnership for everything we finance in emerging countries, such renewable, immobility, green hydrogen, et cetera, except for nuclear. So I think it's really, and it needs to be corrected. Devon? Yeah, there's a few things I would mention. One is going back to the question of market design and how nuclear plays a really important role as a source of firm, clean, dispatchable electricity, but that that role is not necessarily valued or fully reflected in the value that it receives in electricity markets today. And so I think there's a role to think about enhancements of electricity market design that provide opportunities, not just for advanced nuclear, but all kind of clean, firm generation technologies to be able to scale. So things like clean capacity markets, for example, the complement energy markets. That's something that we're thinking about a lot also, the industrial tariff design around things that combine nuclear part of a portfolio of different technologies. The second thing I would go back to is this question of standards. From the voluntary corporate side of things, there is no incentive today based on the current standards, which are today voluntary, the greenhouse gas protocol, but are also being embedded in regulation in terms of how companies are gonna be required to report their emissions to the European Union or to the United States government and elsewhere. There is no incentive for companies to engage in this conversation around what does it actually mean to use clean power and what are the solutions that we need to combine to do that on the grids where we're consuming that clean power because companies can do very little today based on the standards and claim that they're 100% clean. So I think we need to have a broader conversation about how do we change the standards that embed the incentives in the system for what companies that buy clean energy and invest in clean energy do with their capital. And then the last thing I would mention and it's related to this is demand. How do we build demand for these technologies because ultimately the way to get these technologies like advanced nuclear small modular reactors to scale is to build an order book of demand for multiple plants that these technologies can scale the supply chains can grow and they can come down in cost and be more attractive to more types of consumers. And that's something where even a company as large as Google on their own is not gonna be able to do that given the size of any of these technologies and the challenges to commercialization. So how can we think creatively about joining companies that are interested in being at the frontier of this space with government institutions with developers of these technologies in order to move this forward? And that's a conversation we're very much interested in continuing. I think it would touch on a number of the really important points to highlight about the market and financing particularly how to attract market investment. Take the case of UK, now the first budget in England that was financed through for difference. Now the intention that UK is developing a new financing framework called regulatory asset base to finance the new project inside as well. So the intention with this framework is to restructure the risk where government have to take on some of the risk and consumer take on part of the risk as well as the developer. With the regulatory asset base there is a where the consumer would take on some of the construction risk. The whole aim of this financing framework is to lower the cost of capital and improve the value of money to ultimately the consumer. So I think that's one aspect is really important for nuclear power project and I fully support the point that Devon have made about having a program approach to nuclear. Take the case for example like China. China have I think approved six unit in this year so far in 2016 and I think have 20 odd units along the under construction and this constructing to time and to cost and the average construction period is about 5.5 year for each unit. So nuclear can be done and demonstrated but it needs a firm order books where you can have a built supply chain and be able to learn by doing and be able to deliver that so it's so important. Okay, thank you. Michelle, the last words for you. The last word I tried to be brief and I stopped by saying I agree with everything that's been said but maybe if I try to blend on to me going back to initial point I made it really comes down to the level playing field. To some extent, if we need to recognize that what has been happening over the last 15 years is that the nuclear renaissance that we anticipate in the early 2000s didn't materialize and nuclear is coming out of a long period where the demand for nuclear financing wasn't there because the projects weren't there but what has happened over that period of time is that the world of financing particularly clean energy and climate financing has moved a lot and in a number of cases he has not carried nuclear as it was sitting started out as it was sitting guidelines. A number of areas are moving now in the right direction. King quite rightly pointing towards green bonds sustainable bonds was a number of recent announcement and recent decisions that clearly go in the direction but more not to be done and I think that's really something that we need to pay close attention and this is why having nuclear cleaning and dispensing represented at COP98 is very important and the second point on the level playing field is what I said when it comes to electricity and nuclear design to really having markets that reflect the values of nuclear energy when it comes to climate, when it comes to energy security when it comes to contribution to the grid and a number of countries have made net zero commitments and we think that based on that that's enough for the financiers to value that. If it's not the case, I was on a panel quite recently where clearly some financiers were starting to challenge how much some countries including large countries are committed to reaching net zero and when you put different risks into perspective that risk for them is probably more sizable than the risk of building nuclear projects so we need to really put that in perspective and make sure that we keep a steady direction when it comes to reaching net zero by 2050. I think you're referring to agile regulation or maybe similar concepts but thank you to all the speakers for sharing your perspectives. We have political will. We have some policy frameworks that are being developed. We need good projects and we need good technology. We have demand for clean energy, huge demand for clean energy. So let's hope that in the next few years we will see this alignment of all these factors translate into actually more projects being launched and constructed. So a bigger round of applause for our speakers. Without taking with us this precious instrument.