 I think somebody wants the floor there, right? I would like to ask a question. My name is Razvan Nikolesko, I'm from Romania, and I work for Deloitte Central Europe. In 2014, I served my country as its minister of energy. Well, so I think we can all agree that in order to deal with climate change, we need to have this energy transition. And I'm hearing you all, and all of you are saying we need R&D, we need to decrease cost. My question to you is, how can we manage actually to avoid a duplication of R&D programs between public sector, private sector, between China and US, between Europe, and I don't know some other countries? Is it possible? I mean, to create a kind of platform under the United Nations or under another body and to exchange information, because at the end of the day, this is probably one of the biggest threats faced by our humanity. I mean, we need to cooperate. We need to be more efficient. How can we deal with that? Well, as Ladislav said, it's more or less the market is prevailing. The solar panel is so cheap now. So that is definitely anywhere in the world. The building the solar is maybe in the near future do not need to give any kind of public support feeding tariffs. Japan is suffering with a very high feeding tariff because the cost of generation is getting too high. So maybe what kind of, let's say, auction in the market make better sense with the progress technology. So in fact, the market is answering itself. But Ladislav, yes. I may add up to your answer with one specific comment, which is not public private, but which is among the private sector. And you may know that we have created an organization called the OGCI, Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, where we're going to dedicate about $1 billion. And that's 10 companies which have joined this initiative. And generally, we are competitors. And in this particular case, those companies got together. I can tell you this is total, BP, Shell, Statoil from Norway, Repsol from Spain, ENI from Italy, Pemex from Mexico, CNPC from China, Reliance from India, and Saudi Rampo from Saudi Arabia. So you can imagine these 10 companies together deciding that we would not compete one against the other. But we would put our research, our money together in order to make some investments with regard to climate change. So I think that's a good example, as you rightly mentioned, to say rather than competing, let's get together because we all have interest in working together. Thank you. Very good point. Yes, Andrea. Another comment and the last comment on hydro. I realize that there's been a position to large hydro plants, but that opposition became mainly because of flooding. There are many large hydro projects that are of the type of run of the river type. HINGA project in Africa doesn't require only minimal flooding. And again, potential is half of the actual available power in Africa. So it's huge. And putting that aside will certainly not help what we're trying to do to control climate. And this is only one example. I'd like to add to your comments, it's true that it's much easier to capture CO2 from a combined cycle generator. But it's also the same remark can be made for cement plants and nitrogen production. Both produce cleaner effluents, much cleaner effluents than coals are worse. So I agree. If you want to take the low-hanging fruits, go at these sources. And that's before, maybe in 50 or 75 years time, where we will talk of technologies to change the climate and other planets than ours. So we will be able to apply it to our own. So I want to add that, because I think we can still be optimist for future generations. OK, well, let me ask the panelist one question. We are talking about coal, CCS, and these things, and hydro also. Do you think in the power generation in certain time in the future, can we rely 100% on the renewables? Maybe I think, Fridt, but you said no because of coal. But do you think there are some people who are saying promoting the renewables as such, we will go to the future electricity can be 100% renewables. Do you think this is feasible? OK, Oliver. I would say it's already made in some countries. I would say it's made in Norway, for example, because it's made also in Iceland because of thermal energy and also with hydro. But it depends from one country to another country. And I would say that in France, for example, it's completely crazy because anywhere the problem of renewable is intermittent. And there are solutions to store for a few hours electricity. As in fact, Patrick Pionet said very clearly that electricity is very difficult to store. It's possible to store for a few hours. But unfortunately, what we need in order to develop 100% renewable is an inter-saisonal storage. And for the time being, it's not possible. It's technically it's possible, but totally infeasible because there is no business case for that. OK, but it's very attractive for the politicians, I would say. Yes, that's right. Politically, a very correct statement. Friedman. Well, first of all, I hope I have not brought myself in a position that I'm in favor of coal. I have just described the resistance. But first, second, there can be no doubt that we will phase out coal in Germany. But it will take much longer than, for instance, the Green Party wants it. But the tendency to get away from coal is also very clear in my country just that you do not have any misunderstandings afterwards. If I believe that we can completely rely on renewable energy sources, I would say at one stage, perhaps. But in the foreseeable future, that is difficult. And it is much too costly. Let me give you one example. In my country, the heating sector is very important because it's getting cold in the winter. And well, most people have gas heating systems, some oil and, well, we have a need of 300,000 megawatt, which we need for the heat demand in Germany. Our power grid is designed for a quarter of that. So in the moment, we would say we electrify the whole system, bring everything from the renewable sector into electricity, always have pumps, and get rid of gas and oil completely in the heating sector. This is enormous costs for the pumps, for the new system, while the gas infrastructure is fully in place. So at a certain moment, we will come in very difficult waters with our populations because they will say, well, we want climate change, but to what price? And are we allocating the money correctly? Another example, if we continue our system in Germany, we will have paid until the year 2025, 520 billion euro for subsidies. I think hardly any other country can afford that. Therefore, we cannot be a model anyway. But 520 billion euros is a wrong allocation of money. We would have been better to modernize old gas power plants. We would have been better not to look completely to electric cars, but perhaps low-hanging fruits. Why not have more gas transportation, especially in the heavy truck sector or in the shipping industry? So my idea is or my belief and my message to you is we should put more emphasis on gas, at least for the next 30 years or 40 years, and get the low-hanging fruits of climate change policies or climate protection policies, and not always talk about these wonderful visions of 100% the world. Perhaps we will achieve it at the end of the century. But we have to make politics for the foreseeable future. That's our task. Ladislas. Just to complement on what you say, it's interesting to notice that gas-fired power plants have a stopped time, which is very reduced. And so it can quite well fit with intermittency of renewable. So the conjunction of renewable and gas-powered plants actually works quite well. So that's one additional comment I wanted to make. On the renewable, on paper, why not sometime? But we need to think completely again the infrastructure model. Because at the end, when we think about it, we have new renewable, which has a marginal cost of zero. When the whole system of electricity price is based on the marginal cost. And so when you add up a marginal cost of zero, then you question the whole model. The whole system is being questioned and saying, who is going to pay for the infrastructure? And when you have decentralized generation rather than centralized generation, now you're going to store on the infrastructure. Who is going to pay for it? And so it's not just our renewable max electricity. That's fine. We need to think it over completely and restructure. And that's where regulations are extremely important in my view. Yeah. I spend nearly half of my career trying to explain to politicians the difference between capacity and availability. And I don't think I succeed. But Andre, now the battery cost is declining drastically, right? So do you think at some moment, combined with renewables, with battery may create some difference? Yes, thank you for giving me the opportunity. I'd like to talk to you a little bit about a solar plant 60 kilometers north of here. It's in a lab, of course. It's a solar energy park. And it's run by Mohamed Six University. They claim with this, it's a solar thermal plant. It's not the photovoltaic technology. Concentrating solar. Yeah, exactly. Concentrated solar. They claim they can finish 94% availability solar system. I didn't know since last week that this could exist. So research will make them better. But still, you're missing that 4%. And of course, I need to remember every time, especially at night, when we flip the switch, we expect the light to go on. And the 4% exception will not be an explanation, not an acceptable one, at least. So there needs to be a way to store energy. It's not developed yet. Or what's developed yet is very, very expensive. Therefore, not affordable. And it has to stay in the lab until it is affordable. Otherwise, we're just playing around. And these things will be criticized in the future. I think it will come to answer your question. It will come. It will take time. But the 100% mark should not be something we have in our minds now. I think what been said last night, if we can go from 3% now, or 8% if you include hydro, and increase this to 30% and bring cold down to 3%, that would be great. We should be trying to do just that. And if we want to do that rapidly, we have to go to the low-hanging fruits. If we don't do that, and if we stick with the present communication, saying that renewables will take all the place, well, we aim to waiting for a long time before this problem is solved. Masuda-san. Just follow on. Is it possible to support us within Europe 100%? It is possible. If we can employ disruptive technology. For example, photovoltaic system mechanism is very old technology. It was developed 60 years ago. Now it's flourishing, but it's old fashion already. Intermittence could be overcome if we 100% utilize the energy from solar, sun. There is a way to consistently produce electricity from solar energy, not just sunlight, but something else. And some people are working on that, including MIT. That's point number one. Point number two, as for the storage of electricity, it's very expensive. Of course, battery is very expensive still. But there is a technology called wind thermal energy system. That is to use wind turbine but generate heat rather than electricity. And heat is stored in molten salt system, which will last 100 years without maintenance, then use that energy as base load. So already intermittent wind power could be used as base load. And those technologies are already on the horizon. So we should give more publicity to those disruptive technology. And maybe, as you pointed out, support those new technologies together with several governments and companies. This is one of the possible way towards 100% renewable. And big point is, should we include nuclear in this 100%? If nuclear is added, I don't think it's a long, long-term target. Could be reachable. Thank you. Thank you. Nuclear, we will discuss a bit later. But do you have a question? Yes. I'm from Morocco. I'm the head of the Energy Efficiency Agency. We heard about energy demand and how energy efficiency can play a role to decrease emissions. It's very important to look at on the demand. Second point is mentioned, the Bangalore project. But it was at 100 kilometers from here, we have a big solar plant with energy storage, heat storage, reaching a price of 11 cents per kilowatt hour. 11 cents per kilowatt hour today. Second point, we had a program for wind. In this country, we reached 3 cents per kilowatt hour. Developed by private companies, financed by private companies, for 850 megawatt, we're reaching 3 cents per kilowatt hour today. In the solar plant, we have the approach, of course, with solar thermal wind storage that can stop anti-antimacy. But with solar PV, we are reaching 4 cents per kilowatt hour. Here, the last standard shows 4 cents per kilowatt hour. So that's why I believe that this approach with renewables today, at the price that we are reaching, in a country like Morocco, a very energy-dependent country, we have coal-poll plants. It's almost 50% of our electricity production today. It's one thing. Morocco is emitting 10 times less emissions than a European. But we are having strong proactive policy for renewables and for energy efficiency. Because it's a mixture. We are living in transition. Maybe one day, we can reach 100% for renewables. I think we can reach that because storage is not only linked to batteries, even though batteries are becoming cheaper and cheaper because of electric cars. But also, we are reaching in storage, we are storing in dams. All the wind program that we have in Morocco is also linked to dams where you can pump water when you have it's too windy. And we can just store electricity by pumping water and using it when we need it. So many ways of storage today. So that's why our program for reaching 52% of our capacity from renewables in 2030. It's the strategy at the highest level of state, strong proactive commitment. The King's letter was very clear. Since 2009, priority to renewable energy and energy efficiency is cheaper. What we are reaching today, what we believe that how renewables can play a role. And we're amazed by the price that we reached, 3 cents and 6. So my question was also linked to how we can push also energy efficiency in industry, transport, housing. We are helping farmers in the country to switch from diesel pump to solar pumps. All the small applications of renewables are becoming much, much cheaper. It took for a farmer in Morocco 10 years to have payback before. Now it's only four years for two reasons. Because the PV price decreased. Because we stopped subsidizing fossil fuel. We're talking about carbon tax. How can you have carbon tax when many countries are, at the same time, still subsidizing fossil fuel? It's nonsense. To be current, you need to have both. You need to stop subsidizing. And you need this carbon tax to accelerate the approach. Thank you. Thank you. Very good, let's say, input to the discussion. And you say the 52% on renewables at each year target? 2030. 2030, OK. 2030. Thank you. I think the Morocco, is there any comments? OK, please, go ahead. A few additional comments. My name is Louis Schweitzer. And I'm French. And I, for a long time, headed a car company called Renault Nissan. And I now work in promoting investment in new technologies for the French government. A few comments, first. One, everybody is in favor of the carbon tax. And I support the carbon tax, too. But it means you have to be able to put it at the borders of Europe. Because otherwise, we will have a competitive problem which will be difficult to explain and to solve. And up to now, I have not heard from anybody readiness to impose such attacks on European borders. And I don't know if a WTO would look positively upon it. So to me, this is an important issue which should be addressed. Second comment, I think the opposition between the ambitious goals in renewables and low-hanging fruit is not something which is important. I think you should pursue both. Because if you look at renewables, we are still on a learning curve cost-wise and technically. And the example just given from Morocco shows that this is happening very fast. And if you do not give ambitious targets before you have acceptable costs, then you will never be acceptable costs. I mean, you have to prime the pump at one time. Germany is doing it maybe in some surprising ways, but still. It helps. And I truly believe that even in Europe, you will achieve for electricity acceptable competitive costs from fully renewable. And let's take an example on roads. I do believe that the electric car does have a future. And this future has started by regulations. China is an example. A number of cities is an example. But I believe will be competitive 10 or 15 years from now. So there again, you have priming with regulations and then the economy setting in. A second example is trucks. Trucks I believe electricity is not an acceptable solution looking forward. Gas instead of diesel fuel is a very convincing and I would say almost competitive. So this is a low-hanging fruit. So if you look at road traffic, you combine low-hanging immediately attainable and more long-term, more ambitious programs. I agree. I mean, the trucks can use the LNG as a very good option, not compressed national gas, but also fuel cell maybe because it depends on the station is possible infrastructure issues there. I would need to be convinced of the form of truck manufacturer. Yeah, LNG is as a very likely solution. By the way, yes? Thank you so much, Mr. Tanakassan. I'm Mark Antoine Maiziga from the Center of Energy at IFRI in Paris. I am very struck by the global, at least around this side of the table, the kind of agreement that gas is definitely a role to play. I'd like to ask you whether you think this is natural gas or whether you have the impression that it could increasingly also be hydrogen, green gas, and wear, and under what conditions. And maybe if we need more subsidies there. Thanks. Thank you. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm trying to ask. The golden age of gas is definitely coming and what is gas, let's say, supply situation? What the pricing would be? What is the green gas like hydrogen? Yeah, that is a question to the panelist. Is there anybody who wants to take? Oh, OK, please go ahead. Hi, I'm Hermine Durand from the French Nuclear Safety Authority. And as a compliment, I wanted to ask you, do you think that really that replacing coal by gas is going to help significantly to mitigate global warming and respect the target of two degrees? Because it's a good starting point. But then, two degrees, it's really a small temperature increase. So it's really got the ultimate solution. And you mentioned that CCS has limited capacities. So gas plus CCS is perhaps not the only key. Yeah, which analysis tells that the replacement of coal by gas certainly plays a certain role. But eventually, to achieve two degrees, CCS must be applied to the gas also. So I mean, the shift, fuel shift from coal to gas is certainly plays a certain role. Yes, please. I want to throw in one more question regarding in relation to that your question. Our institute has been estimating the outlook up to 2014. And this year, for the first time, we did it for 2050. And then we have been doing that for the last 10 years or so to be aware that the dependence on the fossil fuels is still more than 70% and then almost 80%. Both in the reference case and then also in the alternative case, like in IEA, World Energy Outlook. Then we ask this question. We also run the longer term, the integrated model for the climate change, to realize that it is almost impossible to reach the two degree target by the end of the century if we assume the 2050 kind of estimation. And then the question is, how do we reach there where we replace everything with renewables? Or how we transit out of coal to gas, looking at the situation in the market where the gas price is so low and then the investment is not enough. And then we foresee that the supply and then demand balance will be met by 2020. Right. Go ahead. We'd better. First, I would like to comment on Mr. Schweitzer's sort of criticism that we too much try to put low hanging fruits in a position against ambitious long term aims. I happen to agree that you are completely right. We need both. We need aims, far reaching aims, even visions. And we need the ability to foreseeable future of what we can realistically do. What I criticized at the beginning is that politicians, at least in my country, but my feeling is also in others, have the tendency to be weak on the low hanging fruits and to be even more ambitious with long term aims. Because for them, they can never be hold responsible. And I ask for more, for less ideologic approach and more pragmatic approach, which looks to the next five to 10 years. All those predictions, what will be in 2050, if we look, that is now 23 years, let us go back 23 years and see what happened in these 23 years with oil prices, with tight oil, with shale gas. All the predictions have been completely wrong that we had in former times. So let us not look too far away and concentrate more on what we do. But again, of course, it is always good to have a vision of the future. When it comes to gas, I'm not only talking about natural gas, very important point. I believe that more and more we will have green gas, biogas, synthetic gas. And that can be added. We'll make gas greener, more legitimate. And we can make by this use, again, perhaps a little bit European or German perspective, we can make use of a very mature gas infrastructure and not getting rid of that and looking for a new infrastructure. So I think that is a very important point that you just made. Thank you. Is Germany in favor of doing the hydrogen? I mean, Japan is pushing very hard on the hydrogen economy as such, because if we import LNG from the United States, the cost of gas in Japan is at least double. So this gap never be diminishing because the transportation, liquefaction, et cetera. So to add the value to the fuel to import, just import hydrogen, make good sense. But the pricing of the carbon, et cetera, is definitely necessary. Hydrogen. I doubt that this plays a big role in our discussions today. What plays an enormous role throughout Europe is energy. That is, I mean, Europe has today 30 LNG terminals. When we had the Russian-Ukrainian gas crisis in 2006 and 2009, we all said, well, now we have to diversify. And in a very few years, we built these 30 LNG terminals with a capacity of 231 BCM of gas, huge. So Europe has this pipeline gas from Russia and from Norway. But we have more and more also the alternative of LNG. And that makes us much more liquid in the gas market. The gas market will be much, much more getting away from oil index pricing, much more to spot market. And I think we have a lot of possibilities to tell the Russians, well, if you put too high prices, we turn to LNG from the US or from Qatar and vice versa. So what concerns the gas production in Europe, it's declining dramatically, as you might know. Yes. Our sources of getting pretty cheap imported gas is pretty good. And therefore, in the combination with biogas and synthetic gas, I think it has a good future. Olivier. Just switch off. On hydrogen, I'm not a believer. I think many people, there are four decades. There were people advocating for hydrogen. And I've never been convinced. I don't see any technological breakthrough in hydrogen production or consumption. And I see many economic technology and safety issues on hydrogen development. I know that there is a strong lobby from some companies such as the gas producers, but frankly, I don't believe that it will have a significant part in the energy mix for the next decades or centuries. The question is different for biogas. And I would like to highlight the problem of feedstock. I've been deeply involved in biofuels for ethanol or biodiesel. And I'm afraid that for biogas, there will be the same problem. What is the feedstock available? And clearly, it has not to be in competition with food. And unfortunately, I'm afraid that the quantity, which may be available, is not so important. In Germany, for example, 50% of the biogas is made from corn or anyway, from windows. So we have to take that into account. I think I'm afraid that the quantity, it will increase. But the quantity is not so high. And also, you have to take into account the issue of logistic, which has a cost. Andre? I think that the best approach here is to, number one, there has to be a CO2 pricing system that will produce resources. For me, I think it could very well be a taxation period. But I know that this will be very difficult in the US. I don't know that any political party, even the Democrats, could get elected on such a platform. So I have to say, it has to be a whatever the system, but it has to be priced. CO2 emissions have to be priced. Money. Money has to be used mainly to develop the renewables. I mean, to develop the absolutely necessary technologies to make them firm supply as soon as possible. This needs sound research and development management, of course. In the meantime, I agree with my colleagues here, natural gas should be used to replace coal and to produce other gases that can also be used to replace coal. Andre, the Yamashita-san asked the question of, for example, because of the very low price of gas now, do we have enough investment for the upstream of the gas sector to guarantee the big demand increase? There is because of shale gas. Essentially, because of shale gas, we talk about shale gas, essentially, when we talk about the US reserves. But the world is not limited to the US reserves. There are shale in many, many countries of this world. And technology, what happened in the last 10 years is that technology to produce shale gas has gone down greatly, making the price of natural gas in the US. But as I said before, the price it was when I was in the business of buying natural gas at $2 an MCF. That's 20 years ago. I think natural gas can be used now in many countries to replace coal power generation plan. But I don't think we have to make sure that this does not have an impact in postponing the renewables in any way. Because in some countries, maybe shale gas is not available, and we will need anyway the renewables. Because to my point of view, the largest source of energy on this earth remains the sun and therefore the solar. Solar is the largest source. When it comes to, is it available or not, it's solar. On the long term, all of these, as we all know, the natural gas or oil or coal, we will use, but we'll disappear as we use them. One way or the other, we'll end up with solar. Let's give you some, let me ask the panelist a question, which I was asked about two years ago when I participated in the Saudi Aramco's board meeting with Daniel Yagin, the current energy minister was there. And he asked us, as a panelist to the board, the question is, when the peak demand of oil comes, I was really surprised. It's Saudi Aramco, right? And they are very concerned about Tesla, China's electric vehicle, Japanese Mirai, et cetera. So it's mainly the electric vehicle replacing the gasoline engine cars. So the answer was, but just, it was two years ago. And I was very serious. They were talking about the possible change of their policy, rather not exporting crude oil, but only hydrogen to give the value to the clean fuel as such. So just we are discussed about technologies. What do you think? Do you think this peak demand of oil is coming? When? OK, Ladislav. I think that just to follow up on the question of Louis Streiser, I find very interesting. Carbon leakage, still, is a very important issue, because we talked about carbon pricing. But if we don't manage to find a way on avoiding that there would be leakages, as was rightly mentioned, and it's a very thorny and difficult issue to solve, I think the only way at that stage really to try to do something pragmatic is to have a low carbon price, because it will make the leakage more difficult, because there are costs associated with carbon leakage. And to answer the question, or to complement the answer to the question regarding to the real benefit of switching from coal to gas, I just want to remind that, of course, everybody knows it, but it's worth mentioning it that for power generation, gas emits half as much as coal. And if you were to transfer to all the power generation coal to gas, that would represent something like five gigatons of CO2. So it's about 10% of what is emitted worldwide today. So that's not just not enough. And saying it would not be enough, I think, is not satisfactory to say, OK, let's do it. Then we'll see if let's start doing it, even though I agree that all coal will not be substituted. Maybe I can give my some elements on the peak demand. And we focus, many discussions are being focused on EVs. But I think first we have to keep in mind that today the use of oil for light duty vehicle, because heavy trucks is different. It's electric vehicles do not really adapt very well to heavy trucks because of the weight, because of the distances, et cetera. But the light duty vehicle segment of oil demand is about 25% of oil demand. So first, even though there would be a big switch to electric vehicle, what I think, by the way, is going to take place sometime down the road. That's for sure. But there are two elements that limit the impact. The first one is what I just mentioned, that it's only between buckets, 25% of demand. And second, that there is another element which looks absolutely critical in my view, which is the efficiency of the IC engines, which is going actually to be the main driver for displacing oil demand rather than electric vehicles. And if they displace, actually, cars which will be more and more efficient, the amount of volumes that will be displaced because of that will be reduced at the end. And so even though that would be very important, we see relatively maybe, I don't know, a 10% of oil demand being displaced by electric vehicles in the future. So you don't think the peak demand of oil is not coming so soon? No. OK, that is what IEA is saying. But, Jenner, well, Olivier. I think we need, I would like to remind you some facts and figures. Transport sector represents 60% of oil consumption. And the bulk of the increase of demand is coming from transport sector. Petron products represent 95% of the energy consumption of the transport sector. What about the 8%? It's 5% natural gas, already natural gas represent 5% of the consumption of the transport sector, 3% biofuel, and electricity only 1%. And it's not personal car, it's mostly the rail. So we have to, it's necessary to get these facts in mind when we discuss about electric vehicle and the potential of growth. Energy efficiency is a clear target. It's the first dramatic game changer in the transport sector. With now we may put on the market cars consuming only 2 liters per 100 kilometers. And the hybrid technology merging both electricity and IC engine, hybrid technology is very, very efficient. Second, the alternative of to the Petron products and natural gas clearly is an alternative mostly for the heavy trucks. And also, don't forget the maritime transport. Biofuel, biofuel also is very important. And so electricity, it will increase. But I'm afraid that in the next 20 years it will represent only a small part of the displacement of oil in the transport sector. OK. Thank you very much. Sure. I recall very interesting comment by the late Christopher de Maggiore. It was somewhere around 2009 or 2010 in the International Oil Summit in Paris. He said, I feel somehow oil consumption will not exceed 100 million birds per day. Well, he's always saying that. Yes. He said that. He did not give up with exceeding nearly 100 million birds per day. But what he felt that time still lingers in my mind. What element he had in his mind. And we shouldn't underestimate the gut feeling of legendary de Maggiore today. And also 1.5 transport, 100 million cars will displace only 1.2 million birds per day of oil. It's marginal. But if 100 million cars will explode due to solid state battery now under the red by Toyota and Dyson and others. And if mileage of EVs will increase rapidly. And if more car sharing will spread not just in OECD member countries, but others, the number of cars will stop to increase as it used to do. If you take all these elements, all in all, I think oil demand could peak somewhere around 2030. That's my feeling. 30. 30, OK. That's my feeling as of today. Thank you. Yeah. Do you have any bills? I talked to the Chinese guys. And they are sometimes CNPC research institute guy told me that the replacement gas may happen. So peak demand of oil may even happen 2025. If it happens in China as such, why not? So there's definitely the risk of peak demand is coming earlier. So that is a reason why Saudi Arabia is preparing for that and selling part of their shares if they can. Go ahead. Make you laugh a little bit. I don't make any prediction on the price of oil or on pre-coil. Because every time I did, I was wrong. Yeah, that is exactly what I had been saying when I was ahead of the IEA. I never predicts the oil price because no, I'm wrong. By the way, can we move a little bit? We still have about 30 minutes to go. Can we talk about the future of the nuclear power? Do we agree on some? I mean, we may agree or not. But do you think that there is a future of the nuclear power even after the Fukushima accident? Japan's situation is that if we take a poll of the public now, more the majority is against restarting current nuclear power plant. Korea's president is saying the phasing out the nuclear power. Germany decides to phase out by 2022. France is moving from 70% to 50%. And in the United States, thanks to the very cheap gas price, the nuclear power do not have any competitiveness. So there are lots of closing of the current reactors happening. Some states are concerned about it, like New York or Illinois. They give certain support measures, like renewables to nuclear to maintain it. So without that kind of support, nuclear is not competitive. But China, India, Russia are building nuclear power. That's without question. They need these big power source for their economy. So I think OECD countries will have definitely difficulty of building the big light water reactor system in the future. Do we accept or do we have some alternatives to move ahead? Is the nuclear program is not the safety only, but spend fails or high level waste or proliferation risk of weaponization? North Korea now have a weapon. If Iran agreement is aborted by Mr. Trump, Iran will go back to the nuclear weapon very quickly. And then that triggers the weaponization of Saudi Arabia probably. So this kind of nuclear is not simply the electric power issue. It is a very serious national security issue. And how can we manage this nuclear energy in the future? This is my question. Go ahead, Andrew. Thank you. I don't think there is any source, including the renewables, that do not have opposition anywhere in the world. Wind parks, people don't like if they're in their courtroom and so on. So I would not certainly recommend to introduce nuclear in a country where there are none today, because that's not the opposition. It's going to be a big, big position. But in countries where it is, people have get to live with it. Of course, my Japan may be an exception. And I would certainly... I think the nuclear industry is pessimistic in this country as for its future. And this doesn't have at all to what the International Committee is trying to do relative to global warming, because nuclear is one of the sources that does not produce or produce very much less than any other source, CO2. So I think in nuclear, in regions, like in countries like France, I think they should be maintained and maybe developed at this right time. Let us remember that renewables in Germany are backstopped with nuclear in France. That's reality, because one is firm, the other one is not. And I think it's a very big negative, but we understand what we hear about the nuclear these days because they have to go a bit, because security reasons, they'll all close down. I don't think it's a positive news for the fight against climate change. Lisan, do you think the Korea will continue nuclear or phase out? It's a very sensitive matter in Korea nowadays. And since I have a little different views from the current government policy on nuclear, I just want to say that we need further discussions on the pros and cons of nuclear power plant. You see, the current administration, which took effect in May, decided to halt construction of new coal power generators and also hauling the nuclear power generators under construction. But there has been a very intensive discussions among the juries, consisting of ordinary people, assisted by experts, decide that we may go ahead with the nuclear power plant under construction, but we will not construct any new nuclear power plant in the future. But since there are very strong opposition from the expert on energy in Korea, I'm not so sure that policy may sustain over the next five years, which is the term of our president. Thank you. Thank you. Masuda-san. I suspect the current situation today tells us nuclear will not go along well with Western democracy. Everywhere democracy, nuclear phase problems. Not, Japan is not exception. And under such many companies in the West are losing expertise and passion, even passion to pursue nuclear options. And Toshiba is now on the brink of bankruptcy and Ariba is sold by ETF and all those. And I don't see any enthusiasm coming from those companies. Number one, because they don't have any investment at home or in the Western part of the world, and the rest of the world is now dominated by Russian, Russian atom together with government low interest rate. And China is busy at home, but Chinese companies will go abroad. So in the Western democracy environment, we will not accommodate more nuclear power plants except in France, hopefully. And about SML, small modular reactors, this is a light at the end of the tunnel. But because of small scale and low efficiency, the SMLs will not be commercially viable unless they are ordered in order of hundreds. And this is a game, it's not realistic. So my conclusion in the West or under pure democratic countries, I don't see a big future about nuclear, but rest of the world pushed by Russia, followed by China and India, nuclear has a longer future. Thank you. Please. To be provocative, I agree with you, that's all. But to be provocative, don't you consider that UK is not a democracy? So anyway, somehow I agree with your comments. What is important is that the most important country in the world, as far as nuclear is concerned, is the United States. And the United States policy on nuclear is totally unclear. And that's a very important problem. And it's still on President Trump, does not know what to do. And I don't, anyway. As it has been explained by Patrick Pugna yesterday, the main challenges are related to public acceptance. That's clear. But also to cost, and it's quite new compared to the situation a few decades ago, increase of cost due to safety measures linked to post Fukushima, and which increased significantly the cost. And also the fact that there is no real series effect. Know that the price of PV decries, the cost of PV decreased dramatically because of the series effect. And it's not the same in nuclear because there are only a few units which will be built. So I agree with you that also the western industry, nuclear industry is not in a really good shape. But still, there are significant project both in China and Russia. And maybe newcomers such as India, but anyway, due to the situation in India, it will take time. And maybe also Saudi Arabia, they need to have a base load production. But thanks, we have the example of UK. Yes, please. Well, my country, as you know, after Fukushima decided very quickly to phase out. And while there are a lot of discussions in Germany about what I said, the green tariffs is the path right of energy vendor of energy transition. The consensus that it was right to phase out nuclear is absolutely in place. It has not at all been shaken. And I believe one of the main reasons for that is the fear of terrorism. So of course we do not have tsunamis and earthquakes, but we have ISIS and its enormous willingness to kill as much people as possible. And in a climate and in a situation where we have a terrorism and we'll live with it for quite some time. Most probably we believe that the whole it's not only the nuclear power plant, it's the transport, it's the storage, gives so much possibilities to attack. I think that was one of the main reasons. And when it comes to nuclear in the world, I absolutely agree we will have nuclear for a long time because of certain interests. Well, Rosatom is a clear example. Also because nuclear won new legitimacy because of the CO2 discussions. So if you take the G7 agreement of Elma, or also G20, the whole reduction aims are only realistic if we count in nuclear. So the German Green Movement never mentioned that in Germany. They all said, well, great success for us. That the whole agreement of the international community means, well, we continue with nuclear was never really discussed in my country, but I think it is part of the truth. Yeah, some other European country called it German Angust, but... Right? I think that we were probably more afraid at certain moments after Fukushima than the Japanese. Yeah, well, Japanese are very concerned about it, but also we are worrying about the possible accident in China. If something wrong happens, same impacts to us. So Japan can stop nuclear power, but does it help the safety operation in China is a question, right? So in that sense, Japan need to continue the operation and share the lessons with China makes more sense. Otherwise, we will have much more serious problems. Of course, does this convince the public? This is totally different view. So my argument is with the small modular fast reactor technology, this is a sustainable nuclear in a way for the passive safety and take care of the waste, high-level waste and proliferation resistance. So if we can define, identify these technologies, maybe we can have a chance, which by the way, this technology is Korean American. I mean, U.S. Korea is working on this technology for the new model of the future of the nuclear, but we'll see. This is very tricky and very, very difficult. We need a good discussion. We have covered almost all the items of the energy and climate, but Olivier, you want to have more? I just want to come back to call. We discussed intensively on call at the beginning, but I think that we missed one very important point for me and I would like to remind you some basics, facts and figures on coal. First, coal price is as a leading role in the price of power generation of electricity everywhere in the world. And second, coal, 50% of the consumption of coal is in China. And so the problem is what about the coal policy of China? We think that they are phasing out from coal, in fact, for local environment reasons. They are shutting down many power plants, very inefficient, and they are replacing old power plant with an efficiency of 25% by brand new coal power plants, supercritical with an efficiency of 50%, and they are building one coal power plant of 500 megawatts every week. So in fact, more than 50% of the energy supply of China is coming from coal, which represents 90% of the power generation. And clearly the price of coal is managed, in fact, by the Chinese government. High price may jeopardize their economy, but too low price is jeopardizing their mining industry with millions of jobs. And in fact, the question when we discuss about coal is mandatory to discuss about the coal policy of China, and I'm afraid that for quite a long time, coal will continue to play a major role in the energy mix. And what about India? The energy consumption worldwide will also come from India. In fact, India, they have a plan to increase their coal consumption from 500 million tons to 1.5 billion tons of coal produced because it's produced locally, and they have significant reserves. And so it's very important to consider what will be the future of coal in these two countries. I would say I don't care about Germany, about Poland, I would say if we consider the climate change issue, the most important is what's going on in China and India as far as coal is concerned. Yeah, also ASEAN countries is increasing the coal, very substantially, Indonesia is the case. But okay, well, thank you very much. We have covered quite a lot. We have about 15 minutes. If there's any questions from the floor, or comments from the floor, we're most welcome. It's, we are exhausted all the time. Maybe the chairman. Okay, yes, final comments from the panelist. Yeah, I think I have overlooked the possibility relative to demand management when it comes to energy storage to support renewables. In my company, we pretend that we will reduce by 6% the demand, managing at a distance, water eaters through digital technologies. This is significant if you compare that six, what's the cost of that 6% if it's molten salt or any pumping reserve or things like that. So demand side management, I think as a new road here. Yeah. Because of digital technologies, there's a lot more potential to it. Thank you very much for a very good point. Bansalathan, yeah, wonderful. I like to close this wonderful debate with optimistic view. I sometimes have discussion with IA people, including tanks and successors. And I discuss, why don't you include this technology in your forecast or projections? The answer is very clear. We are not supposed to include technology which is not proven yet or proven through test plan or pilot plans. But I have to say, there are many, many technologies in pipeline, very close to pilot plan or test plans. And if we shed light on those, the future is more brighter and technology can play bigger role and decarbonisation will take place sooner than later. Thank you. Thank you. That is last? As a corporate, I just want to remind that if there are a lot of threats associated with climate change, we do see huge, huge potential opportunities. And in particular in energy efficiency, in new businesses linked to CCS, as we mentioned. So I think we should look also at the positive part associated with the transition that pops up many, many opportunities for the corporate world. Oh, that is your strategy. I remember that, Resaf, that your division is called the strategy and climate. This is a very interesting naming of Patrick Puyane's interest in climate in total, I guess. Now, I think that's, thank you for mentioning that because it's right that sometime, the guy in charge of strategy, why would you put climate with strategy? I mean, and that's a fair question. And I think actually it's much deeper than what people can think that for an oil and gas company, for an energy company, I should say, that invests over 30 years, 40 years time, it's very important to have embedded in the strategy, in the decision making process of the company, okay, what's the impact on climate? And so integrating climate issues into the strategy is something that may appear to be unique, but we think, and that was under Patrick Puyane's really leadership, that he said, okay, we have to join them together. I'm very honored to be in charge of this function, but it's right that it's quite unique. Yeah, this is very interesting. Well, that's exactly the reason why Total has internal carbon pricing, and that kind of exercise is probably very important for the other major players in the field to do the same. And because by doing so, the financial sector will evaluate such companies and the money goes into there. And those who are not doing eliminated out for the better financing, that is probably a first step, rather than building the carbon tax system or carbon trading system as such, if many companies start doing this kind of practices, then we are ready to have the institutional arrangement of carbon pricing in the future. But I don't know if it has to do with the fact that I'm German, but I'm more pessimistic than others. I see the potential with new technologies, with digitalization, with CCS and CCU, low hanging fruits, everything we discussed. Nevertheless, I believe we are not fast enough. We will not reach the not even the two degree aim. So my prediction is that we will only learn most probably, and I deeply deplore that, if the world continues to have worse and worse weather and more and more catastrophes. So we can only learn, obviously, it's the same with us as a person. We start to live healthy after the first heart attack. And a little bit, it is the same with the world. We can have all the knowledge in the world that it comes, that it gets worse, but only the climate catastrophes remind us that this is reality. And my fear is that we are running behind. So I'm a bit pessimistic. Okay, if we don't die by the first attack, it's okay. But, well, Olivier. Will you switch off? Four short comments. In the Kyoto Protocol, at the same level, there were the aspect of mitigation and adaptation. And in fact, we don't consider seriously the adaptation issue. There is a small part in the Paris Agreement, but if we are not able to cope with the two degrees, I would say, adaptation will become more and more important, first point. Second point, you have to take into account the inertia of the energy system, Patrick Poulet reminded us yesterday. The capital turnover in buildings is one person per annum. So anyway, if we replay, it will take a long time. If we change the old buildings in brand new buildings, the same applies for the power generation. The lifetime of any power plant is 50 years. So the inertia of the energy system is quite important. Third point, don't focus our discussion only on electricity. Electricity represents 20% of the problem. It's 20% of the final energy consumption, but in fact, it represents 95% of the political comments. And last but not least, energy efficiency is a paramount and we would spend more time discussing about energy efficiency. Thank you very much. Energy efficiency is certainly very important. I remember that IA's publication called gadgets and gigawatts because energy efficiency certainly reduced the consumption of power, but the new gadgets come in, in the digitization of electronics will have more demand for that. So it's compensating. So the total electricity demand is increasing, unfortunately, regardless of our great effort in energy efficiency. That was the history, but anyway. Thank you very much for the good comments. Do you want to have a floor? Yes, I just wanted to add that you must have already concluded from my accent that I am a French Canadian. I learned this afternoon that some my ancestor must have been close to the German border because too, I am a little bit pessimistic about the real possibility to limit the increase in temperature by two degrees, unless we become much more practical. Thank you very much. Mr. Lee. I have to say on this issue, I think I would like to stress the importance of Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement objective is to achieve adaptation and mitigation by making all countries whether advanced or developing participate. How we to achieve this objective is through technology, finance, and capacity building, especially for developing countries. Therefore, the decision of US administration to withdraw from the Paris Agreement does not make any significant impact on this, but it will have definitely very negative impact on finance sector. So it is time for all of us to think how to address these issues in the years to come. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much for I appreciate all the comments and the inputs from the panelists as well as floor. Yeah, we have learned a lot about the Trump's impact to this COP agreement and certainly Mr. Lee's comment is viable for this certain impacts, but at the same time the private sector's investment technology development and renewables will continue. So for that, yes, the impact itself may be less, but of course, the coal issue is big and CCS is necessary for that. Carbon pricing is an important way to promote. And internal carbon pricing mechanism in the corporation is probably the first step that we have to move on. The change is very rapid. So how can we cope to match these changing speed is certainly the issue for the private sector as well as government. When I was in the idea, I'm always saying that the government policy in the energy sector or infrastructure must be stable and predictable. Otherwise, private sector will never, ever invest for 40, 50 years of the infrastructure. It's a politically very often happens, like coal issue is a case, nuclear is a one, renewable same thing. So by changing the policy, if the government changes, that's sending a terrible message. So how can we make energy policy more stable and predictable is what I was always talking in the IA. But nonetheless, having a good dialogue like this helps to reduce the unpredictability. So we will continue and I really thank you for the contributions. And I wish everybody joined me of thanking the panelists for the discussion.