 Ladies and gentlemen, we will now start the event on low carbon financing to enable the clean energy transitions. So please take a seat if you're going to be following this event. We have four panelists for the panel discussions and I will introduce them later, but first we have a keynote speech from Julie Sarkara, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary at the DOE, Office of International Affairs, and she will share with us some insights into the Inflation Reduction Act, which has been described as the single largest investment in climate and energy in the US history, and I think this will frame the discussion that we will have in this event. So Julie, please take the floor. Thank you. Thank you everyone. I'm so pleased to be able to join you. As you know, for this administration, climate change, clean energy, the transition is really a bedrock priority for the administration and that's why we're so proud to be here with you all in Charm as a way to just share what the US is actually doing domestically and how we're planning on meeting our climate goals. So in addition to IRA, we actually have a package of three major bills that collectively are bringing half a trillion dollars for climate action and clean energy into the United States. So the first is the Chips in Science Act and what this is doing is really investing in cutting-edge science and innovation to boost competitiveness, create jobs, and to strengthen our supply chains. The second is the bipartisan infrastructure law and this was the largest long-term investment we've made in rebuilding America's infrastructure in the last hundred years. And then finally and most recently, we announced the Inflation Reduction Act and so I'll go into more detail on that. As my colleague has already said, the package in particular is by far the biggest investment we've ever made in the United States in climate and clean energy and it's going to single-handedly allow us to get to a 40% emission reduction from 2005 levels by 2030, which puts us very close to hitting the President's target for our NBC, which is cutting emissions by half. So this package is finally actually giving the United States the tools that we need to really uphold and meet our domestic climate commitments. So the IRA itself is really focused on how we can increase our energy security, promote working energy technologies, and build the resilience of clean energy supply chains. So I want to walk through just a few of the numbers to give you a sense of the types of investments we're making. The first is what we're doing is actually extending and expanding on some of the tax credits for all forms of clean energy, whether that's for batteries and vehicles, solar, wind, et cetera, hydrogen, nuclear. In addition to that, we're also providing $10 billion in investment tax credits that are really to build clean energy manufacturing facilities and reduce the greenhouse gases associated with manufacturing by at least 20%. These are hard to evade sectors. The production tax credits are also going to incentivize manufacturing of clean energy and storage technologies to the tune of about $30 billion. We are providing $9 billion for federal procurement of clean technologies and materials, and we're also going to invest $500 million to support the production of heat pumps as well as critical minerals that will be part of the Defense Production Act. The heat pumps in particular, we're starting to see some supply chain issues with those, especially as we're trying to transition away from more oil and gas for heating in places like Europe, et cetera. So investing in heat pumps in particular is going to be important. We're also investing $2 billion in retooling some of our auto manufacturing facilities to produce clean vehicles, and $3 billion is going to be in direct loans to develop advanced vehicle technologies. So there's a lot of funding that is going to all different aspects of the clean energy economy here in the United States. The incentives that we're putting are going to support homes, businesses, communities, and so based on the projections that we've initially made, by 2030 what we're expecting to see is 2,300 more grid-scaled battery plants that will have been built by IRA, 120,000 more wind turbines, and 950 million more solar panels. So you're really looking at very tangible products coming up from these investments. And what we've seen already just in the last month since IRA has been announced, the private sector has already announced $28 billion of their own investments in clean energy factories and operations in the United States that are going to strengthen our supply chains. So within the first month, we're already seeing tremendous investments of being mobilized by the private sector as a result of this injection of public funding. So how is this going to help the United States meet our climate goals? The first is that it's going to invest this $370 billion into clean energy. Again, it's the largest investment that we've seen. It's going to put us on track to meet our 50% target, so we're going to be very close to that. And what we're looking at is emission reductions on the scale of about a gigaton by 2030, and that essentially is 10 times more emissions reduced than any legislation we've ever had in our history. In addition, when we're looking at actually justifying the costs of these investments, we're seeing that the climate benefits of IRA outweigh the cost 28 to 1. So we need to be making an economic case to our citizens, to Congress and to others. There's a clear economic benefit from us actually making these investments. Tremendously, they're catalytic. And then finally, when we're looking at adaptation resilience, what we've estimated is that the legislation is going to avoid nearly $2 trillion in climate damages. And it's always hard to estimate, but we're looking at the avoided cost from climate change. And that's, again, something that's good for us to be able to monetize. And by investing in terms of looking at the international impact, what we're hoping is that by us investing in these technologies, it's going to be a way for us to significantly decrease the cost of these critical technologies to make them more affordable and more accessible for everyone in the world. For those companies that are interested in investing and being partners with us, the market is open to domestic as well as international firms. And so we are really looking at how we can make this community transition in partnership with the world. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I can ask you two questions. You mentioned it in your presentation, the leveraging effect of a public initiative attracting private investment. So how far do you expect the private sector to accompany and maybe double the effort? And another question about addressing the supply of critical minerals that are needed in the energy transition, is that also covered within the IRA? Yes. So I think we all recognize that even with this scale of funding, it pales in comparison to what we actually need to build a truly clean net zero resilient economy. And so the private sector is definitely going to have to participate in that. The funding that we have is really intended to incentivize and to leverage private sector financing. What we want to avoid is making sure that public funding is crowding out any private sector financing so this absolutely has to be done in partnership with them. And even though a lot of what we're investing in is innovation to bring down the cost of those technologies, we need to do that in partnership with the private sector because at the end of the day, they're the ones that are going to be responsible for the uptake and deployment of those technologies. So we definitely see that going hand in hand. And then in terms of your questions on critical supply chains, I think what we've seen from the war in Ukraine is that we cannot any longer be reliant on fossil fuels and we certainly cannot be reliant on energy sources coming from partners who are not reliable. And so that means that the work to enhance and protect our supply chains to make sure that we're able to sustainably and reliably source critical minerals and materials is going to be essential to ensure that we're avoiding future energy wars. I think there's a lot of lessons that we've learned over this past year and why we're really doubling down and securing these supply chains. Thank you. Thank you very much, Judy. And thank you for framing the discussion that we will have now. So I will now take my seat here and introduce the other speakers. We have Jessica Johnson to my right, who's a Communication and Advocacy Director at Nuclear Europe. We have Mr. Dario Liguti, Director of Sustainable Energy at the UN Economic Commission for Europe. On my left, we have Mr. Enrique Schneider, Deputy Director of the Swiss Federation of Small and Medium Enterprises and immediately to my left, Valerie Feudon, who's a Delegation and Adler of the French Nuclear Society, Sven. So let me start with Jessica. One of the major developments in Europe in recent years has been the development of an EU taxonomy of sustainable activities. Can you walk us through the history of that taxonomy and how it was developed, what it includes, and is it working? Do we have any evidence that it's working right now? Thank you very much and thank you for inviting me to speak on this panel. I mean, the sustainable finance taxonomy is part of what is known as the Sustainable Finance Initiative. The goal with all the work that's been undertaken at EU level is to basically say, OK, we need to decarbonise our economy by 2050. That means that we really need to scale up the deployment of the plethora of low carbon technologies that are going to get us there. So we're talking about energy, but we're talking about decarbonising industries, decarbonising entire sectors of the economy. That of course requires a vast amount of investment. I mean, you're going to need an awful lot of money in order to have all those technologies fully deployed in what is essentially less than 30 years' time. So the question was, well, how can we make sure that we're making the money available for those technologies? And this is where the idea came about developing a taxonomy which would provide guidance on which technologies can be considered as low carbon and sustainable, and therefore in line with this objective. So that was the goal of the taxonomy to start with. And to be very clear, I think, as a nuclear sector, as a leasex, I think the idea behind it was a very good idea. Yes, we need to be putting the money in the right technologies, whilst of course not banning money going to other technologies, but it's really about this kind of carrot approach, I can put it that way, rather than a stick. And so what they decided to do was set up what was known as this technical experts group to kind of assess all the different technologies that were out there and measure them against different criteria. For the time being, to be clear, the taxonomy focus only on the environmental pillar of sustainability. It doesn't cover the economic and social for the time being. So we then decided, OK, these are the areas that we want to look at. We want to look at CO2 emissions, over-life cycle assessment, water consumption, impact of raw materials, biodiversity, et cetera. And so this technical expert group looked at the different technologies and put in recommendations as to whether the technology met those criteria or not. And based on that, the legislation went through the different EU institutions and was finally adopted a couple of years ago. In terms of its impact, of course, it's relatively new. They're already reporting requirements for the companies. So they have to say which level of their investment or their projects in Capex is going into taxonomy-compliant technologies. So already it is sending a signal to companies, OK, these are the kind of areas you need to be investing in. If the taxonomy is handled in a scientific way, I think it could be very significant. But time will tell as how things evolve. OK. And we will come back to you maybe on a question regarding the inclusion of nuclear in the taxonomy. But first let me pass the floor to Dario. The UNEC has produced a very useful carbon neutrality toolkit. So if you can explain what's in it and are there any tools for financing as part of that toolkit? Thank you. Thank you. First of all, I'm very glad to be here and to be able to speak about such an important issue like the low-carbon technologies, which obviously nuclear is one of the low-carbon technologies. Indeed, we have the idea that our work is meant to help policymakers take informed decisions as a little bit like the Utah taxonomy, but on a broader sense. And so we came up with this idea of the carbon neutrality toolkit, which is a tool kit. It's a toolbox tool where you can have a number of methodologies to support the decision-making at the national level. We're looking how to invest, how to decarbonize. It's composed of many different areas, let's say. You have a part we have to deal with the issue that you said about the economic and the financial viability of a project, then the environmental aspect of that, and the social aspect as well of those investments. And then it takes into account, it starts from a methodology, a life-assessment methodology, because it's the basis to be able to compare apples with pears when looking at different potential technologies. And that carbon toolkit, the purpose is to show how the interplay of low-carbon technologies and net and zero-carbon technologies are necessary to arrive to our engagements, the net zero engagements. And that depends as well your starting point. Not all countries are starting from the same basis, whether it's natural resources endowments, whether it's the existing infrastructure, energy infrastructure, and their energy policies. We know that, for example, in the nuclear space, our member states have different policy, different approaches towards the nuclear energy. In our member states, about 20% of the electricity is produced generated, is generated by nuclear energy. But there is in certain countries a much higher percentage in other countries is zero. So if you start from that basis, you need a tool that allows the policymakers to start from this basis, what is the right combination of different technologies, low-carbon and zero-carbon technologies, that will allow me, over time, to get to where I want to be, to the objective. And that has been, and we have actually already tested it in some of our member states in Central Asia, for example, and then it's successful because it actually is guiding decision-making at the national level towards exactly, towards where they should go. And it is on a pure technical basis. There are no politics involved. There is no, it's a technical tool that allows you to make an informed decision. When it comes to the point on the financing, this is, I think here, a bit later, there is a session dedicated as well to the financing, specifically for the nuclear industry. I think we conducted recently, at global level, a very interesting exercise under the leadership of the UN High-Level Champion for Climate, and which the results will be presented a bit later on today in a big meeting. And actually, we wanted to go out because it's typically the United Nations does not get involved in the financing. You have to meet the lateral development and you have the private sector, you have commercial banks, you have a lot of entities who actually deal with finance. But the observation, the consideration that we have heard throughout the day as well, but this initially was launched at Glasgow last year, was that there is a mismatch between the availability of finance and the projects and the ideas and the initiatives. There is a lot of money available that follows certain criteria, how they want those projects to be prepared, structured, presented, which guidance they should follow, which criteria they should be, not whether it's financial risk, whether it's environmental assessment, all of that kind of stuff, on one side, and then you have on the other side, a lot of ideas, a lot of project sponsors, a lot of ideas, a lot of initiatives, and there is a mismatch between the two. And so the exercise that we try to do is the five regional commissions of United Nations went out and said, so to the project sponsor, to our member states, come up with projects that you have that are necessary for your transition, according to your NDCs, where you want to get to, and then we'll put them together, we'll show them all in the same format, let's say, if you allow me that. And see what's the reaction from the financiers. And so the result of this exercise is about 150 projects, which 50 projects is a top priority, so more emblematic projects around the region, and then we'll see that the next, for the next phase is we'll show these projects to the financial community and see what is their reaction. Some of them are known projects, they're already working on it, or there is a financing gap is missing, some are not known, and then we'll see how it is. So the idea here is to try how to match financial resources, which is not an issue, there is money out there, and the right project. There are way too many times you have a lot of money chasing the same projects, and other projects which instead don't get attention for whatever reason, because they're not well presented, because they're not well structured, because they don't know how to get to talk to the financiers and that stuff, they just let there and they turn around and they don't get financed, and it's a shame because many of those are good ideas, and we found that, especially from the less, let's say less skilled countries and less skilled governments, because the financial schemes are not everywhere the same, and so when you have countries of certain size, the administrations are not versed into what they takes to do a project financing, and therefore they come up with a very technical project which looks good on paper, but has no financial consideration, there's no financial modeling on the back, and so the idea here is to help them bridge that gap, whatever that gap is caused for, and try to go to those projects financed. Thank you very much. I will now turn to Enrique Schneider, we're at COP, and I'd like to ask you to share because you have the knowledge of all the mechanisms that are included in the Paris Agreement. Are these financing mechanisms working to help countries move towards a cleaner future and making those investments? I think the answer is yes and no. So, I know that's a cheap way of answering, but let me explain a little bit what I mean. Yes, because within the context of the COP, it comes from Cancun really, but within the context of the COP, you have a matching of a finance mechanism and a technology mechanism. Yes, too, because with the market mechanism, we did a lot of stuff including co-benefits for development, so we could mitigate, adapt, and create even co-benefits. This is all very good, but what lacks is the scalability of everything. At the end, we lost ourselves in very small-scale projects. They are important, they are very important, but they are not so efficient. You need something more. You need something that goes beyond just, with all due respect, methane and cooking stoves. You need something that goes beyond just building new buildings with higher energy efficiency. You need something that addresses the very core of where do the greenhouse gas emissions originate, and that is electricity. And especially in the electricity area, we have been lacking or lacking scale and lagging behind the goals and the aims that we set for ourselves, because we keep privileging technology that is not scalable, that has its role, but it's not scalable. So it would be very, very nice to have an add-on for nuclear energy in all these instruments, be it in the cooperation agreements, Article 6, or in the finance mechanism or in the technology mechanism. However, realistically, in the next couple of years, that's not going to happen. Where it can happen and is developing already is in bi- and multilateral agreement between countries. And that, from my point of view, is the venue to place the nuclear. Bi- and multilateral agreements including the development banks and including international mechanisms, financing mechanisms that are not bodies of the conference. So, I come back. We are doing a lot of stuff in these mechanisms we have, but we're not doing enough because we're neglecting one core technology, nuclear. There is a way out, but the way out is bilateralism, multilateralism and international financing bodies. Okay, thank you. Thank you for shedding light on this situation. I will now turn to Valérie Faudon. So, you're representing the Fresh Nuclear Society and France has recently announced that it will relaunch a new build program, six EPR in the near future. At the same time also, there's a big refurbishment exercise for the existing fleet. So, this is costing a lot of money. What are the approaches that the French industry and the French governments are looking at? Yes, so right now we are debating the public depend is open for six new units and that should go in spring to parliament for a final decision. So, these six units represent a construction cost of 52 billion euros. So, the final scheme of the new project will not yet be decided and proposed. So, as a French nuclear society, we did a study to look at cases of nuclear projects in Europe. What was the financial scheme? I mean, we started with the French nuclear program in the 70s and 80s and then we studied the Hungarian program, the Finnish program, the Czech program and of course the UK program. So, for sure, a project like this is not a project as usual by its size, as I said, 52 billion, but also by its length. So, by its size, even a company like EDF cannot carry this project with equity and on its financial numbers. And the length, you don't get revenues for 15 years. Why used? Of course, you have cash out, negative cash and as well as you're paying the financing over these 15 years. And the project will last for 60 years. So, it's not a usual project. It carries three types of risk, first a political risk, but the government can change from mine. Like five years ago, we were supposed to shut down 12 units and now we're keeping them and we're building six additional units so it shows you how fast it goes. There's a technical risk, of course, of delays and we've experienced that. And the last risk varies is an economic risk because right now we have European markets. They gave short-term signals but they don't give long-term signals for investors. So, we've looked at all the projects. So, we found some very interesting things in Finland because in Finland you have industry that has invested in the nuclear plant and it's actually something we're looking at right now because industry is under a lot of pressure with current costs, you know, prices of electricity and so they're really eager to have long-term contracts with nuclear to be able to have visibility for their own decarbonisation investment on their plants. If you're looking at the steel plant now for France, which is our biggest steel plant in France the transformation will require one gigawatt of electricity per year so one reactor just for this plant. So, we found really three different... we made three different recommendations and I think everybody agrees on that. The first one is political stability and long-term decisions we had in the 70s and 80s from the right to the left. The Socialist Party wanted to stop the nuclear program in 81 when Francois Mitterrand was elected the Nylian Francois Mitterrand put on line 43 units. So, we want these consensus and so we're working towards these political consensus. The second thing is what we want regulations. So, regulations would be for sure the CFD scheme, right? But what we really like in the RAP program in the UK for size well see is also that there's a risk sharing with the consumers there's risk sharing with the government so the industry doesn't carry the whole risk for the project and there's also revenues during the time of construction which is really good as well for the investor. And the third recommendation we had is that we think it's important that we have the government investing in the program. So, this is what we see in Hungary. In Czech Republic there is a very interesting government loan at zero percent during time of construction. That's what we see on size well see with 1.5 billion I think announced by the British government. So, all this is quite interesting. The key question mark is what will the Commission say? And so, now we're starting to have experience with the Commission because they already made decisions on HVC in the past when the UK was in Europe and they made decisions as well on Hungary. So, we're waiting for the decision on Dukovanie to see what we will say on Dukovanie and of course the next big program that will go to the European Commission after Dukovanie will be the French program and that will be extremely important. Thank you for also explaining the context in Europe which has its own challenges and rules but also pointing out the interest of industry intensive users of electricity. Of course, right now in the context of the energy crisis some industries are actually shutting down partially because of the cost of energy and this is certainly a consideration that wasn't in people's mind a couple of years ago, one year ago, one year ago. Okay, thank you. I will go back to you Jessica about the inclusion of nuclear in the taxonomy. So, in the end it was included but what maybe I would like to ask you is the nuclear is labeled as a transition technology and we are here at COP and with long term objectives of carbon neutrality not just for 2050 but for centuries after that how can nuclear be labeled as a transition technology in that context? What I was saying, part of the issue is that these decisions on financing and taxonomies really need to be science based in order for them to be attainable to achieve the goal that they are setting. We agree with the objective of the taxonomy we need to be putting the money in the right technologies but the science should be telling us which are the right technologies. Where the problem stemmed with the EU taxonomy was it started from the premise of we like these technologies we want them in we don't like these technologies we maybe not like to have them included and so whilst we were advocating for a set of criteria based on our whole lifecycle assessment much like the work undertaken by UNICEF where you would basically take the technology and look at how much CO2 is emitted over its life the volume of raw materials required to produce X amount of energy the amount of water consumed for that amount of energy amount of land required etc we had asked for that and we said if you put that in place in USS each power producing technology against those criteria you would have a whole set of measurable scientific results it was actually done in a totally different way so depending on the technology the criteria put in place differed and this is coming back to the point of okay so we want these in but we're not sure about these ones and this is where the whole debate came up on nuclear because it was done in that way it meant that the decisions were political and when you talk nuclear and you talk political you often find a kind of reticence in terms of supporting nuclear so we then we engaged a lot with the European Commission we really worked hard with them I think they fully respected the scientific work was there of course a lot of the scientific work has been coming out since but what was positive was that the technical expert group they openly said actually we don't know enough about nuclear to take a decision on this so I think we do have to give them a lot of respect in that light because they were under a very difficult situation where you had this ideological opposition to nuclear which could have pressurized them to say okay we leave it out they just said okay we don't have the knowledge and they said commission can you please ask a group of experts with an in-depth knowledge of the nuclear life cycle to assess nuclear and take this decision because they are the ones who can answer the question and that's what the commission did the commission got a stroke research centre to assess nuclear against the criteria and they had a very interesting report that came out that confirmed that nuclear is as sustainable as the other low carbon technologies that are considered taxonomy compliant and the commission actually went even further that work was then evaluated by two other groups of experts so first of all the article 31 experts in radio protection and second one is the scientific committee on health, environment and emerging risks so really doctors, toxicologists and overall they agreed with the work of the JRC but we do still find ourselves in a political environment at Brussels level nuclear is a very divisive topic and there was a lot of pressure coming from certain actors so whilst the decision should have been an easy one we have this work that science-based that says nuclear is taxonomy compliant they handle this external pressure on them and that is how we resulted in nuclear being added to the taxonomy but being added as a transitional technology so it's not the ideal solution for us I think it is clear to all of us that based on the science nuclear is a low carbon technology that's going to get us where we want to be but at least we are in the taxonomy I mean two years ago let's be honest I was being open to our members and saying I really cannot guarantee that after all the work that we're going to do the outcome is going to be the nuclearism and taxonomy and there's also one other element here existing nuclear technologies are under the taxonomy as transitional but the criteria and the decisions have not been taken yet for Gen 4 and beyond technologies so there is still the opportunity the future is the taxonomy and the criteria will be reviewed every three years so there could be some changes there but also the willing future have to look at criteria for Gen 4 plus technologies and there we may see a change we may see the commission there saying yes actually these are the technologies of the future so we're hoping it is it's not the perfect outcome that we were hoping for but it really is progress I have to say from where we started and hopefully things will get better OK thank you and the fact that you stress the the science based analysis is at the core of the screening this is also what Dario was saying scientific evaluation of different technologies is what's needed maybe if I could just compliment I agree with what you said and I think I wouldn't remain to hung up on this story of the transition because it depends how long the transition is because we're talking here about the energy the transition of our energy system will take 50 years it took 150 years to get from biomass and wood to where we are today it will take shorter to do it has to take shorter much shorter the next transition but it's going to take some time and so in that framework if you're looking at we're talking about 2050, 2060, 2070 so it's 50 years it has a net zero objective in 2070 that's 50 years from now so in that perspective of course nuclear energy 15 years as we heard to build but then 60 years of of commercial operations it sits within a very much I wouldn't remain to hung up and then at the top I think is what the taxonom is an instrument in evolution it will evolve as long as the new technologies come up today if you consider green technologies today the state of the green technologies that we have today we in the solar and etc are extremely rich in resource intensive if you think to build an EV car it takes six times the amount of minerals over thermal combustion internal thermal combustion car but that technology will evolve as the internal combustion car has evolved the last 100 years and then we get down from that six to the rest we need to get there the question that you might want to ask now is the availability of raw materials to allow that transition even the necessity of so much of that right now but I think that needs to be perspective when talking about all nuclear is a fluid transition yes how long it's going to be a transition and then it will change okay thank you for these additional insights maybe I will ask you about one point that was in Julie Sakira's keynote about the leveraging effect of a public investment with respect to the private sector you said there's a lot of money out there a lot of money is in the private sector as well and how to attract what are the best tools to attract private sector funding to clean energy investments including nuclear but not exclusive actually the money is in the private sector you know in the public sector we have a little money and then we have huge debts on our back and sheets so there is a little money it needs to act as a catalyst to generate investment from the private sector the private sector will invest when I think as the speaker previously said and set of conditions are clear an investor wants to have a political stability so he knows that when they invest they won't change their mind five years down the road and he wants to have a decent return on capital when looking at different options we're not talking about hot money we're talking about investors who look for the long term for the long term and they want projects of course that if you're investing in long term assets like the nuclear industry or any sort of energy actually is a long term investment you want to make sure that your asset doesn't get stranded few years down the road and so those those conditions are the minimum to activate those investments I think what is necessary is to comfort the investors investors will take as well the risk the technology risk they take construction risk they take a lot of stuff and there are instruments in the market insurance products so you have the derivative products that are able to mitigate the risk that you work like construction for example that kind of stuff so that part exists what is really important I think is the political, politics everything here decisions taken at the top level not now but as well in the previous year are those decisions that will help create that political stability over the time frame that the investor needs to look at and needs to have his return on his capital so that's very important because it allows the governments to take that political decisions going forward and then secondly as I said is how to make sure that and this is the technology a little bit here I think is where the governments as well can help is how to make sure that your asset doesn't get stranded immediately there are ways of looking at these things I would say so the tools are there I think it's a question of willing you know, of political willingness okay thank you so political will and like I think the climate urgency is you know as ever more pressing and the UN secretary general mentioned that we need to act now so what needs to be done with the tools of at hand or should new tools be developed to make that transition happen those investments the money from the private sector flow towards clean energy investment okay so let me put it like this if there is a climate emergency it's certainly not here what I mean is and I really mean it this is not the venue for discussing things under emergency rule because we are under a framework convention what we discuss here is the framework we can never discuss anything more than the framework and this is a conference of parties to the framework so if there is emergency anywhere then it is for the parties to gather with their scientific sectors and private sectors to implement stuff or as I said before to seek by and multilateral ways of doing it this is not the place where things are implemented this is the place where rules transparency and that kind of stuff is negotiated in order to see traction on the ground it is the parties the countries who need to do something and the countries need to do it independently from this year this is only the platform how you play the game, how you play the play that is something that each country has to do for themselves and also to negotiate with other countries so whatever you expect from here I tell it to the private sector too I am private sector do not expect that from here you will have your solution you will have to go to your national government or in the case of the EU to the European government thank you any comments on the challenges that are facing the global finance I think it is very important to understand that if we talk about nuclear projects financing is probably even more important for any other project because the cost of electricity is extremely, extremely sensitive to the cost of financing because of the things I said before the size the length of the project to give you an idea if you look at the cost of financing for Inclet Point C it was over 9% and it gave a price for electricity a cost for electricity 100 euros and if you look at the next program in France we aiming at having a cost of financing at 4% to get electricity at 60 euros so you see how sensitive it is you double the rate of financing you double the cost of electricity so it is very important that we set up financing scheme for nuclear energy in the same way that we did it for renewables and Europe did it for renewables years ago we need to have a European framework to guarantee that we get low cost financing because that is the condition to get a competitive electric system in Europe public, private and what I said regulation and ability for states to invest directly in the project stability we are coming towards the end of this very interesting panel if I can ask you just one key message that you would like to share with the participants knowing that there will be another event on financing nuclear later this afternoon at 5.30 I also invite you to continue the conversation and come back here but first one last message yeah we have less than 30 years to decarbonise Europe's economy so if we are not willing to listen to the science today we can forget those targets policy makers please listen to what the science is telling you thank you you want to achieve the 2015 at zero results I think it is we have to adopt an interplay of low carbon and zero carbon technologies that needs to be adapted to each country specific situations my previous speaker said I thought you would agree with that nuclear is one of the options within that scheme of technologies it is only through the interplay the right combination of different technologies that you will achieve the net zero security, affordability and sustainability thank you don't wait for the COP finance it, implement it and then feed it back in nuclear is part of the solution to achieve net zero and financing is a key enabler for nuclear to play its role let's continue our global efforts I would like to thank all the panelists for this discussion hopefully you will be able to see the recording of this panel also on the youtube channel thank you very much and another event on financing nuclear new build at 530 on this pavilion thank you very much